Vorkosigan

Bruce Chilton accused someone of being conservative? That's like Mussolini accusing Franco of being a dictator.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, we all know that Halloween is just a few days off.
BOO! It's the living dead Zombie Jebus! and you are serious? :hysterical:

Vorkosigan

You can't be serious. The writer of Mark despised the disciples but especially Peter. And if it was Peter, then he had a penchant for casting events as if they were from the life of Elijah and for presenting Jesus' life as if it had been copied wholesale from the Old Testament. There was no John Mark, he's a later invention of Acts and nowhere is any gospel or writing ascribed to him. Moreover, the Passion is entirely a literary construction built out of parallels that echoes the first half of the gospel. There's no history in it anywhere.

The problem with your thesis is that it is exactly the same as if you were arguing Tolkien had taken dictation for the The Lord of the Rings from Bilbo himself.....

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
See my award winning Thread =

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter

Where I demonstrate that "Mark" has a primary theme of having his Jesus define negative Disciple behavior and than having Peter fit the formula exactly. Again, this is not merely an observation supported by Scope, but a primary theme. This eliminates the possibility of Peter being any significant source for "Mark". The discrediting of Peter is so extreme that the possibility goes beyond just discrediting a supposed historical Peter, to a literary device that does not require any historical Peter.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Adam

Thanks for coming back, Joe. I hope you'll get around to reading my main posts listed in and currently concluding with Post #170.
Your thread is very interesting and challenging. Christians have always interpreted your evidence as Peter's self-deprecation. However, your analysis of the Parable of the Sower brings the denigration of Peter to a new level.

Adam

Not at all. I use source-criticism that establishes that there are many underlying written textsd, deriving from comparison of content and style between gospels that is (or should be) objective. Then these sources can be analyzed for perspective on the events, thus hopefully also dates and authors.
Your quote here is from one of my lesser posts. I hope you will read my main posts, if you havn't already, concluding with #170.

aa5874

Your "witnesses" are ALL uncorroborated and based on PRESUMPTIONS. It is most absurd to use historically UNRELIABLE sources to assemble the past.

That is so basic.

bleubird

so,what about scribble error.
If Ehrman is not full of complete poop,and many other bible critics,We can not know the new testament.
It is a mess of mistakes,redaction,and copy errors.

Adam

Again, not relevant. That's what has largely been settled by Lower Criticism of the texts (though many here at FRDB aren't convinced). Higher Criticism in the sort of source-criticism that underlies my thesis here, goes farther than that and challenges verses, large sections, and even books, regardless of whether there is no textual doubt about them. For example, the Gospel of John used to be dismissed entirely, and I readily rejected it myself initially. My thesis requires that this Higher Criticism be used to determine proximity to the events. I stand apart from both Fundamentalists and mythicists who demand a flat "yes" or "no" on the entirety without gradations of value.

bleubird

And who are you?
Published work on this subject?
please.