https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Again showing your age. All that sexualized nonsense was the productive of a brief puritanical upsurge which accompanied the rise of neo-conservatism at the beginning of the century. All published studies since confirm its authenticity (including my forthcoming article).I don't know why you are citing the letter of Theodore as a tenable source. You could just as easily cite the Necronomicon.
Agreed. My impression is that Luke shifted Mark’s broader theme of “the misunderstanding of the disciples” to the problem of the passion, the death and the resurrection of Jesus, but with the resurrection “everything” has become well in GLuke. I think this was very clever from Luke. Then Acts, then Irenaeus ...JoeWallack wrote:Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) continues to be in denial that GMark has a primary theme of discrediting the supposed original disciples. All subsequent Gospels attempt to undo this theme (which is evidence that GMark is the original Gospel narrative). Looking at supposed "proto-Luke" material, this is obvious:
10The discrediting of "The Twelve" in GMark is overwhelming. It is the most important theme in GMark. So all subsequent Gospels, which all appear to have the opposite objective, crediting the original disciples, must deal with it. GLuke shows a logical later development that GLuke's Jesus expanded (greatly) Jesus' disciples. In quantity and quality. This reduces the problem of the base theme that GLuke inherited, discrediting of the original twelve. This is not evidence of "proto-Luke", it is evidence of post GMark.10:1 Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come.
Again you're not even trying to think critically. Canonical Mark is written 'as if' from Rome (following Clement's source). Matthew is not specified as having any locale. Nor Luke for that matter.If that were true you'd see a lot more Latinized Greek, but in fact, both Matt & Luke cut it back from their source.
Interesting the Pentateuch evinces the Persian influence but your upbringing only allows you to 'see through' the Jewish material but not the Christian.Interesting that the content of Mark at least evinces the Latin influence, so you have to propose a conspiracy theory
The Matthean community clearly removed superfluous and puzzling forms in Mark, nearly all the Aramaic content, all of Mark's exemplars of "Nazarene", naked young man, etc. And why should Mt exhibit "any overt 'Jewish content'"?Secret Alias wrote:If you are going to argue that Mark's 'Latin content' is natural, odd that the Jewish gospel in the canon (Matthew) doesn't exhibit any overt 'Jewish content.'
Stop projecting nonsense onto me.Secret Alias wrote:Again showing your age. All that sexualized nonsense was the productive of a brief puritanical upsurge which accompanied the rise of neo-conservatism at the beginning of the century. All published studies since confirm its authenticity (including my forthcoming article).I don't know why you are citing the letter of Theodore as a tenable source. You could just as easily cite the Necronomicon.
You don't seem to understand much about linguistics. Some of the Latin strata issues I've pointed to are not things that would have been cognisant to ancient scholars. Crapping on about "as if' is just plain nonsense. Linguistics only started emerging in the 19h century. Before that there was no theoretical understanding of languages. Translation studies is a 20th century phenomenon and what you are asking your ancient scholars to do requires that knowledge.Secret Alias wrote:Again you're not even trying to think critically. Canonical Mark is written 'as if' from Rome (following Clement's source).If that were true you'd see a lot more Latinized Greek, but in fact, both Matt & Luke cut it back from their source.
Nor those Latinisms. In your conspiracy theory, weren't they written from the perspective of Rome??Secret Alias wrote:Matthew is not specified as having any locale. Nor Luke for that matter.
I could go even further but won't.Stop projecting nonsense onto me.
There's only so far you can go off the perch.Secret Alias wrote:I could go even further but won't.Stop projecting nonsense onto me.
An assertion. Again if you were consistent in your opinion that would be one thing. But the Aramaisms are also there and you think or must think these are deliberate falsified efforts for on the surface at least it would seem to be natural to take these as reflections of a Semitic source being used by 'Mark.' So on the one hand, you say 'the Latinisms are real' but the Aramaisms were 'planted' into the text. You should be careful when dismissing your opponents as 'conspiracy theorists.'Some of the Latin strata issues I've pointed to are not things that would have been cognisant to ancient scholars.