Jesus: gMark's Messianic Pretender as Aristotle's Tragic Hero

[downbeatplumb]

What is it with middle-easterners and shoes? I'm sure I read the explanation at one time, but it still seems odd.

Don't follow the shoe follow the gourd!

[Aractus]

Below I have summarized my evidence that there was an earlier version of the Gospel of Mark that has been dubbed, "gMark." As a matter of fact, it seems commonly held that all of the gospels all had an earlier version.

Define "earlier version". To any sensible person like myself, the earlier version should contain something not found in the later versions. So far, all you've concerned yourself with are areas that have been "added to". The as-yet uncatalogued alleged first century Mark fragment should contain a new version of reading Mark if your theory is indeed genuine. If it doesn't - even if all it contains is a single paragraph - it shows that the theory doesn't have any evidence for it.

Furthermore consider this:

As far as I can tell, my particular reconstruction of the historical Jesus is idiosyncratic. I explain this oddity as arising from the main source I use to profile the historical Jesus. This source is not readily apparent as it is what has previously been labeled as "gMark." "pMark," "proto-Mark," and "Ur-Markus." These terms all refer to the theory that there is an earlier version of Mark that has been editorially expanded and so produced the final form of the gospel.

Your main source is something you don't even have! It's something you've theorized, imagined, and constructed from taking textual criticism to the extremes. You can't get away from the fact that your source is actually the gospel of Mark, arbitrarily abridged wherever you feel you need. That's not real evidence, if you did that in science you'd be laughed out of the consortium; your peers would revile you. Atheists used to tell us that the only evidence for nails being used in crucifixion was in John's Gospel. The historical reliability was proven once we dug up remains with nails still embedded in them. You require there to be more versions of the text found when we find the earliest manuscripts, you're expecting it. Time will tell what you actually find.

The third line of evidence is found where I and at least one other contemporary scholar, Dominic Crossan, thinks that gMark ended in Mk 15:39 with the centurion's "epiphany" that Jesus was indeed a uios theou. For reason that I shall give below, I translate this phrase as, "a son of a god." Note that what immediately follows are the two episodes of Jesus' burial and resurrection, which are tied together by the actions of women. It is women who learn where Jesus was buried and women that come to the empty tomb. The continuity of these two episodes, linked by the action of women, begins immediately after the alleged conclusion of gMark, while the woman are not present before that. This difference provides an indication that it is a supplemental expansion.

If it's an expansion why does it feature women? Women were not allowed to testify in court in Jesus' day, and their words would not be considered authoritative or trustworthy. Surely if someone tacked on the ending, they would do it using men to convince their readers that the witnesses were reliable and not unreliable, untrustworthy lesser citizens -women?

[Minimalist]

Your main source is something you don't even have!

Also true of the alleged "Q" version, though.

[Aractus]

^ Yep, and I don't believe that theory (two source hypothesis). It may turn out to be true, but the fact is that a document as important as "Q", there should be evidence for it. We have evidence for the lost Gospel of the Hebrews, anyone arguing against its existence needs to explain where the quotation fragments we have of it come from. But Q, no early documents reference it or quote it. The only evidence we have is from textual criticism.

[Welsh cake]

27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.

Bitch please.

[Aractus]

Come on LM, I thought this was supposed to be an intellectual dialogue, not a hit-and-run post!

[Minimalist]

^ Yep, and I don't believe that theory (two source hypothesis). It may turn out to be true, but the fact is that a document as important as "Q", there should be evidence for it. We have evidence for the lost Gospel of the Hebrews, anyone arguing against its existence needs to explain where the quotation fragments we have of it come from. But Q, no early documents reference it or quote it. The only evidence we have is from textual criticism.

There is a growing consensus that the so-called Gnostic "gospel of Thomas" is the earliest xtian gospel being little more than a collection of sayings.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

[Aractus]

No there isn't. Thomas could have been written any time, and there is enough debate over when the NT books were written let alone books like Thomas. There are some that want to believe Thomas is early, but more than likely it isn't as early as the NT writings and was written sometime in the 2nd century.

[Minimalist]

You see, unlike you I have no vested interest in pretending that the story is real.

There is a steady evolution ( you probably hate that word ) from the primitive to the more complex as the church got its act together and acquired political power.

There is far less of any fucking god in religion than there is social control. That is the product that religion offers to the ruling classes. Xtianity is no different.

[John V]

There is a growing consensus that the so-called Gnostic "gospel of Thomas" is the earliest xtian gospel being little more than a collection of sayings.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_T...omposition
Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels. The vast majority of mainstream scholars fall in to the "late" camp[33][34]