Robert said
brenmcg said
Robert said
Why do think that is? Why is it you can never find any critical scholars who hold the same positions that you defend so passionately? Obsessively? You’ve already clarified that you were not dropped on your head as a baby, so what is the real explanation?
As I’ve posted before I think the answer will be related to Mark Goodacre’s comments in his article on Fatigue in the Synoptics
“Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark’s rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible. For most, this is not a problem: the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time; it provides a sound basis for convincing redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke and, most importantly, the alternatives seem unattractive and implausible … ( … Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis)“.
Once it’s realized that Griesbach isn’t in the least bit implausible the arguments in its favor will be seen to be completely overwhelming.
But, as you know, Mark Goodacre is a very strong proponent of Markan priority. Have you ever tried to discuss this with him? In the meantime, it seems like your ‘answer’ to my question is that the overwhelming majority of critical scholars are simply wrong and that’s why you cannot find any that agree with you. Is that it? That’s your answer? Have you ever considered the possibility that the overwhelming majority of critical scholars might be right and perhaps you are wrong? Is that not a possibility to consider?
The problem is that neither the views of the overwhelming majority of critical biblical scholars nor the views of a minority of biblical scholars provide an answer to the unfalsifiable question of the priority and primacy of this or that gospel. This question cannot be answered from the overlapping of the evangelical content as seen in Venn diagrams made for pericopes or for verses. Cross-sectional analyzes of the text also do not give a decisive answer. Therefore, a methodology change is needed. And here the box for new concepts should be open, not closed by the voice of the majority. And who of the majority actually deals with this question?
Klinghardt recognized that Marcion was using the first gospel. The assumption resulting not from a critical analysis of the text, but from the historical fact that Marcion was the first to recognize the gospel as an important text, as an authoritative text. A fact reinforced by the fact that the Gospels have very meager and dubious testimonies in the early patristics.
Klinghardt first checked Mark’s priority and then came to the conclusion that not proto-Mark but proto-Luke was first. His model is to put a block in front of Marek and that’s it. The rest remains the same…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What exactly do you mean by a cross-sectional analysis of the text? Do you mean looking at relatively obvious improvements in grammar, style, and theology? Or something else perhaps?
Analysis of the text according to various criteria, such as the order of pericopes, directions of editing/transmission, the presence of characteristic syntax and grammar, Hebrew borrowings, development of theology, etc.
What type of change in methodology are you proposing?
Look for external expertise in the field of content development and management, the specificity of ghost writing, and the mass publishing market. Look for benchmarks.
Klinghardt is in the minority in rejecting texts considered genuine by others. So this claim too cannot merely be asserted as fact.
In 1 Clem’s example, I see most sticking to Adolf von Harnack’s findings on authenticity and dating. Otto Zwirelein has successfully criticized traditional dating and authenticity in his books. Early patristics is burdened with numerous orthodox and Catholic editors and in many cases no major critical edition has been done. But that’s not important. Klinghardt made the decision to reject the patristic testimony. His decision is his risk. We’ll see where it takes him. If He follows the paths of consensus, he will not learn anything new.
How does one post pictures on this site?
?? Just ask google “Venn diagram synoptic gospels” and chose nice picture by copy its link.
Jarek said
Steefen,The monograph I am talking about:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I didn’t read BeDuhn’s book yet. I will.
$244 hardcover, on amazon.
What does it mean to fold in a card game? The term fold in poker means/fold cards meaning to give up your cards and forfeit the game.
Maybe the Dallas Theological Seminary Library has the book, but, I’m presently occupied with the BeDuhn book.
Maybe Bridwell Library at SMU has it.
Maybe Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Library in Fort Worth has it.
keywords=The+Oldest+Gospel+and+the+Formation+of+the+Canonical+Gospels&qid=1667351682&qu=eyJxc2MiOiItMC4wMSIsInFzYSI6IjAuMDAiLCJxc3AiOiIwLjAwIn0%3D&sprefix=the+oldest+gospel+and+the+formation+of+the+canonical+gospels%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.f5122f16-c3e8-4386-bf32-63e904010ad0
Steefen said
Jarek said
Steefen,
The monograph I am talking about:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I didn’t read BeDuhn’s book yet. I will.
$244 hardcover, on amazon.
What does it mean to fold in a card game? The term fold in poker means/fold cards meaning to give up your cards and forfeit the game.
Maybe the Dallas Theological Seminary Library has the book, but, I’m presently occupied with the BeDuhn book.
Maybe Bridwell Library at SMU has it.
Maybe Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Library in Fort Worth has it.
keywords=The+Oldest+Gospel+and+the+Formation+of+the+Canonical+Gospels&qid=1667351682&qu=eyJxc2MiOiItMC4wMSIsInFzYSI6IjAuMDAiLCJxc3AiOiIwLjAwIn0%3D&sprefix=the+oldest+gospel+and+the+formation+of+the+canonical+gospels%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.f5122f16-c3e8-4386-bf32-63e904010ad0
Send me an email to ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Jarek said
What type of change in methodology are you proposing?
Look for external expertise in the field of content development and management, the specificity of ghost writing, and the mass publishing market. Look for benchmarks.
Oh, yes, what was the scholarly designation you gave yourself a while back for your specific area of expertise? MBS, Marketing Biblical Scholar, or something like that?
Klinghardt is in the minority in rejecting texts considered genuine by others. So this claim too cannot merely be asserted as fact.
In 1 Clem’s example, I see most sticking to Adolf von Harnack’s findings on authenticity and dating. Otto Zwirelein has successfully criticized traditional dating and authenticity in his books. Early patristics is burdened with numerous orthodox and Catholic editors and in many cases no major critical edition has been done. But that’s not important.
It is indeed important. One should at the very least be aware of scholarship before dismissing it. Although some still speak very highly of Lightfoot’s classic edition, New critical editions of 1 Clement have still been worked on by very competent scholars, eg, Joseph A. Fischer (1993, paperback 2006), Bart D. Ehrman (2003), Michael W. Holmes (2007). Ehrman is neither orthodox nor Catholic. Perhaps you could fund a debate between Bart and Otto here on the blog. That would be interesting, and the proceeds would all go to worthy charities.
Klinghardt made the decision to reject the patristic testimony. His decision is his risk. We’ll see where it takes him. If He follows the paths of consensus, he will not learn anything new.
Before one can claim to have made a new contribution to scholarship, it is necessary to learn what scholars have already said. That is, in fact, the first step in becoming a scholar.
All that we have got are editiones minores. These pretend to give a text which, in fact, is only mirroring fourth/fifth century recensions of it. Besides, Bart writes about it in the introduction to the Apostolic Fathers. What would this debate be about if Bart hadn’t written any reviews for Otto’s books?
Bart is presented 17 times by Klinghardt. Do you think that this author has a lack of knowledge of literature?
Of course, you need a multidisciplinary team with biblical scholars as members.
Robert said
brenmcg said
Robert said
Why do think that is? Why is it you can never find any critical scholars who hold the same positions that you defend so passionately? Obsessively? You’ve already clarified that you were not dropped on your head as a baby, so what is the real explanation?
As I’ve posted before I think the answer will be related to Mark Goodacre’s comments in his article on Fatigue in the Synoptics
“Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark’s rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible. For most, this is not a problem: the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time; it provides a sound basis for convincing redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke and, most importantly, the alternatives seem unattractive and implausible … ( … Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis)“.
Once it’s realized that Griesbach isn’t in the least bit implausible the arguments in its favor will be seen to be completely overwhelming.
But, as you know, Mark Goodacre is a very strong proponent of Markan priority.
It’s more than that. The very article in question offers pretty darned convincing evidence that Matthew was copying Mark.
The first thing I’d ask, if I were to want to participate in this conversation, is how a proponent of Matthean priority would account for the pretty apparent cases of editorial fatigue in Matthew.
Robert said
They would debate whether or not 1 Clement is authentic or not, of course. As the author of a recent critical edition, and as someone immune from your criticism of being orthodox or Catholic, Bart would defend the authenticity of 1 Clement.
All in all, this is a very interesting idea, bearing in mind Bart’s position in 2013 on a similar case concerning the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Combine the two and it could be an electrifying event.
Débat sur l’authenticité des lettres de la recension moyenne
En 1979, le philologue ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
La thèse de R. Joly ne convainc cependant pas tout le monde. Par exemple, W. R. Schoedel la rejette en 1980** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Reinhard M. Hübner en 1997** you do not have permission to see this link **.
En 2000, C. Moreschini et E. Norelli écrivent : « La majorité des savants (à laquelle nous nous rallions) n’a toutefois pas accepté ces propositions ; aucun élément décisif n’oblige à considérer comme un faux tout ou partie de la recension moyenne des lettres d’Ignace (cf. Munier cité dans la bibliographie** you do not have permission to see this link ** déclare ne pas trouver convaincants les arguments contre l’authenticité, mais il ne les discute pas.
Porphyry said
It’s more than that. The very article in question offers pretty darned convincing evidence that Matthew was copying Mark.
The first thing I’d ask, if I were to want to participate in this conversation, is how a proponent of Matthean priority would account for the pretty apparent cases of editorial fatigue in Matthew.
Lets look at this example.
Styler points further to a more serious inconsistency in the same verse. The story in Mark is that Herodias wanted to kill John because she had a grudge against him
‘But she could not because Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him.’ (Mark 6.19f).
In Matthew’s version of the story, this element has dropped out: now it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him killed (Matt [47] 14.5). When Mark, then, speaks of Herod’s ‘grief’ (perilupoV) at the request for John’s head, it is coherent and understandable: Herodias demanded something that Herod did not want. But when Matthew in parallel speaks of the king’s grief (kai luphqeiV o basileuV, Matt 14.9), it makes no sense at all. Matthew had told us, after all, that ‘Herod wanted to put him to death’
In Matthew’s account Herod wants to kill John the baptist but is afraid to because the people hold John to be a prophet. Herod does not want the stigma of being a prophet killer attached to his name. He tries to silence him but stops short of killing him, as indicated by the line “Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison.”
When Herodias has her daughter ask Herod for John the baptist’s head, Herod is “grieved” because he will now become a prophet killer in the eyes of the people.
This word luphqeiV (“grieved”) is the same word used in for the story of rich young man.
This rich man walks away after being told he must sell all his possessions and give to the poor – “ἀπῆλθεν λυπούμενος” “he went away grieving“. Herod’s “grief” should be understood in the same sense. An internally directed selfish emotion for his own personal situation (not the harm to someone else).
So in Matthew’s account we have a perfectly coherent narrative, and the claim that “it makes no sense at all”, is obviously wrong.
Lets look at the same account in Mark however. In Mark we are told that Herod knew John to be “righteous and holy and protected him” Mark 6:22.
Unfortunately Mark also has the line “Herod arrested him and bound him in prison”.
Would you not agree that whoever authored the line “knowing him to be righteous and holy and protected him” did not author the line “Herod arrested him and bound him in prison”?
brenmcg said
Would you not agree that whoever authored the line “knowing him to be righteous and holy and protected him” did not author the line “Herod arrested him and bound him in prison”?
No, I would not agree. I think it is coherent to for a person to arrest another while also preventing others from harming him.
But let’s back up a bit. I agree with Goodacre’s point that Herod’s grief is problematic for Matthew’s account. But I think what is even more problematic for Matthew’s account is the narrative sequence (I don’t think Goodacre notes this in the article)–Matthew completely forgets that he is in a retrospective when discussing John and Herod. Compare Mt 14:1-3 with Mt 14:12-13.
Porphyry said
No, I would not agree. I think it is coherent to for a person to arrest another while also preventing others from harming him.
But why does he have him “bound” in prison? Is that for his “protection”? or is this two different authors?
It’s the same word used for the demon possessed man in Mark 5:3. Why does Mark’s Herod treat the “righteous and holy and protected” John like a demon possessed man?
But let’s back up a bit. I agree with Goodacre’s point that Herod’s grief is problematic for Matthew’s account.
Do you think “he went away grieved” in the story of the rich young man in both Matthew and Mark is problematic? If not, why is it problematic in Matthew’s account of Herod?
But I think what is even more problematic for Matthew’s account is the narrative sequence (I don’t think Goodacre notes this in the article)–Matthew completely forgets that he is in a retrospective when discussing John and Herod. Compare Mt 14:1-3 with Mt 14:12-13.
What’s happening here in Matthew is we’re getting a set up for why Jesus withdraws to a solitary place. It is not because Herod kills John the baptist, it is because Herod believes Jesus is John the baptist arisen (a man he just killed).
“Having come” the disciples took the body and buried, and “having come” they told Jesus, but there’s nothing to say these are immediately consecutive actions. The implication of Jesus “hearing” is that he has heard the full story (Herod thinks he is John arisen).
In Mark and Luke we have the same sections – “Herod believes Jesus is the risen John” and “Jesus withdraws to a solitary place”.
In Mark the reason given for the withdrawal is that so many people were coming and going they hadn’t had a chance to eat, Mark 16:31. In Luke no reason is given.
So in Mark and Luke we have a set up for Jesus withdrawing to a solitary place but which neither actually utilizes. Again another indication that they are editing.
brenmcg said
Porphyry said
No, I would not agree. I think it is coherent to for a person to arrest another while also preventing others from harming him.
But why does he have him “bound” in prison? Is that for his “protection”? or is this two different authors?
No on both counts. He was bound because he was a pain; but it is perfectly coherent to throw a nuisance in jail–hold him in chains–but not want to murder him. Just because someone is willing to hold someone captive unjustly doesn’t mean he is willing to murder him unjustly.
But let’s back up a bit. I agree with Goodacre’s point that Herod’s grief is problematic for Matthew’s account.
Do you think “he went away grieved” in the story of the rich young man in both Matthew and Mark is problematic? If not, why is it problematic in Matthew’s account of Herod?
Using the word grieved by itself isn’t problematic. It is problematic in Mt 14:9 because Matthew just told us in Mt 14:5 that Herod wanted to kill John. I don’t think the problem is utterly insurmountable, but it is at least strange to say that someone wants to do something–but holds back because he is afraid of the repercussions–but then say that he is deeply grieved when someone forces his hand and makes him do the thing he has been wanting to do. Nothing like that is going on in the story of the rich young man.
But I think what is even more problematic for Matthew’s account is the narrative sequence (I don’t think Goodacre notes this in the article)–Matthew completely forgets that he is in a retrospective when discussing John and Herod. Compare Mt 14:1-3 with Mt 14:12-13.
What’s happening here in Matthew is we’re getting a set up for why Jesus withdraws to a solitary place. It is not because Herod kills John the baptist, it is because Herod believes Jesus is John the baptist arisen (a man he just killed).
“Having come” the disciples took the body and buried, and “having come” they told Jesus, but there’s nothing to say these are immediately consecutive actions. The implication of Jesus “hearing” is that he has heard the full story (Herod thinks he is John arisen).
In Mark and Luke we have the same sections – “Herod believes Jesus is the risen John” and “Jesus withdraws to a solitary place”.
In Mark the reason given for the withdrawal is that so many people were coming and going they hadn’t had a chance to eat, Mark 16:31. In Luke no reason is given.
So in Mark and Luke we have a set up for Jesus withdrawing to a solitary place but which neither actually utilizes. Again another indication that they are editing.
There is a reason given from Jesus’ withdrawal to the solitary place in Mark. In fact you named it: The twelve returned and they were surrouned by crowds so that they could not even get a bite to eat. You are created a problem that isn’t there, because you are reading Mark as a corruption of Matthew, and thinking that someone the story of John’s beheading is supposed to be the cause of the withdrawal, which in Mark it is not.
What is going on in Mark is actually sort of sophisticated. Jesus sends the twelve out in Mk 6:10; they return in Mk 6:30 and their return is the reason for the withdrawal into the wilderness.
In between these is the retrospective story about John the baptist and Herod. That story belongs in the narrative at that point for several reasons:
First, it is occasioned by Jesus’ growing reputation, (see, Mk 6:14-16), a reputation being spread by the twelve he just sent out (v. 13), and a growing reputation that will eventually occasion their withdrawal to a solitary place (v 31).
Second, introducing an aside or tangent is an effective story telling technique to indicate a passage of time. “Jesus sent the apostles out. By the way, did I even tell you the story about Herod and John? Well, once upon a time . . . . And that’s how John died, and oh look, the apostles are finally back.”
The whole sequence is carefully structured in Mark and that structure is completely lost in Matthew.
And that brings me to your reading of Matthew. It makes precious little sense to me to say that what Jesus heard, in Mt 14:13, was what Herod said in Mt 14:2 rather than what Matthew tells us Jesus was told in the immediately preceding verse Mt 14:12. Neither for that matter is it obvious why Herod’s thinking Jesus was John raised from the dead would lead Jesus to withdraw to a solitary place, whereas it is perfectly obvious why on hearing that John had been murdered Jesus might wish to be alone.
Porphyry said
No on both counts. He was bound because he was a pain; but it is perfectly coherent to throw a nuisance in jail–hold him in chains–but not want to murder him. Just because someone is willing to hold someone captive unjustly doesn’t mean he is willing to murder him unjustly.
This isn’t addressing the issue. Mark’s claim that Herod protected John knowing him to be righteous and holy is contradicted by Mark’s claim that Herod had him bound in prison.
Using the word grieved by itself isn’t problematic. It is problematic in Mt 14:9 because Matthew just told us in Mt 14:5 that Herod wanted to kill John. I don’t think the problem is utterly insurmountable, but it is at least strange to say that someone wants to do something–but holds back because he is afraid of the repercussions–but then say that he is deeply grieved when someone forces his hand and makes him do the thing he has been wanting to do. Nothing like that is going on in the story of the rich young man.
You’re insisting on an understanding of “grieved” as grieved on someone else’s behalf. In the rich young man it is understand as sad/upset/sorrowful/distressed for his on situation. If we take this understanding and apply to the same word used by Matthew of Herod where is the problem?
Herod is sad/upset/sorrowful/distressed that he will now become known as a prophet killer by the people. He is not grieving for John.
There is a reason given from Jesus’ withdrawal to the solitary place in Mark. In fact you named it: The twelve returned and they were surrouned by crowds so that they could not even get a bite to eat. You are created a problem that isn’t there, because you are reading Mark as a corruption of Matthew, and thinking that someone the story of John’s beheading is supposed to be the cause of the withdrawal, which in Mark it is not.
No I’m saying its sitting there as an unused set-up in both Mark. In Luke he uses it to set-up Herod wanting to meet Jesus.
In Mark it just sits there as a by-the-way-this-happened story.
Mark says Jesus and disciples couldn’t get time to eat – he uses that as the reason Jesus and the disciples went to a remote place. A place so remote the crowds that gathered there would have to be “sent away so they could buy themselves something to eat”. Incoherency like this is another indication of Markan editing.
What is going on in Mark is actually sort of sophisticated. Jesus sends the twelve out in Mk 6:10; they return in Mk 6:30 and their return is the reason for the withdrawal into the wilderness.
In between these is the retrospective story about John the baptist and Herod. That story belongs in the narrative at that point for several reasons:
First, it is occasioned by Jesus’ growing reputation, (see, Mk 6:14-16), a reputation being spread by the twelve he just sent out (v. 13), and a growing reputation that will eventually occasion their withdrawal to a solitary place (v 31).
Second, introducing an aside or tangent is an effective story telling technique to indicate a passage of time. “Jesus sent the apostles out. By the way, did I even tell you the story about Herod and John? Well, once upon a time . . . . And that’s how John died, and oh look, the apostles are finally back.”
It might be effective storytelling but it’s not characteristic of the gospels generally and certainly not in Mark, who accounts for 50% of the NT’s use of the word “immediately” in his gospel. Mark likes to get to the point, keep the story moving, and have events immediately follow one after the other.
Rather what’s happening here is Luke and Mark are adding the “return of the disciples” after having been sent out to preach. Matthew has Jesus give orders that they are to only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, with the implication that this is what they are to do after his death. Luke and Mark update this to orders completed during his ministry.
And that brings me to your reading of Matthew. It makes precious little sense to me to say that what Jesus heard, in Mt 14:13, was what Herod said in Mt 14:2 rather than what Matthew tells us Jesus was told in the immediately preceding verse Mt 14:12. Neither for that matter is it obvious why Herod’s thinking Jesus was John raised from the dead would lead Jesus to withdraw to a solitary place, whereas it is perfectly obvious why on hearing that John had been murdered Jesus might wish to be alone.
Why is it obvious why Jesus would wish to be alone after John’s killing? His not particularly close to him in Matthew’s gospel. Rather what makes sense is Jesus withdrawal to a remote place on hearing that the ruler of galilee thinks he is an arisen man he had just had executed.
Jesus ends up in the wilderness with large crowds where he gives them the bread of heaven. The Herod story functions as the set up for this. But is missed in Mark/Luke.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert