youngalexander

As ever Jesus and Mo have the answer!

Toto

I certainly didn't, Mr. Straw Man.

You barged into a thread about research on the historicity of Jesus and put in a plug for Meier and then said you wished we would delve into form criticism. Forgive me if I assumed that you were addressing the subject of the thread.

This might be more productive if you actually typed in complete paragraphs and did more that drop a few cryptic hints about your subject before throwing your predictable emotional outbursts.

So what is your position?

Is form criticism of any use in researching the historicity of Jesus - yes or no?

If you agree that it isn't, I can close this thread.

If you claim that it is, make your argument.

dog-on

SM, once again...

<edit>

squiz

I don't pretend to have a clue about form criticism, but somehow all of this reminds me of some of the discussions that I have seen regarding Freudianism.

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm just getting started in OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source but I've already demonstrated that key words, themes, contrasts and ironic contrast in 1 Thessalonians is paralleled in "Mark" but in different settings. This by itself makes "Mark" using Paul as a source the default position compared to "Mark" using oral tradition. As most of "Mark" is Impossible and what remains is Improbable it's clear that "Mark" is not oral tradition based on history. Some of "Mark" may be based on oral tradition, but not oral tradition based on history. That's your stumbling block. You want to claim that because there is some oral tradition there is some history but you have not demonstrated there is oral tradition and you can not demonstrate there is history.

The evidence for "Mark's" use of Paul exists it's just that Bible scholarship has been largely unwilling/unable to demonstrate it to you.



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Jeffrey Gibson

Really? Perhaps you could tell us what you've actually done to discover whether there is (or is not) "bible scholarship" on the question of Mark's relation to Paul and, if there is, how much (if any) of it, you've read.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Perhaps you could tell us what the difference is between "largely" and "whether there is".

The best Markan critical commentary I'm aware of is France's. He has an underlying ass/presumption that in the absence of an obvious source such as the Jewish Bible, the source is history. I don't remember him ever mentioning Paul as a Paulsible source for "Mark". Does he? Regarding Anchor, they would be better off reading my Thread.



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Jeffrey Gibson

Perhaps you could tell us the basis of your assertion that scholars have "largely" done anything with respect to the question of Mark's relation to Paul. This assertion presupposes that you have actually looked to see "whether there is" anything on the a possible relationship between Mark and Paul in the literature on Mark produced by scholars.

I'd just like to like to know how you can be as confident as you apparently are that the question has been overlooked to any degree, let alone "largely". So what is the nature and extent of your reading on this topic, Joseph? How much research have you actually done in the "bible scholarship" you speak of?

So you've looked at one commentary, and even then you've apparently only skimmed it. Is that correct? No others? More importantly, you've not surveyed the periodical literature? You've not done any work in NTA or in ATLA to see what's what with respect to how much or how little attention has been paid to the question of Mark's relation to Paul?

Not until you've checked to see if the (sometimes forced) parallels you see between Mark and 1 Thess. can or cannot also be found in Matthew and Luke, and for that matter in any other NT writing.

Jeffrey

Solitary Man

<edit for consistency>

Ted Hoffman

Maybe I should review Meier. But I don't want to be accused of reviewing junk pulp considering Marginal Jew is cloaked with an imprimatur. Hmm...

I however think Mark may have derived from tradition even though such tradition may have lacked any historical basis. And he may have actually believed in what he wrote, even if he may have embellished it.
spin writes in response to my question why he(Mark) would believe crap like 2000 pigs rushing to drown in the lake: "tradition":
IMHO, that thread is quite useful wrt the question of the stories being derived from tradition.