The Narcissism of Post-Modern Scholarship of Bible

[Secret Alias]

Doesn't it ever striking anyone as strange that as we sit here 'discovering' of these 'parallels' and 'bits' from the Jewish scriptures that we assume 'Mark' and other gospel writers used to make their narrative ... that this is exactly what we find ourselves doing! Certainly SOMEONE in antiquity was combing through the scriptures and adding bits and pieces to the gospel and the letters of Paul. The evidence is there just like in the OJ Simpson case - the blood in the Bronco, blood drops on the street, the gloves outside his back window with blood etc. The prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case had one of the strongest cases for his conviction and yet they lost.

I don't want to get into why the conviction didn't stick. The point here is that we have evidence that someone used the scriptures and integrated them with the gospel(s) and the letters of Paul. As we uncover these patterns we end up doing exactly what we suppose that person did - i.e. open up the Jewish scriptures and see parallels. This isn't a very interesting task (unless you want to find an excuse to sit for long hours and be distracted from the fact you are likely shortening your life in the process). But when we find parallels we assume 'we are on to something' we are on to the truth and so we sitting down comparing scriptures mimic what we suppose the author of the gospel was doing back in antiquity.

But are we biased in favor of that model for the construction of the gospel because we ourselves are 'in the picture' too. Sex is better when your partner seems to be doing what you're doing and into what you're into. If your wife is reading a book or talking on the cell phone you might find it distracting. But why? Because having someone not into what you're into or doing something completely unrelated ignoring you reminds you that you aren't the center of the world and you're dreams, desires and ambitions are just mental masturbation.

So I wonder if all these 'connections' that we discover about the construction of the gospel through scripture might well be another form of narcissism. Sure there are scriptural allusions in the gospel - but are they foundational? Were they added later? How much of the author's real literary purpose is discovered by merely 'discovering' them? Is Paul's baptism of death really like Elisha's water immersions? I don't think so. But clearly the argument is made that there is a relationship in antiquity and efforts were made to add John's baptism to the gospel. But how do you separate what was real, original or added later or even important to the author. If an author has to stage a scene in his novel and he decides to set it in a McDonald's how important is McDonald's or American fast food to the literary purpose of the narrative?

As I have noted to Neil many times in this forum, the fact that he is a librarian makes him think the gospel writer thought like a librarian, acted like a librarian. I am sure I do the same thing. It's hard to escape this sort of narcissism. If all is vanity then perhaps the ultimate truth then is - only he who is most like gospel writer can hope to understand the gospel writer.

[outhouse]

SOMEONE in antiquity was combing through the scriptures and adding bits and pieces to the gospel and the letters of Paul.

.

What if they are not redacted as much as you assume?

What is they were in fact a community effort with multiple authors in each book, what might look as later redaction could very well be an addition in compilation.

[Ulan]

So I wonder if all these 'connections' that we discover about the construction of the gospel through scripture might well be another form of narcissism. Sure there are scriptural allusions in the gospel - but are they foundational? Were they added later? How much of the author's real literary purpose is discovered by merely 'discovering' them? Is Paul's baptism of death really like Elisha's water immersions? I don't think so. But clearly the argument is made that there is a relationship in antiquity and efforts were made to add John's baptism to the gospel. But how do you separate what was real, original or added later or even important to the author.

While I can see the issue you want to discuss, I think your view is a bit simplistic in neglecting the other side of the medal. If you think of a text like Daniel, which is certainly late and can rather conclusively dated to around the year of 165 BC, and how this was used time and time again for different purposes and still gets recycled up to the present day to develop new ideas? Which means that I don't see any inherent conflict here. If you see gospel texts as layers upon layers, with texts written for different purposes formed into new ones, there is no real discrepancy between positions. Your last question in what I quoted is certainly central, but how do you want to decide it? I guess it will always stay on the level of speculation.

I'm afraid that the way is the goal here. If you don't enjoy that way, then I agree and it's time to look for a different pastime.

[Secret Alias]

Ulan

I always try and avoid engaging in any sort of discussion with you the same way I avoid my son's football (soccer) coach. To know me is to hate me. So I figure keep my mouth shut. But I want to make one important distinction which keeps getting lost in these references to 'pesherim' and the like. The gospel is a narrative text. The Pauline corpus take the form of epistles (at least now). The bottom line is that the gospel isn't a pesher. Neither is an epistle. The same kind of incorrectness comes up when non-Samaritanologists describe the Mimar (of Marqe) as a 'midrash.' It's NOT a fucking midrash. But what is it? To what genre can the gospel be identified as belonging.

I've always argued the answer there is obvious. The text that lurks in the background to which the gospel compares itself is the Torah. The gospel is the second Torah or at least was conceived that way. If the Gemara is later taken to have greater authority that the Torah, the gospel outright assumes its superiority which is jaw-dropping. Even more jaw-dropping is the revaluation of the ten commandments. Yes God gave you this but I say that. WTF? But no one in any of these 'parallel' discussions and the like ever grasps the significance of this.

I keep saying it over and over again there simply is no historical context in any of these discussions. Whether we moderns want to admit it or not we are recasting the ancient world which produced the gospel in our own image. We are assuming that they were like us which is simply not true. If the apex of holiness in the Israelite world was:

1. God
2. ten commandments
3. Torah
4. prophetic texts

How could the gospel writer in making up a second Torah have taken bits and pieces from inferior texts in order to criticize (1), (2), (3), (4). It just doesn't make sense. It's madness to continue with this path.

The gospel wasn't a comic book. It wasn't a detective novel. It wasn't a 'myth.' It was without question the second Torah.

[MrMacSon]

Doesn't it ever striking anyone as strange that as we sit here 'discovering' of these 'parallels' and 'bits' from the Jewish scriptures that we assume 'Mark' and other gospel writers used to make their narrative ... that this is exactly what we find ourselves doing!

No it's not. No-one here is writing a new New Testament. As someone with, at times, tremendous insight, you can also be extremely illogical.

Yes -

Certainly SOMEONE in antiquity was combing through the scriptures and adding bits and pieces to the gospel and the letters of Paul. ... we have evidence that someone used the scriptures and integrated them with the gospel(s) and the letters of Paul.

As we uncover these patterns we end up doing exactly what we suppose that person did - i.e. open up the Jewish scriptures and see parallels.

That is different to creating new texts. And it is something people have done for centuries - it's just that Christian apologists have been indoctrinated and indoctrinated others to believe the parallels of NT passages to OT passages are because of "prophecy".

blah blah blah ... self-referencing ... blah blah blah

[MrMacSon]

If you see gospel texts as layers upon layers, with texts written for different purposes formed into new ones, there is no real discrepancy between positions.

Exactly.

If you think of a text like Daniel, which is certainly late and can rather conclusively dated to around the year of 165 BC, and how this was used time and time again for different purposes and still gets recycled up to the present day to develop new ideas...

Good point

I think your view is a bit simplistic in neglecting the other side of the medal.

[outhouse]

If the apex of holiness in the Israelite world was:

1. God
2. ten commandments
3. Torah
4. prophetic texts



.

Who gives a rats hind end?


We are talking about people perverting that culture for their own personal needs in the DIASPORA far removed from Israel.

.' It was without question the second Torah.

Yes it was


For people in the Romans Empire who did not want to be identified with trouble making rebellious jews. The Romans raped Judaism is an evolutionary process due to the perceived death and martyrdom of the crucified Galilean.

It wasn't a 'myth

BS

It was mythical and pseudohistorical rhetoric to teach a reformed theology, with a different cultural twist then the mythical OT text.

[Secret Alias]

No it's not. No-one here is writing a new New Testament.

Secret Alias wrote:
Doesn't it ever striking anyone as strange that as we sit here 'discovering' of these 'parallels' and 'bits' from the Jewish scriptures that we assume 'Mark' and other gospel writers used to make their narrative ... that this is exactly what we find ourselves doing!

[Secret Alias]

As someone with, at times, tremendous insight, you can also be extremely illogical.

I suspect that you can't see what I am saying because you are a narcissist but that's just me talking ...

[Secret Alias]

That is different to creating new texts

I know but can't people see this isn't a pesher or a midrash or a detective novel. It was created as a unique special text. I understand that outhouse doesn't get that because he thinks its a biography. But the rest of us know that's not what the gospel is.