Won't someone please pay attention to Adam? If you don't, he'll keep whining.
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?
Collapse
X
-
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
-
Thank you, OBP. But I've got Robrecht cornered and he doesn't know how to get out.
If you're wondering why I don't take this lovely opportunity to present MY evidence for a Proto-Mark or Proto-Matthew (or their underlying Proto-Gospel or Grundschrift), I've done it for Robrecht before, and he remains as stolidly an unbeliever as Shunya, the latter of whom I first worked fruitlessly upon back in 2007.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostI never claimed there was no evidence.Originally posted by Adam View PostThat's prima facie the absurd statement. Plus you said it first. (Are we playing "Kick the can" now?)
Originally posted by Adam View PostCan you cite even one scholar who agrees with you, that there is absolutely no evidence there was an earlier draft of Mark?.
Originally posted by Adam View PostFor good measure, would that scholar (if he exists) hold that our Mark was NOT further redacted before another gospel was written from it, with that Deutero- or Trito-Mark having been lost forever after being used for Matthew or Luke? Note I'm saying SCHOLARS, not Fundamentalists whether Protestant nor Catholic.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostThank you, OBP. But I've got Robrecht cornered and he doesn't know how to get out.
If you're wondering why I don't take this lovely opportunity to present MY evidence for a Proto-Mark or Proto-Matthew (or their underlying Proto-Gospel or Grundschrift), I've done it for Robrecht before, and he remains as stolidly an unbeliever as Shunya, the latter of whom I first worked fruitlessly upon back in 2007.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostNor did I say that you did. I said it first and I am still not aware of any evidence. This is not an absurd statement.I've never seen any scholar discuss this topic in this way, positive or negatively. I have seen scholars present their hypotheses and theories of an Urmarcus, proto-Marcus, or proto-Matthew, but their views were typically based more on presuppositions and not evidence. As you no doubt know already, I agree with Neirynck and Van Bella on this question. You say that Van Bella agrees with you that there is indeed evidence for an Urmarcus, but from my discussions with him, I think you're mistaken on that point. If you have finally read Van Bella, I congratulate you on this. Previously, you had no interest in reading his work.
You should have stopped while you were ahead. You say Van Bella has personally told you there is no evidence for a Proto-Mark. He does not speak English as a native, so confusion regarding the word "evidence" is at issue. Granting that he does disbelieve in Proto-Mark, you could have stopped there without admitting he is open to
texts (Deutero-Mark or Trito-Mark) between our Mark and Matthew. I did, in addition claim that they both push the typical current conservative Roman Catholic concept of Proto-Matthew. They do limit that, I think, to a precursor to Matthew, but my theory holds that the same (or similar) text also was used in the making of Mark.I think many of the text-critical emendations of Mark are similar to the same type of emendation that either Matthew or Luke might also have made, ie, minor improvements of grammar or style that even Mark himself or someone else in his community might have made or any intermediary scribe. Thus it is very possible that some of these were made prior Matthew and or Luke having received their copies of Mark. Neirynck and his colleagues who have worked on this issue argue that a deutero-Markan recension is not necessary to explain such minor agreements, but I certainly admit of the possibility of some kind of deutero-Markan recension.Last edited by Adam; 05-03-2016, 04:49 PM.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostI deliberately gave you an easy out from pity, I guess. You just needed to quote one scholar who agreed with you that there is NO evidence of a Proto-Mark nor a Deutero- or Trito-Mark.
No, there is no Van Bella nor Neirynck book available to me at my academic library (UC Davis). I've read enough from their articles or quoted material to know better than to spend money on them.
You should have stopped while you were ahead. You say Van Bella has personally told you there is no evidence for a Proto-Mark. He does not speak English as a native, so confusion regarding the word "evidence" is at issue. Granting that he does disbelieve in Proto-Mark, you could have stopped there without admitting he is open to
texts (Deutero-Mark or Trito-Mark) between our Mark and Matthew. I did, in addition claim that they both push the typical current conservative Roman Catholic concept of Proto-Matthew. They do limit that, I think, to a precursor to Matthew, but my theory holds that the same (or similar) text also was used in the making of Mark.
Wow, any admission from you is like pulling teeth.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostYou've completely misunderstood Van Bella's position.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostI guess I prefer to mix it up with better-informed RC scholars like Boismard who misunderstand in the opposite direction with a most elaborate set of preliminary sources and refinements.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostUntenable conclusions imply the information inputted is deficient.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
-
Mind you, I'm a reformed "Two-Document Hypothesis" scholar. Eventually I found out what outlandish circumlocutions Christopher Tuckett and such do to maintain the fiction that our complete Mark plus Q (as if it's one document--it isn't, it's at least 3 parts) was used by both Matthew and Luke. I had been under the illusion that they were sophisticated enough to know that a Proto-Mark preceded our Mark, or at least preceded its use towards Luke. I had thought the nonsense views of Mark + Q were just misunderstandings promoted by encyclopedias and some trashy introductions.
(To be clear, even less do I believe the theories sorting out only extant documents, particularly the Griesback, Farrer-Goulder, and Augustinian Hypotheses.) I don't know how people can be so gullible.)
(It helped that about two years ago I started saying that the Synoptic Problem could never be solved. Then sure enough I realized it could be done. Skepticism has to precede truth. An open mind is the only way to discover truth.)Last edited by Adam; 05-04-2016, 12:10 PM.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
405 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,409 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
228 responses
1,119 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:04 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment