Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-12-2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

Also on page 67:

"An introductory textbook such as this cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of Mark (or the other Gospels). My purpose here is simply to provide some guidance for your own interpretation of the book, by supplying you with important keys for unlocking its meaning."

If you want evidence and arguments, I suggest that you go to the scholarly articles that deal specifically with that debate.

I suggest that you look for the scholarly articles on this subject. There is no evidence of any oral tradition underlying Mark's narrative. It is just an assumption that historicists make so they can assume that Mark contains some history.

Quote:

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul,

What "pattern"? Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his prologue, but clearly relies on Mark. Paul makes one reference to passing on tradition in 1 Cor 15, a probable interpolation.

Quote:

and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

In fact, we know that the stories were taken from the Septuagint. :huh:

JonA · 06-12-2011, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you disagree with this categorization? If so, then please explain why.

May I ask why the categorization is important? What does determining the genre ad to the text?

Jon

The categorization relates to the fundamental issue of making sense of the author's intentions. If you think that the author of the gospel of Mark is giving his perspective of the perceived life and teachings of Jesus, then you will have a much different way of explaining the texts than if you think Mark was explicitly writing fictional prose, as some in the forum have suggested.

Is there a way, then, for determining the genre?

Are we stuck relying on our 'thinks' and 'suggestions'?

Jon

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 08:05 AM

Same goes for Toto, though Toto isn't on my ignore list.

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The categorization relates to the fundamental issue of making sense of the author's intentions. If you think that the author of the gospel of Mark is giving his perspective of the perceived life and teachings of Jesus, then you will have a much different way of explaining the texts than if you think Mark was explicitly writing fictional prose, as some in the forum have suggested.

Is there a way, then, for determining the genre?

Are we stuck relying on our 'thinks' and 'suggestions'?

Jon

I think that we can determine genre the same way we can figure out the genres of modern texts, by knowing the patterns that exist in such genres and seeing which set of patterns fits the gospels the best.

jgoodguy · 06-12-2011, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

There is no 'real' evidence. If you are looking for primary, tangible, or credible secondary evidence for 1st century Christianity; you are in the wrong place.

The possibilities are: The author of Mark was inspired, created the whole gospel himself or used other sources including oral traditions. Due to the high cost of writing materials and the lack of a literate population, oral tradition has a high probability for other sources. Given that oral traditions were a high probability, why would the author of Mark make it all up. So if Ehrman wants to argue that the author of Mark used oral traditions it follows that he is probably correct.

jgoodguy · 06-12-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The categorization relates to the fundamental issue of making sense of the author's intentions. If you think that the author of the gospel of Mark is giving his perspective of the perceived life and teachings of Jesus, then you will have a much different way of explaining the texts than if you think Mark was explicitly writing fictional prose, as some in the forum have suggested.

Is there a way, then, for determining the genre?

Are we stuck relying on our 'thinks' and 'suggestions'?

Jon

I think that we can determine genre the same way we can figure out the genres of modern texts, by knowing the patterns that exist in such genres and seeing which set of patterns fits the gospels the best.

There is the problem, using genres of modern texts to classify another culture and time's writings.

Toto · 06-12-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

There is no 'real' evidence. If you are looking for primary, tangible, or credible secondary evidence for 1st century Christianity; you are in the wrong place.

The possibilities are: The author of Mark was inspired, created the whole gospel himself or used other sources including oral traditions. Due to the high cost of writing materials and the lack of a literate population, oral tradition has a high probability for other sources. Given that oral traditions were a high probability, why would the author of Mark make it all up. So if Ehrman wants to argue that the author of Mark used oral traditions it follows that he is probably correct.

But everything in Mark has one or more literary sources. What need is there for oral traditions, unless you are committed to the idea that there is some history in the gospels?

DCHindley · 06-12-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you disagree with this categorization? If so, then please explain why.

May I ask why the categorization is important? What does determining the genre ad to the text?

Jon

Different genres tend to emphasize certain literary motifs over others. I guess that each genre uses common words with differing emphasis. Perhaps you could try Googling "significance of genre" (include the quotation marks) plus "antiquity" or "interpretation" and see if the lit crit community explains it on a web page or online article/Google Book.

DCH

aa5874 · 06-12-2011, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

There is no 'real' evidence. If you are looking for primary, tangible, or credible secondary evidence for 1st century Christianity; you are in the wrong place...

Well, if you have NO real evidence then you are SPECULATING.

Speculation RESOLVES Nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

......The possibilities are: The author of Mark was inspired, created the whole gospel himself or used other sources including oral traditions. Due to the high cost of writing materials and the lack of a literate population, oral tradition has a high probability for other sources. Given that oral traditions were a high probability, why would the author of Mark make it all up. So if Ehrman wants to argue that the author of Mark used oral traditions it follows that he is probably correct.

This is the wrong place to be talking about PROBABILITIES without any real evidence.

I can SPECULATE that the author of gMark was a LIBRARIAN and had access to many books and that he ALSO sold PAPER.

Again, ALL we have are the stories and they are FICTION.

The authors did NOT just write that Jesus was Baptized by John it is the DETAILS about the event that made it MOST UNLIKELY to be historical.

And further, one cannot analyze one single event in a VACUUM to determine its historicity the whole story MUST ALSO be taken into account.

Steven Carr · 06-12-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

Also on page 67:

"An introductory textbook such as this cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of Mark (or the other Gospels). My purpose here is simply to provide some guidance for your own interpretation of the book, by supplying you with important keys for unlocking its meaning."

If you want evidence and arguments, I suggest that you go to the scholarly articles that deal specifically with that debate.

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

In other words, there is no evidence that any oral tradition stemmed from the time of Jesus.

Who would have guessed?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2011, 08:05 AM	#23
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Same goes for Toto, though Toto isn't on my ignore list.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.