aa5874

Your claim is erroneous. We have evidence of MYTHOLOGY for the Jesus character.

Please, please Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1.1-4, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2-3, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12 are WRITTEN EVIDENCE of MYTH.

The ONLY evidence of Myths are WRITTEN STATEMENTS.

You will NOT EVER FIND any physical evidence or actual sightings of Myths just written statements of mythology.

ALL we can find of Jesus are WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF MYTHOLOGY..

Even HJers ADMIT there are MYTH descriptions of Jesus but they SIMPLY REJECT the evidence.

No-one here denies Jesus was described as a Child of a Holy Ghost only that some don't believe that Jesus was Myth.

Adam

Excellent, thank you, Spin.
The two blocks are of contrasting nature. The latter group, the phrases, are all from Layer 2, Petrine Ur-Marcus. (Yes, I had to dig into my marked NJB Bible to track down chapter 15 that I did not put into Post #230.) These Latinisms would then have been picked up when Ur-Marcus came to be in Greek. If I am correct that John Mark composed this in Aramaic, then he apparently had a Latin speaker do the translation into Greek.
The former box illustrates the Latin hoc est equivalent in Greek, but merely
introducing translations or other explanatory material. They all seem most likely to have been inserted into the text during late redaction. They could be called footnotes added by a scribe, or even later by whoever published Mark in Rome. The latter is probably the usual case, as only 15:34 appears comparably in Mt. 27:47.

Adam

I don't buy Eisenman, as I am a Christian, but I have a soft spot in my heart for a fellow contrarian. (Conversely, I rejected form criticism (Oral Tradition) that was all the rage during my formative years.) But citing him got me out of the box you put me in.

spin

Inventive, but no candy bar. First, I indicated that the data is partial and that there are other materials to consider. Then, look more closely at the ο εστιν list and see that there are some explanations specifically for a Roman audience: the explanatory second coin in 12:42 is a Roman coin, in 15:16 the hall is explained as a praetorium, indicating that the ο εστιν material is of the same stuff as the other idiomatic material. One of the ο εστιν examples has made it into Matt, so your late redaction notion is still before Matt was constructed.

When we include words such as speculator (6:27), denarius (6:37), legion (5:9), modius (4:27), census (12:14), etc., we find that Latin material is spread throughout the gospel, suggesting that the text was Latinate, despite Matthew Black and Maurice Casey. Why is the woman in 7:26 Syrophoenician? In Rome there was a distinction between east (original) and west (colonial) Phoenicians that would make no sense in the east of the Mediterranean. Matthew has her as a Canaanite woman (mystifying her origin).

Late redaction adds another layer onto your already strained six.

Three of the ο εστιν examples deal with Aramaic, which have been omitted from Matt and Luke. (The Lucan equivalent to 5:41 and 15:22, keeps the translation, but ditches the Aramaic.) Either the signs of Aramaic were early or they were not, but you seem to suggest that they were early, though you now say that the ο εστιν examples are late.

All the examples I've supplied represent a pervasive Latin substratum to the gospel. It's stronger than the overt Aramaic indications in the text. You cannot divide and conquer the evidence, which would only be an arbitrary approach to it.

spin

It merely indicates any port in a storm.

archibald

Or two different ports. Eh, Spin?

Adam

Of the two original tables, only the Mark 10:33 above shows the Latinism copied into gLuke. Even just the one supports Spin's point that this came from gMark in general, even if only from what I identified as Layer 2 of gMark that was a last phase in composition of gLuke. I see no evidence that gMark was originally composed by a Latin speaker, hence late and not from an eyewitness. By late redaction I am not excluding Layer 6 (the few verses in gMark that are not in gMatthew), so I don't necessarily need to add yet another layer. Evidently some or all of the redaction occurred in Layer 5 that was used in making gMatthew. Layers 4, 5, and 6 were originally in Greek, with Latinism entering into Layers 5 and 6. Layer 4 was the editor's additions to what was already translated into Greek from the Aramaic originals. Luke did not need to copy but just Layers 1 and 2, from which he got the Latinism of 10:33 above.
Some of these are also in gLuke, but they are common use items, or they are from Layer 5 (not in gLuke, just gMatthew).No, apart from common use items, the examples represent late Latin redaction, editing, or translating. It's the Aramaic that is the substratum.

spin

You are not defending your thesis. You are simply nay-saying. I can give you a lot more examples of Latin syntactic substratum. If I show you Latin syntax in 3:10 and 9:18, which are ostensibly in your "Twelve-Source from Levi", I guess that also would be your fictitious late redactor.

[T2]Mk 3:10 ina autou apswntai (Latin: ut eum tangeret) Lk 6:19 aptesQai autou[/T2]

Mark features this sort of inversion that the others fix up. And the example in 5:10 is in your Ur-Marcus Greek. Late redactor, right? Very convenient. Very elastic.

All you are doing is asserting that someone came along late in the evolution of Mark and worsened the Greek (and later still, Luke came along and fixed it back up again). And you don't understand why Vork thought it wiser not to waste any more time. He pointed you to a well-know feature of Mark, ie the sandwiching of stories inside stories for rhetorical effect, a feature that is widespread in the gospel. This is not a matter of a separate editor from the one who collected the outer stories, but of a redactor ordering his material in a unique way. Then I show you another widespread feature of Mark, ie its Latin substratum and you just go into denial. I'm sure your OK with that. Ad hoc seems to be the flavor.

Sheshbazzar

Hey spin, ya gotta cut him some slack. Zombie Jebus is alla'time a'whispering in his ear telling him what it is he's gotter say. Make anyone to go nuts.

Adam

You have made your point a lot better than Vork did. He did not apply it to my particular exegesis.
"Legion" from Mark 5:10 is also in Luke 6:30. The various exactitudes make this a Layer 2 story for me, but it's just one word and is even a word that could have been in common use. Or by Layer 4 (as it was when Luke saw it) the name could have been changed to "Legion" for some political or other symbolic point or simply as a translation for Aramaic "many".
You and Vork acknowledge that small insertions (intercalations) are slipped into pericopes, but why would you insist that they must have been made by the originator? There must be cases where the originator wrote down what he knew, but someone else knew more? All the more if my thesis is correct that the (seven) eyewitnesses limited themselves to what they saw or had heard right away from someone else also involved in the incident. Where the late redactor in Layer 4 fills in at third hand, he (through his Latin-speaking scribe) introduces Latinisms.

You have a good case with Mark 3:10. I see in my Bible I have it marked twice with "Petrine" and only once as "Twelve-Source". Apparently it was too small a pericope to pick up the exactitudes my method requires, so I went with my method instead of my intuitive sense. The Latinism you have spotted pushes the method itself into favoring Ur-Marcus for this rather than Twelve-Source.
As for Mark 9:18, I checked the comparable Luke 9:39 and found it fits my Twelve-Source strata that would find them independently translated from Aramaic to Greek, in accord with the Proto-Luke concept. I have already acknowledged that the translator of Ur-Marcus knew Latin, and he likely would have been the translator of Twelve-Source as well. There is great disparity, no evidence that Luke got a look at the Greek in gMark. See how very differently they appear even in English.