Amaleq13

Yes

Every source I've ever read on the subject, including those arguing for a different view, and every survey of the Synoptic Problem I have ever read acknowledges this to be the majority view.

What is your source to think otherwise?

Recognizing and relying upon the scholarly consensus does not require an assumption that the consensus is unquestionably correct.

I used that term because you apparently had not chosen words that accurately conveyed your position. That is "sloppy writing". This is clearly not true of my statement because what I wrote is what I meant. You are correct that a point has been missed but you have incorrectly identified the one doing the missing.

I was only asking for clarification of that specific statement but thanks, anyway.

It isn't about disagreement or you being mistaken but comprehensibility. The fact that several people do not understand what it is you are trying to argue should suggest to you that, contrary to your own perception, you are not expressing yourself clearly.

hatsoff

Two people, so far. I shouldn't have to spell everything out at a remedial level, but apparently it is required with some.

Tigers!

For the benefit of those of us not yet up with jargon and coded references could we have the following confirmed -

HJ = Human Jesus, not Hungry Jacks?
MJ = Mythical Jesus?
Since we are in a jargon mood how about another?
RJ = Real Jesus?:thumbs:

Amaleq13

FYI: Your insult is completely unwarranted and would have been edited had it been aimed at someone else but I'm happy to leave it since it clearly only reflects badly upon you.

I was entirely willing to drop this and move on but you just don't know when to quit. :banghead:

The other two BC&H moderators have also indicated they have had a hard time understanding your thinking from one post to another. Since numbers seem to matter to you, that brings the total up to four and they happen to be four people who have significant experience with a wide variety of arguments presented in this forum. In addition, I've personally spent the last 15 years making a living, in part, by evaluating the math, reading, and writing skills of high school students. I guess what I'm trying to say is that what I'm offering you is not exactly what you would call an uninformed opinion and that, at the very least, it would certainly be in your best interest to at least consider the possibility that you have not expressed yourself as well as you believe.

It has been my experience here that the members do not hesitate to speak up if they believe someone is being unfairly accused even when the accusation comes from a moderator. No one has felt compelled to leap to your defense so far but, if anyone reading this thread believes that hatsoff has been unfairly accused of being confusing, if not contradictory, in the discussion, please send a PM informing me of that opinion. I asked the other moderators for their opinion but maybe it is just a coincidence that we are all reading your posts the same confused way.

Amaleq13

Historical Jesus but I now I'm going to think Hungry Jacks whenever I see it.

Yes

Good luck identifying him.

hatsoff

It's no insult. I have articulated myself adequately, if not perfectly. That you misunderstood me is your fault. The only way I can be clearer is to treat the readers as if they were grade-schoolers. That you are not alone means nothing. Why can't you drop this issue and move on?

EDIT: By the way, I'm done with this line of discussion. You've made it personal, which ruins any enjoyment on my end. A few weeks from now, I think you should look back at this thread and assess your behavior.

Amaleq13

My brief response was probably obscured by the "confusion tangent" but I question whether a) we can assume the above parables and miracle stories would have been included in the logia Papias attributes to Matthew (especially given that he says it was written in Hebrew) b) it would be sufficient for Papias to conclude Mark was written out of order.

IIRC, Chris Weimer has argued that, while the word can extend beyond a collection of sayings that it is more likely a reference to just that.

I also mentioned that Papias' stated opinion with regard to the virtue of written texts versus oral tradition suggests to me that, contra Andrew's stated view, that it actually is more likely that he either had heard a different order of events from one of his disciples of the Disciples or disciples of the disciples of the Disciples (depending on what he actually meant). After thinking about it a bit, I think it might be even more likely that he is simply accepting the oral "tradition" that Mark was out of order quite possibly without ever having read Mark, himself, or having any factual basis for the claim.

In the end, I've agreed with hatsoff that this particular claim by Papias is unverifiable but it is clear, even from the comments of those arguing otherwise, that a prima facie case exists that he was not describing either canonical text.

Amaleq13

hatsoff,

12 hours and zero {0} PM's supporting your perception.

It is entirely rational to suggest that one person has misunderstood you. It becomes clearly less rational as the number increases.

Ben C Smith

Sorry, Julian. I missed this.

Here are the passages again for convenience. Justin, Apology 1.61.4-5:

Και γαÏ? ο ΧÏ?ιστος ειπεν· Αν μη αναγεννηθητε, ου μη εισελθητε εις την βασιλειαν των ουÏ?ανων. οτι δε και αδυνατον εις τας μητÏ?ας των τεκουσων τους απαξ γεννωμενους εμβηναι φανεÏ?ον πασιν εστι.

For Christ also said: Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of the heavens. But that those who have once been born are unable to enter into the maternal womb is apparent to all.

Compare with John 3.3-4:

Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born again one cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into the womb of his mother, can he?

Apology 2.6.3:

Ο δε υιος εκεινου, ο μονος λεγομενος κυÏ?ιως υιος, ο λογος Ï€Ï?ο των ποιηματων και συνων και γεννωμενος....

And his son, who alone is authoritatively called son, the word who also was with him and was begotten before the deeds....

Compare with the Johannine prologue.

You asked whether it was possible that Justin and John are relying on a common oral tradition. My answer? Sure, it is possible.

But is it probable? My problem with that is that the objection Nicodemus poses in John 3.4 seems thoroughly Johannine to me. Time after time in the fourth gospel Jesus uses a metaphor and his audience construes it too literally (refer to John 4.10-15 and John 6.51-52, for example). John 3.4 is just another example of this Johannine trend. So it looks more likely to me that Justin got it from John than that John conveniently found it in his oral tradition and added it to his repertoire of metaphors gone bad.

There are other connections between Justin and John, too. In Dialogue 88.7, for example, Justin has John protesting: I am not the Christ. Compare John 1.20. In Dialogue 97.3 Justin mentions the nails used for crucifixion. Compare John 20.25 (the synoptics do not mention the nails); of course, this particular detail could also just be a natural development, or could have come from the gospel of Peter (6.21).

Ben.

Julian

Hmm, checking John 3:3-4 using Westcott-Hort, I read the following:

3 απεκÏ?ιθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω αμην αμην λεγω σοι εαν μη τις γεννηθη ανωθεν ου δυναται ιδειν την βασιλειαν του θεου

4 λεγει Ï€Ï?ος αυτον [ο] νικοδημος πως δυναται ανθÏ?ωπος γεννηθηναι γεÏ?ων ων μη δυναται εις την κοιλιαν της μητÏ?ος αυτου δευτεÏ?ον εισελθειν και γεννηθηναι

They are stylistically quite different, even where word usage could reasonably be expected to have some overlap. In terms of structure and idea, I agree, they seem very similar.

I seem to reall that there are other Justin supposed gospel quotes. Sanders and Davies spoke of one that seemed like it was interleaved from Luke and Matthew, but my memory isn't the best. If I remember, I shall look it up. I remember feeling it was far-fetched and looking at the Greek above, I am beginning to wonder if Justin knew of another gospel, maybe something similar to John.

But now we are getting awy from my knowledge areas. Soon, however...

Julian