Roger Pearse

Obscurantism towards history does seem to be the inevitable consequence of these sorts of theories about Christian origins.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gurugeorge

There's the other solution to this puzzle that I've mentioned on this board recently. In Doherty's review of one of Price's recent books, he talks about a theory Price is fond of, that there was an "ur-Luke" (which may actually have been written by somebody who knew Paul), and may have been the text on which Marcion based his gospel. This then became the basis of a Luke that was overwritten by the same person who wrote Acts, in an attempt to create an "orthodox" history for Christianity.

I think this idea gets some external support from the minority strand of opinion of some scholars who view the synoptic problem in terms of Lukan priority - the way they talk about it is they point to some things in Luke which may make it possibly older than Mark, or bits of it older than Mark. That idea could be pointing to the same "ur-Luke" as the other theory.

I think it also makes sense in terms of the reverence Marcion had for Paul - if this hypothetical pre-canonical Luke was actually written by someone who knew Paul, it would make sense for Marcion to use him. IIRC Luke was also a favourite of some of the Gnostics, which, again, would make sense if we accept their self-description as being ultimately descended from Paul.

(In terms of the HJ/MJ debate this is of course neutral, but as Doherty points out it does open up a can of worms with regard to the orthodox history of Christianity as presented in Acts - makes it look more like a fabrication, a reaction to Marcion.)

chrisengland

Hello
thankyou for everyones replys
I,m going to look through all the imformation I,ve been given so I probably won't be on for a couple of days.
One thing though I thought I,d mention does it actually matter weather Luke knew Paul or not?
See as I said I thought that because he wrote Acts, he wouldn't have reported that the deciples had seen Jesus in the flesh if Paul had told him it had been like his expearience, a flash of light and a voice, I think it would be strange for him to believe Q and Mark over what Paul had told him.(I,m not saying he didn't copy Q and Mark I,m just saying that I don't think he would have chosen to copy them if it dissagreed with what Paul said)
But am I wrong' could it be that Paul had told him that maybe the diciples expearices were like his(remember that Paul claims he actually met James and Peter so it wouldn't couldn't say it hearsay unless you think he or they lied) but he still chose to copy the accounts in Q and Mark over Paul.
The reason I think the fact that he wrote Acts matters is because' why would he write an account of Paul if he thought he was preaching the wrong kind of resurrection?
Also (althought i might start a different thread for this) would the Gospel writers deliberately make things up?
See I think they were probably strict Christians and so I thought they would have considered adding bits on about the son of God a serious sin.
But apparently back then writing a fruadulent letter was considered exceptable e.g. some of Pauls letters, and I remember Richard Carrier(must admit he very bias though) saying that sometimes when people write war accounts in accient times they would add bits on to spice the story up abit.
So would adding bits on to the Gospel for simbolism or something be acceptable back then?
thankyou
chris

Amaleq13

What, specifically, makes you think so?

If MacDonald (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk)) is correct, Homer was a teaching text so I'm not sure we should be surprised by such similarities.

-Jay-

Glad you're finding this interesting. One thing to consider is that the Biblical writers might well have had motives apart from just spreading the word - motives that aren't readily apparent to a 21^st century reader.

For the moment, let's consider that GMark was written first, followed by GMatthew a few decades later, and GLuke a bit later still. Let's consider, strictly hypothetically for now, that the author of GMt had a somewhat different understanding of Jesus than the author of GMk, but had GMk available as a source. It's not difficult to surmise that the author of GMt might make some tweaks to the material in GMk to better align it with his understanding of the subject matter. Perhaps the author of GMt expected his version to replace GMk rather than be included with it. Likewise with GLk.

I don't think you need to assume that the writers were deliberately adding elements with only deceptive intent. I think it's more likely that they added elements based on their understanding of what Jesus would have done or should have done, based at least in part on the stories that they were familiar with and at least in part on what their messianic expectations were based on their interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

(aside - at a time when scribes were few and far between, writing in the name of someone already considered authoritative was a good way to ensure that your work got copied and spread.)

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

Amaleq13 - is MacDonald's book worth the read? I've had it on my list for a while, but haven't gotten around to it. Should I consider bumping it up?

regards,

NinJay

Amaleq13

I found it interesting but I'm not convinced of more than what I suggested. It seems possible that the author of Mark, under the heavy influence of his primary Greek "text books", produced a story where that influence can be detected.

I would think this could be true whether Mark was writing complete fiction or recording history.

-Jay-

Absolutely. It's difficult to compartmentalize one's influences so completely that they wouldn't show up in either.

Thanks for the comments.

regards,

NinJay

Toto

I personally found MacDonald very much worth reading, even if you don't agree with his conclusions. Note that MacDonald teaches at Claremont and is a liberal Christian, and does believe in a historical Jesus.

andrewcriddle

Aristotle's account of Plato does not contradict what Plato says about himself but there are important elements in Aristotle's account that we would probably not expect on the basis of what Plato says.

There is some discussion here http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1998/1998-07-22.html for more material Google on Plato Aristotle and "Unwritten Doctrines"

Andrew Criddle