Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mark and the aphorisms (was: Mark's biggest sayings block (Mt 19:28))

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    It would take too long to reply in detail to Bruce s lengthy posting, so here are a few selected comments. - - - BRUCE: But the earliness of Markan material,
    Message 1 of 50 , Nov 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      It would take too long to reply in detail to Bruce's lengthy posting, so
      here are a few selected comments.

      - - -

      BRUCE: But the earliness of Markan material, especially where Mt/Lk have
      parallels, is the logical first presumption, and in no place where such
      parallels exist can it convincingly be shown that Mark is later.

      RON: Read the detailed comments of any Q scholar, and you will see that
      where 'Q' overlaps with Mark in the aphorisms, the Double Tradition of
      Matthew and Luke is invariably judged to represent an earlier form of the
      text.

      - - -

      RON: For instance, if one or both made use of an even earlier written source
      'X',

      BRUCE: Which there is no a priori reason to assume.

      Ron: Oh but there is. For Papias wrote about such a document. "Matthew made
      an orderly arrangement of the logia .....", as quoted by Eusebius.

      - - -

      BRUCE: The Twelve myth .....

      RON: Paul had little time for the twelve, but he did acknowledge their
      existence (1 Cor 15:5), and so did the logia (saying C21 in the web page
      below).

      - - -

      BRUCE: No. The myth of Jerusalem is propounded by Matthew, and echoed by a
      somewhat chastened Luke, in (among other things) the claim that Jesus's
      appearances to his disciples, the key proof of the Resurrection, occurred in
      Jerusalem. But Mark makes it obvious that the Appearance of Jesus took place
      in Galilee.

      RON: It's not at all obvious in the original version minus 14:28 and 16:7.

      ---

      BRUCE: ..... it is surely interesting that the thrust of
      that teaching is overwhelmingly non-Resurrection. ..... So what the
      Apostles produced, or conformed to, insofar as the Apostolic literature is
      worth anything as evidence, is likely to be an early form of Christianity,
      the thing whose basic teachings were propounded before the death of Jesus.

      RON: Indeed, and if you examine my reconstruction of the logia on the web
      page below, you will not find any mention of the resurrection, nor of
      anything that would not have been palatable to James the brother of Jesus.

      ---

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ronald Price
      ... Jeff, Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders, though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which
      Message 50 of 50 , Nov 10, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff Peterson wrote:

        > ..... while Paul doesn't mention signs
        > and wonders performed by Jesus, he does regard signs and wonders as marking
        > apostles of the risen Christ (Rom 15:18–19; 2 Cor 12:12).

        Jeff,

        Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders,
        though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which is
        Paul's strongest statement on the subject, that the context is his desperate
        desire to present himself as a true apostle. Also he was somewhat agitated
        (2 Cor 12:11).

        But unfortunately none of the four claims to deeds of power (your two plus 1
        Thess 1:5 and 1 Cor 2:4) are accompanied by details. Consequently we can't
        be sure what Paul meant, and there is at least the possibility that he was
        referring to the drama of mass conversions which this persuasive missionary
        no doubt initiated.

        > It wouldn't be a great leap to suppose that Paul had heard reports from
        > Cephas, James, et al. of signs and wonders performed by Christ .....

        But this is nothing more than a supposition, and its perceived likelihood
        depends on whether or not we consider (on other grounds) that Jesus was a
        miracle worker.

        So I still maintain that our only independent witness to Jesus as a miracle
        worker is the gospel of Mark.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.