archibald

I bet when you first told that one to your friends, everybody laughed so hard that the walls of the igloo shook.

dog-on

BS, Ted.

You claimed that a later interpolator would not have used the number 12, thereby making it unlikely that the Cor reference was a later interpolation.

I pointed out that, in fact, Acts refers to 12 apostles, the eleven plus the replacement.

That is it.

In other words, your original objection is simply wrong.

Solo

The interpolation would have had to be early for this very reason, since the appearances in Matthew and Luke (and Acts) are to the eleven. It is unlikely this passage would have been composed by someone familiar with the later synoptics, as it aims at harmonizing traditions.

My take on it is that it comes from a pro-Petrine community and is a first attempt to discredit Mark by showing that Paul was not the first who proclaimed Jesus' resurrection - which was the intent behind the women running away from the empty tomb in Mk 16:8 without telling anything to anyone.

Best,
Jiri

archibald

The 'pre gospel interpolation theory' versus the '2nd C. interpolation theory', anyone?

archibald

Is there any chance you could get your 15 year old to come to the computer? It's just, I was hoping for an answer from someone since I still don't know what makes you think the dead in Hebrews 6:2 are only partly dead. :]

Seriously, I'm not with you anyways. What is entailed by being 'less dead'? Do you mean, like, in a coma, from which one can be revived?

The babes not being quite human after being born thing has also thrown me, but I think that's from a different passage. Not 6:2

Solo

I am not saying 'pre-gospel'; I am saying 'pre-Matthew'.

In case you are not up-to-date, most of NT scholarship today accepts that the original Mark ends at 16:8: the last twelve verses were appended later.

Best,
Jiri

archibald

Ah I see. I misread 'later synoptics', and just read synoptics.

Ok. The 'pre-Matthew theory' versus the '2nd C theory' it is.

About Mark, I was aware that there were shorter and longer endings, but I thought the phrase, 'And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.' was in the shorter one?

Anyhows, do the bit where you explain why you feel sure Hebrews 6:2 was referring to partly/figuratively dead.

Solo

16:8 is the last verse AFAIC: And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

Now, if you accept that, the post-mortem Jesus appearances to disciples happen contra to what Mark put down as gospel, i.e. the creed of the disciples in Jerusalem very unlikely originated with the proclamation of Jesus being resurrected from the dead.

As I told you, I am done with that one. I figured you are either pulling my leg, or you are too thick. In either case, it would be a useless conversation from my point of view. :wave:


Best,
Jiri

archibald

I'm not sure I accept it yet. You said 'most modern scholars', then you said 'AFAIC'. There's a difference.

That's a pity. You've used quite a repertoire of impressive rational statements thus far (a disparaging idiom about silk patches, comparisons to the level of understanding of children, a poor attempt at ethnic humour, a not-so-veiled ad hom about being thick.....) and that only leaves you, perhaps, with three further options, namely, questioning peoples' legitimate parentage...or.....er.......actually answering questions convincingly. Or not answering them convincingly*.

Now, which is it to be?


*ETA: Perhaps I was hasty. You do also still have 'duffers' and 'crapping on', which, as far as I can see, are quite popular also.

dog-on

Perhaps, though my take is somewhat different.

I view this as part of the larger redactional exercise occuring towards the later half of the 2nd century, the time when I believe Luke/Acts was completed, along with the pastorals and the Paulines were made safe for catholic consumption. A whole scale re-packaging of the apostle of the heretics.

In other words, at the time of the formation of the orthodox canon.

Somewhere between Polycarp and Ireneus, though nearer to Ireneaus, would be my guess.

Although, I do agree that one of Mark's purposes was to discredit supposed historical witness.