The genre of the gospels.

[outhouse]

.This hypothesis predicts that there would be an interest in demonstrating the authority of a particular "true" tradition against emerging rival or corrupt variants.

"True" has nothing to do with it. And the traditions evolved and were still evolving. Since the rhetorical prose was to build authority in the author and the body of the message, they had quite the artistic freedom to use mythology in theology as a vehicle to carry said traditions that were important to a specific community.

Either way. With the fall of the temple, the way Jewish theology was practiced and shared had factually changed forever. And in origin Christianity factually evolved from Judaism meaning at one point the movement was completely Jewish in nature.

We know from the broader literature of the day, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that authors who sought to demonstrate the authority of the claims they were making in a historical or biographical work would make it clear what their sources were.

Agreed, but it was not theology. And even historians from this time period, such as Josephus, we know we have to look at it through a biased lens.

So what we draw on for parallels in creation is the text of Judaism, and in such the sources took a back seat to theological motives, because the source was supernatural in origin.

1. The pre-Markan writings (Paul's letters) do not indicate any interest in verifying one tradition over any other.

How can you say that?

Paul is all about fighting traditions that were holding Judaism laws much tighter then other Hellenist. Paul is all about in context wanting to be a real apostle and building authority so Gentiles could join without being looked at as a rebellious Jew having to follow all those pesky customs.

I don't follow the apologetic Jerusalem church, I think there was a house in Jerusalem that held on to Hellenistic Judaism while finding Value in the Jesus theology, and due to the geographic location the Jewish laws were still important to them.

But these traditions were a direct conflict with Paul.

2. Bauckham notwithstanding, the Gospel of Mark lacks all of the standard indications used by contemporary authors to assure readers of the authenticity of its narrative and the inauthenticity of variants.

Yet the rhetorical prose is still there. There were no inauthentic variants at that time since by all rights it was a compilation of previous traditions that was unique in its day.

Because so many people actually believed many aspects of Judaism by itself, it did not need to get into authenticity of its narrative because it was based on the text of Judaism.


These are not excuses they are facts that are tied to why.

3. Subsequent evangelists did not consider Mark authoritative as we know from the way they chose to re-write significant sections of it. The changes they introduced are most simply explained as an interest in taking a different theological perspective. Again there is no standard indicator of authenticity supplied to the readers. Luke's prologue is anonymous and vague and is not comparable to any other prologue serious about establishing authenticity. Anyone could say anonymous eyewitnesses and sources verify their account.

Explained by wide range of diversity in a factually evolving theology.

And when you had later authors who literally copied its text and mirrored the theology at a much later date then origin you will get evangelists that would not consider Mark authoritative.


Matthew was the primary gospel before orthodoxy due to popularity alone

4. The sources of many episodes in Mark's gospel can be simply explained as derived from other literary sources (e.g. OT, Paul)

Lets not forget the most important knowledge, other literary sources that were unknown to us, as well as oral traditions.

It is not dependent on Paul as much as the OT text. We could say Mark may not have that much Pauline influence if any.


It could be reactionary in nature as Paul was not well known in the beginning, nor liked by many. Mark had much more acceptance then Paul did.

Now knowing the movement was widespread in the Diaspora, with no orthodoxy, and nothing indicates Paul was the only theology using Jesus. Instead we see Paul himself telling us of other teachers and traditions and good news being spread. And no good reason to discount this.

What other predictions can be derived from the hypothesis?

Dating. The most reasonable explanation is that the date most attribute, lines up exactly with the importance to create such a gospel. It also shows a specific time point in the evolution of theology away from Judaism, while still holding much of Judaism tightly. Mark captures a point in time not in the movements birth, but when Hellenist we already divorcing Judaism.

At this exact date, the way Judaism was practiced changed forever, changes in worship factually changed. Since this new movement had a foundation in Judaism, its method of oral and literary transmission at a big drunken BBQ in one of the most epic buildings in its time, also changed dramatically.

[neilgodfrey]

Starting from a ritual perspective, that Christ is risen at dawn following eating and drinking of his body and blood, and Paul is somehow the high priest of all this, it is actually a very clear and simple message that is easily tied back into the existing traditions.

I think there are fewer hypotheticals if we start from the text as is and nothing more except other texts or hard concrete/paper evidence with which to compare it.

[neilgodfrey]

.This hypothesis predicts that there would be an interest in demonstrating the authority of a particular "true" tradition against emerging rival or corrupt variants.

"True" has nothing to do with it. And the traditions evolved and were still evolving. Since the rhetorical prose was to build authority in the author and the body of the message, they had quite the artistic freedom to use mythology in theology as a vehicle to carry said traditions that were important to a specific community.

Notice the scare-quotes around "true". They have a meaning. I simply meant the same thing you meant when you said there was an intent to preserve what the author considered to be the tradition against corrupt rivals.

We know from the broader literature of the day, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that authors who sought to demonstrate the authority of the claims they were making in a historical or biographical work would make it clear what their sources were.

Agreed, but it was not theology. And even historians from this time period, such as Josephus, we know we have to look at it through a biased lens.

So what we draw on for parallels in creation is the text of Judaism, and in such the sources took a back seat to theological motives, because the source was supernatural in origin.

You are making assertions without supporting tested evidence. My comment explicitly included Jewish texts -- that is Josephus and Judaism writings. Jewish theological writings cited their sources for authentication. Often it was a direct vision from God, or a servant of God who had a vision. Even the writings of Kings and Chronicles direct readers to other documents where more details are recorded, however spurious. The author of the Gospel of Mark claims no comparable source at all. Nothing. Zilch.

1. The pre-Markan writings (Paul's letters) do not indicate any interest in verifying one tradition over any other.

How can you say that?

Paul is all about fighting traditions that were holding Judaism laws much tighter then other Hellenist. Paul is all about in context wanting to be a real apostle and building authority so Gentiles could join without being looked at as a rebellious Jew having to follow all those pesky customs.

I don't follow the apologetic Jerusalem church, I think there was a house in Jerusalem that held on to Hellenistic Judaism while finding Value in the Jesus theology, and due to the geographic location the Jewish laws were still important to them.

But these traditions were a direct conflict with Paul.

I made it clear, I thought, that I was referring to the sorts of traditions we find in the Gospel of Mark -- which was the whole point of your argument. Paul nowhere fights for any particular tradition and against a particular tradition that we find in the narrative gospel. His disputes are over authority and visions. and miracles and signs and that he and others experience. They are over circumcision, the law. There is not a single narrative tradition in Mark that explicitly concerned Paul in any of his disputes.

That's enough -- if you can't accept the above it is pointless going any further.

[outhouse]

Jewish theological writings cited their sources for authentication

.

The people who wrote the NT were not Jewish, they were divorcing it.

Nothing was ever written to support Moses, Abraham, Davidic lineage, Noah, ONLY the messages they are said to receive we know are divine authority in their eyes.

The divine authority the NT relied on. Fiction and mythology. The only difference was the fictional characters of Judaism were written about hundreds or thousands of years in the past, as they created pseudo history to match theological needs.

Not what we see in the NT, they are writing about a figure decades before, in living lifetime, and placing him on the largest stage ever built in front of the largest crowds that ever gathered in one place. Using living characters from that exact time period that are now considered factual. Not all made up whole cloth like the Jewish mythology creating pseudo history.

[outhouse]

I was referring to the sorts of traditions we find in the Gospel of Mark --

.

These exact traditions existed by all rights during Pauls time in a primitive form regardless of Jesus historicity. But Paul was fighting groups using apostolic authority. So he was not going to act like one of Jesus followers who "claimed" to know him who were Proselytizing more traditional Jewish laws.

He ONLY had reason to deal with theology that was divorcing Judaism. IT was a balancing act to maintain OT authority and the laws. he had no reason to tell a history or even a pseudo history about a man, he never knew or met.

[Clive]

Does this count as a text quoting the words of rituals? How far can this be tracked back compared with Xian texts?

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer- ... npw12.aspx

[Clive]

Starting from a ritual perspective, that Christ is risen at dawn following eating and drinking of his body and blood, and Paul is somehow the high priest of all this, it is actually a very clear and simple message that is easily tied back into the existing traditions.

I think there are fewer hypotheticals if we start from the text as is and nothing more except other texts or hard concrete/paper evidence with which to compare it.

And I thought for example archaeology looks at all possible sources of evidence and constructs theories from what everything together seems to be saying

[neilgodfrey]

Jewish theological writings cited their sources for authentication

.

The people who wrote the NT were not Jewish, they were divorcing it.

It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. You say X and when I respond to X you imply you really meant Y. You do not give any benefit of the doubt that someone engaging with your comments actually did understand what you wrote and won't allow yourself to interpret their words accordingly.

You slip and change around the meanings of words -- you speak of Jewish as well as other texts and when I speak of Jewish writings in response you just do a switch and talk about Jewish people writing the NT when that is clearly quite a different meaning from what we were addressing in the first place.

A waste of time trying to discuss your comments.

[neilgodfrey]

Starting from a ritual perspective, that Christ is risen at dawn following eating and drinking of his body and blood, and Paul is somehow the high priest of all this, it is actually a very clear and simple message that is easily tied back into the existing traditions.

I think there are fewer hypotheticals if we start from the text as is and nothing more except other texts or hard concrete/paper evidence with which to compare it.

And I thought for example archaeology looks at all possible sources of evidence and constructs theories from what everything together seems to be saying

It does. I have no idea what evidence in the link you provide in the previous comment or in the field of archaeology you could possibly find that leads you to your hypothesis. Huge huge gaps there that I certainly can't join.

[outhouse]

[ You say X and when I respond to X you imply you really meant Y.

.

These are dynamic statements being discussed that are multi faceted. And in my opinion context is key. While I cannot steer you to how I see the context, I can try and get you to realize there is a foundation here and I am building on, and in no way stating Y as you put it.

I don't agree with your question/statements, I find them easy to refute. I also do not agree that Jewish theological writings always cited their sources for authentication. Maybe I just do not see the examples you state exist?

There is not a single narrative tradition in Mark that explicitly concerned Paul in any of his disputes.

Was not important to later authors decades after Paul who had to reinvent how they shared their theological information.


These were oral people.

The temple was still standing

None of the gospel authors claimed to be an apostle like Paul, they were not interested in getting gentiles accepted, that war was long over by the time of the gospels. They were the gentiles/Proselytes now saving important traditions they could no longer share at Passover.

That's enough -- if you can't accept the above it is pointless going any further.

I would simple say, I agree to disagree.

It is pointless because I keep refuted your claims with easy solutions that are more plausible then not, when applied to the context this religion was born from.


SOMETHING that has not been done here. We need ground rules we can ALL agree to if anything productive can be discussed. So often mythicist and agnostics and Historist "so to speak" are talking over each other, WHILE EACH has different conclusions about the questions below, which makes any attempt at discussing history a complete failure.

Outside members who are difficult and would not agree that 2 + 2 = 4, I think the higher end members here should have a definition of what is and is not historical here.

Pauls communities wrote in the mid 50's Y/N ?

Gospels started with the fall of the temple, and were written for another 40-50 years. Y/N?

There was no center of origin, we see widespread origins all over the Diaspora. Y/N?

Hellenist in the Diaspora are responsible for all of the NT text. Y/N ?

Early first century origin from the would be Christian movement. Y/N?



ect ect


We really need to discuss decades and find out if we can have common ground on the evolution of Christianity, especially if one was trying to develop an alternative hypothesis for the origins of the divorce of Judaism in the Diaspora.

30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
50-80
80-90
90-100