Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2003, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Indeed, NO ONE, not even writers of "secret" texts, ever thought of claiming Junior himself wrote something--okay, maybe they thought their bowels would rot if they went that far, but some writers were happy to forge Paul. Okay . . . by that time, perhaps "finding" a "Letter of Junior" would have seem suspicious!

However Eusebius of Caesarea ca. 300 found a letter of Jesus to King Abgar in Syriac in the state archives at Edessa, which he reproduces in his Historia Ecclesiastica. I don't think he believed in it much, but it was created. The reason why, and the date when, however, must remain a mystery.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky · 10-31-2003, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Doc X,

But why did they use GMk as their primary source?

They didn't!

Quote:

Presumably, they could have access to other gospels or oral traditions (M-Tradition and L-Tradition according to Streeter) from which to base their gospels.

All 3 Synoptic gospels were originally based on an earlier proto-gospel X. X was quite short, just like Mk. Lk and Mt likewise preserve some features of X that had been lost in our canonical Mk.

Quote:

Why would these two authors use the same Gospel (or perhaps two versions of that gospel) as their base? Was GMk the prominent gospel of the time? Why? What made it a prominent, or preeminent, gospel?

Again, X would have been rather prominent, since it was the earliest gospel.

Quote:

If it had been believed to have been written by a biblical personality, Mark for instance, then perhaps that's the reason for its importance? Maybe the tradition of its special authorship extended all the way back to the 80's C.E. when Matt was starting to compose his gospel.

Our present-day canonical Mk is a 19th century document (as produced by Westcott & Hort). It's absurd to argue that a 19th century document is in fact a 1c document. This goes even _beyond_ voodoo science...

Regards,

Yuri.

Secular Pinoy · 10-31-2003, 09:59 AM

Uhm, my post is in response to Doc X's post, where we both assumed the likelihood of the dominant 2ST. I am aware that it is not a theory shared by several posters here, including yourself. But I'm glad you could chime in with your, ahem, "hypothesis."

Vinnie · 10-31-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Uhm, my post is in response to Doc X's post, where we both assumed the likelihood of the dominant 2ST. I am aware that it is not a theory shared by several posters here, including yourself. But I'm glad you could chime in with your, ahem, "hypothesis."

you playing the Devils advocate?
I'll bet yall aint know the devil had a kid!

Sorry, had to bust a DMX rhym on ya

At any rate, your theory of Mt and Lk using Mark is far too simoplistic. Luke may have thought of Mark negatively. See chapter 1 of Lk.

Quote:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Some see an implicit critique of those other works here.

Matthew and Luke make a number of changes to the Marcan text. Adding infancy stories, a shitload of sayings material, an ending (which Mark lacked purposefully), and quite a few other pericopes (Secret parables, toned down Mrks portrayal of the apostles as complete idiots and so on).

It could be argued that Mark had the basic core they wanted but they needed to revise it since they didn't like extant Mark as it was.

Or maybe your theory is true. but as I quoted Brown above:

Quote:

As Brown noted in a footnote 85 on p. 160: �Several passages in Paul indicate that historically Peter was known as a preacher and perhaps a font of tradition about Jesus (a combination of I Cor 15:3,5,11; one interpretation of Gal 1.18). Later Acts personifies Peter as the preacher of the Jerusalem community. The ecumencial book PNT contends that after his lifetime Peter became an idealized figure for certain functions in the church. II Pet 1:13-19 embodies the picture of Peter as the preserver of the apostolic memory.�

As Brown further noted (pp. 160-161): �Papias could, then, be reporting in a dramatized and simplified way that in his writing about Jesus, Mark reorganized and rephrased a content derived from a standard type of preaching that was considered apostolic. That could explain two frequently held positions about Gospel relationships: first, that the Marcan Gospel was so acceptable within a decade as to be known and approved as a guide by Matthew and Luke writing in different areas; second, that John could be independent of mark and still have similarities to it in outline and some contents. Many would dismiss entirely the Papias tradition; but the possibilities just raised could do some justice to the fact that ancient traditions often have elements of truth in garbled form.�

That's the problem. There are plausible motivations on every side. We are left here guessing what people thought 2,000 years ago. Its a big waste of time.

Vinnie

Doctor X · 10-31-2003, 06:20 PM

Steve et Roger:

Eusebius is hardly contemporary to the formation of Mk, Lk, Mt, et cetera. I was refering to earlier works of that time period.

As for:

Quote:

Plenty of ancient texts name their authors.

Well . . . a bunch did not! So there! Picks up ball and runs away. . . .

Yuri:

Quote:

They didn't!

They did!!

Seriously, I can understand the contention that the "Mk" Mt and Lk used is not the "Mk" we have . . . however I do not buy the full implication that Mt and Lk and Mk all just used the same "X" gospel. I am afraid I find the evidence for Lk and Mt rewritting Mk too compelling.

The last "case against" Q and the Synoptic I read left too many more problems that required too many assumptions to will away. However, why not "write up" your theory and submit it for publication?

Vinnie:

I thought he was responding to Yuri . . . oye this can get confusing.

I definitely agree with your description of Lk and Mt not necessarily "liking" Mk--they revise, rewrite, add and otherwise bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate him without any reference to him--though Lk's opening may be an "annonymous" reference to him and other works.

--J.D.

Vinnie · 10-31-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

I thought he was responding to Yuri . . . oye this can get confusing.

I was talking to Secular Pinoy, not you! How rude can you be?! Mind your business!

At any rate, Yuri is correct of course. Extant canonical Mark does not look like the version used by Matthew and Luke

Vinnie

Doctor X · 10-31-2003, 07:21 PM

Vinnie:

Shouting behind him as he runs: I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?!!

Man, I will have to review the damn texts, but I thought that where Mt and Lk seem to quote Mk it follows the Greek of Mk we have it . . . of course someone could have just corrected all of them . . . argh! Anyways, I remember being told that the OT Philo uses is not the same "we" have either--do not know if that is true, but I consider it another example.

Which brings another problem--let us really "tease" Yuri and declare that the "Mk" we have now is, like, you know, really close to the "original" Mk. Neat. Then Lk and Mt used some other version that . . . went . . . where? Came from where?

Why this stuff is so fascinating.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy · 11-01-2003, 04:19 AM

Ah, so my attempt at being devil's advocate paid off rather nicely. I've sown the seeds of dissent and confusion. <Monty Burns>Excellent...</Monty Burns>

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
You could always play with J.P. if you are bored:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

Do you accet the traditional authorshop of Annals?

Actually, there is a thread here somewheres where I argued that Mark did not author Mark.

Simple question: why would an eyewitness like Matthew use the text of Mark then?

Vinnie

Meta: But that could as easily be an argument for Greisbach.

But my theory is that the actual person Matt, wrote a sayings source and the community incorporated it into a narrative, using Mark as the guide and maybe Q as a second source, maybe the Logia was Q!

That still doesnt' leave it unauthoritative.

11-01-2003, 04:19 AM	#38
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Mission accomplished! Ah, so my attempt at being devil's advocate paid off rather nicely. I've sown the seeds of dissent and confusion. <Monty Burns>Excellent...</Monty Burns>

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

10-31-2003, 09:59 AM	#33
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Uhm, my post is in response to Doc X's post, where we both assumed the likelihood of the dominant 2ST. I am aware that it is not a theory shared by several posters here, including yourself. But I'm glad you could chime in with your, ahem, "hypothesis."

10-31-2003, 07:21 PM	#37
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Vinnie: Shouting behind him as he runs: I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?!! Man, I will have to review the damn texts, but I thought that where Mt and Lk seem to quote Mk it follows the Greek of Mk we have it . . . of course someone could have just corrected all of them . . . argh! Anyways, I remember being told that the OT Philo uses is not the same "we" have either--do not know if that is true, but I consider it another example. Which brings another problem--let us really "tease" Yuri and declare that the "Mk" we have now is, like, you know, really close to the "original" Mk. Neat. Then Lk and Mt used some other version that . . . went . . . where? Came from where? Why this stuff is so fascinating. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.