Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7632
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by MrMacSon »

klewis wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:39 pm ... That is the same for the Gospels not copying Paul's writings into them but deriving the life of Jesus from OT sources
The Gospel authors may not have [outright] copied Paul's writings into them, but there's plenty of scholars who think Mark used Paul: there are several books arguing that proposition
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3957
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by Bernard Muller »

http://historical-jesus.info/66.html
Did "Mark" know about Paul's epistles?

Cordially, Bernard
schillingklaus
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by schillingklaus »

Only Markan priorists like Dykstra would think so. Others know that the epistles are as much late forgeries as the gospels and that the connection is excessively more complicated than simpleton-minded scholars like Goodacre could ever imagine.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by mlinssen »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:22 pm http://historical-jesus.info/66.html
Did "Mark" know about Paul's epistles?

Cordially, Bernard
"Out of the four "revelations" in the Pauline epistles, two of them reappear, albeit considerably rewritten, in gMark (dated 70-71). That's remarkable and most likely not the product of chance."

ROFL

1 Corinthians 7:10 Τοῖς (To those) δὲ (now) γεγαμηκόσιν (having married) παραγγέλλω (I give this charge)— οὐκ (not) ἐγὼ (I), ἀλλὰ (but) ὁ (the) Κύριος (Lord)— γυναῖκα (A wife) ἀπὸ (from) ἀνδρὸς (a husband) μὴ (not) χωρισθῆναι (is to be separated)
11 ἐὰν (if) δὲ (however) καὶ (indeed) χωρισθῇ (she is separated), μενέτω (let her remain) ἄγαμος (unmarried), ἢ (or) τῷ (to the) ἀνδρὶ (husband) καταλλαγήτω (be reconciled); καὶ (and) ἄνδρα (a husband) γυναῖκα (a wife) μὴ (not) ἀφιέναι (is to send away).

Mark 10:11 καὶ (And) λέγει (He says) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Ὃς (Whoever) ἂν (-) ἀπολύσῃ (shall divorce) τὴν (the) γυναῖκα (wife) αὐτοῦ (of him), καὶ (and) γαμήσῃ (shall marry) ἄλλην (another), μοιχᾶται (commits adultery) ἐπ’ (against) αὐτήν (her).
12 καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) αὐτὴ (a woman), ἀπολύσασα (having divorced) τὸν (the) ἄνδρα (husband) αὐτῆς (of her), γαμήσῃ (should marry) ἄλλον (another), μοιχᾶται (she commits adultery).”

That's your first business case Bernard, from the Greek NT. I have highlighted the verbatim agreement in yellow.
I also tried to highlight the verbatim agreement in English that you emphasise, but then again you don't emphasise any of it - which is correct, as not even the English has any

1 Thessalonians 4:15 Τοῦτο (This) γὰρ (for) ὑμῖν (to you) λέγομεν (we declare) ἐν (in) λόγῳ (the word) Κυρίου (of the Lord), ὅτι (that) ἡμεῖς (we) οἱ (the) ζῶντες (living) οἱ (-) περιλειπόμενοι (remaining), εἰς (unto) τὴν (the) παρουσίαν (coming) τοῦ (of the) Κυρίου (Lord) οὐ (no) μὴ (not) φθάσωμεν (shall precede) τοὺς (those) κοιμηθέντας (having fallen asleep)
16 ὅτι (because) αὐτὸς (Himself) ὁ (the) Κύριος (Lord) ἐν (with) κελεύσματι (a loud command), ἐν (with) φωνῇ (the voice) ἀρχαγγέλου (of an archangel), καὶ (and) ἐν (with) σάλπιγγι (the trumpet) Θεοῦ (of God), καταβήσεται (will descend) ἀπ’ (from) οὐρανοῦ (heaven), καὶ (and) οἱ (the) νεκροὶ (dead) ἐν (in) Χριστῷ (Christ) ἀναστήσονται (will rise) πρῶτον (first).
17 ἔπειτα (Then) ἡμεῖς (we) οἱ (the) ζῶντες (living) οἱ (-) περιλειπόμενοι (remaining), ἅμα (together) σὺν (with) αὐτοῖς (them), ἁρπαγησόμεθα (will be caught away) ἐν (in) νεφέλαις (the clouds) εἰς (for) ἀπάντησιν (the meeting) τοῦ (of the) Κυρίου (Lord) εἰς (in) ἀέρα (the air); καὶ (and) οὕτως (so) πάντοτε (always) σὺν (with) Κυρίῳ (the Lord) ἐσόμεθα (we will be).

Mark 13:26 Καὶ (And) τότε (then) ὄψονται (will they see) τὸν (the) Υἱὸν (Son) τοῦ (-) ἀνθρώπου (of Man) ἐρχόμενον (coming) ἐν (in) νεφέλαις (the clouds), μετὰ (with) δυνάμεως (power) πολλῆς (great) καὶ (and) δόξης (glory)
27 καὶ (And) τότε (then) ἀποστελεῖ (He will send) τοὺς (the) ἀγγέλους (angels), καὶ (and) ἐπισυνάξει (will gather together) τοὺς (the) ἐκλεκτοὺς (elect) αὐτοῦ (of Him), ἐκ (from) τῶν (the) τεσσάρων (four) ἀνέμων (winds), ἀπ’ (from the) ἄκρου (end) γῆς (of earth) ἕως (to the) ἄκρου (end) οὐρανοῦ (of heaven).

Likewise for your second business case out of a total of two that you use to demonstrate Markan dependence on Paul (or vice versa, of course - but you never think of that either, do you?)
Highly interesting how you present the Greek for the real verbatim agreement, which demonstrates that you have only 2 words for your entire claim. I'm glad to have helped and doubled the score there!

Ah well not too bad really, I guess, to have and to hold 1 preposition and 3 nouns that Mark and Paul have in common, and then to present that as Markan dependence on Paul.
Greek Mark consists of 11,112 words (https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/gnt/mar.htm) - and that ends at Mark 16:8 of course, so 4 out of 11,112 is...?

It's great fun to have you back bernard! So many solid and convincing cases for a historical Geewsus, marvellous
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by klewis »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:53 pm
klewis wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:39 pm ... That is the same for the Gospels not copying Paul's writings into them but deriving the life of Jesus from OT sources
The Gospel authors may not have [outright] copied Paul's writings into them, but there's plenty of scholars who think Mark used Paul: there are several books arguing that proposition
I agree with Mark using Paul. It is obvious that Mark is Pauline in discrediting the disciples, and Jesus' family. However, most of Jesus' life came from what little communicated in ways we do not know, and from what we know, and from the OT. In Matthew the whole nativity scene is nothing more than Moses' life found in Exodus chapter 1. The Matthew's temptation of Jesus is a parallel to Moses on Mount Sinai. Jesus being thrusted with a spear is nothing more than Zechariah 12:10 being added to pretend that a prophecy was fulfilled. Those are all texts from the Hebrew Bible reformulated into Jesus Life. I am just arguing that John was not as aggressive in the altering the texts as the gospel authors.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by mlinssen »

klewis wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:57 am
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:53 pm
klewis wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:39 pm ... That is the same for the Gospels not copying Paul's writings into them but deriving the life of Jesus from OT sources
The Gospel authors may not have [outright] copied Paul's writings into them, but there's plenty of scholars who think Mark used Paul: there are several books arguing that proposition
I agree with Mark using Paul. It is obvious that Mark is Pauline in discrediting the disciples, and Jesus' family.
Both have that from Thomas / Marcion. Tom Dykstra cleverly noticed that it is the outside that disqualifies the mother and brothers / sisters of Jesus, which is spot on.
Disciples? One can't but feel empathy and compassion for the poor losers in Thomas
However, most of Jesus' life came from what little communicated in ways we do not know, and from what we know, and from the OT.
The OT part comes from the Judaisers, the Romans, and is all fake yet aimed at rooting Chrestianity in Judaism
In Matthew the whole nativity scene is nothing more than Moses' life found in Exodus chapter 1. The Matthew's temptation of Jesus is a parallel to Moses on Mount Sinai. Jesus being thrusted with a spear is nothing more than Zechariah 12:10 being added to pretend that a prophecy was fulfilled. Those are all texts from the Hebrew Bible reformulated into Jesus Life. I am just arguing that John was not as aggressive in the altering the texts as the gospel authors.
John was heavily redacted just as Luke was - yet while we know that *Ev was the underlying source to Luke, we know nothing about John.
Mark is the first attempt to rewrite their story, Matthew fixes Mark - and redacted *Ev into Luke on the side. Check the order of Irenaeus: John, Luke, Matthew, Mark (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. III 11,8) - that blatantly evidently portrays a Christian setting where the two primary gospels of the movement are displayed with all honours while the Roman virus stealthily follows, also in order of importance

I follow James David Audlin for John, even though he is from another universe when compared to me

Last but not least: agreement doesn't dictate direction of dependence - why isn't Paul dependent on Mark in your eyes?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by mlinssen »

Irenaeus - Adv. haer. III 11,8

And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Also, all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; and also, The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

The order is evident and clear.
I challenge you to Google a fait bit and find one single website that does NOT present a summary of this story in the contemporary order: Matthew Mark Luke John
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3957
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to mlinssen,

You wrote:
Ah well not too bad really, I guess, to have and to hold 1 preposition and 3 nouns that Mark and Paul have in common, and then to present that as Markan dependence on Paul.
I wrote:
Out of the four "revelations" in the Pauline epistles, two of them reappear, albeit considerably rewritten, in gMark (dated 70-71). That's remarkable and most likely not the product of chance.
I did not make my cases (http://historical-jesus.info/66.html) on a few common words, but on the similarity of whole passages between Paul's epistles and gMark.
Why do you limit yourself on a few common words and then draw a conclusion (opposite mine)?

If you use (as I suspect) the same criteria to show that the Thomas logions are absolute priority over the NT, that would make your works worthless.

You wrote:
It's great fun to have you back bernard! So many solid and convincing cases for a historical Geewsus, marvellous
You made weak and unconvincing cases for the Thomas logions.

My own work on gThomas: http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html

Cordially Bernard
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3957
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Any thoughts on Tabor's view of a Jewish original Revelation?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to mlissen,
You wrote:
Irenaeus - Adv. haer. III 11,8 ... The order is evident and clear.
Irenaeus did not mean to issue an order. He simply started by gJohn, because mainly of the first segment, it was the "most complete", corresponding to beliefs of Gentile Christians then.

You wrote:
I challenge you to Google a fair bit and find one single website that does NOT present a summary of this story in the contemporary order: Matthew Mark Luke John
Who started that order? Probably the Muratorian canon, usually dated around 170 CE.
Why that order? My guess is to show a progression from the most Jewish to the least Jewish.

Anyway, now, the most accepted order is gMark, then gLuke & gMatthew, then gJohn.

Cordially, Bernard
Post Reply