Yuri Kuchinsky

The way we see it now, our present day canonical Mk is a hybrid 19th century text based on some 4th and 5th century Egyptian Greek manuscripts (as reconstructed by Westcott & Hort, and slightly adjusted since in Nestle/Aland). There's really no evidence at all that this should be seen as "the original Mk", which was the source of both Mt and Lk. If such evidence exists, I'd certainly like to see it.

The onus is on those who would like to make such a claim to present some evidence for their claim.

What Vork presented so far doesn't seem very persuasive.

Regards,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

None of this contradicts my basic thesis that Lk preserves the earliest gospel narrative overall.

Yours,

Yuri.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Clivedurdle,

Wonderful analysis.

As I mentioned in another thread, I think the idea that the passion story was originally done as a play has a great deal of merit, although I do not see the need (or evidence) to connect it to Seneca, himself. This idea that Jesus died of poison also has a great deal of merit.

It explains the surprise of Pilate that Jesus died so soon. I mean six hours on the cross was nothing, the whole point of crucifixions was a slow, painful, public death. It normally lasted days. If done as a novel, Jesus on the cross for days would have been a perfect way to tie up all the loose ends of the story with past characters coming back to interact with him. The writer doing it as a play would have wanted to avoid a long scene with the actor hanging on the cross and the audience getting impatient and perhaps starting to joke and laugh to break the tension.

Also the suicide through poison hypothesis explains the bizarre claim that Jesus took his own life. It was later given a metaphysical explanation that Jesus could have avoided his death through his supernatural powers, but originally, the idea that Jesus took his own life would have developed by those who recognized he actually committed suicide by drinking the poisoned wine rather than suffering the pain of a long crucifixion.

Given his predicament, who can blame him for taking the easy way out.

However, since poisoned wine is a dramatic device and most likely not a real alternative for crucifixion victims, it suggests the theatrical nature of Jesus' demise.

Warmly,

Jay

Chili

Evangelize? There is no evangelism in the gospels except maybe in the eyes of those who are inflicted by this dis-ease.

The gospels are testimonial and no more.

How can Mark do a post resurrection narrative without an infancy narrative if he presents the non-religious point of view? Notice here that John has a different spin on the infancy narrative with Nathanael under the fig tree and therefore should have the most elaborate post resurrection event.

There was no first or last Gospel but they are intertwined to present the good news and the bad. The good news is for those who come to these words via nature and the bad news is for those who seek their salvation in them (Jn.5:1:39-40). Like, I defend "literary censorship," not for my sake but for yours (impersonal).

The order, Matt. Mk. Luke and John is to show how the NT is a new and improved way to heaven and is therefore taken from Matthew to Mark which was written to remove Judaism while still remaining consistent in form. From Mark it goes to Luke where the metaphysics are shown and on to John for the new church Catholic that was built on the insight of Peter . . . with Paul being the first evidence of its success.

This structure, if only in its sequence, condemns the evangelism of Matthew and introduces the new and improved way wherein we must first be able to show the stigmata before we are send out (Jn.20:21). In other words, there is no contraction there but the disease is removed by its evidence.

JoeWallack

JW:
How about this:
Now ontological Yuri. The question is who changed 1:10? "Mark" or "Luke". If it's likely one way or the other then it's evidence for/against Markan priority. You can't dismiss it as evidence just because it's not the best evidence, good evidence or even not very good evidence. This is what an Apologist would do. Let me say Yuri that I believe you are performing a valuable public service by championing Not Mark. Even most Skeptics don't appreciate all the agreement between Matthew/Luke against "Mark". That being said, the basic question of this thread is which is more likely, that "Mark" edited a very contrived (I think "contrived" is an even better word here than "polished") "Luke" (assuming of course that "Mark" recognized that "Luke" was contrived which you don't accept based on your last post) and made it even more contrived or that "Luke" edited a fully contrived "Mark" and made it less contrived due to not recognizing/caring or even actively countering "Mark's" contrivance?

Again Yuri, which is more likely, that "Luke" made a few changes to a completely contrived "Mark" making it almost contrived or that "Mark" made a few changes from an almost contrived "Luke" to make it fully contrived? If one is more likely than it is evidence no matter what other better evidence you think you have. In Brown's classic "The Birth Of The Messiah" he identifies the original Birth Formulas in "Matthew"/"Luke", how they have been edited, and how the originals match to the Birth Formulas in the Tanakh. He takes for granted that the original Birth Formulas are original as does the consensus of modern Bible scholarship (he also dishonestly concludes that the original authors edited their own original ("garbage" as Bede would say).

Here's the follow up question which is an even bigger problem for you. Between "Mark" and "Luke", who favors contrivance? In other words, in their independent stories, who has more contrivance? If one tends to have more contrivance than the other in general than that is the one who is more likely to have written the contrived original. In the words of the god-awful Highlander trplogy, "There can be only one!"

Unlike the question of contrivance here, your Catheschism-22 defense that we don't have the originals really is a neutral observation as to what was original. I also think this observation moves focus away from the Big Picture. We do know what was originally written, "Mark". We do know how "Mark" was changed, "Matthew". It's Christianity and the Canon that unwittingly testifies to this. Any editing changes to the original "Mark" are insignificant changes compared to the re-writing of "Mark" ("Matthew"). It's easy to guess why Christianity destroyed the first century "Mark", no post resurrection story, and the first century "Matthew", no virgin birth. But again, these changes are minor compared to the change "Matthew" made to "Mark".



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Bede

Come on Vork! You can do better than this. The fallacy that because some links exist, your links are valid is so flawed I am ashamed you have used it. Of course, Mark had no idea he had produced this clever chiasm and it is all in the imaginations of modern scholars. B Sharp is quite right to point out you have nothing except some coloured letters. As the chiasm is just an assertion with no evidence then Sharp is also quite right just to counter assert to dispose of it. You need faith in the genius-Mark of modern scholarship to buy into this fantasy and those of us who don't share it are hardly going to accept increasingly absurd cleverness. The fact that Matthew himself missed it (as your theory demands) is a killer blow but hardly necessary.

I look forward to your next just-so story.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

JoeWallack

JW:
Such a fine example of Apologetics. Lord Moldy Butt (Appeal To Ignorance blown up by Iraqi WMD) would be proud. Ignore the detailed examples, deny the detailed conclusions, cling to the opinion of anyone who agrees with you to divert and repeatedly chant inferior evidence which you think supports you as a "Marnktra" against your opponent.

Yes, it's possible that "Stupid Mark" copied from "Smart Mark" but if so "Stupid Mark" would still be closer to the original Mark than "Matthew" and for purposes of analyzing the relationship of "Mark" and "Matthew" could therefore be considered the original.

Your conclusion that:

"The fact that Matthew himself missed it (as your theory demands) is a killer blow but hardly necessary. I look forward to your next just-so story. "

Is to use your favorite word "garbage". If the original "Mark" is original than the author would have known that his Impossible/Contrived story was Impossible/Contrived and therefore History Challenged. A subsequent Christian such as "Matthew" who didn't know "Mark" would be more likely to consider such an Impossible/Contrived non-Historical story as Possible/Uncontrived and Historical and edit accordingly. A subsequent Church would then favor an uncontrived "Matthew" over a contrived "Mark".

Since we don't know who "Matthew" was (could have been Robert Jewish Stevenson for all we know) we can't be sure how he would have seen "Mark's" contrivance. Therefore saying that "Matthew" missed "Mark's" contrivance is a guess. Another guess is that "Matthew" did notice the contrivance but didn't care or actively reduced it to try and make a more historical sounding story. In any case, your conclusion that "Matthew" missing "Mark's" contrivance is fatal to the The Wallack Vorkosigan Trptych Greisbach Theory is contradicted by the observation that the more sophisticated "Mark" was the more likely it would be for "Matthew" not to notice.

Another technique of Apologetics is to try and limit the discussion to a critique of your opponent's position and avoid presenting a detailed argument for your own position. So, I'd like to know what your position is Bede since I see contradictory implications from your posts here:

1) Does "Mark" show evidence of being contrived?

2) Is "Matthew" less contrived than "Mark"?

You can Jekyll from me Bede but you can't Hyde. (Vork, I assume it's okay for me to give Bede "The Wallack Treatment" since he's not a major NT scholar).



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Bede

Shrugs himself...

With friends like these, Vork, who needs opponents?

Yep, Mark is highly uncontrived. It is rough and ready, with poor Greek, lots of contextual and continuity mistakes and shows every sign of being cobbled together in a hurry by someone who isn't to up to speed in literary theory. Matthew isn't that contrived either but more so than Mark. It is better written, groups its material more sensibly and contains far more knowledge of the OT and the Jewish context.

If JW confuses lots of coloured writing for literary evidence, I can't help him.

Yours

Bede

JoeWallack

JW:
I've noticed you are prone to unnecessary shrugging. Have you considered having yourself checked for Tourquemandettes Sindrome?

JW:
As Madeleine Kahn said in the classic "Blazing Saddles", "how owdinary."

JW:
As Spicoli said in the classic, "Fast Times At Ridgemont High", "Let's party bud." Dealing with an intellectual Christian like you is worth dealing with thousands of low level drones.

Okay, two questions:

1) Is "Mark" contrived?

2) Is "Mark" more contrived than "Matthew"?

As Lloyd Bridges said to Jerry Seinfeld in Boca, "It's go time."

Why don't we start at the beginning.

Mark 1KJV)
1"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

First question Bede (it's important). Do you accept that the evidence indicates that "the Son of God" is probably not original? And, assuming that Yuri is still willing to talk to me, don't you accept that this omission in the Western is evidence of it being prior to the Eastern?



Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Bede

Yep.

It's evidence but hardly conclusive.

B