Carrier And Mimesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:They all give priority to Peter.
Yes, that is very common. The urge to attribute canonical texts to apostles rather than just to followers of apostles was very strong. Nevertheless, when it comes time to name this particular gospel, they generally call it the "gospel according to Mark".
Sure, I had heard the term hearer of Peter, but I don't think I had ever seen a collection of texts that affirm Peter as the source for 'Mark' before.

It makes one wonder when the "gospel according to Mark" was really written, given Clement by Cassiodorus wrote
  • "Mark, follower of Peter (while Peter was preaching the gospel openly at Rome before certain Caesarean knights and proferring many testimonies of Christ) was petitioned by them that they might be able to commit what things were being said to memory"
It is not really known if Peter the disciple of Jesus was ever in Rome and, if he was, whether he really would have had access to Caesarean knights.
One wonders if these are references to a time period later than the mid-1st century, and thus reference to persons later than that
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote:Sure, I had heard the term hearer of Peter, but I don't think I had ever seen a collection of texts that affirm Peter as the source for 'Mark' before.
The trick is finding texts that mention the gospel of Mark without mentioning Peter as its ultimate source. Few seemed willing to let Mark stand on his own.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by MrMacSon »

I don't know how relevant this is, but I'll put it here -

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... vIFE-J97IV
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by outhouse »

MrMacSon wrote:
outhouse wrote: Christianity is the Hellenistic divorce of a perverted Proselyte Judaism, from the oppressed people who were real cultural Israelite Jews; viewed by Romans as rebellious trouble makers.
It's not as simple as the few premises implied by that sentence.

Yes, there had been Hellenism. Yes, there had been rebellion. Yes, there had been oppression.

But to say 'divorce, or imply "the oppressed people were real cultural Israelite Jews" is way too simplistic.

Yes, the stories that became part of the NT probably originated in regions where there were a lot of Jewish diaspora, but there is a lot more to it than the stuff that the outhouse excretes.
What I stated is a fact and not up for debate.

Simplistic is actually non sequitur, its what happened.


The reason you have so much trouble here is you have not followed a credible foundation in your own historical recreation of what you think happened in the past.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by Ulan »

The tiring aspect of discussions like the one in this thread is the "either... or" approach to ideas like MacDonald's. I have actually read MacDonald, though not completely, as I think he went quite a bit too far with his thesis. A better approach would have been to distill some of the strongest points out of this and make it a paper.

The base idea that most of the gospel writers (or writers of precursors of those gospels) were probably no native Greek speakers and learned Greek with help of Homer's writings looks to be a sound one by me. I'm not convinced when he illustrates direct equations of figures from Homer and the gospel. That does not mean that the story-spinning may not have been influenced by those Homeric stories, anyway. If you look at gospels as some kind of evolution of the pesher tradition we find in some Qumran texts, there may as well have been some influence from the literary Greek training involved. However, you cannot just leave out the plain imitation of the LXX that is visible in texts like Mark. Then again, even the LXX may have hellenistic influences.

I guess if MacDonald tones his suggestions down and distills a few stronger cases out of this, he may have a leg to stand on.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

MacDonald has indeed published some of the "stronger points" as papers.

You say you have a problem with the either-or approach but MacDonald is quite clear that his thesis is not an alternative to the influence of the LXX on the gospels but a "both-and" thesis. MacDonald has pointed out that both classical Roman and Greek authors as well as Jewish ones blended imitations from various texts into their new compositions.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by Ulan »

neilgodfrey wrote:MacDonald has indeed published some of the "stronger points" as papers.
Thanks. I should have searched for the papers, but didn't really do so after reading part of the book.
neilgodfrey wrote: You say you have a problem with the either-or approach...
I didn't mean MacDonald in this case, but the rather heated debate in this thread. For example, it doesn't make much sense to promote a hellenistic setting for the production of the gospels and act as if the works of Homer didn't exist.
neilgodfrey wrote:... but MacDonald is quite clear that his thesis is not an alternative to the influence of the LXX on the gospels but a "both-and" thesis. MacDonald has pointed out that both classical Roman and Greek authors as well as Jewish ones blended imitations from various texts into their new compositions.
Sure, but quite a few of his detail examples for Homeric elements seem a bit of a stretch. Maybe, the tale as a whole is a better candidate. If this kind of genre evolved from the pesher genre, it may have dropped most of the direct quotations in order to make it a consistent tale, and there the Homeric influence may come into play. I don't see much sense in equating Jesus' reluctance in his home town with that of Odysseus towards the suitors. Using formulaic descriptions for Paul's sea voyages is more like it.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: You say you have a problem with the either-or approach but MacDonald is quite clear that his thesis is not an alternative to the influence of the LXX on the gospels but a "both-and" thesis. MacDonald has pointed out that both classical Roman and Greek authors as well as Jewish ones blended imitations from various texts into their new compositions.
That is true Neil

But he over attributes the influence at the same time.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by outhouse »

Ulan wrote:The tiring aspect of discussions like the one in this thread is the "either... or" approach to ideas like MacDonald's. I have actually read MacDonald, though not completely, as I think he went quite a bit too far with his thesis. A better approach would have been to distill some of the strongest points out of this and make it a paper.

The base idea that most of the gospel writers (or writers of precursors of those gospels) were probably no native Greek speakers and learned Greek with help of Homer's writings looks to be a sound one by me. I'm not convinced when he illustrates direct equations of figures from Homer and the gospel. That does not mean that the story-spinning may not have been influenced by those Homeric stories, anyway. If you look at gospels as some kind of evolution of the pesher tradition we find in some Qumran texts, there may as well have been some influence from the literary Greek training involved. However, you cannot just leave out the plain imitation of the LXX that is visible in texts like Mark. Then again, even the LXX may have hellenistic influences.

I guess if MacDonald tones his suggestions down and distills a few stronger cases out of this, he may have a leg to stand on.

Agreed in full.

But if he tones it down he would disappear into where most scholars already lie in opinion.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Carrier And Mimesis

Post by Ulan »

outhouse wrote:Agreed in full.

But if he tones it down he would disappear into where most scholars already lie in opinion.
There would still be some examples left, like the one of Paul's sea travels in Acts, which has a bit more meat to it than many of the other comparisons.
Post Reply