Solo

There is no fundamental epistemological problem with most positions on display here. Most contributors on this board maintain a healthy distance from absolutist stances and extreme conclusions. Some don't. Too bad for them.

I do not know what it means to have "an empirical way of supporting an ontology". I sense an obsure complaint of subjectivism in that. I am not bothered. There may be a historically vouched-for explanation for the "body full of light" promised in Mt6:22 & Lk11:34 and alluded to in ~60 other NT phrases. Until there is one I take the position that the mental phenomena which NT belabours and which were mysterious 2000 years ago are today observed clinically and relate to relatively common neurophysiological challenges. I accept that I won't be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone who believes human brain has underwent design changes in two millenia comparable to those of computer hardware in the last fifty years. Nothing one can do about that. :huh:


Jiri

Malachi151

I'll reiterate my position, which kind of agree with what the OP was driving at.

I think that the author of Mark did explicitly know that the narrative he was writing was not a historically true narrative and that he was intentionally fabricating scenes.

HOWEVER:

I think that the authors of Matthew, Luke, John, and any of the other various gospels DID BELIEVE that what they were writing was "historically true", if not necessarily "historically accurate" (if they even made such a distinction).

In other words, "Mark" was writing a purely allegorical narrative, in which he used Hebrew scriptures to craft scenes, the point of which was to explicitly refer to the meaning of the scritpures that he was referencing, NOT to portray Jesus as "fulfilling a prophecy".

The authors of Matthew, Luke, and John, however, being knowledgeable of the Markan narrative, believed that the Markan narrative was factually true. Likewise, they saw some of the literary allusions within the Markan narrative and they interpreted these allusions as "prophecy fulfillment".

These three authors then wrote their own versions, adding their own scenes which they based on the Hebrew scriptures, but their use of the scriptures was entirely different than "Mark's" use.

The other three used the scriptures to fill in "historical facts" about the Messiah based on what they saw as predictions about the Messiah. Thus, to the other three, even though they were using the Hebrew scriptures as their source as well, they viewed the scriptures as a legitimate description of what Jesus "really did".

Thus the following is true of the Gospel of Mark:

However, that is not true of Matthew, Luke, and John.

spin

But then anyone who willfully misconstrues such analogies probably won't see they may have no way of showing how they know what they claim to know.


spin

Solo

I am not sure "fabricating" is the word as it implies telling something the author knows is not true. But I think, yes, Mark knew what he was doing and what he was doing was not putting down what Peter told him.


How did you figure that ? I have the distinct impression that they knew Mark's writing was �* clef even though obviously they had different agenda.

It would be interesting if you could illustrate the source of certainty that Mark was purely allegorical.

On the fulfilment of prophecy: if you accept that Mark knew Paul's writing, some of it perhaps second-hand by word of mouth then you will have no problem with Mark's applying Scripture as point of reference and foreknowledge of events.

Again, if you kindly provide some clue as to how you, or whoever planted that in your head, came to believe this.

Would that include "allusions" which you interpreted as Mark hinting at the destruction of Judea in the first Jewish War ?

Jiri

Malachi151

Not sure what you mean by this. There is no reason to believe that the author of the Gospel called Mark was actually named Mark or that he knew "Peter". The author of this story was writing a fictional story set in his own recent past, just like Mark Twain or Charles Dickens.

I'm operating on a few "beliefs" which are based on my study of the materials.

#1) I don't think that any of the authors of any of the early Christian writings was intentionally trying to deceive anyone.

#2) I think that all of the authors truly believe in "Jesus", though they didn't all have the same concept of who or what Jesus was.

The Gospel of Matthew and John are both somewhat suspect, though I am certainly that the author of Luke thought that he was defiantly recording real history.

The authors of both Matthew and John engage in extensive use of "prophecy" creation by using the Hebrew scriptures.

What they were doing is clearly different from what the author of Mark was doing, but the question is, did they believe that the events that they wrote about actually happened in the real world?

Its impossible to say for sure 100%, but I have to imagine that they did think that these things really happened, at least within their frame of mind. I don't see their story elements as being much different than the writings of other apocalyptic writers of the time, and even people like the author of Revelation or Daniel. I think that in some sense those authors believed that what they were writing was "true". What exactly truth meant to these people I don't claim to know, but I do know that perceptions of reality can be quite subjective. What is "real" and "true" in one culture and to some people may be seen as just plain nonsense to others. This is the case with much "mythology".

My point is that I think the authors of Matthew and John, while themselves "fabricating" scenes from the scriptures, believed that these writings of their were "true". Again, as for the author of Luke, I don't think he fabricated anything, I think he simply assembled materials from various sources which he took at face value and believed were true.

So, in my mind, we have three different process that produced four different works.

1) Mark - Written as an allegorical fiction
2) Matthew - Written as an extended revelation of Mark
3) Luke - Compiled from various sources and written as a standard history
4) John - Like Matthew, written as an extended revelation based on the Markan narrative

My certainty has to do with the nature of the literary allusions. Again, the explanation of this is long as is contained in my article on the subject: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

I feel very strongly that the author of Mark knew Paul's writings. Nevertheless, the very nature of the literary allusions in Mark indicates that they weren't being used as "prophecies", they were being used as simply literary allusions to refer to the meaning of the underlying texts. This is why almost all of the literary allusions refer to the destruction of the Jews.

See above.

I don't think that any of the other Gospel authors understood the Gospel called Mark. I don't think they took it as a story about the destruction of Jerusalem. I think they simply saw correlations between the Markan text and the Hebrew scriptures and they interpreted this as "prophecy fulfillment".

Ted Hoffman

I would have no objections though it would be tantamount to saying the gospel writers wrote what they believed happened, not what happened. Isn't that a tacit claim that what they wrote is not what happened and hence not history?
As Andrew puts it:I have read form criticism but what are the reasons for believing that the stories written by Mark had "been through many mouths and many hands"?
A doublet as in Matthew 16:19 // Matthew 18:18 can mean one of the narratives grew out of or alongside the original narrative. Or it can mean two versions of the same event or narrative as in Mark 6:35-44 // Mark 8:1-9.
Matthew certainly did get a written "tradition." The challenge is in delineating what Mark received (tradition) from what Mark created.
Any ideas?
Your guess is as good as mine. It's an open issue.

You are right wrt Matthew, Luke and John. I am not persuaded that you are right wrt Mark.

Amaleq13, you have lost me, or I lost myself. Either way, thanks for trying to clarify issues.

spin

In no way. Whether the events of the christ of modern christians was based on a real person or not, they still believe those events to have happened.

Tradition can be based squarely on reality, though it is not necessary. Anyone who believes the tradition solely from reception of the tradition, has no way of discernment. They can only believe that it happened.

I pointed out that the writer(s) ordered received materials in sequences, two of which concern the feeding of the multitude. One version is of 5000 people the other is of 4000. Here we apparently have the one tradition which was carried in two directions, implying at least an originator, receivers who spread that tradition and a collector. One fragment of tradition points to a minimum chain of three links, though very probably more.

The sequences themselves suggest the collecting of materials from earlier sources.

I have long thought that Mk originally ended with 13:37 and the injunction to keep watch (keep alert/be vigilant) a repetition of a verb used twice before in the same passage with a synonym as well. This suggests that someone else is responsible for the passion with its different construction methods and the stitching together of the two works. But even the little apocalypse shows signs of using earlier materials and having been written in order to bolster the hardships of a community under fire. For me, many signs of earlier sources.

I agree that is certainly the challenge, though, while one might see some signs of seams in the work, it is merely a body of tradition and tradition is notorious for obscuring its elements.

It was a rhetorical question. It seems to me improbable that an ancient writer invents a term in a text and never hints at an explanation. It's simpler to see it as a received term that the writer had to live with.


spin

Malachi151

These doublet arguments are complete nonsense. They are just apologetic attempts to rationalize that somehow these writings are based on traditions that go back to "first hand accounts".

As you know, my argument is that the author of Mark is the sole creator of the entire narrative and that everything stems from Mark and that there were zero narrative traditions prior to Mark.

No, they absolutely don't.

I've provided what I think is a very clear explanation of the doublets in Mark, which shows that they were all invented by the author to serve narrative purposes.

For example:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Now, the issue of Rome and Israel may or may not actually be the meaning of the underlying symbolism here, but I think that Mark 8:19 makes it quite clear that there is a narrative purpose, invented by the author, behind the two feeding scenes. He didn't just throw them both in because he happened to have heard two version from someone else. He created both of them on purpose and placed them within a certain order and place for specific reasons.

rhutchin

Basically just by reading them. Do you see someone other than Jesus being the focus of the gospels? If so, who (or what)?

I am not sure why since the gospels record Jesus to refer to the OT in His teachings and record that Jesus said that the OT spoke of Him. What would make you think that a person would have to be a mind reader to understand what he reads in the gospels?

Given the references to Christ in the writings of the church fathers (from the late first century) which seem to draw from earlier writings of Christ and the earliest fragment of the Book of John (not the original, but a copy) dated from the late first century, the date of the gospels can be traced to the first century. Papias, who said that he was a student of the apostle John, tells us that the gospels were written by an apostle or someone associated with an apostle. This according to John Warwick Montgomery. Harvard professor Simon Greenleaf, said by some to be the greatest authority on the law of evidence in the 19th century, said that the gospels would withstand judicial review. I got this from a short article in the Apologetics Study Bible.

I guess the scholars can argue this point. I doubt that we can.

Mark seems to be the first gospel written. Matthew is basically an expansion of Mark and provides additional information. Luke contains much information similar to Mark suggesting either that Luke had access to Mark or to Mark's sources. Regardless, I do not see how this inhibits any of them from establishing historical content. Each is a historical account and contains historical content. Maybe you meant historical context? Reference to Pilate identifies historical context.

I don't really see a problem here. Luke provides very specific information. What exactly are you requiring?

aa5874

You are completely wrong. The NT is fundamentally fiction, propaganda or non-history. The use of accepted figures of history like Pilate, Tiberius and Herod, for example, are only to make the NT appear genuine.

I will give you, once more, a partial list of the fundamental fictional core of Jesus as presented in the Gospels.

• The conception of Jesus through the Spirit.
• The birth of Jesus.
• The mother and father of Jesus.
• The baptism of Jesus.
• The temptation of Jesus.
• The miracles of Jesus.
• The sayings of Jesus.
• The transfiguration of Jesus.
• The trial of Jesus.
• The resurrection of Jesus.
• The ascension of Jesus.

The Jesus of the Gospels is fiction to the core.