Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Adam wrote:Your worship of The Consensus gains you no respect here in this forum.

No

I find the evidence compelling you ignore.

This isn't between me and you. NO ONE here at BC&H blithely accepts the Consensus uncritically like you do. Biblicists don't, Mythicists don't (so far unquestionable), but even your fellow historicists retain critical reserve about the Consensus. Even they expect you to cite some (ANY) authority for your ukases.

neilgodfrey wrote:
I cannot see where the author of the Gospel of Mark has made any effort to convince readers that what he has written is "the correct" form of the gospel tradition that needs to be guarded from other corruptions of it.

Comment?

Mark 1
(1:2) "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."
Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi (3:1, 4:1, 5). But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance.
The phrase "as it is written in the prophets" is not found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts which say, rather, "as it is written in Isaiah." Scribes made the change to correct the mistake of attributing the quotation to Isaiah, since the first part of the quote (v.2) is not from Isaiah, but from Ex.23:20 and Mal.3:1.1

(1:4) "John did baptize ... for the remission of sins."
Did Jesus sin?

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

First thing we see is attributing the text to parallel the Emperors divinity as "son of god" in 1-1

Then in the theology in these first few sentences that are all over the OT prophecy.


So my personal take is they are using the OT prophecy as authority for this new text. They used it as an extension of the OT text.

"the correct" form of the gospel tradition that needs to be guarded from other corruptions of it.

I don't think they guarded it.

I think they compiled the traditions important to said community, because the way they normally shared and practiced these new traditions, had changed forever.

By the community taking these traditions and compiling them, so they could be shared with other communities, was their way of preserving the important traditions, and obviously it worked based on how this work was plagiarized by later communities. It got around late first century, geographically speaking. Mark sets the ground work the other communities accepted almost in whole without question before Matthew became the most popular text.

The phrase "as it is written in the prophets" is not found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts which say, rather, "as it is written in Isaiah."

Adam wrote:This isn't between me and you. NO ONE here at BC&H blithely accepts the Consensus uncritically like you do. .

I'm sorry but that is desperate and not honest. I am very critical, and started this as a mythicist. I follow academia because they have the most reasonable hypothesis to date on the historicity of the movement.


Funny the most knowledgeable historist here agree with me almost verbatim.

WE take a minimal stance on what is historical, yet find enough evidence to flesh out a Galilean who was crucified. Basically a hair beyond the agnostic view, shared by the owner.


Now we love ya Adam, but you are on the apologetic side with no credibility at all in your hypothesis. WE however mirror academia for the most part.


So be careful using dishonest statements, regarding how a mixed bag of opinions might judge me.

outhouse wrote:

Adam wrote:This isn't between me and you. NO ONE here at BC&H blithely accepts the Consensus uncritically like you do. .

Funny the most knowledgeable historist here agree with me almost verbatim.

I'm confused by your grammar.
Is it "the most knowledgeable historist [sic?] here agrees with me almost verbatim."
and of course WHO is that one person?
Or is it
"the most knowledgeable historistS here agree with me almost verbatim."
And again, your list please.

neilgodfrey wrote:
When I read other ancient works of history or biography I very often find clear attempts to reassure readers that what they are reading is the true version.




Comment?

How would say the book of Daniel be different ?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/g ... /ch10.html

Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on" [1] reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them unwritten but unaltered.[1] In such circles it would be entirely natural to treat the earliest account of Jesus' deeds and words in just this way.

This is important in addressing my quotes of preservation.

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:
When I read other ancient works of history or biography I very often find clear attempts to reassure readers that what they are reading is the true version.




Comment?

How would say the book of Daniel be different ?

Daniel is an autobiographical apocalyptic like the Book of Revelation that is declaring new teachings about the future, not trying to preserve past traditions.

Daniel is written in the first person with the narrator declaring to readers his knowledge comes from visions sent by God. It is a story many take to be written for purposes of giving hope and encouragement to people facing persecution. There is no suggestion that the work is attempting to preserve traditions before they become completely corrupted and lost.

It is written for believers who are willing to believe the words are by Daniel and that he had real visions from God and angels. He is introducing entirely new teachings (prophecies) and is not trying to "preserve" past traditions against rival versions.

Do you still agree that if an author is wanting to preserve traditions that are threatened by corrupt variants that he will give readers clear reasons for believing his story is true and others are wrong?

neilgodfrey wrote:Do you still agree that if an author is wanting to preserve traditions that are threatened by corrupt variants that he will give readers clear reasons for believing his story is true and others are wrong?

Yes I do.

It is my opinion the gospel header rhetorically sets up the authority in Mark by use of the OT prophecy, from the get go.

To be clear on my context, preserving traditions was important but not the context the authors used as its sole purpose.


I would compliment you on your oral take of Daniel most would have to copy and paste, I know those things to be true, but cannot express myself that clearly.


I would also state that when Mark was produce by using the generally accepted attributed date of 70CE ish. It was important to save and compile the traditions so that it could be shared, since the way they were sharing information had forever changed. I also think since it was a compilation of standing traditions, much of the information was already well known in many communities to the point they did not have to sell the books authority as much as a stand alone piece. I have always viewed the passion to be an early textual source.

outhouse wrote: I would also state that when Mark was produce by using the generally accepted attributed date of 70CE ish. It was important to save and compile the traditions so that it could be shared, since the way they were sharing information had forever changed. I also think since it was a compilation of standing traditions, much of the information was already well known in many communities to the point they did not have to sell the books authority as much as a stand alone piece. I have always viewed the passion to be an early textual source.

Here I understand you are saying that the gospel of Mark was written in order to share well-known traditions more widely beyond Jerusalem after the destruction of 70 CE. I also understand you to be saying that the traditions were very well known so that there was no need to "sell the book's authority as much as a stand alone piece".

Did they need to sell the gospel of Mark's authority at all if what the gospel of Mark contained was well-known by many communities already? If there were a few who had wrong ideas wouldn't the majority simply be able to tell those few not to be silly and to accept what everyone knew to be the traditional story?

But if much of the information was already well known in many communities to the extent that it was not necessary to "sell the book's authority as much as a stand alone piece" then your original claim does not seem to be true after all.

Your original claim was:

The context of this gospel [i.e. the Gospel of Mark] was to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair.

That original claim suggested to me that the correct traditional narrative was in danger of being lost or perverted beyond repair. I understood that that meant that there were many competing variations of the correct tradition that the author of the gospel wanted to preserve.

But I think now you mean that there was no immediate danger of the correct tradition being lost because really many communities already widely knew it and shared it, but the real danger was that after 70 they would no longer come together to Jerusalem to keep reminding each other of this common tradition. So the gospel was written before variations became a real threat.

Am I understanding you correctly?