Digression on Form Criticism split from Richard Carrier has an offer

[squiz]

Solitary Man suggests that Richard cover Maier - Marginal Jew:
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5319434#post5319434

[Toto]

Marginal Jew bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine.

I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

[Solitary Man]

Marginal Jew bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine.

I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

Have you read the whole book? If so, then you'd know that's not true.

[Toto]

Marginal Jew bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine.

I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

Have you read the whole book? If so, then you'd know that's not true.

No, I haven't read the whole book, just passages. It starts out (after the Imprimatur) with a lot of theological discussion of the "real" Jesus versus the "historic", versus the "historical" Jesus. My eyes glaze over. This is written by a theologian, not a historian. It's not clear that he cares about whether a metaphysically natural Jesus "existed."

If you want to point out exactly what Meier says on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus - if that is an issue that he deals with - please provide a page number or a summary, or some indication that the issue is actually discussed there.

[Solitary Man]

No, I haven't read the whole book, just passages. It starts out (after the Imprimatur) with a lot of theological discussion of the "real" Jesus versus the "historic", versus the "historical" Jesus. My eyes glaze over.
No wonder. It wasn't theological discussion at all. Anyone who actually read the chapter would have known this. He makes the same comparison of real v. historic with Nixon and Nero.

This is written by a theologian, not a historian. It's not clear that he cares about whether a metaphysically natural Jesus "existed."
So says the person that couldn't even understand the first chapter. What is clear is that you don't even know history when it bites you in the face.

If you want to point out exactly what Meier says on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus - if that is an issue that he deals with - please provide a page number or a summary, or some indication that the issue is actually discussed there.
I've yet to see form criticism discussed here.

[Toto]

"Form criticism" is not a tool that profession historians use. It is one of those devices that Biblical scholars use when they do theology and call it history.

Do you disagree with this: Form_criticism?Form criticism operates on the premise that biblical text is derived from an oral tradition.

Is there any basis for that assumption, other than a desire that it be true?

[Solitary Man]

If Wikipedia says it, it must be true! 3 strikes, Toto, you missed them all.

[Toto]

SM -
I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

[Solitary Man]

SM -
I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

Here (http://www.tf.uio.no/lo/lck/blomberg0192.html#Heading5) is a much better analysis of what form criticism actually is. You should also read Aune's (as ed.) work on genre.

[Toto]

SM -
I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

Here (http://www.tf.uio.no/lo/lck/blomberg0192.html#Heading5) is a much better analysis of what form criticism actually is. You should also read Aune's (as ed.) work on genre.

I was just reading that, actually, and it does nothing to change my opinion of the uselessness of form criticism to historical research.

The earliest form critics based their study on several foundational presuppositions. All agreed that the teachings of Jesus and the narratives about his life which comprise the Gospels were transmitted orally over a considerable period of time before they were ever written down.....

...In recent years, however, many NT scholars are utilizing forms of literary criticism point to the carefully wrought unity of the Gospel narratives and calling into question many of the older axioms of traditio-historical development. ...

Writing the Tradition-History

This objective has perhaps been the focus of the greatest amount of scholarly energy, but it is also laden with the most pitfalls. Most scholars have recognized some of these pitfalls, but few have appreciated their cumulative effect in casting serious doubt on all hypotheses of the development of the tradition which assume that primitive forms underwent substantial modification prior to their inclusion in the written texts of the Gospels

...



All this from Intervarsity Press.

Nothing here, SM, that hasn't been raked over the coals many times before to show how pathetic the entire field of NT studies is.

Got anything else?

And this cryptic reference to Aune seems to be to D. E. Aune, "The Genre of the Gospels," in Gospel Perspectives II, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). But what connection can you make between a genre and history?

[Solitary Man]

So did you stop with form criticism, or did you read the whole article? Sounds to me you found what you wanted and stopped thinking (if you even were ever thinking to begin with). Sad case of confirmation bias. What's new with you, though? This pattern of yours to find what you want in the details while abandoning everything is a pathetic and sorry excuse for the lame scholarship you claim to be doing.

[Zeichman]

"Form criticism" is not a tool that profession historians use. It is one of those devices that Biblical scholars use when they do theology and call it history.

Do you disagree with this: Form_criticism?Form criticism operates on the premise that biblical text is derived from an oral tradition.

Is there any basis for that assumption, other than a desire that it be true?

You think NONE of it derives from oral tradition? Surely the extent to which there is tradition in the gospels has been exaggerated by many, but to say there is NONE is equally unlikely.

[Toto]

So did you stop with form criticism, or did you read the whole article? Sounds to me you found what you wanted and stopped thinking (if you even were ever thinking to begin with). Sad case of confirmation bias. What's new with you, though? This pattern of yours to find what you want in the details while abandoning everything is a pathetic and sorry excuse for the lame scholarship you claim to be doing.

I don't claim to be doing scholarship on an online message board.

I read or skimmed through the entire article. Would you like to point out anything that indicates that form criticism has any value to a historian? Do you want to try to salvage the old critieria of embarrassment that has been discredited here so often?

[Toto]

"Form criticism" is not a tool that profession historians use. It is one of those devices that Biblical scholars use when they do theology and call it history.

Do you disagree with this: Form_criticism?

Is there any basis for that assumption, other than a desire that it be true?

You think NONE of it derives from oral tradition? Surely the extent to which there is tradition in the gospels has been exaggerated by many, but to say there is NONE is equally unlikely.

Why exactly?

[Solitary Man]

"Form criticism" is not a tool that profession historians use. It is one of those devices that Biblical scholars use when they do theology and call it history.

Do you disagree with this: Form_criticism?

Is there any basis for that assumption, other than a desire that it be true?

You think NONE of it derives from oral tradition? Surely the extent to which there is tradition in the gospels has been exaggerated by many, but to say there is NONE is equally unlikely.

Don't both, Z. It's apparently obvious to Toto that all the New Testament was created ex nihilo, that nothing is derived from anything else not written down. :rolleyes:

[Solitary Man]

So did you stop with form criticism, or did you read the whole article? Sounds to me you found what you wanted and stopped thinking (if you even were ever thinking to begin with). Sad case of confirmation bias. What's new with you, though? This pattern of yours to find what you want in the details while abandoning everything is a pathetic and sorry excuse for the lame scholarship you claim to be doing.

I don't claim to be doing scholarship on an online message board.

I read or skimmed through the entire article. Would you like to point out anything that indicates that form criticism has any value to a historian? Do you want to try to salvage the old critieria of embarrassment that has been discredited here so often?

If by discredited you mean someone Jack made a post and you liked it, no, I don't know why I even bother with your apologetics.

[Toto]

You think NONE of it derives from oral tradition? Surely the extent to which there is tradition in the gospels has been exaggerated by many, but to say there is NONE is equally unlikely.

Don't both, Z. It's apparently obvious to Toto that all the New Testament was created ex nihilo, that nothing is derived from anything else not written down. :rolleyes:

This is what the literary critics say - that Mark is a literary composition with no evidence of an earlier "oral" tradition. There are clear literary sources for most of the NT.

If you have some actual evidence for oral sources, please present it.

[Toto]

I don't claim to be doing scholarship on an online message board.

I read or skimmed through the entire article. Would you like to point out anything that indicates that form criticism has any value to a historian? Do you want to try to salvage the old critieria of embarrassment that has been discredited here so often?

If by discredited you mean someone Jack made a post and you liked it, no, I don't know why I even bother with your apologetics.

No, I mean that the issue was examined in great detail. Many examples of "embarrassing" criteria were shown not to be embarrassing, and to have alternate explanations. It was pointed out that this "criteria of embarrassment" is unique to NT studies, and is not in use in any other field, which seems suspicious if it might in fact be useful.

There are some online lecture notes by Darrell Doughty that deconstructed the NT criteria thoroughly. There was nothing left.

I'm sorry you missed those discussions.

[Zeichman]

Don't both, Z. It's apparently obvious to Toto that all the New Testament was created ex nihilo, that nothing is derived from anything else not written down. :rolleyes:

This is what the literary critics say - that Mark is a literary composition with no evidence of an earlier "oral" tradition. There are clear literary sources for most of the NT.

If you have some actual evidence for oral sources, please present it.

How would you explain the overlaps between Mark and Paul's versions of the words of institution?

And no, an appeal to Turton is not sufficient.

And wasn't form criticism largely created by the Grimm brothers? Classification of different types of traditions is useful outside the field of NT studies.

[Solitary Man]

No, I mean that the issue was examined in great detail. Many examples of "embarrassing" criteria were shown not to be embarrassing, and to have alternate explanations. It was pointed out that this "criteria of embarrassment" is unique to NT studies, and is not in use in any other field, which seems suspicious if it might in fact be useful.
So that it was examined, it must have automatically been debunked? Because you can grasp at straws to find "alternatives", they must be correct? Because you've failed to do a thorough research of the various fields which use the criterion, it must be anomalous? In other words, the incompetence and ignorance of IIDB determines truth in Biblical studies? What baloney.

[Solitary Man]

This is what the literary critics say - that Mark is a literary composition with no evidence of an earlier "oral" tradition. There are clear literary sources for most of the NT.

What literary critics? Turton? What a joke.

[Fenton Mulley]

In other words, the incompetence and ignorance of IIDB determines truth in Biblical studies? What baloney.

You make a lot of negative comments about IIDB. If the people here are so ignorant and you dislike them so much why are you here? Just for the bickering?

[Toto]

No, I mean that the issue was examined in great detail. Many examples of "embarrassing" criteria were shown not to be embarrassing, and to have alternate explanations. It was pointed out that this "criteria of embarrassment" is unique to NT studies, and is not in use in any other field, which seems suspicious if it might in fact be useful.
So that it was examined, it must have automatically been debunked? Because you can grasp at straws to find "alternatives", they must be correct? Because you've failed to do a thorough research of the various fields which use the criterion, it must be anomalous? In other words, the incompetence and ignorance of IIDB determines truth in Biblical studies? What baloney.

OK - Find a defense of the criteria that stands up to any sort of critical examination. Or defend them yourself, instead of just implying that greater minds than mine agree on them. I'm still waiting.

[Toto]

This is what the literary critics say - that Mark is a literary composition with no evidence of an earlier "oral" tradition. There are clear literary sources for most of the NT.

If you have some actual evidence for oral sources, please present it.

How would you explain the overlaps between Mark and Paul's versions of the words of institution?

And no, an appeal to Turton is not sufficient.

And wasn't form criticism largely created by the Grimm brothers? Classification of different types of traditions is useful outside the field of NT studies.

Why would I need to explain any overlap between Mark and Paul? Mark could have read Paul's letters or a later editor could have rectified the text of one or both.

As for the Brothers Grimm:

Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

"In 1901, Hermann Gunkel used the insights of the Brothers Grimm about German folktales to ask if Biblical traditions had not also developed from oral traditions."

But as far as I know, the Brothers Grimm never claimed to be able to discover the historical Little Red Riding Hood or the historical Wolf.

It is one thing to examine tradition, but quite another to claim to extract historical facts from it.

[Zeichman]

How would you explain the overlaps between Mark and Paul's versions of the words of institution?

And no, an appeal to Turton is not sufficient.

And wasn't form criticism largely created by the Grimm brothers? Classification of different types of traditions is useful outside the field of NT studies.

Why would I need to explain any overlap between Mark and Paul? Mark could have read Paul's letters or a later editor could have rectified the text of one or both.
Evidence is the question, though. Not speculation, which is precisely your charge against oral tradition and form criticism.

As for the Brothers Grimm:

Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

"In 1901, Hermann Gunkel used the insights of the Brothers Grimm about German folktales to ask if Biblical traditions had not also developed from oral traditions."

But as far as I know, the Brothers Grimm never claimed to be able to discover the historical Little Red Riding Hood or the historical Wolf.

It is one thing to examine tradition, but quite another to claim to extract historical facts from it.

Were you referring specifically to the tradition/redaction question of (biblical) form criticism, originally?

[Toto]

Why would I need to explain any overlap between Mark and Paul? Mark could have read Paul's letters or a later editor could have rectified the text of one or both.
Evidence is the question, though. Not speculation, which is precisely your charge against oral tradition and form criticism.

Are you trying to say that an oral tradition is the default unless disproven? And why would that have to be an oral tradition going back to Jesus?

As for the Brothers Grimm:

Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

"In 1901, Hermann Gunkel used the insights of the Brothers Grimm about German folktales to ask if Biblical traditions had not also developed from oral traditions."

But as far as I know, the Brothers Grimm never claimed to be able to discover the historical Little Red Riding Hood or the historical Wolf.

It is one thing to examine tradition, but quite another to claim to extract historical facts from it.

Were you referring specifically to the tradition/redaction question of (biblical) form criticism, originally?

The question originally was whether form criticism is a useful tool for a historian.

[Solitary Man]

No freaking wonder. Toto, what the hell are you talking about? Do you know what form criticism is? Where did anyone say that it automatically recovered what the historical Jesus said? Geez, talk about creating a strawman. No wonder you're so confused. Perhaps if you actually did some research instead of spouting off what you think you know, you'd escape looking like aa5874.

[Solitary Man]

The question originally was whether form criticism is a useful tool for a historian.

Where exactly was this question asked?

[Zeichman]

Evidence is the question, though. Not speculation, which is precisely your charge against oral tradition and form criticism.

Are you trying to say that an oral tradition is the default unless disproven? And why would that have to be an oral tradition going back to Jesus?
First, I never suggested that it went back to Jesus.
I DO think that oral tradition is the best way to account for the overlap. Evidence for Mark's use of Paul has generally been unimpressive, from what I've seen. However, oral tradition explains the evidence quite nicely., especially given the obviously ritual context from which it arose. So in this case, yes, I would probably say that oral tradition would be the default position for explaining the overlap.


Were you referring specifically to the tradition/redaction question of (biblical) form criticism, originally?

The question originally was whether form criticism is a useful tool for a historian.[/QUOTE]

Cannot the historian use this information to talk about the way that the Jesus tradition (regardless of authenticity) was transmitted and developed? It needn't all be about the historical Jesus.

[No Robots]

Birger Gerhardsson is one scholar who has done a lot of work on the oral antecedents of the Gospels as we have them. His book The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/36678.acad.html?category=academic) is a good place to start. You will find at the link reviews, the introduction, and a sample chapter that discusses at length the question of oral antecedents.

It seems unreal that anyone would deny that the Gospels originate in the same essentially oral literary milieu as the rest of Jewish literature. The main difference between the Gospels and the Talmud is only that the former originated among the ammé haaretz, the simple folk, as opposed to the latter's origin among the learned.

Robert M. Price is one scholar who criticizes Gerhardsson's work, writing (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/price_miller.html) that he:

tried to vindicate gospel accuracy by (gratuitously!) positing that the gospel traditions all go back to rabbinical-type disciples memorizing the maxims of Jesus and handing them on. But this is to beg the question, since we just do not know who originated any single gospel pericope, or whether they stemmed from memory or imagination.

The fact is that the Gospels are of a form similar to the rest of the Jewish literature. All Jewish literature has imaginative elements mixed with memory. What Gerhardsson does is show how the various elements of the Gospels can be sorted. I do not know why Price in this later work ignores Gerhardsson's careful analysis, whereas in his earlier work (here (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_place.htm) and here (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/messiah.htm)) he gives Gerhardsson much credit. It is worth pointing out that the later work does not appear to be published anywhere but on the web page that I linked to, whereas the earlier pieces were published in what appear to be reputable journals.

Both radical skepticism and Biblical fundamentalism refuse to acknowledge oral antecedents to the Gospels as we have them. Both claim that the Gospels originated as pristine written documents, one claiming this as a miracle of divine direction, the other as a miracle of committee work.

The radical skeptic will say that there is no proof of oral antecedents. But the proof is precisely in the literary analysis of the documents that shows that they have the same essential form as other documents that we know originated as oral transmissions, and I am speaking here of the Talmud. That leaves the radical skeptic in the position of denying that the Gospels are in fact Jewish literature. This position is so completely untenable that some radical skeptics then are forced to say that the Gospels are products of a Diaspora Jewry contaminated by Hellenism. On this point, though, they are forced to acknowledge that there are no really similar documents to be found in the Diaspora. Only the Talmud provides a real parallel, and it is certainly not of the Diaspora, nor is it contaminated by Hellenism. What is more, nowhere in the words of Christ is there the slightest hint of Hellenism. It is all pure Judaism. If this is a work of a Hellenized Jewry, why does the central figure in the work display not a jot of Hellenism?

[youngalexander]

The question originally was whether form criticism is a useful tool for a historian.

Where exactly was this question asked?
As ever Jesus and Mo (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/07/core/) have the answer!

[Toto]

No freaking wonder. Toto, what the hell are you talking about? Do you know what form criticism is? Where did anyone say that it automatically recovered what the historical Jesus said? .....

I certainly didn't, Mr. Straw Man.

You barged into a thread about research on the historicity of Jesus and put in a plug for Meier and then said you wished we would delve into form criticism. Forgive me if I assumed that you were addressing the subject of the thread.

This might be more productive if you actually typed in complete paragraphs and did more that drop a few cryptic hints about your subject before throwing your predictable emotional outbursts.

So what is your position?

Is form criticism of any use in researching the historicity of Jesus - yes or no?

If you agree that it isn't, I can close this thread.

If you claim that it is, make your argument.

[dog-on]

SM, once again...

<edit>

[squiz]

I don't pretend to have a clue about form criticism, but somehow all of this reminds me of some of the discussions that I have seen regarding Freudianism.

[JoeWallack]

I DO think that oral tradition is the best way to account for the overlap. Evidence for Mark's use of Paul has generally been unimpressive, from what I've seen. However, oral tradition explains the evidence quite nicely., especially given the obviously ritual context from which it arose. So in this case, yes, I would probably say that oral tradition would be the default position for explaining the overlap.


JW:
I'm just getting started in OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=242093&page=2) but I've already demonstrated that key words, themes, contrasts and ironic contrast in 1 Thessalonians is paralleled in "Mark" but in different settings. This by itself makes "Mark" using Paul as a source the default position compared to "Mark" using oral tradition. As most of "Mark" is Impossible and what remains is Improbable it's clear that "Mark" is not oral tradition based on history. Some of "Mark" may be based on oral tradition, but not oral tradition based on history. That's your stumbling block. You want to claim that because there is some oral tradition there is some history but you have not demonstrated there is oral tradition and you can not demonstrate there is history.

The evidence for "Mark's" use of Paul exists it's just that Bible scholarship has been largely unwilling/unable to demonstrate it to you.



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

[Jeffrey Gibson]

The evidence for "Mark's" use of Paul exists it's just that Bible scholarship has been largely unwilling/unable to demonstrate it to you.

Really? Perhaps you could tell us what you've actually done to discover whether there is (or is not) "bible scholarship" on the question of Mark's relation to Paul and, if there is, how much (if any) of it, you've read.

Jeffrey

[JoeWallack]

The evidence for "Mark's" use of Paul exists it's just that Bible scholarship has been largely unwilling/unable to demonstrate it to you.

Really? Perhaps you could tell us what you've actually done to discover whether there is (or is not) "bible scholarship" on the question of Mark's relation to Paul and, if there is, how much (if any) of it, you've read.
Jeffrey

JW:
Perhaps you could tell us what the difference is between "largely" and "whether there is".

The best Markan critical commentary I'm aware of is France's. He has an underlying ass/presumption that in the absence of an obvious source such as the Jewish Bible, the source is history. I don't remember him ever mentioning Paul as a Paulsible source for "Mark". Does he? Regarding Anchor, they would be better off reading my Thread.



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

[Jeffrey Gibson]

Really? Perhaps you could tell us what you've actually done to discover whether there is (or is not) "bible scholarship" on the question of Mark's relation to Paul and, if there is, how much (if any) of it, you've read.
Jeffrey

JW:
Perhaps you could tell us what the difference is between "largely" and "whether there is".

Perhaps you could tell us the basis of your assertion that scholars have "largely" done anything with respect to the question of Mark's relation to Paul. This assertion presupposes that you have actually looked to see "whether there is" anything on the a possible relationship between Mark and Paul in the literature on Mark produced by scholars.

I'd just like to like to know how you can be as confident as you apparently are that the question has been overlooked to any degree, let alone "largely". So what is the nature and extent of your reading on this topic, Joseph? How much research have you actually done in the "bible scholarship" you speak of?

The best Markan critical commentary I'm aware of is France's. He has an underlying ass/presumption that in the absence of an obvious source such as the Jewish Bible, the source is history. I don't remember him ever mentioning Paul as a Paulsible source for "Mark". Does he?

So you've looked at one commentary, and even then you've apparently only skimmed it. Is that correct? No others? More importantly, you've not surveyed the periodical literature? You've not done any work in NTA or in ATLA to see what's what with respect to how much or how little attention has been paid to the question of Mark's relation to Paul?

Regarding Anchor, they [??] would be better off reading my Thread.

Not until you've checked to see if the (sometimes forced) parallels you see between Mark and 1 Thess. can or cannot also be found in Matthew and Luke, and for that matter in any other NT writing.

Jeffrey

[Solitary Man]

<edit for consistency>

[Ted Hoffman]

Maybe I should review Meier. But I don't want to be accused of reviewing junk pulp considering Marginal Jew is cloaked with an imprimatur. Hmm...

I however think Mark may have derived from tradition even though such tradition may have lacked any historical basis. And he may have actually believed in what he wrote, even if he may have embellished it.
spin writes in response to my question why he(Mark) would believe crap like 2000 pigs rushing to drown in the lake: "tradition (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5296113#post5296113)":
Another "why" I can't answer. People have always got allured by stories that stimulated them from long ago and far away. Where the stories come from though is another matter. Are we dealing with stories that have arrived with an itinerant preacher who made his living out of keeping christians happy long enough to have them continue to feed him? You believe him and you remember the stories and they become absorbed into the tradition that you pass on.

As to believing wild and woolly things, you've seen the willingness of some of our more literalist religionists to not only believe long-odds material, but to purvey it with their own embellishments.
IMHO, that thread is quite useful wrt the question of the stories being derived from tradition.

[Solitary Man]

Maybe I should review Meier. But I don't want to be accused of reviewing junk pulp considering Marginal Jew is cloaked with an imprimatur. Hmm...
A real in-depth review of Meier would be good for you. Make sure you look up every footnote and read the sources carefully. I hope you don't make the same mistake as Sanders (Sanders assumes this, ergo the whole book is junk). I'm quite sick of you pseudo-scholars taking what you want out of a book while trashing real gems found elsewhere. Do I trash Meier for thinking that Thomas is late and dependent on the Gospels? No. To do so would be poor scholarship, not to mention downright stupid. Only in Biblical studies...

[andrewcriddle]

"Form criticism" is not a tool that profession historians use. It is one of those devices that Biblical scholars use when they do theology and call it history.

Do you disagree with this: Form_criticism?Form criticism operates on the premise that biblical text is derived from an oral tradition.

Is there any basis for that assumption, other than a desire that it be true?

The following is partly based on Reading the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0232522014/InternetInfidels/) by John Barton.

Form Criticism argues that important stylistic features of the text correspond to oral not written conventions. In good Form Criticism this is something that must be argued for not assumed.

Assume FTSOA that this has been established more or less convincingly for a given text. There are then two options. Either a/ the passage is a somewhat modified version of an earlier oral discourse or b/ the passage is an original composition written in deliberate imitation of oral conventions. Form Criticism normally (not always) prefers option a/ to option b/. Some would argue that this premise/preference is invalid, and on occasion it probably is. However option a/ is clearly simpler and involves less hypothetical entities than option b/.

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

The best Markan critical commentary I'm aware of is France's. He has an underlying ass/presumption that in the absence of an obvious source such as the Jewish Bible, the source is history. I don't remember him ever mentioning Paul as a Paulsible source for "Mark". Does he?

So you've looked at one commentary, and even then you've apparently only skimmed it. Is that correct? No others?


JW:
What I remember best is that in previous such confrontations with you my memory is better than yours. I went through TNIGTC on "Mark" in detail for my 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible list. Every time I check on something like this it makes me realize that books like this are even worse than I initially thought. Here it is:

Page 5


It is a book about Jesus, a historical figure of the recent past, whom the writer wishes to introduce and commend to his readers, and he achieves this aim by telling the story of (part of) his life and his death together with a selection of his teaching. Such a description sounds like what most people would call a biography.


In 719 pages France provides no arguments that the source for some of "Mark" is the Jewish Bible. I think based on just reading his book the average reader would not even think of it as an issue. Regarding the issue of "Mark" copying from Paul there isn't even a hint (France does point out "Mark's" use of words that can be found elsewhere in the Christian Bible in general which appears to be his (France's) only use of 1 Thessalonians). What France does instead is talk about Peter as a source for "Mark". Badly. What do you expect from a Clergy masquerading as a Scientific Bible Scholar. There's a quality for Bible scholars that is exponentially more important to their quality than language skill. Your heart is hardened to this reality.

I have Faith that it would be easier to find Bush's exit strategy from Iraq than a Christian commentary book on "Mark" that properly evaluates the issue of whether "Mark" copied from Paul. Until these literary weapons of mass publication are found I'll stick with "largely".


Regarding Anchor, they [??] would be better off reading my Thread.

Not until you've checked to see if the (sometimes forced) parallels you see between Mark and 1 Thess. can or cannot also be found in Matthew and Luke, and for that matter in any other NT writing.

Jeffrey

JW:
(shaking head) Jesus, I think I'll limit my conversations with you to language issues. "Matthew" and "Luke" aren't going to help much with the question of whether "Mark" copied from Paul because they are largely an Editing of "Mark".



Joseph

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=242093&page=2)

[Zeichman]

Maybe I should review Meier. But I don't want to be accused of reviewing junk pulp considering Marginal Jew is cloaked with an imprimatur. Hmm...

I however think Mark may have derived from tradition even though such tradition may have lacked any historical basis. And he may have actually believed in what he wrote, even if he may have embellished it.
spin writes in response to my question why he(Mark) would believe crap like 2000 pigs rushing to drown in the lake: "tradition (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5296113#post5296113)":
Another "why" I can't answer. People have always got allured by stories that stimulated them from long ago and far away. Where the stories come from though is another matter. Are we dealing with stories that have arrived with an itinerant preacher who made his living out of keeping christians happy long enough to have them continue to feed him? You believe him and you remember the stories and they become absorbed into the tradition that you pass on.

As to believing wild and woolly things, you've seen the willingness of some of our more literalist religionists to not only believe long-odds material, but to purvey it with their own embellishments.
IMHO, that thread is quite useful wrt the question of the stories being derived from tradition.

I would encourage you to do that, along with SM. However, there seems to be a tendency among mythicists (and among historicists regarding mythicists, as well) to assume that breaking down one person's argument indicates the opposite. I'm reminded of an acquaintance's metaphor of the "dumb apple cart": If you find the right spot and push hard enough, it'll all fall over and be stupid. This is neither an interesting nor a productive way to approach the question.

And I would certainly admit tendencies of this in the stuff that I've written.

[lpetrich]

This argument is going around in circles.

Has anyone tried testing form criticism and similar literary techniques on cases where one knows what the original was like?

Like medieval literature that features Theodoric the Great under names like Dietrich von Bern.