Vorkosigan

This is an excellent example. There is no oral tradition in Mark. It is all literary creation, and the Markan tale is based on the Pauline one. Mark is studded with references to Paul, and clearly, its writer knew at least Romans, Galatians, 1 & 2 Cor, and others. He borrowed the tale of being delivered up directly from Paul.

The "oral tradition" is simply an invention whose purpose is to separate Mark from Paul so that they become independent confirmation of the gospel tales. Literary dependence is the reality suggested by the evidence of Mark.

Vorkosigan

Chili

Did you maybe forget that Mark and Paul were looking at the archetypal reality and saw the same thing?

Isn't it true that the gospel must be prior to us by nature before we can understand it? And isn't it also true that the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence only because we are on the wrong side of the fence?

Julian

The null hypothesis is not that Paul assumes a readship background knowledge of the gospels since any significant awareness of the gospels on the part of Paul cannot be demonstrated (outside of the last third of 1 Cor.). Paul's gospel is spelled out in detail in his letters and has nothing to do with the gospels we are familiar with. In other words, the null hypothesis is the gospel that Paul preaches and any deviation from that should give us pause.

Also, Jeffrey is wrong in asserting that Greeks encountered Helios every day despite what tourist brochures might claim. I am convinced they had clouds, even back then.

Julian

Malachi151

I couldn't agree more. As I address the issue with people, they come up with increasingly speculative ways of dealing with the facts, and this is among many people who are even atheists, who twist and bend in exceedingly contorted ways to try and maintain a traditional view of the Jesus story.

I still suspect that the discussion of the eucharist ritual in Paul is an interpolation though, simply because it doesn't fi with anything else Pauline.

Malachi151

Since when was the sun a "personage"?

Solo

The 1 Cr 11:23-28 passage is very doubtful as genuine Paul (he knows no Jesus except the one crucified, i.a.) so this really proves nothing but I note the derailed logic here. Even if Mark simply used 1 Corinthians, that would still require the explanation of its attribution of Last Supper to "the Lord" on the night he was delivered up. One cannot well argue Mark made a "literary invention" here since (the would-be) Paul directly refers to it as community tradition.

Jiri

Cege

Would you please cite the passages you refer to that use "betrayed". TIA

No doubt gospel stories were circulating by word of mouth, and Paul and others were telling and retelling the stories in public.

Solo

No, Jesus was not blindfolded, the reference here is to the abnormal cognitive patterns in which "Jesus-witnessing" occurs. An excited manic will experience a classical reversal of perception and cognitive function, known to most of us in a milder form as "deja-vu". During manic highs, this pattern becomes much more pervasive and sponsors (during the euphoric phase) some of the most beautiful paradisiac illusions. Here is an example from a Buddhist script:

Note the magical grandeur, splendor and "wish-fulfilment" the text describes. Things appear to happen in direct response to one's wishes and desires. For a while during the process, the ego-dominated system projecting wants into the external world becomes overlaid by ravenous feeding on whatever the senses drag in. If the subject feels the water is hot and cold, it is because he wishes to be so. If the water magically rises and abates, it is in response to his wishes. The normal process of separation of the subject from the object of her desires which projects as wants comes to be supplanted by a sustained feeling of delight and gladness for the feast arriving through the senses. The cognitive brain receives stimuli first and excites the pleasure centers before projecting them in snapshots into consciousness. This strengthens the sensations of unbounded happiness and omnipotent control. The Sukhavati dweller has the sustained illusion of being the owner and operator of the magical siphon and thermostat and would not be a bit worried about chemical changes in synaptic transmission which makes the show possible.

Alas, during the classical (40-day) manic episode, the euphoric phase of "walking with God" changes into a psychotic mess, in which the subject realizes (through violent persecutory psychosis) that he is being deluded, and that the projective (or prophetic) powers are tricks of the mind (GThomas 69).

The Passion narrative allegorizes the destruction of the spirit, in humiliation and torment. Christ is spat upon and jeered, and told to "prophecy" who already hit him.

Jiri

Malachi151

Yes, "no doubt"... in fantasy land. Come back with the evidence. :wave:

Steven Avery

Good question Steven.
I'll try to come up to speed as well as giving some of the backdrop.

Matthew 26:67
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him;
and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ,
Who is he that smote thee?

Mark 14:65
And some began to spit on him,
and to cover his face, and to buffet him,
and to say unto him, Prophesy:
and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

Luke 26:63-64
And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
And when they had blindfolded him,
they struck him on the face,
and asked him, saying,
Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

So this might be a good argument for either Luke or Mark,
or both, preceding Matthew. However there is an element
(mentioned below in the Goulder reference from Stephen
Carlson) that mitigates against jumping to this conclusion.

Stephen Carlson writes about this synoptic question at ...

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...you-minor.html
Streeter on the "Who Hit You?" Minor Agreement - 11/15

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...ant-minor.html
Goulder, "Two Significant Minor Agreements" (2003) - 11/14
... Goulder's reply is to realize the significance of Killunen's observation
that Matthew describes two sets of people in the beating of Jesus

Some additional references.

http://www.answers.org/bible/missing_q.html
The Mysterious Case of the Missing Q - (more from Goulder)

Michael Goulder
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00003
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4thaqeqjn1fl64jm/
Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.) - Novum Testamentum
"It is difficult to resist the conclusion here that Luke knew Matthew''s Gospel."

In this view, I'm not sure what would prevent Matthew knowing Luke's Gospel,
other than the a priori rejection of Lukan priority. Any help on this appreciated.

Some IIDB discussion was at -

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142684
Mark // Q overlaps. Could Mark know Q?

Interestingly there are also elements in the verses that are
used to argue against Markan priority.

http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/gospels/Lect4.html
Lecture 4: Markan Priority - Ronald L. Troxel

Shalom,
Steven Avery