Layman

They are not exclusive at all. They are only contradictory if I think that the Gospel of Matthew in our current Bible is the book that Papias is referring to.

At least TRY and understand what I write. I know you favor inventing arguments I never even made, but at least try.

See, you are not even trying to understand me. My point is that we all know what the evidence is, the differences are in what it means. There is little new ground here.

I've had plenty to say. And I will have plenty to say. But here, I was looking for you to say something to prove up your naked assertion that Mark could not have been written in the first century because it shows too much literary development.

There should be two pieces on Hebrews and several pieces on Josephus.

Apparently all you have are taunts. And arguments against strawmen that no one is making here.

You are projecting. I'm not the one who asserted Mark could not be written in the first century because it showed too much literary development and them "proved" my point by arguing that Matthew used Mark as a source.

If you are ignoring my substantive posts and articles, why are you whining about me not being substantive?

Only because you are ignorant or willfully blind.

I'm still waiting for your evidence on Mark's literary development.

Toto

Please watch the insults. When you can only respond to an argument by denigrating your opponent, it only makes you look like you have no arguments.

Joel (Celsus) reorganzied Peter's sticky thread, so you have to know what you are looking for to find old links. I don't think that Layman should assume that a new poster here (spin) can easily find all of Layman's prior threads without providing them.

The index of threads by subject is here

Layman

Which is why I directed him to Kirby's sticky. Nor did I assume that he would have known about all of them. I was pretty specific that he probably was unaware of them. Which is why I called him for saying I had not presented any evidence on the historical Jesus.

For the sake of appearances Toto, at least try to be fair.

spin

You have a poor attention span. I have already talked about this.

Grin. You write nothing but invective.

Ah, still feeling misunderstood.

Still wrong. Simply put, data is not evidence until shown to be so. You know, "relevance" ...

I gave you two data on the matter when I first mentioned the subject.

Well, you might help me a bit more to arrive at them.

So you didn't drop the line about the schoolyard??

What is the problem you have with the querstion I keep putting to you to bare your fundaments?

I said "Any talk of gospels being written in the 30s is ridiculous." Why not go back and read the post a bit more carefully?

I'm only trying to get past the prattle.

As you don't know me, you're in no position to make such value judgments.

You hang on like grim death to one point and avoid your responsibility to show that your fundamental ideas are based on something. Oh, well done.

Just do me a favour whiule you've got nothing better to do, go through the section from the garden of Gethsemene and see how many times the writer uses the trick of three (ie referring to groups of three items in the narrative, which makes things easier for a story teller to remember). This feature is not in any consistent way found in other parts of the gospel. This trick of three is a relatively well-known rhetorical device.


spin

spin

Why didn't you just direct me to what you wrote instead of making it more difficult than necessary? Where exactly is your HJ stuff?

Forget the persecution complex: it doesn't become you.


spin

Toto

Comments about the moderation are off topic. Especially when the moderator tries to be helpful and then is accused of bias.

Comments about other posters are not helpful.

Any more of this and the thread will be locked.

Layman

Then do you keep bringing it up? What was the intent with the preceding statements?

Untrue.

Like I said. If you tried to have a conversation maybe you'd get one.

You think that Josephus, the Gospels, and Paul's letters are irrelevant to the issue?

Actually, you argued Matthean dependence on Mark. Which is of course irrelevant.

You can use the search function. Simply assuming I've never engaged in a substantive discussion on the historical Jesus was baseless.

Sure I did, because chest thumpig and taunting are indicative of such behavior.


Well, because it does nothing to buttress your assertion that Mark displays too much literary development to have been written early.

You did say that. You also said there was too much literary development in Mark for it to have used an eyewitness source. I did not challenge the former comment because I agree that the gospels were not written in the 30s.

Not that I can tell.

Since you are unaware of my dicsussions on Hebrews, Josephus, and the historical Jesus it's not a stretch to say you are ignorant of those discussions. It's based on your own statements and conduct on this thread.

That's the one that started the thread. If you would just back up your assertion you'd of course be free to start another thread or discussion on the Jesus Myth.

And why does this mean Mark could not have been written in the first century? Because he made his story easier to remember? And why would not someone constantly preaching about the topic also not use such devices to help his listener's remember?

Nothing here supports your initial contention.

spin

I don't find enough contextualised meaning to understand where you are trying to go. (Did you mean a yes/no question in the first sentence?)

One can go around in circles with this sort of things, as you've shown.

The gospels are undated. Paul's letters are of no help for a historical Jesus. Josephus is famous for the xian insertion.

Not so fast. Papias talks of a work by Matthew from Hebrew, now clearly that work is not the one we have today, so either Papias is wrong, or we have a different gospel. Today's Matthew reflects on the trustworthiness of Papias.

As a work made from the memoirs of Peter (according to Papias), we have a lot of material not relevant to Peter, so again Papias, if correct, is not trustworthy.

In the threads of seen you disrupting, it is the case.

That is an inappropriate description. You have a habit of shaping the world to suit yourself, rather than trying to reflect it as is.

What your problem is, despite your attempt to shift the onus, you are not prepared to examine my basic initial complaint: you and the rest who push the HJ notion have done none of the necessary work to provide historical starting material. The assumption level regarding your (plural) use of your source documents has never been justified.

That is useful to know.

These aren't relevant.

As I have said, going by the little you have said on the matter I've seen no indication of you having done the necessary footwork. When you told me to read other stuff of yours, you didn't provide a useful inidcation to your efforts. So, I am only partially ignorant of your discussion.

You're in no position to talk about conduct. And you have ignored the few indications I did give.

I'm not too interested in the Jesus myth, just your basic unplumbed assumptions for the reified Jesus.

If you can see the use of the device, you can see that it is not used elsewhere in the gospel. We have a passion story with certain characteristics unlike the rest of the work, extending from Gethsemene to the three women who watched Jesus die. With this consistent use of the trick of three, we have a clear sign of an oral development for this section, ie for oral transmission. (Oral traditions don't spring up overnight.)

This makes sense in the light of the structure of chapter 13, which works very hard to drum into the listeners' minds the necessity of being observant, of watching, which relates closely to the notion of "nazarenos" from the Hebrew NCR, meaning "observe, watch". Chapter 13 functions as a climax to the whole text to this point and, as an end of a work, it leaves the reader with a series of admonitions to be ready for the coming end.

This readiness for the coming end is naturally an inappropriate place to end if that imminent end didn't come. The attachment of the passion story naturally takes the emphasis off the end that didn't come.

When you don't have your eyes open.


spin

genesis2k3

Vorkosigan,

Where on www.earlychristianwritings.com does it say that Acts
depends on Mark? I read through the page on Acts and I
didn't see anything claiming Acts must have depended on
Mark.