Metacrock is still apologizing...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Sat May 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The internal evidence alone excludes any possibility of eyewitness testimony.
nonsense. nothing of the kind. that's silly.
They don't claim to come from witnesses. they are riddled with historical anachronisms and errors, they are clearly post-70 (no matter what Roger says, he knows the scholarship is not with him on this),
BS! prove it! show me some documentation on anachronisms? Even so that's not proof that it's not based upon eye witness testimony. they don't have to claim that it does, they all knew what the writing was, the distillation of their oral tradition.


they are written in educated Greek (even Mark. His Greek may superficially appear to be casual and crude, but his chiastic structures indicate formal training).
BS. my professor called them illiterate. you are imagining your so called chiastic structure.

Mark can be shown to be sometimes re-writing Septuagint narratives (see Randel Helms Gospel Fictions for an excellent demonstration of this via key words and phrasings which parallel the LXX in Greek). Matthew copies Mark. Luke is obviously very late.
why do you guys persist in making these silly mistakes? that is not any of kind of proof. they were a culture that was really oriented around their sacred book. anything to do with God they wanted to compare and tell it in terms re told the structure of the sacred book. so that they do that is not just any kind of proof that it's based upon a real event.

I have done that with my own life. I have a wonderful garden like childhood, an evil serpent caused us to move, and we were cast out of the beautiful garden and my life went to pot as I grew up. So that was impossed from my own fundie background, but it happened.

The most I'd be willing to concede plausibility is that the Logia described by Papias could have been an ur-Q Gospel of some sort - an Aramaic or Hebrew sayings Gospel similar to Thomas which by some tradition or rumor had been attributed to Matthew, later been translated into Greek (although an Aramaic or Hebrew origin for Q would be hard to prove) then combined with Mark's narrative.
It's obviously a saying source because that's what Logia means. Then there's no reason why his logia can't form the basis of the version of the Gospel we have now.

Mark as a secretary of Peter is simply untenable - it makes no such claim on its own behalf, it is filled with geographical and legal mistakes that could not have come from a witness,
that's wrong. I've seen those so called geographical mistakes exploded.

it clearly draws on the Old Testament for story material,

they all did it.I tel my life story in relation to Genesis. I did for years before a friend pointed it out to me. does not prove a damn thing.

it does not show any features of being a memoir, moreover it describes scenes that Peter, even according to GMark itself, did not witness. How did the trial before the Sanhedrin come from a memory of Peter? He wasn't there. Nobody was there but Jesus and the priests. How did Peter know what Jesus prayed at Gethsemane? How did he even know about the empty tomb, when Mark says the women didn't tell anybody?
that's beause it's not a memoir. what features would you expect. 18th century one's of cousre.

In my opinion, the only parts of Mark that seem like they could have come from authentic memoirs are some of the Gailean healing stories, they contain Aramaisms, they are not gaudy, they at least have some tenor of remembered legend to them as opposed to de novo fiction, which I think a lot of Mark is.

Papias never indicates knowledge of the Canonical Gospels and doesn't quote them. He describes two books which later church fathers only guessed were Canonical Mark and Matthew.[/quote]


On authorship, evidence for Peterian backing:


*Most of the Gospel is set in Galilee.

Neil and Write indicate that Galilee is for Mark the world of goodness where honest people seek God, Judea is the world of hate into which the Savior goes to seek and save the lost. Of course Papias the second century church historian tells us that Peter gave Mark the material in his gospel and Mark wrote it out of order (see Koester). Peter was from Galilee as was Jesus. Thus the world of Galilee is pictured as the good realm and most of the reminiscences are set there.

*Geogrphical data accruate.

Koster points out that when the redactor sticks to his sources the information about Galilee and Palestine is fairly accurate. Peter would know Palestine and we should expect that his reminiscences would be fairly accurate.

*Underlying Aramic Statua

There is strata of Aramaic words underlying the Greek of Mark. Peter needed Mark as an interpreter and would have spoken Aramaic in relating his memories of Christ.

*single source passion narrative.

The Passion Narrative is taken from a single source shared by all four canonical and the Gospel of Peter. Why would one preliminary source be so influential that it would inspire and be used by all the major redactors of Gospels? Because it was from a very authoritative source.

Community as Author?

Thus it is a possibility that Mark's account of Peter's reminiscences stands behind the actual redacted gospel that bares his name. But that is only speculation and cannot be proven. What can be proven is that earlier material stands behind the account. Koster and Crosson both see the Passion narrative as coming from the earlier period, probably the middle of the century. Thus we can assume that the community is the author and that the material used has a certain historical validity as it would be produced by a community containing many eye witnesses.

"We are thus brought back to the earliest stage of the formation of the Gospel tradition. Originally the episodes and the accompanying, circulated singly among the believers. At a very early date some of the single traditions may have coalesced, through similarity of subjection or verbal correspondence. For the most part this tradition is oral--the stories pass from mouth to mouth; but quite soon after the death of Jesus the first steps may have been taken. It is not difficult to imagine how self-contained units of Christian teaching came to be hammered out, first orally than witten flysheets or tracts--often in several differing though related shapes, occurring to the contexts in which they were used.When therefore John Mark (for example) sharpened his reed pen and dipped it in ink to write, he had already behind him a considerable tradition of Christian speaking and writing. by Peter and many others--recognized patterns of argument and exhortation, of defense and attack,ofinstruction and challenge--from among which me might select his material and sayings. The earliest Christian writers were probably heirs to an already considerable body of tradition.'

"To what do we owe the preservation of these stories? There can be only one answer, the belong to the history of the community and particularly to its character as a worshiping community."(Neil p.239 quoting C.F.D. Moule).




That this was an effective means of passion on accurate information is clear. There are not a vast plethora of differing Christ legends from the first century. There are not counter traditions which have Jesus dying in other cities, in other ways, or not at all. There are not counter gospels with Jesus not claiming to be the son of God, or setting the action in far off places, change the principle characters. Jesus is always sounded by the 12 Apostles, he is always crucified, and in Jerusalem, and raises form the dead after three days, and so on. The communities that first told the stories would have been filled with eye witnesses and probably told the stories with the witnesses in attendance and probably as the featured story tellers. The stories were set in stone at least in so far as their basic details and passed along in a form that was set from the beginning. This is probably because the whole community saw what happened. The whole community knew that Jesus rose from the dead and told the story and just 19 years latter when the "cross Gospel" or the Passion narrative were written down there were plenty of eye witnesses to keep them stairght. Thus the community may well be the true author of Mark and the community probably did a good job.


in terms of the so called geographical problems sounds like Randel Helm.We should not expect to find that the material is arranged in such a manner as to form a history book. While the mistakes in geography and other aspects of Palestinian Jewish life do indicate that the author is not Jewish, there is also an indication that the "author" is really a redactor. It is not the original source of the material that is not Jewish but the redactor who put it in its present form probably in Syria around A.D. 70. But a much older layer of material stands behind this surface reading, a layer of historical material which does link the Gospel of Mark with he original events and may actually link the work with its namesake and with Peter's Testimony.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Sat May 10, 2014 2:00 pm

Andrew wrote:
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:[...]How did Peter know what Jesus prayed at Gethsemane?[...]
That isn't hard to figure out. If Jesus prayed aloud, as at least one of the gospels tells us (and that isn't too hard to believe, even though I don't believe GMark specifically mentions that), then it isn't hard to see how the disciples could have heard what Jesus said before they fell asleep. It isn't as if we have a lengthy prayer. Jesus supposedly prayed for an hour before coming back to the sleeping disciples, yet we only have a couple lines of prayer. Thus, they could easily have heard the beginning of the prayer, but not the rest. This is a non-issue. The rest of your post asks reasonable questions which are not so easily answered.

that's the kind of issue that is only a real problem if you are an inerrantist. If you are not a fundie and you don't need to support incoherency then you say "so what?" really come on so what if there is a case where some aspect is wrong. big deal. that is not important. that's not disproving the whole Gospel. So the redactor used poetic license? he's basing it on the teachings of the community which came form the Apostles. so what?
Last edited by Metacrock on Sun May 11, 2014 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2844
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat May 10, 2014 2:23 pm

Luke is obviously very late.
I don't think so. Actually, I am sure it is not.
See that blog post of mine for explanations:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p66.htm

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Diogenes the Cynic » Sat May 10, 2014 2:28 pm

Peter was supposed to have been asleep.

Who witnessed the trial before the Sanhedrin? Who witnessed the temptations?

Mark has a third person omniscient narration throughout his Gospel.

Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Andrew » Sat May 10, 2014 3:57 pm

Peter could easily have heard a few words of Jesus' prayer before he fell asleep. Just because he was asleep when Jesus returned doesn't mean he fell asleep instantaneously when Jesus left him. It probably took him a few minutes to doze off. Since Jesus asked him to stay awake with him, he probably made an effort to do so, and was able to stay awake for at least a little while.

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3067
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by neilgodfrey » Sat May 10, 2014 4:13 pm

Andrew wrote:Peter could easily have heard a few words of Jesus' prayer before he fell asleep. Just because he was asleep when Jesus returned doesn't mean he fell asleep instantaneously when Jesus left him. It probably took him a few minutes to doze off. Since Jesus asked him to stay awake with him, he probably made an effort to do so, and was able to stay awake for at least a little while.
All of this is quite true. But it is not how the story is told. The story as told does not make sense. If we want sense we must begin with the story as a framework and then add what we need to add to make it believable.

One can accept the occasional lapse like this with a bad author. But when the first gospel itself (Mark) is riddled with such details that do not make sense (so that the reader is having to re-imagine a quite different story from the one that is told to have a story that "makes sense"), then we are entitled to look for a simpler explanation and one that accepts the story as it is written.

We find the story as it is written does "make sense" when interpreted as symbolic or parabolic.

Then sleeping disciples have a symbolic meaning for the reader (they had been warned in an earlier chapter not to fall asleep at a critical hour).

The author is not writing a story that was never meant to make natural every-day sense. The author is writing a theological narrative filled with symbolic meanings.

To try to rewrite the story to "make sense" is to destroy the original function of the story and the whole point that the author was hoping to convey.

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Sun May 11, 2014 7:10 am

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Peter was supposed to have been asleep.

Who witnessed the trial before the Sanhedrin? Who witnessed the temptations?

Mark has a third person omniscient narration throughout his Gospel.
He probably had allies in the Sanhedrin. A lot of think Joesph of Aremathia was an alley. Although Ray Brown didn't think so. the temptations, I've already dealt with this.

(1) I'm not an interrantist. so it's ok if its poetic license.

(2) he could have been praying aloud and heard him they weren't totally asleep yet.

when I was a little kid I would ask that sort of thing my mother would say "the Holy spirit filled them in latter." that's only necessary if you think every word has to be exactly historical. I don't think that.

as for third person omniscient narration that's the preferred method of the ancinet world. there is some first person narrative but not that much.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Sun May 11, 2014 7:14 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Andrew wrote:Peter could easily have heard a few words of Jesus' prayer before he fell asleep. Just because he was asleep when Jesus returned doesn't mean he fell asleep instantaneously when Jesus left him. It probably took him a few minutes to doze off. Since Jesus asked him to stay awake with him, he probably made an effort to do so, and was able to stay awake for at least a little while.
All of this is quite true. But it is not how the story is told. The story as told does not make sense. If we want sense we must begin with the story as a framework and then add what we need to add to make it believable.

One can accept the occasional lapse like this with a bad author. But when the first gospel itself (Mark) is riddled with such details that do not make sense (so that the reader is having to re-imagine a quite different story from the one that is told to have a story that "makes sense"), then we are entitled to look for a simpler explanation and one that accepts the story as it is written.

We find the story as it is written does "make sense" when interpreted as symbolic or parabolic.

Then sleeping disciples have a symbolic meaning for the reader (they had been warned in an earlier chapter not to fall asleep at a critical hour).

The author is not writing a story that was never meant to make natural every-day sense. The author is writing a theological narrative filled with symbolic meanings.

To try to rewrite the story to "make sense" is to destroy the original function of the story and the whole point that the author was hoping to convey.

It's pretty well estabilshed by Baultmann and moderns have claimed to bear it out in "studies," that setting the events into oral tradition re shaped them into a form that was dsited for oral presentation,the pericope. Those are little independent units of story: the feeding of the five thousand (loaves and fishes) healing of a blind man, the walking through wheat fields, each event is stup up in a little bubble of its' own and can be isolated as story.

then written form just collects the stories and arranges them in some order. All driven by the need for oral presentation.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3067
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by neilgodfrey » Sun May 11, 2014 1:07 pm

Metacrock wrote: It's pretty well estabilshed by Baultmann and moderns have claimed to bear it out in "studies," that setting the events into oral tradition re shaped them into a form that was dsited for oral presentation,the pericope. Those are little independent units of story: the feeding of the five thousand (loaves and fishes) healing of a blind man, the walking through wheat fields, each event is stup up in a little bubble of its' own and can be isolated as story.

then written form just collects the stories and arranges them in some order. All driven by the need for oral presentation.
No, not so. This is an assumption and a misunderstanding about what Bultmann and others have concluded.

Form criticism has shown the way certain passages have passed through different stages, but "oral tradition" is their working assumption, not their conclusion.

Many attempts have been made to demonstrate the the legacies of oral tradition in the synoptic gospels through studies of orality in the Balkans, Africa, ancient and Nordic bards, -- Ong and references to Vansina in particular come to mind.

But as Barry W. Henaut amply demonstrates in depth in Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 few of these oral devices are unique to pre- or non-literate narratives and all the oral-devices in the gospels. Since Hellenistic-Roman era written works were composed to be read aloud it is not surprising that we find the same oral features as part of texts that clearly had written origins.

Moreover, we do have clear evidence that significant sections of the gospel narratives were borrowed and reworked from other literary texts.

Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Diogenes the Cynic » Sun May 11, 2014 1:30 pm

Metacrock wrote:He probably had allies in the Sanhedrin. A lot of think Joesph of Aremathia was an alley. Although Ray Brown didn't think so.
Then why does Mark say the whole Sanhedrin voted to convict Jesus? Some allies.
(as for third person omniscient narration that's the preferred method of the ancinet world. there is some first person narrative but not that much.
This is not true at all for histories. They name their sources and the historians identify themselves.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Charles Wilson, Google [Bot], Iphigeneia, JoeWallack, Kapyong, lsayre, MrMacSon, Peter Kirby, Steven Avery, Thor and 65 guests