Originally posted by Kbertsche
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Archeology 201 Guidelines
If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.
Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?
Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.
Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.
Forum Rules: Here
Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?
Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.
Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
1st Century Fragment of Mark
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-29-2014, 12:44 PM.
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNot unlikely, the early gospels were unauthored, and the hypothetical Q was earlier then the other gospels.Last edited by robrecht; 01-29-2014, 12:59 PM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostEarlier and did not survive as a separate document long enough to be noticed by anyone, as far as we know, but 'Matthew' & 'Luke' (if the hypothetical document did indeed exist) and maybe Papias. All of those factors millitate against this being the find, but not as much as the fact that it has already been announced as a fragment of Mark's text, which is not a very likely mistake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostUnless it includes the name, it is likely that conclusion is hypothetical. Noticed by anyone? We do not have early authored documents to notice.
I am not speaking of authored documents, just Wirkungsgeschicte of Q. Basically, who is it quoted by? In our known literature, Q, if it existed at all, is only quoted by 'Matthew' and 'Luke' and it is possibly referred to by Papias, but not directly quoted.Last edited by robrecht; 01-29-2014, 02:20 PM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostUnless it includes the name, it is likely that conclusion is hypothetical. Noticed by anyone? We do not have early authored documents to notice.Last edited by Kbertsche; 01-29-2014, 02:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostThere had to have been written accounts first. The idea of having an oral account of a story that complex is just stupid.
Since the possible Q would most likely have been a simpler and smaller gospel that may have been added to, parts may have been oral testimony handed down,Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-24-2014, 06:52 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostThere had to have been written accounts first. The idea of having an oral account of a story that complex is just stupid.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNot unlikely, the early gospels were unauthored, and the hypothetical Q was earlier then the other gospels.Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostThere had to have been written accounts first. The idea of having an oral account of a story that complex is just stupid.
Is that not correct, Shuny? Or were you speaking of unauthored in the sense of anonymous and oral communal traditions that were merely written down without any true sense of individual authorship?Last edited by robrecht; 02-24-2014, 09:40 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI don't understand how oral tradition relates to this thread.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI don't understand how oral tradition relates to this thread. I thought Shuny's comment had to do with unauthored texts in the sense of anonymous since most believe the original autographs of the gospels were not ascribed to authors.
Is that not correct, Shuny? Or were you speaking of unauthored in the sense of anonymous and oral communal traditions that were merely written down without any true sense of individual authorship?
Originally posted by http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html
L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers. But if we think about the death of Jesus and remember a group of people who would have still been attached to him and to his memory after his death, it must have been a rather stark and traumatic period of time. Many of their initial hopes and expectations had been dashed. All of this talk of the kingdom of God arriving soon seemed to be disconfirmed with his death.
And yet there's that story of his resurrection of his coming back to life. And it's around that memory, around that set of concerns that a lot of the earliest oral stories about Jesus must have circulated and must have been built. So we have to imagine the followers of Jesus getting together around the dinner table probably and talking about their memories, maybe it was the memory of something he actually said once upon a time or maybe it was a glimpse of an image that they had of him. Surely they thought it was some image of great power.... But the thing that keeps coming back is they tell the story of who he was in retrospect from the experience of what he became through his death and through the story of his resurrection....Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-25-2014, 11:05 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI believe, quite literally Mark, Matthew and Luke were unauthored gospels and not written by the apostles. They were written in their present form after 65 AD. I do believe they were added to by oral beliefs, and adapted to assign authors at some time after 125 AD. I believe oral traditions of events that are not first hand testimony are a part of the final gospels as we know them.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Another good source:
Originally posted by http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6782/the-oral-gospel-tradition.aspx
The Oral Gospel Tradition by James D. G. Dunn
A collection of James Dunn's essays on the oral tradition of Jesus' teachings
The traditions about Jesus and his teaching circulated in oral form for many years, continuing to do so for decades following the writing of the New Testament Gospels. James Dunn is one of the major voices urging that more consideration needs to be given to the oral use and transmission of the Jesus tradition as a major factor in giving the Synoptic tradition its enduring character.
In fifteen scholarly essays Dunn discusses such issues as the role of eyewitnesses and of memory, how the Jesus tradition was shaped by oral usage, and the importance of seeing the biblical materials not so much as frozen writing but as living tradition, today almost as much as in the beginnings of the Gospel tradition.
Comment
-
It seems like some information on the provenance of this supposed 1st century fragment of the gospel of Mark is starting to be unofficially disseminated by nonscholar apologists:
http://bricecjones.weebly.com/1/post...in-common.html
http://bricecjones.weebly.com/1/post...chaeology.html
http://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/...nnage-a-video/אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Comment