Amaleq13

How does a 2nd century attempt at harmonizing the canonical stories constitute evidence of the same story within 20 years of the events?

Pre-markan redaction isn't particularly helpful since one opposing view to your claim is that the story attributed to Mark is the basis for all subsequent revisions. If, as you claim, the same story was told from the very beginning, shouldn't we find evidence of it outside and earlier than the earliest extant version?

Perhaps you need to clarify what it is you are claiming. There is a significant different between "contradicting" and "telling another version". Your original claim seemed to focus only on the latter. Paul clearly does tell a different version of the story of Jesus because he tells it without referring to any of your eleven points as you wrote them. That is clearly a different version of the story.

Whether you want to change your claim to denying "contradicting stories" or not, I don't see how the absence of either establishes the historicity of Mark if we don't find prior evidence of the story.

It might seem "convenient" if only mythicist proponents made the argument but that does not appear to be the case. I'll have to check when I get home but I thought Koester considers it interpolated.

[added later]My mistake. The reference to Pilate is not an interpolation but included in 1 Timothy which Koester, I believe, recognizes as written by someone other than Paul.

You seem to have missed the point that assuming your conclusion renders your argument logically flawed. A logical argument procedes from the evidence to the conclusion. If you get to assume the conclusion, there isn't any point in considering the evidence.

The evidence from Paul, absent any illogical conclusion-assuming, does not give us any reason to assume either he or the group at Jerusalem knew the story later told in the Gospels.

I have no idea what you are talking about but it doesn't appear to be related to anything I have written. I'm simply noting that Paul tells a "story of Jesus" that does not include your eleven points as you have stated them.

Nobody expects Paul to "speak on everything" but your argument seems to require that his story of Jesus include the eleven points. His story clearly does not include your elevent points, therefore, your claim that this same story is consistently told for the first 400 years of Christianity is untrue.

Vorkosigan

No, because the Empty Tomb story is taken from various OT passages.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

I like those Greek fonts. I notice you use font face symbol, that's good. My Camrbidge frined and I both concluded that when Kata is used that way (as in kata Lukan, Kata Ionion) it means "according to" or "by" or "as a result of." So the question is, to say "Kata Sarx" is that the same as saying "kata" and then an authorship? I think it's akin to it (no pun). Because he's distinguishing between his fleshly linage and his divine linage. It's wouldn't make sense to say this if he as speaking of a merely symbolic linage.

It's not a very popular use of it Doherty's way. one doesn't find kata used that way very often.



Th
seems pretty clear to me. What would be the point of his discussion of verious types of flesh if he didn't think Christ had a fleshly existence? What would be the point of spekaing of his appearing to people if it were as a ghost? The idea of a ghost living after execution is not amazing or memorable and wouldnt' be seen as a resurrection at all.







Koester argues for the notion that Q might be part of Thomas. What we have as Thomas is latter framework with some early material in it. Neihter of these are the Pre Markan redaction. The pre Markan redaction and Matt's "logia" (whatever that was) would be earliest. I believe we don't know the proto Gospel, we dont' have a copy we can't know what it was.





Why? Given that he's writting to people who know the story, he's the preachign the Gosple to them for the first time. Why would he mention it? Why is that silence anymore improtant than his failure to speak of Noah's flood?

[QUOTE]See above.


I just can't see how a ghost would excite anyone. "there's good new! jesus is a ghost now!" Big deal!! :huh:





I don't see any foregone conclusion why he would have to mention anything! how many other Christian writters start talking about these matters? Read Anathagora or Polycarp or Igantius they don't start every letter by re-telling the gosel story. They dont' start every letter by going "Jesus phsysically rose from the dead."




thanks. I dont' want to be dogmatic about the 11 points. But by and large for the frist couple of centuries when you read about Jesus its' the same story. His mother is never named Ethalred or Astregard or Lassfogal, or Betty, she'a always mary. He's never hung or stabbed he's always crucified. His head side kick is never Robin or Aqualad or George, it's always Peter.

Metacrock

which ones? :huh:

Amaleq13

Where does Paul offer this attestation?

Metacrock

No that's wrong! You really need to read Koester. They all use the same one. mark, Matt, Luke, John, GPete they all use the PMR! They all follow the basic line, except for the epiphanies, that's where Koster and Crosson part company. Corsson includes them, Koster thinks they come from many different sources.

It's called pre Markan becasue it came before Mark, so they were arond before that.








NO he doesnt'. It's not a different version. It doesn't contradict any of the points. Just leaving them out is not contradicting. Not a different version. he also alludes to Peter and the 12, and to Jerusalem, and to crucifiction, to resurrection. How many points is that?

He's not giving a version where Jesus' side kick is harvy and his mother is Gertrude and he was Stabbed to death in France. See what i'm saying? Why is never a contradiction to these basic points? Leaving them out is not contraditing them!







How many times i have to say this? The pre-Markan redcaction is the prior evidence--it came before!





Of cousre not! I know that Koster book like the back of my hand. I dont' mean to sound arrogant, but the co authors of the empty tomb will know it all too well to when I'm through with them.





show me a bleeding alternate version! I didn't say it proved it, I said it made it more likely. You can't show another version, the most likeloy reason is because we are dealing with known facts.





O right, he just knew one that had Jesus crucified and risen from the dead and appearing to Apostles led by Peter, but it's not the same story right? Get real man. Besides, his use of the early saying sources in reference to Jesus teachings shows that the was up on all the Jesus lore then had at the time, and Koester argues this.





But it doesn' open contradict any, and does include several of them.




You still can't give me an alternate version. It's true the 11 points was just a device I pulled off the top of my head. So mabey on one stroy version gives the 11 points as such. But you can't show me a single alterante version, or a version that's different on any one of the 11 points, before a resonable date, like say 300?

Diogenes the Cynic

Paul tells a contradictory version of the appearance chronology. Saying he "left stuff out" is a specious bit of unsupported and ad hoc apology. It is a prima facie contradiction and you have shown no reason that we should believe that Paul left anything out or knew another version.

He als says nothing about an empty tomb and that's a significant bit of silence.

Metacrock

So what you are saying is, Gospel info includes x,y,z,a,bc,d,e,f

Pual only uses x,y,z so because he doesnt use the rest of it, we cant' assume "leaving it out" because that begs the question that it was ever in, so Paul's "version" counts as another version.

But that's a crazy way to look at it. Because Paul and Gosples both include x.y,z. What Paul doesnt' include we can't know one way or the other, but he doesn't contradict them either, so ti's not like the things I"m calling "facts" are being refutted by another telling.

Amaleq13

Metacrock,

It is very frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't appear to be actually reading all the parts of the discussion.

Regarding your reference to the Diatesseron, I asked:
"How does a 2nd century attempt at harmonizing the canonical stories constitute evidence of the same story within 20 years of the events?"

I continue to be interested in the answer.


They may have used a single original source. This is just as much a speculative reconstruction as is Q (which, incidently, also does not include all of your eleven points). Even if we assume the existence of an original story prior to Mark, my question stands. Why should we assume this original was historically reliable? If we rely on your "eleven points" as a guide, that is all that was provided in this original source. The subsequent consistent usage by later authors doesn't appear to require that the original be historically reliable. I'm not even sure it requires that we assume the subsequent authors considered it historically reliable. It seems just as reasonable to assume they simply considered it a damn good framework for a narrative without any consideration of historical accuracy. The author of Luke is the only one who claims to be recording history and we've already seen that he considers adding his own fabrication to be a legitimate part of the effort.

You seem to have skipped over my post explaining the difference between "different" and "contradicting". Your original claim only involved the former and I asked if you wanted to change it to the latter. Leaving out every one of your points as you wrote them clearly does constitute a different version of the story of Jesus.

None as you wrote them. He doesn't refer to Peter as Jesus' sidekick and "the twelve" seems not to include him since the appearance to them is listed separately from Peter's. Jerusalem is mentioned as the location of the "pillars" but not as the location of the crucifiction (I think I'll keep your spelling ) or the resurrection. So, as I said before, none of your points as you wrote them can be found in Paul's letters.

As I have already stated, the most obvious alternate explanation is that those "basic points" had not been created yet. What evidence eliminates this possibility?

Hypothetical reconstructions of non-extant texts doesn't actually constitute evidence, Metacrock. Do you consider Q to be "evidence"?

Why is that the "most likely" explanation?

That isn't the story Paul tells. As far as we can tell from Paul, the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas then to others. There is no indication Cephas was a leader before the appearance. As far as we can tell from Paul, they became apostles after the risen Christ appeared to them just as it went with Paul. It is not the same story that we read in Mark's Gospel.

The only "teaching" that Paul might be attributing to a living, preaching Jesus is the one on marriage and it could just as easily be revealed knowledge from the risen Christ. Since that appears to be the soure of all his other information, I would think we would need more evidence to conclude this was different. I've read what Koester says on this in my book and he seems to be making assumptions without any basis in evidence.

Your original claim did not require contradiction and none of your points as they were written is included. If you want to revise your origninal claim, that is another story.

It seemed to be a bit more involved than that but you are always free to revise it in face of the obvious failure as it currently stands.

As I've stated repeatedly, it doesn't appear to make a difference either way. The presence or absence of variations and the presence or absence of contradicting versions doesn't seem to require one to accept or deny the historicity of any original version.

Your entire argument appears to be founded on the fundamental tenet that "An unchanged story must be considered historical" but that is, so far, nothing but an unsubstantiated assumption. I would be interested in any good reasons to accept this as true.

Metacrock

Metacrock,

It is very frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't appear to be actually reading all the parts of the discussion.[/QUOTE]



I dont' know why you say that.






Weren't you the one saying you read Koester's book? If I am confussing you with someone else I apologize. But in any case, I suppossed you must know that people didn't just make up the readings from MS like the Diatesseron. They copied previopsuly existing texts. The form of the readings they used are given to us in the surviving ms. So when we find readings in them that can be traced to first century, appear to be older than the canonicals, it doesn't matter that the form in which we have them is latter than the canonicals, as long as the reading itself is clearly ealier. So even though the form in which it was put (the second century homaranization knows as the Diatesseron) is much older, the reading itself is earlier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
They all use the same one. mark, Matt, Luke, John, GPete they all use the PMR!...It's called pre Markan becasue it came before Mark, so they were arond before that.




Well, it's all sepeculation. But Textual criticism is a science, and Koester is its' formost master in the world today.





It's age, appearing just 18 years after the events, basically guarontees a minimal chance of the events being manufactured..




except 18 years is close enough in time that there would have been lots of eye witnesses still about. All the verious commuities would have had them. And since the tellings of the stories that made up the oral tradition were not random acts of gossip, but carefully controled communal events, this telling would have been the result of eye witness scretiny and would have continued to be so for two or three more decades.

You didn't prove Luke fabricated anything. You poved that you canjecture about it.

Quote:
It's not a different version. It doesn't contradict any of the points.



Yo

I answered that argument directly by telling you that the only imiprotant coutner evidence can only be other versions of the story in which the 11 points are changed. Just presenting a story with some of the points and not others, may not argue for my theory, but it sure doesnt' argue against it.


Quote:
he also alludes to Peter and the 12, and to Jerusalem, and to crucifiction, to resurrection. How many points is that?





then why would Peter be an important guy in Paul's mind, that he should confront him in Galations?

Do you think that the presentatiopn in Acts has nothing to do with the Pauline circle? If the author of Acts shows Petre as the leader of the 12 you dont' think that refelcts the knoweldge the Pauline cirlce would have had of Peter?

Why would you think that Acts has no connection with the Pauline cricle when most of it is about Paul?







so that must mean that he thought the crucifiction was elsewhere right? After all if he doesn't spell it out we can just assume anything we want?

I wish you would study some real hermeneutics.


Quote:
Why is never a contradiction to these basic points?





The Pre Markan redaction is taken back to AD 50 by both Koester and Crosson. Both include the empty Tomb at that time. So the 11 points were part of it. The whole thing, all that is known in Mark, Matt, Luke, Jonn and G pEte it was all there.


Quote:
The pre-Markan redcaction is the prior evidence--it came before!




It's not. learn what textual criticisim is! Nothing hypothetical about it.


Quote:
You can't show another version, the most likeloy reason is because we are dealing with known facts.






Because of the way myth proliforates.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That's not the point. I never appealed to Paul as major evidence. The point is Paul doesn't disprove the argument.




Quote:
O right, he just knew one that had Jesus crucified and risen from the dead and appearing to Apostles led by Peter, but it's not the same story right?





That's absurd. First, those are not Paul's original words. He's quoting a baptismal formula. Almost everyone agrees on that. So he didn't make that up. That means the chruch already recognized Peter as a leader. So why would they just dogmatically choose him? It's celary realated.




Quote:
Besides, his use of the early saying sources in reference to Jesus teachings shows that the was up on all the Jesus lore then had at the time, and Koester argues this.





your consrutal of history is like the Bizzaro world. No historian thinks like you do I promise you. No historian is sitting aground thinking 'well don't have counter evdience that martha Washington was the Queen of France, and what George says about her doesnt' disprove it, so you can't assert that she wasnt'." One doenst' have to guanretee every single point anew with every conjectural idea. We can assume a stable outlook until we have some reason to assume other wise. Peter is the head sidekick on teh canonicals, and he's listed as the first int eh appearches and of clear improtance in Galantions there's just no need to have to prove that's the case, since theres' no contradiction of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13


Yea, there is. The canonicals. And these peices fit what we see in them. so until there is a reason to assume different, there's reason to assume they are wrong.




Quote:
But it doesn' open contradict any, and does include several of them.






Yes it did requrie it. Read the page!

come do you expect me to take your Bs seiously? You are obviosuly just trying to futigate any point I make.


Quote:
It's true the 11 points was just a device I pulled off the top of my head.






YOu have no counter evidence. you have no other versions! Just showing a versions with points 1-6 is not another version, it's just a partial version. Show me another version!

Your way of arguing is just comical. you are gearing everything to fucking up the ideas insteading of actually considering them. You are trying to be as legalstic as possible.

no one thinks like that. Anyone can see what you are doing.


Quote:
But you can't show me a single alterante version, or a version that's different on any one of the 11 points, before a resonable date, like say 300?






Yes, we have no reason to think otherwise you until you give us some. You cannot. Other than that you are just trying to be legalistic and sitck in wrench int he wroks to muddle understanding.