Scriptural literacy

[Piggy]

I do, however, question if our assumption that there was a set proto-orthodoxy before Mark was composed is correct.

I think it's more accurate to say that there were proto-orthodoxies, written and oral traditions which told of Jesus' miracles, his parables and sayings, his genealogy (very important), his birth and youth, his death and ressurection, his theology and politics, and his connection to and fulfillment of earlier prophecy.

Obviously, this was a movement which expanded pretty quickly and developed a wide range of documents and traditions. By the time the writers of the gospels came along, there was a need among various sets of communities, so to speak, to separate the canonical from the spurious, and to begin creating a coherent narrative and theology from their canon.

It's difficult to imagine how the movement would have sustained itself and expanded without such traditions prior to the writing of the gospels.

But as you say, we cannot reason, from there, to the general conclusion that they did not use the opportunity to espouse original theological interpretations. I think the key questions are (1) is it likely that a particular story or idea from a gospel did not pre-exist in the Jesus movement, and (2) does textual analysis suggest that we're dealing with a novel idea rather than a copied idea.

Ok, gotta pedal. More later....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think it's more accurate to say that there were proto-orthodoxies, written and oral traditions which told of Jesus' miracles, his parables and sayings, his genealogy (very important), his birth and youth, his death and ressurection, his theology and politics, and his connection to and fulfillment of earlier prophecy.

Obviously, this was a movement which expanded pretty quickly and developed a wide range of documents and traditions. By the time the writers of the gospels came along, there was a need among various sets of communities, so to speak, to separate the canonical from the spurious, and to begin creating a coherent narrative and theology from their canon.

It's difficult to imagine how the movement would have sustained itself and expanded without such traditions prior to the writing of the gospels.

But as you say, we cannot reason, from there, to the general conclusion that they did not use the opportunity to espouse original theological interpretations. I think the key questions are (1) is it likely that a particular story or idea from a gospel did not pre-exist in the Jesus movement, and (2) does textual analysis suggest that we're dealing with a novel idea rather than a copied idea.

Ok, gotta pedal. More later....

Ha, beat you to it, but I ran today instead of biking.........

OK, good, I was worried that we were somehow horribly miscommunicating.

While I was running I think I saw how to link together what looks like several disparate questions. I think they link thus:

If we assume that Mark simply strung together a group of Jesus stories (I'm not suggesting this is anyone's position, just using the idea as a foil), then I can't make sense of why he would bother if he truly believed the end was imminent -- hence my question of why did he bother writing in the first place. If, however, he had an agenda that he thought might make a difference, as in essentially writing an apocalypse, then it makes some sense (keep up the faith bros because we ain't got long to wait). He certainly wouldn't have bothered to try and leave behind something for posterity. It would only have possibly been a salve for the wearied soul in turmoil.

Now, the text itself is beautiful. I don't read Greek, and I understand that the Koine is simplistic (simplicity may have been one of the author's points); but the story structure looks very intricate. The reason I brought up the Transfiguration thingy is because, as I said, it makes perfect sense to me in Mark's gospel -- it is an unveiling, a revelation, an apocalypse of who Jesus really was, which was the theme of Mark's gospel. I don't think that story works quite as well in Matthew and Luke where it seems to be redundant. However, if Mark originated the story, this might explain why it appears so integral to his account. Matthew and Luke would simply have adopted it and made it part of the tradition because it was such a good story, and it fit with their aims (or didn't contradict their aims).

The reason I brought up the differences between the synoptics and John's gospel is because I think it shows the fluidity of the early traditions. Further, we know that many new Jesus stories were being created (I mentioned the infancy gospel for one, the gospel of Peter another, etc.). It may be that there was a great bank of stories from which all the gospel writers drew, but I have a hunch that they, in their literary role, created many of these stories themselves in order to promote their theological agendas.

So, yes, I am asking, is there a way to use textual analysis to decide if a particular author may have invented a story to promote his greater literary/theological aims rather than adopt a pre-existing story? I don't think the authors of Matthew and Luke were concerned with the criterion of independent attestation, and one of the reasons they may have lifted so much directly from Mark is because it originated with Mark.

 

[Greediguts]

Hi guys! I'm back! Looks like I missed alot! I'm just trying to unpack and catch-up!

BTW Piggy, you were correct. Misquoting Jesus is a fascinating book!

If we assume that Mark simply strung together a group of Jesus stories (I'm not suggesting this is anyone's position, just using the idea as a foil), then I can't make sense of why he would bother if he truly believed the end was imminent -- hence my question of why did he bother writing in the first place. If, however, he had an agenda that he thought might make a difference, as in essentially writing an apocalypse, then it makes some sense (keep up the faith bros because we ain't got long to wait). He certainly wouldn't have bothered to try and leave behind something for posterity. It would only have possibly been a salve for the wearied soul in turmoil.

Now, the text itself is beautiful. I don't read Greek, and I understand that the Koine is simplistic (simplicity may have been one of the author's points); but the story structure looks very intricate. The reason I brought up the Transfiguration thingy is because, as I said, it makes perfect sense to me in Mark's gospel -- it is an unveiling, a revelation, an apocalypse of who Jesus really was, which was the theme of Mark's gospel. I don't think that story works quite as well in Matthew and Luke where it seems to be redundant. However, if Mark originated the story, this might explain why it appears so integral to his account. Matthew and Luke would simply have adopted it and made it part of the tradition because it was such a good story, and it fit with their aims (or didn't contradict their aims).
------
So, yes, I am asking, is there a way to use textual analysis to decide if a particular author may have invented a story to promote his greater literary/theological aims rather than adopt a pre-existing story? I don't think the authors of Matthew and Luke were concerned with the criterion of independent attestation, and one of the reasons they may have lifted so much directly from Mark is because it originated with Mark.

Oddly enough, Misquoting Jesus states that the last 12 verses of Mark were added by a scribe and are not part of the oldest copies. If the story ends with the women fleeing the tomb and telling no one, then it would fit Mark's theme of the disciples being obtuse and never (not even at the very end) comprehending what Jesus was trying to tell them.

Sorry, just read the book so it's fresh in my mind. I'll try to sit down and read through everything when I have more time.....

BTW Ichneumonwasp, David Koresh of the Branch Davidians did begin to write his own interpretation of Revelation and the meaning of the seals before he died. He stated when he finished, the group would come out. Of course, he may have made that claim to stall for time as well. If in fact he did write anything down, it would have been destroyed in the fire so we will never know.

 

[Piggy]

Hi guys! I'm back! Looks like I missed alot! I'm just trying to unpack and catch-up!

And I'm sorry I've been out of the disucssion. Very busy my way, and I'm out of town Saturday. But been thinking about the transfiguration, so will try to add a comment Saturday.

Oddly enough, Misquoting Jesus states that the last 12 verses of Mark were added by a scribe and are not part of the oldest copies.

There are actually 2 spurious endings to Mark. One is chapters 9-17.

The other was also added after chapter 8:

"And all that had been commanded them they* told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

*The women who came from the empty tomb -- Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome -- after hearing of Jesus' resurrection from the young man in the white robe.

 

[Piggy]

I thought this post from another thread might be of interest to the Scriptural Illiteracy crowd, so here it is (thanks to joobz for asking me to chime in):

Well, let's do a little thumbnail sketch here.

Genesis 3:14-19, the cursing of the serpent and of woman and man, is one of the more ancient sections of the Hebrew Bible. You can tell that it is ancient poetry inserted into the later prose narrative (still ancient from our point of view) by its diction and meter which contrasts with the surrounding text.

The larger context of the story is El myth, with later overwritings by Yahwist editors.

For those unfamiliar with El worship and Yahwism, the oldest Biblical traditions are El-ist. The worship of El has parallels in ancient Ugaritic and Egyptian tradition.

El was the leader of the Heavenly Council, the chief of the gods, who were the "heavenly host", visible as the stars. From time to time, El and the other members of the Council and the lesser members of the host would visit earth.

Polytheistic El worship was later supplanted by henotheistic (our god is badder than your god) Yahweh worship among the Hebrews. Yahweh was a mountain-dwelling storm god who led his people to victory in battle, and Yahwism overtook El worship during the long transition from the nomadic period to the establishment of the settled state, which required quite a bit of war.

The El traditions survived, but got a little rewriting. In fact, in Exodus a little bit is added where Yahweh tells Moses that he is the El of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but that he didn't reveal his true name until just then.

In Job, we see another ancient poem sandwiched in between later prose passages. There, God makes reference to his battle with Leviathan, the sea serpent, an El-istic tradition with Ugaritic parallels.

So here we have 2 different traditions of conflicts between El and a serpent:

1. The cursing of the land serpent by El.

2. The battle between El and the sea god Leviathan.

In El mythology, not only were the land serpent and Leviathan entirely separate, but both were unrelated to Satan (the accuser) who was a member of the Heavenly Council, one who conversed and wagered with El, as we see in Job.

Satan is not the vanquished Leviathan -- who gets a separate mention -- and certainly cannot be confused with the cursed and lowly land serpent.

However, by the time of Jesus, Judaism has been subject to the influences of Hellenism, gnosticism, and most importantly Zoroastrianism with its theology of the battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light.

At that time, some Jews had come to identify Satan with the head of a Zoroastrian-like legion of darkness, an image with parallels in post-Hellenistic gnosticism which posited the need to remove the veil of a deceiver of darkness in order to move the soul toward the light of true wisdom.

The author of Revelation, writing sometime in the last 2 decades of the 1st century CE, appears to be a Jewish member of the Jesus movement who is heavily influenced by both of these (relative to his time) modern theological movements, as well as by the Hebrew doctrine of the coming of the Day of Wrath and the subsequent judgment of mankind and the earthly installation of the Kingdom of God. His theology would have been unrecognizable to the ancient nomadic El worshipers.

He writes a visionary text -- a genre which did not arise until the Yahwistic period -- in which he identifies Satan (now the spirit of darkness at battle with the light of God, no longer the argumentative member of the Heavenly Council which we see in Job) with the ancient dragon, the serpent.

Here, he is probably drawing more heavily on the tradition of Leviathan than of the land serpent, but it is likely that by that time all of these threads had already been conflated into a single idea among certain communities. (And by the way, the author of Revelation is extremely well-versed in the Hebrew Bible.)

But it is important to remember that this is a visionary work, which is self-consciously symbolic. It does not even pretend to describe real events, but rather a vision granted to the recipient which is the key to understanding for those initiated into the mystery or the community of believers.

Indeed, John takes the genre to extremes that would have made Ezekiel's head spin. In the dragon/serpent/Satan reference, he not only alludes to El's battle with Leviathan, but also the story of Leto and Python. In doing so, his purpose is to warn his audience of the battles between good and evil, light and darkness, the Jesus movement and the outside establishment, going on in their day and time, as well as their significance to the impending Day of Wrath and subsequent rule of God on Earth.

Now, that's not anywhere near as pat an answer as Radrook has, but I'm afraid it will have to suffice, since it is a much more accurate one.

 

[Radrook]

All the afore-posted skeptical statements are based on one common assumption-godlessness. This generates sub-assumptions which generate other assumptions. Voila! A consensus among godless assumers. Which leads to the question on how much value one should place on a consensus. Well, that depends on what the people consensing are assuming and why.

 

[Piggy]

All the afore-posted skeptical statements are based on one common assumption-godlessness. This generates sub-assumptions which generate other assumptions. Voila! A consensus among godless assumers. Which leads to the question on how much value one should place on a consensus. Well, that depends on what the people consensing are assuming and why.

Since I don't wish to continue parallel threads, I will merely refer you to my response in the other thread: You'll find it here.

 

[Radrook]

Deleted

 

[joobz]

All the afore-posted skeptical statements are based on one common assumption-godlessness. This generates sub-assumptions which generate other assumptions. Voila! A consensus among godless assumers. Which leads to the question on how much value one should place on a consensus. Well, that depends on what the people consensing are assuming and why.

Considering that you hae demonstated a severe lack of understanding regarding the bible, this critique is shallow and basless.

 

[Greediguts]

Now, the text itself is beautiful. I don't read Greek, and I understand that the Koine is simplistic (simplicity may have been one of the author's points); but the story structure looks very intricate. The reason I brought up the Transfiguration thingy is because, as I said, it makes perfect sense to me in Mark's gospel -- it is an unveiling, a revelation, an apocalypse of who Jesus really was, which was the theme of Mark's gospel. I don't think that story works quite as well in Matthew and Luke where it seems to be redundant. However, if Mark originated the story, this might explain why it appears so integral to his account. Matthew and Luke would simply have adopted it and made it part of the tradition because it was such a good story, and it fit with their aims (or didn't contradict their aims).

Interesting point about koine Greek which could point to the author of Mark's country of origin. Howard Clark Kee wrote a book entitled Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel. He stated that Mark wrote in koine Greek, but also understood Aramaic, as he quoted several of Jesus' sayings in Greek letters transliterated from that language. This caused him to place the author of Mark in (southern) Syria where that kind of bilingualism was common. Greek was the common language but apparrently a substratum of Aramaic survived.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

All the afore-posted skeptical statements are based on one common assumption-godlessness. This generates sub-assumptions which generate other assumptions. Voila! A consensus among godless assumers. Which leads to the question on how much value one should place on a consensus. Well, that depends on what the people consensing are assuming and why.

Since I don't wish to continue parallel threads, I will merely refer you to my response in the other thread: You'll find it here.

It's kind of pathetic really that he's been reduced to hitting and running on his own thread. Then again, I suppose he doesn't really own it anymore.

Incidentally, in case anyone's curious as to why Radrook has me on ignore, it's a pretty funny story. Was it because I insulted him? Was it because I denigrated his specific beliefs or religion? Was it because I was rude to him? Nope. It was because I informed him that, although I consider myself an atheist, there are still certain things I would be willing to define as God, in keeping with an open mind. This obviously did not sit well with his hardwired image of straw atheists in his head that he spends all his time arguing with, so he wanted nothing to do with it.

Well, excuuuuse me for not living up to the expectations of a Jehovah's Witless. I'll have to remember next time to talk about how much I hate hate hate hate hate God, while reveling in my lack of morals and scriptural illiteracy. Would it help if I also brandished an upside-down crucifix while crossing out the words "In God we trust" on a dollar bill?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Interesting point about koine Greek which could point to the author of Mark's country of origin. Howard Clark Kee wrote a book entitled Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel. He stated that Mark wrote in koine Greek, but also understood Aramaic, as he quoted several of Jesus' sayings in Greek letters transliterated from that language. This caused him to place the author of Mark in (southern) Syria where that kind of bilingualism was common. Greek was the common language but apparrently a substratum of Aramaic survived.

Could be. Do we know if Aramaic was also spoken in the Jewish diaspora communities in Greece and the rest of the Roman Empire? It is very likely that the first Christian communities (outside Palestine and Asia Minor) arose in the peri-Jewish areas of the hellenized Roman Empire. I think someone living among Jews, but being a primary Greek speaker, might have come into contact with a little Aramaic, though he might not be fluent in it. There are too many possibilities with all this stuff for us to be sure of anything I fear.

 

[Piggy]

Could be. Do we know if Aramaic was also spoken in the Jewish diaspora communities in Greece and the rest of the Roman Empire? It is very likely that the first Christian communities (outside Palestine and Asia Minor) arose in the peri-Jewish areas of the hellenized Roman Empire. I think someone living among Jews, but being a primary Greek speaker, might have come into contact with a little Aramaic, though he might not be fluent in it. There are too many possibilities with all this stuff for us to be sure of anything I fear.

My understanding is that it was still the common lingua franca over a wide area at the time, but I'll check up on it.

And I haven't forgotten the Transfiguration question, but life has many demands on me right now.

 

[Greediguts]

From just briefly looking into the language issue, it seems koine Greek was the international language of trade. Aramaic broke into about 7 colloquial dialects. I've found Old Judaean, South-east Judaean, Samaritan Aramaic, Galilean Aramaic, Damascene Aramaic, Old Syriac Aramaic and Orontes Aramaic. All being used around the time of Jesus. Perhaps Kee came to think of Syria being the origin of Mark because the Aramaic being used was from the dialect of that particluar region??

 

[MIKILLINI]

All the afore-posted skeptical statements are based on one common assumption-godlessness. This generates sub-assumptions which generate other assumptions. Voila! A consensus among godless assumers. Which leads to the question on how much value one should place on a consensus. Well, that depends on what the people consensing are assuming and why.

This assumption of godlessness is coming from you Rad, why is that?

 

[Radrook]

This assumption of godlessness is coming from you Rad, why is that?

I meant godlessness as an assumption in reference to what was written in the Bible. One can approach the Bible with that assumption and the assumption itself serves as a powerful motivator for doubt. That's why a productive discussion between persons who assume biblical writer inspiration and those who don't is untenable. The latter will imediately suspect collusion, and deceit, while the former will perceive biblical prophetic fulfillment and honesty.

BTW
Also, perhaps I assumed godlessness because the whole gist of the statements is to cast doubt on the honesty of the writers and even on the existence and /or honesty of Jesus himself. In short, everything said denigrates via casting doubt. Would a deist do this? Perhaps since being a desist requires no particular religious affiliation. In any case, whether atheist, agnostic, or deist, the intended effect is the same.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Perhaps because the whole gist of the statements is to cast doubt on the honesty of the writers and even on the existence and /or honesty of Jesus himself. In short, everything said denigrates via casting doubt. Would a deist do this? Perhaps since being a desist requires no particular religious affiliation. In any case, whether atheist, agnostic, or deist, the intended effect is the same.

BTW
I meant godlessness as an assumption in reference to what was written in the Bible. One can approach the Bible with that assumption and the assumption itself serves as a powerful motivator for doubt.

I think you may be confusing cause and effect.

What we are trying to do is look at the gospels as literary texts -- Piggy is also trying to extract from that what the historical Jesus most likely believed and said -- trying to derive whatever conclusions can be reached using that technique. This need assume neither that God exists or does not, as far as this discussion goes. What we do assume is that these texts are not necessarily literally correct (in relation to the real world), so we rather treat them as literary productions (since they undeniable are that). Not assuming the literal truth of a text is not the same as godlessness.

If the discussion has the effect of casting doubt, then so be it. But that is an effect and not the cause of the discussion.

 

[Radrook]

I think you may be confusing cause and effect. What we are trying to do is look at the gospels as literary texts -- Piggy is also trying to extract from that what the historical Jesus most likely believed and said -- trying to derive whatever conclusions can be reached using that technique."What we do assume is that these texts are not necessarily literally correct (in relation to the real world), so we rather treat them as literary productions (since they undeniable are that). Not assuming the literal truth of a text is not the same as godlessness. If the discussion has the effect of casting doubt, then so be it. But that is an effect and not the cause of the discussion.

A modus operandi has the effect of affecting results. This is true in all areas of study. So we cannot divorce our chosen methodology from the ultimate results of its application.
A case in point is embryonic recapitulation. The observer approaches the embryo under the influence of evolutionary preconceptions and voila! he interprets the different appearances of the embryo as an evolutionary repeat of all previous evolutionary steps. This of course was proven false, but the chosen modus operandi resulted in generating a lie.

Go to Mars, find life and voila! Evolution! Why? Because of the evolution assumption produces the conclusion no matter what type of life they find or where. Find fossils which contradict the evolution theory, such as modern man fossils miixed in with the supposed ancestral ones, and set them aside as unnacceptable or irrelevant.

Study of the scripture is no different. Approach it in an extremely suspicious way and the suspicion itself will tend to force the investigator to reject all other explanations and lean toward the one fitting in with his chosen approach.

If indeed all your accusations were irrefutable, then we wouldn't have other Bible scholars disagreeing offering acceptable explanations for each and everyone of the suspicions expressed on this thread. Yet we do.

BTW
I too try to find out what the historical Jesus believed and said. I find what he believed and said in the gospels. Of course that requires that I assume the Gospels are telling the truth, and that Jesus did exist just as you assume the possibility that the Bible just a book full of lies.

This need assume neither that God exists or does not, as far as this discussion goes

Obviously the statements made are those of godlessness in reference to the Bible's authorship. Which is what I meant as I previously explained.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A modus operandi has the effect of affecting results. This is true in all areas of study. So we cannot divorce our chosen methodology from the ultimate results of its application.
A case in point is embryonic recapitulation. The observer approaches the embryo under the influence of evolutionary preconceptions and voila! he interprets the different appearances of the embryo as an evolutionary repeat of all previous evolutionary steps. This of course was proven false, but the chosen modus operandi resulted in generating a lie.

Go to Mars, find life and voila! Evolution! Why? Because of the evolution assumption produces the conclusion no matter what type of life they find or where. Find fossils which contradict the evolution theory, such as modern man fossils miixed in with the supposed ancestral ones, and set them aside as unnacceptable or irrelevant.

Study of the scripture is no different. Approach it in an extremely suspicious way and the suspicion itself will tend to force the investigator to reject all other explanations and lean toward the one fitting in with his chosen approach.

If indeed all your accusations were irrefutable, then we wouldn't have other Bible scholars disagreeing offering acceptable explanations for each and everyone of the suspicions expressed on this thread. Yet we do.

BTW
I too try to find out what the historical Jesus believed and said. I find what he believed and said in the gospels. Of course that requires that I assume the Gospels are telling the truth, and that Jesus did exist just as you assume the possibility that the Bible just a book full of lies.

I'm afraid that I have no idea what relationship your statements above bear to what I wrote and fear that your screed is based on a mis-reading of the previous discussion's intent.

Obviously the statements made are those of godlessness in reference to the Bible's authorship. Which is what I meant as I previously explained.

Again, no. That is not godlessness. Rather it is an approach that views biblical material as literature. The assumption is not godlessness, but errancy (the Bible is not inerrant -- as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past). These texts are very obviously literary. In fact, they have significant literary merit. We examine them from that perspective and ask questions from the vantage of that assumption.

No one in his right mind claims today that God wrote the Bible. Humans wrote it. Whether inspired by God rests on several assumptions. We prefer to avoid those very problematic assumptions and examine the texts as literature, plain and simple.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A modus operandi has the effect of affecting results. This is true in all areas of study. So we cannot divorce our chosen methodology from the ultimate results of its application.

So if one's modus operandi were to involve lying, what would that indicate about said persons conclusions?