Disagreement about the whole idea of "tradition"

[Peter Kirby]

The Gospels were able to gain widespread adoption because they didn't run up against any meaningful existing traditions.

Not proven.

[Peter Kirby]

Secondly, it is definitive that the first Gospel, very close to the Gospel of Mark, was a pure fictional invention. These scenes are all concocted from scriptural references. The whole narrative is fabricated.

This is "definitively" not proven.

You're throwing rocks from a glass house here, Mr. Price. You constantly overstate your case.

[Peter Kirby]

split from here, where people might have wanted to discuss Litwa, etc.:

viewtopic.php?t=12193

[StephenGoranson]

rgprice wrote above, Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:14 am, in part:
"We can set Thomas aside for a moment. Not including Thomas, every other "Gospel" INCLUDES almost all of the Gospel of Mark."
~~~~~
I am not asking about the parts of Matthew and Luke that include Mark.
Rather I am asking about the parts of various gospels that do not repeat Mark.
Things that may well include traditions.

[rgprice]

rgprice wrote above, Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:14 am, in part:
"We can set Thomas aside for a moment. Not including Thomas, every other "Gospel" INCLUDES almost all of the Gospel of Mark."
~~~~~
I am not asking about the parts of Matthew and Luke that include Mark.
Rather I am asking about the parts of various gospels that do not repeat Mark.
Things that may well include traditions.

Provide examples.

Did you read what I said about how the narrative of Mark is entirely made up, so by adopting that narrative it shows that the person adopting the narrative has no knowledge of real information about Jesus.

[StephenGoranson]

I have read many of your (rgprice) writings.
I am not persuaded by you that "Mark is entirely made up."
Nor Matthew or Luke.
Oddly, while in 100% denial, you argue that Mark was made up of.....traditions.

[JarekS]

Tradition is an important factor influencing the level of acceptance of the message among recipients. Suppose you were inspired to formulate an interesting message. If you stand in person in front of an audience with this message, everything will depend on your interpersonal communication skills and your ability to establish contact with the audience. The audience will be largely focused on you and not on your message. The message will be assessed through the prism of your assessment.
But if you attribute your own message to someone else from the past and you say that you are a modest representative of tradition, only your message, attributed to someone else, will be assessed.
Whether the tradition is true or not does not matter. It is important that it is the best.

[StephenGoranson]

This tread was started by rgprice.
Therefore, JarekS, I am currently somewhat less interested in your worldview, which may be, what, (you can choose whichever properly apply or not), better, reductionist, skeptical, cynical, nihilistic, materialist, mercantile, obscurantist, incisive, brilliant, simplistic, irrelevant, incisive, amoral, over-riding, manipulative, disdainful, comic, best, or whatnot (?),
than in history-based observations on NT.

[JarekS]

History based observations on NT requires proper key. You are welcome

[MrMacSon]

Litwa, elsewhere, has said these texts were constantly changing in their early days, accruing accretions, and doing so in waves. He says they were variably but increasingly being edited in conjunction with each other: "the gospels are not stable entities: they are [like] waves [or] snowballs accruing tradition, [so] it is very difficult to pin down a stable tradition, and very difficult to pin down who exactly would be an author."

The Marcionite Evangelion captures but one step in one version of the eventual-Lukan trajectory.

I disagree about the whole idea of "tradition".

There was no tradition. The Gospels were innovations. New Gospels were invented to add new innovations. There isn't a single dammed tradition in any of them.

I want to emphasise here that I was talking about a long tradition of early text development: of innovative texts, albeit primitive ones. Which went on for a lot longer than most people imagine. Before the gospels became recognisable. Which I have elaborated on elsewhere.

I urge people to re-read this:

... these texts were constantly changing in their early days, accruing accretions, and doing so in waves ... they were variably but increasingly being edited in conjunction with each other: "the gospels are not stable entities: they are [like] waves [or] snowballs accruing tradition, [so] it is very difficult to pin down a stable tradition, and very difficult to pin down who exactly would be an author."

The Marcionite Evangelion captures but one step in one version of the eventual-Lukan trajectory.