JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Do you have an example of an oral tradition in Mark that is exclusive to Mark in your opinion?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
I'm not sure how well vetted a certain Dave Gentile's analysis is. But I found on line a statistical survey of certain characteristics of the original Koine Greek in
A) the Q passages in Matthew,
B) the Q passages in Luke,
C) the non-Q passages in Matthew, and
D) the non-Q passages in Luke.
Gentile appears to have come up with a set of "family resemblances" between the Q versions found in both Matthew and Luke and the non-Q passages in Matthew. What this might suggest is that there is a stubborn layer of Matthew characteristics that is left intact in both Q versions, both in Matthew and in Luke. One can argue that this may indicate that Luke's Q passages were in fact taken from Matthew (since non-Q passages in Luke seem to bear very little resemblances to Q versions in either Matt. or Luke), rather than an independent source, thereby possibly removing the need for any texts in addition to Matthew and Luke.
However, it could be that the statistical analysis Gentile has given us is totally bogus, and both Q versions still have earmarks of a style wholly foreign to both the non-Q passages in Matthew and the non-Q passages in Luke. It's hard to know how sound this Gentile analysis is without consulting someone like Ehrman or Crossan or someone of that stature.
Anyway, here it is --
http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html
-- and I've tried many a time, via relatively reputable scholarship forums like Crosstalk, etc., to get some kind of gauge from someone knowledgeable as to the probity of this analysis. So far, no luck. But obviously, the questions raised by the Gentile statistics -- if valid -- do put the notion of any separate Q source -- whether written or even just oral -- in some question.
Stone
davefoc
Philosopher
I am not quite sure what your question meant but I think you might be suggesting that some kind of oral tradition was incorporated into the three synoptic gospels independently as opposed to the two other synoptic Gospels just copying Mark.
It looks to me like the similarities are too great to suggest that the two other Gospels just didn't copy Mark. I also don't think much in Mark runs true even for the parts that don't include implausible events. It just doesn't seem like the kind of detail that is passed down orally. But I stand to be corrected on both my ideas about that. And then there is the possibility that I may have not understood your question. If that is true, I offer my apologies in advance.
Taking your question most literally, I am not aware of any oral tradition in Mark that is exclusive to Mark. My guess right now is that there is no oral tradition that stems from an HJ that made it into Mark. The only event that seemed both plausible and of such import that it might have been part of an oral tradition for a not particularly well known (at the time) guy was the crucifixion. It strikes me as plausible that there was an HJ that was known of at the time that Mark was written and one of the facts that was known at the time via oral transmission was that the HJ had been crucified. Of course, he might just have gotten the information about the crucifixion from Paul's writings or from people aware of Paul's writing/ministry.
But I am more in to the we-just-don't-know camp than ever before and it also seems plausible that the crucifixion is an element associated with an earlier man that had the same name (in Aramaic) as the HJ. (I think Maximara might have mentioned something like this
)
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Brainache
We had this discussion especially in connection with the institution narrative (14: 22-25), which appears to be older than Mark because Paul tells a similar incident (1 Corinthians 11: 23-25), not necessarily original with him, without a dinner context, whose only context is that it supposedly occurred sometime during the night Jesus was handed over.
So, even if the Peter-in-Rome bit is pure conjecture, that Mark had antecedents, and added to them time and place information at least, seems well-founded.
No, we've discussed earlier in the thread that Church tradition is that Mark heard the sermons of Peter in Rome and collected them into a chronolgical narrative after Peter's death. The order of events, then, would be in part Mark's decision.
We had this discussion especially in connection with the institution narrative (14: 22-25), which appears to be older than Mark because Paul tells a similar incident (1 Corinthians 11: 23-25), not necessarily original with him, without a dinner context, whose only context is that it supposedly occurred sometime during the night Jesus was handed over.
So, even if the Peter-in-Rome bit is pure conjecture, that Mark had antecedents, and added to them time and place information at least, seems well-founded.
Last edited:
Just out of interest, why do you think Paul's Letters are trustworthy in any sense?
According to the Letters. Paul was someone who often thought he could see visions and hear the voice of either Jesus or God. He thought he’d been transported to a 3rd heaven. He thought his imagined visions were reality. Paul was someone who apparently could not tell fact from fiction.
Does that sound like a credible source?
Worse still, we don’t really know if Paul ever wrote any Letters. All we have are what Christian writers described as copies from about 200AD onwards. We have no idea who those copyists were, nor what their sources were, and we have no idea how reliable or accurate any of the copying was.
Does that sound like reliable evidence?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Thanks much.
It would be so interesting if the Q hypothesis were overturned.
Granted, Q is elegant, but a lot of Biblical history is quite messy.
In fact, the messiness of the Hebrew texts is precisely what revealed the details of their origins and transmission.
Right now I'm working a full-time job and 3 part-time jobs nights and weekends -- which is why my elaboration of the HJ theory and review of early Xian writings is so slow in coming b/c those posts take time to compose -- but I definitely want to check those out.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
No, it's not new. Given how pervasive the practice was at that time and place of using sources, and given that Mark is probably written a bit over 3 decades after Jesus's execution, we would expect him to incorporate existing oral traditions at least (as even Paul does on occasion), and given the penchant of the gentile Xians for writing there may be written sources as well.
Also, the fact that Mark was copied and was held in enough esteem to become canonical, we would expect that it was in line with existing traditions and folded them into the text.
Piggy, you're one of the few whose instincts I trust around here: Do you think it's possible for you to gauge if Gentile's statistical approach seems valid, or does it read like special pleading? (http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html)
Also, if the name Dave Gentile is maybe familiar to you, might you know if discrediting the notion of a separate "Q" source has always been a hobby-horse of his for a while -- meaning he may just be twisting his statistical "facts" here around a pre-set "conclusion" (i.e., there cannot be any "Q" because I say so, etc.)? Thanks.
As you can see, I generally don't trust any Net blogger as far as I can throw him.
Stone
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Not sure I'D call it "elegant", myself. It's an added unknown, which at least in science tends to be a no-no.
A follow-up, Piggy, if I may:
If -- IF -- Gentile's statistics blog seems on the up-and-up, might this following scenario fit with the statistical patterns Gentile describes?
Scenario: The writer of Matthew (whoever that really was) writes, rather early on, a rough collection of random sayings (needn't necessarily be intended as a forgery, as Gentile has sometimes suggested, but ultimately that's not a big issue either way, in this context). The writer of Mark (whoever that really was) writes his narrative Gospel, just around the same time. Somewhat later, Matthew then writes a narrative Gospel structured more like the Mark one, incorporating much of his own earlier sayings collection as part of the new Gospel. The writer of Luke (whoever that really was) goes back to the original sayings collection from Matthew, using most of that in the course of constructing his own narrative Gospel more like Mark's.
Basic question: Is there anything in the statistical patterns Gentile describes that might put this provisional scenario (above) in some doubt?
Also: Conversely, if, for the sake of argument, there is no separate sayings source at all, are there any logical problems in supposing that the differences between the Q passages in Matt. versus those in Luke are 100% due to conscious and deliberate changes by the writer of Luke only?
(I have no dog in this fight myself. I'm strictly interested in a knowledgeable take on all these questions from someone whose scholarly background I can trust.)
Thanks,
Stone
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I'll see if I can check that out tomorrow night. Fridays evenings are one of the few times when I usually have a couple of hours free.
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
Stone,
I don't know if you are familiar with this website (link) but you may want to poke around or e-mail him the link. He is an atheist and his PhD research was in the mathematics of evolution. He has engaged Richard Carrier regarding the use of Bayes Theorem and history (and how he disagrees with Carrier, for the most part) but his secondary interest is Christian history so he might find your link interesting and be willing to give it a deeper look.
I do appreciate your taking the trouble to alert us to this man's work. Unfortunately, I have heard too many sobering accounts of just how risky Wordpress pages can be for one's PC. So I don't feel comfortable going on to this site. Sorry. I only wish it weren't a Wordpress page.
Many thanks, anyway,
Stone
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
No worries Stone. I passed on the link. If he responds I'll let you know.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Can you give an example citation of a verse that has a mundane event told that you think is implausible to have occurred?
I just want a tangible image in my head.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
He's running a very similar setup to a system I assembled once for a forum that aided in catching "sock-puppet" authors.
You can find a grammatical tangent and trace of an individual by textual frequency because either: A) they are the same author B) they are copying from the same author.
In this case, he's looking at examining B potential.
He doesn't take it far enough though.
If you combine this material with the dead fact that Matthew and Luke have many passages that are longer than Mark's, and like each other and not like Mark at all; then Q pretty much starts to fall apart.
And that's what happens when you take a false premise and make that the foundation of your entire theory, and then continue to break exegesis rules time and time again to maintain it.
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
davefoc
Philosopher
The two questions are somewhat related and before I answer either one, let me give this caveat. Most of the time, I have expressed an opinion in this thread it is has been an opinion derived from the view of somebody that has written on these issues that seemed credible to me. This is not the case with what I wrote with regard to either one of these things. I just expressed my own gut feel view of the situation and I frankly doubt that it is of much value to anyone except me.
To start with Mark:
Here's a passage from Mark that seem to be written in such a way that makes it seem likely that somebody just made them up.
OK, to start with who made this observation of Jesus walking along the Sea of Galilee? Next whoever is following Jesus also heard the words reliably that he used to recruit Simon and his brother Andrew? And this unidentified person knew who Simon and Andrew were?
Then Jesus just walks along and shouts to another couple of guys and they just leave their dad and their fishing career to join this unknown dude shouting out to people to come join him?
Of course, it's possible to spin some kind of theory about how maybe the author of Mark just filled out the details on real events, but the simpler explanation to me is that he just made them up. Why bother with trying to be accurate when there's nobody that is going to read this stuff and know what the facts of the hypothetical HJ's life were?
I originally was going to go through a few more passages, but I have similar reservations about almost everything in Marj and I wasn't sure the above analysis was all that worthwhile and repeating it a few more time might not improve it..
Paul's letters
There are two issues. Did Paul really write the letters he is credited with and was Paul being truthful, in particular with regard to meeting the associates of Jesus.
Paul's epistles seem like they are in a different world from the Gospels to me with regards to credibility. When I read through them it seems to be the kind of thing that a religious zealot would have written.
However, as has been discussed, there are also indications that some of the content might be driven by Paul's self serving motivations. And if Paul is pushing the truth here and there for his benefit it doesn't seem like a complete stretch that he made up the Jesus associates out of whole cloth. Nonetheless, it seems plausible to me that Paul really has been in contact with some of the HJ associates.
Last edited:
- Status