Thank you very much for your reasoned responses.
mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:23 am
The first question I have for you involves Production: Do you believe that the NT (Mark) existed ONLY after Mark produced the Greek Version?
You make it appear as if we know of any other version. The Gospel that we know as such only became assigned to Mark in around 200 CE I believe,
Ahhh, but that is what is under consideration, isn't it? We are deducing that there is a Story behind what we have that was Transvalued into a New Religion. The Story is found in the Gospels and is reflected in other Sources such as Josephus and the Priestly Organizational Rituals. We follow Mark's version of "The Squall" and then flip a few pages back to Matthew where Peter asks Jesus, ""Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water..." "These are the same Story!" we say. Over and over in fact, as we mine the data for a consistent Flow.
That is, if we posited an Ur-Mark which had untranslated Aramaicisms and Aramaic Passages, would you consider that NOT to be a "NT Book of Mark"?
I couldn't possibly, given the timelines above.
This appears to point to our main areas of disagreements. One of the P-Fragments for John gets dated to around 125 and Mark appears to me to no earlier than 110 and prolly not much later. BTW, Raskin's book is Christs and Christianities
with the plurals having a big role in his Thesis Expansion. Not much disagreements here actually except in the Time-Lines again.
If one assumes a writing in a language like that they clearly precedes what we have know, the labels world be meaningless. Would I consider it to be closer to "real events" than Mark? Certainly, that conclusion would be unavoidable, would it not?
Agreed. I'm no Greekie but the Author of Mark had an uncommon knowledge of certain aspects of Judean Life, especially around the Temple Apparatus. *IF* Mark was written originally in Greek there are few enough who could have written it. Nicholas of Damascus, for one. or someone who wrote an "Outline" and had a Zakkai fill in the blanks. Even so, this Nic-O-D'ms doesn't know everything about Temple Life - or Hebrew or Aramaic for that fact.
(I note that Fr. Fitzmyer considers Mark encumbered with "Unessential Detail" ("...couches spread all around..., etc.) that I find absolutely essential to understanding Mark. These "Details" make sense with a Background of an Aramaic Ground-Story. Less so in a Greek story of a savior-god.)
Like his dress in the Transfiguration scene being whiter than any whool-maker could make? Indeed
This may be, on closer inspection, another Latinism Footnote. The Toga, symbol of the Roman Senate, was woolen. Thank you for this. Something for me to study with the other "Toga Material".
...the translation of his Aramaic in his final moment...
This is one of THE
Main Disagreements! The Aramaicists argue that the "Correct" Translation of this is, "My God, my God, for this was I spared
?!??..." This makes ZERO sense to many, even to many Aramaicists. If, however, there was an Aramaic/Hebrew/Written-by-a-Nicholas-of-Damascus background Story, it makes PERFECT SENSE.
Do you reject such Translations as Looney-Tunes Fringe Work?
My only point is the very fact that it gets translated: Mark was writing for an audience that didn't understand Aramaic
This, however, goes beyond Translation and writing FOR an audience. A mis-translation of this magnitude goes to Intention.
If, extremely unlikely as it is, there ever was indeed such a source, then only Mark held it, greatly screwed it up in translation, and everyone else copied from him
I disagree here. John has this "Jesus" character as the Human Passover Lamb in a reinstatement of human sacrifice. Judaic Culture would never accept that and it is in John 11+ that the rationale is given - the corrupt High Priest nonetheless has the Power of Prophecy and he states that if the Culture doesn't accept this human sacrifice, the Romans will step in and destroy the Country and the Temple, which they did anyway.
Which brings in the Book of John. Jay Raskin argues that Mark and John came from a Common Source (I agree). I would be very interested in your Views on John.
John and Thomas are two of a kind. John is beautiful, spiritual, a poet. He fakes the baptism of Jesus, relieves Judas from any and all guilt and culpitry, and even elevates him by turning the Last Supper scene into the first dinner between Boaz and Ruth
John is, as you assert for your Thesis on the Assembly of the NT, many, many collections of disparate pieces, which leads to what I assert just below:
This is what we have been doing all these years... In fact, I'll plug Howrd M. Teeple's Literary Origins of the Book of John again. Quite reasonable. Quite entertaining. Quite EXPLANATORY.
Teeple finds at least 5 Authors used in the construction of John, each with a different Viewpoint and, more importantly, a different writing style. "Poetic" it may be but there were most certainly severe disagreements in the Construction. The "Empty Tomb" Motif argues for the same.
Luke 2: 36 - 37 (RSV):
 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
 and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
People have been reading this for 2000 years and the "Secret" hasn't been "Given Away" to common knowledge yet. Why not? This is where I agree with you somewhat. There is a reason that this is not generally known, however... Which leads to the first question I ask just above.
All I am saying here is that there is a "Two Verse Story" and it is one of many, in agreement with you. Our job is then to tease out the Original. Here, that Original is to be seen as Queen Salome (not Alexandra), wife of Jannaeus. YMMV, but...
But Luke was meant to address the Thomas / Marcion supporters. Perhaps that verse made sense to the latter - certainly not the former
I defer to your greater knowledge.
Thanx again mlinssen