Duvduv

In another thread I raised the question of the formating of the canonical gospel stories to resemble the Tanakh stories, not only with verses or story allusions by in narrative structure.

One would wonder how it was coincidentally the case that the author(s) of each of the gospels thought to structure their stories in just the same way if there was no original intent for them to considered equivalent to the Tanakh stories.

It is almost as if the stories were composed with the intention of having them canonized as equivalents or extensions of the books of the Tanakh.

Here's just one small example in GMark:
16:12And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.

We see that the first words would come directly from biblical narrative structure "Vayehi achar ha-devarim ha'eleh...." (And behold, after these things......).

Here's one from GMatt:
2:13Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying
The corresponding Torah narrative structure would be: " Vayelchu le-darkam, VEHINEH......"

Of course there are many such examples. And in all 4 cases we see this structure specifically designing the gospel to imitate the Tanakh structure and fit as a corresponding text for a BIBLE. This cannot be a simple coincidence, and seems to suggest the intention of canonization or attachment to the Tanakh at the time the gospels were written.

outhouse

well the OT was the religion being used, but due to cross cultural following, the law was freely changed and the religion free to evolve into what was needed by the romans.


well no kidding [facepalm]

the OT was a very important part of these god fearers lives, they didnt read it, they lived it. and guess what they wrote in their new faith in! what and WHO they believed was important like the people before them in theological mythology.

outhouse

mythology was everywhere for all people, the romans were following jewish mythology because it was important for them, following their jewish leader, while being non jewish.

ancient primitive people wrote simular from the same time, what you see more then anything simular is just their use of language with OT influences

Duvduv

So it would be reasonable to assume that despite the differences among the four Gospels their production was overseen by an imperial religious structure seeking to create a canon of texts equivalent to the Tanakh, and that the biblical narrative structure is not a coincidence and does not suggest origins far from one another.

outhouse

No and why would you think the OT was put togther like that?????


the 4 canonical scripts are so different, im not sure where your really going here.

yes 3 are simular since they copied each other and added layers important to their culture.

but GJohn is way out there into its own field of whacked out mythology focusing on theology away from judaism

Duvduv

The central point you missed is that it was decided ahead of time to construct the narrative structure as a priori biblical whatever the source of each, meaning that they were already intended as a bible canon at the time they were written.

Toto

Why is an imperial religious structure required? You only need one or more Christians (say, Mark) deciding to pattern a gospel after the Hebrew scriptures.

aa5874

When was it decided??? In the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century???

Duvduv

It would only be structured as a supplement by those who considered it to already be part of a canon for all those calling themselves Christians and not by just some story teller.
A canon equivalent to the Tanakh as holy writ. And that is true by all those choosing to compose a Jesus story. No one departed from that narrative structure in favor of any other style preferred by any other supposed community. The idea of a Biblical Jesus story was decided for four versions in advance.

Duvduv

It was authorized by a central regime that existed only in the fourth century.
Otherwise you are left saying that each author after GMark simply decided Mark had the incomplete story but that it was a Biblical story anyway for all various and assorted believers that would be accepted universally. And how could anyone know that ahead of time?