Continuing with Leo Yohansen

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bart answered ... · Continuing with Leo Yohansen · With Leo Yohensen, Snappy Version · Leo Yohansen is Back · somewhere else : Apostles and St. Irenaeus · Where is the First Person if Moses and some Disciples wrote Torah and Gospels? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Also under the video with GMS and Leo Yohansen

Leo Yohansen

"There certainly is. Twelve people take turns to hear a phrase, repeat it several times over, then their turn comes again - for instance. But the fact is, the more you try to memorise in situations where you have to get it instantly, the better you get."

1. Twelve people can't take turns listening to a phrase and repeating it several times in an ongoing speech. The continuation of the speech itself would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it. On top of that, the disciples are portrayed as being individuals of professions such as fishermen.

"a) Would you mind telling me when the transition from fictional characters in the Church to actual characters in the Church occurred? You do admit that St. Irenaeus of Lyons is an actual person, right?
b) "which hadn't been used until after 70 CE," - I happen to think you are wrong, the title is older than Rabbinic Judaism."

2. a) Would you mind pointing out where Irenaeus is mentioned as a character in any of the fictional accounts referred to?
b) It doesn't matter what you chose to think or chose to assert on the matter. Either you can produce Second Temple era common use of the title or you can't.

"If there are sufficient people taking turns or if the one preaching the sermon repeats it in front of the disciples sufficiently long, yes, there is."

3. No, there isn't. The one preaching the sermon isn't repeating it. In fact, doing so would have required that person to have instantly memorized his own ongoing spontaneous speech. Simply imagining such things doesn't make them real.

"a) The actual reason is that they are very akin in storyline compared to St. John's Gospel; b) the theory of Markan priority is unhistorical, an invention from 19th C. Germany, and useful from start for apostates like Bismarck; c) and the historic tradition is that St. Matthew was the first Gospeller and that he first wrote in Aramaic before adding a Greek translation, incumbent on you to explain why the Church got this wrong."

4. a) No, they are clearly seen to reproduce word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use only to change what is being said to suit the story of the individual account. That is why they even change the order of events. They are all telling different stories using the same literary templates.
b) The theory of Markan priority is proven by the comparative analysis of the texts that is still done to this very day.
c) It's incumbent upon anyone claiming an Aramaic version to show it rather than claiming tradition, especially since we know from Papias that the gospel accounts had all been anonymous with only rumors as to who had written them. Attaching rumored names to anonymous accounts long after they had been written doesn't show history for a claim, it shows a tradition of dishonesty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leo Yohansen 1) First, technique. Suppose you had spoken the objection instead of writing it ...

"Twelve people can't take turns"

Peter nudges to Andrew and repeats "twelve people can't take turns" a few times.

"listening to a phrase and repeating it"

Andrew nudges to James. Then he repeats "listening to a phrase and repeating it" a few times.

"several times in an ongoing speech."

James nudges to John, then repeats "several times in an ongoing speech" a few times.

"The continuation of the speech itself"

John nudges to Philip, then repeats "[T]he continuation of the speech itself" a few times,

"would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it."

Philip nudges to Bartholomew and then repeats "would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it" a few times.

"On top of that, the disciples are portrayed as"

Bartholomew nudges to Matthew, then repeats "on top of that, the disciples are portrayed as"

"as being individuals of professions such as fishermen."

Matthew nudges to James the son of Alphaeus, but fortunately, the speech is already over, so James has nothing to note, while Matthew a few times repeats "as being individuals of professions such as fishermen."

Now to the other objections apart from "there isn't such a technique".

"The continuation of the speech itself would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it."

That's supposing they hadn't learned any of the above technique, in which you pay attention when it's your turn to do so.

"On top of that, the disciples are portrayed as being individuals of professions such as fishermen."

We have professions for six of the twelve. Four fishermen (the first four), one tax collector with an education as a Levite before that, one "zealot" meaning presumably an Essenian.

To suppose that the fishermen would not have been able to be taught above or similar technique (I was reconstructing, but a similar technique actually was in use by sthenographers using Tironian notes, two at a time - but these didn't have to memorise, they could just write down) by Jesus, a Levite, and an Essenian, and that the fishermen could not have been taught something like it by John the Baptist (a Cohen) before joining Jesus is having an extremely low view of the human nature in a fisherman or the didactic skills of Our Lord and of his second cousin St. John the Baptist.

2 a) "Would you mind pointing out where Irenaeus is mentioned as a character in any of the fictional accounts referred to?"

The thing is, there is an overlap in lives between what you call "characters of fictional accounts" and persons you admit as historic. St. Irenaeus was in Asia Minor having memories of St. John the Gospeller when he was young (and he can have misunderstood them, he left Asia Minor when 16 : meaning the Gospeller need not be as St. Ireneaeus thought one of the twelve) and St. Ignatius of Antioch was second successor of St. Peter and also disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John the Gospeller.

2 b) "It doesn't matter what you chose to think or chose to assert on the matter. Either you can produce Second Temple era common use of the title or you can't."

Between "common use" and "no use" an intermediate exists, namely occasional use. Heard of Rabbi Gamaliel, Rabbi Hillel, Rabbi Shammai? Or was the exact title rather "Rabban"? Well, if "Rabban" occurred, why could the NT received text not be an adaptation of Rabban to post-70 later use? Exodus also has adaptations to later names of places, like "Phithom and Ramesses," in 1:11, the latter city arguably as such named after one of the Ramses pharaos, but these were later than the Exodus. The adaptation would have happened in the apostolic age.

3. "No, there isn't. The one preaching the sermon isn't repeating it. In fact, doing so would have required that person to have instantly memorized his own ongoing spontaneous speech. Simply imagining such things doesn't make them real."

You have missed the word "or" ... when Christ made a speech "to the Jews" (as St. John retrospectively names the enemies of Him, writing after AD 70) the speech was long but there were twelve people who could take turns to memorise. On other occasions, like the sermon on the mount, the Matthean version spoken to the disciples, He knew that His audience were expecting to be taught and could afford to either repeat Himself or allow others to repeat Him after each sentence.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Our Lord nudges to St. Peter who repeats: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

And St. Andrew repeats: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Our Lord nudges to all and all twelve repeat: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land."

Same procedure. Note, I'm reconstructing. But not from nothing.

4. a) "No, they are clearly seen to reproduce word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use only to change what is being said to suit the story of the individual account. That is why they even change the order of events. They are all telling different stories using the same literary templates."

Would you give examples of word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use?

4. b) "The theory of Markan priority is proven by the comparative analysis of the texts that is still done to this very day."

Comparative analysis cannot prove which one of the three has priority.

4. c) "It's incumbent upon anyone claiming an Aramaic version to show it rather than claiming tradition, especially since we know from Papias that the gospel accounts had all been anonymous with only rumors as to who had written them. Attaching rumored names to anonymous accounts long after they had been written doesn't show history for a claim, it shows a tradition of dishonesty."

I think you got St. Papias wrong. If not, it's incumbent on you to cite the passage you consider as proving "rumours" are all we have.

Leo Yohansen

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 1. "To suppose that the fishermen would not have been able to be taught above or similar technique (I was reconstructing, but a similar technique actually was in use by sthenographers using Tironian notes, two at a time - but these didn't have to memorise, they could just write down) by Jesus, a Levite, and an Essenian, and that the fishermen could not have been taught something like it by John the Baptist (a Cohen) before joining Jesus is having an extremely low view of the human nature in a fisherman or the didactic skills of Our Lord and of his second cousin St. John the Baptist."

A Zealot is not an Essene. Josephus is very clear on their distinctions.

Already your imagined scenario fails as several phrases would have had to have been memorized by each individual in a disjointed manner with no one actually listening to what was being said. The fact that there are multiple differing gospel accounts instead of just one testifies to the fact that no one, be it a group or an individual, had simply memorized everything. Had such a thing been done, there wouldn't be accounts with different speeches and different versions of the same speeches and different orders of the same events. If everything had been memorized as part of some sequential group effort, there would only have been a single gospel account with all speeches accounted for. To further imagine what was being taught behind the scenes in contrast to what is actually portrayed, that is, disciples listening to speeches, not memorizing parts of speeches, only testifies to the imaginary nature of it all. Imagination is required to attempt to justify imaginary accounts.

2. a) "The thing is, there is an overlap in lives between what you call "characters of fictional accounts" and persons you admit as historic. St. Irenaeus was in Asia Minor having memories of St. John the Gospeller when he was young (and he can have misunderstood them, he left Asia Minor when 16 : meaning the Gospeller need not be as St. Ireneaeus thought one of the twelve) and St. Ignatius of Antioch was second successor of St. Peter and also disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John the Gospeller."

There is no historical overlap. Irenaeus had been born c. 130. Whoever he may have had memories of it would not have been of a Palestinian Jew although if the anonymous gospel ascribed to John had been written c. 120, he may indeed have known its anonymous Greek author. Ignatius had not been second successor of Peter who would have been dead by the time of his birth. Being the successor of Peter is yet another church tradition started 300 years after his death.

2. b) "Between "common use" and "no use" an intermediate exists, namely occasional use. Heard of Rabbi Gamaliel, Rabbi Hillel, Rabbi Shammai? Or was the exact title rather "Rabban"? Well, if "Rabban" occurred, why could the NT received text not be an adaptation of Rabban to post-70 later use? Exodus also has adaptations to later names of places, like "Phithom and Ramesses," in 1:11, the latter city arguably as such named after one of the Ramses pharaos, but these were later than the Exodus. The adaptation would have happened in the apostolic age."

Both "Rabbi" and "Rabban" are post 70 CE rabbinic titles that had never been used in the time of the individuals mentioned. It's how the rabbinic texts refer to them. It's not how any contemporary texts refers to them. It's like the way that Christians refer to Jesus as 'Jesus Christ' or simply as just 'Christ' as if it were his last name even though he would have never been referred to as such during his lifetime.

3. "You have missed the word "or" ... when Christ made a speech "to the Jews" (as St. John retrospectively names the enemies of Him, writing after AD 70) the speech was long but there were twelve people who could take turns to memorise. On other occasions, like the sermon on the mount, the Matthean version spoken to the disciples, He knew that His audience were expecting to be taught and could afford to either repeat Himself or allow others to repeat Him after each sentence."

This is already dealt with above. Not only is it merely imagined, but the length of the content makes it impossible for the sequential memorization being imagined.

4. a) "Would you give examples of word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use?"

I won't do so in this format as I can't do it justice by presenting them side by side. However, synoptic comparisons of the gospel accounts are available both in libraries and online. When I first studied them, I had to go to a library to see them but now people are fortunate to be able to find them online with as little as a google search. With the texts presented side by side, you'll be able to see how the parallel narrations utilize the exact same word order until a narration differs with the others in the use of its own material.

4. b) "Comparative analysis cannot prove which one of the three has priority."

Comparative analysis does indeed prove which one has priority. In the material that all share in common, alterations will be made such that Mark and Matthew will match in material that Luke differs with and Mark and Luke will match in material that Matthew differs with but Matthew and Luke are never found to match in material that Mark differs with. They both have material that they share that isn't in Mark but of the material that all three share in common, the two never agree against the material of Mark. This establishes Mark as the primary source that the other two had copied word for word until making their own individual changes.

4. c) "I think you got St. Papias wrong. If not, it's incumbent on you to cite the passage you consider as proving "rumours" are all we have."

In Ecclesiastical History 3.39, Papias is cited pertaining to his claim for the authorship of Mark and Matthew as having been told by a presbyter. The very fact that the authorship of the accounts had to be claimed is due to the historical fact that all of the gospel accounts had been written anonymously with the authors never identifying themselves in the texts. It is only by church tradition that names have been attached to the texts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leo Yohansen 1. "A Zealot is not an Essene. Josephus is very clear on their distinctions."

As I recall, zealots were a radical wing of essenes. If I'm wrong, I can look it up.

"Already your imagined scenario fails as several phrases would have had to have been memorized by each individual in a disjointed manner with no one actually listening to what was being said."

Not a real problem. They can fix the whole picture together later.

"The fact that there are multiple differing gospel accounts instead of just one testifies to the fact that no one, be it a group or an individual, had simply memorized everything."

No one says anyone has memorised everything.

"Had such a thing been done, there wouldn't be accounts with different speeches and different versions of the same speeches"

If you refer to Mark 10 on marriage, I suppose Our Lord said this more than once as He was questioned more than once, forget where the parallel was. If it was Matthew, as I think it was, and it was there that the further words "unless it be for fornication" .... it is explainable as Matthew, a Levite, was better at memorising than Peter, a fisherman.

If you refer to Sermon on the Mount, Matthew and Luke, these were two sermons, the Matthean to the disciples, the Lucan to the crowd below.

"and different orders of the same events."

Not sure I recall an example. If you mean cleansing of the temple, I think this occurred twice, once when Our Lord started and once more a few days before the Crucifixion.

"If everything had been memorized as part of some sequential group effort, there would only have been a single gospel account with all speeches accounted for."

No author would have wanted to put all the speeches into a single papyrus scroll, however many they knew. Remember, codex format came into fashion after this.

"To further imagine what was being taught behind the scenes in contrast to what is actually portrayed, that is, disciples listening to speeches, not memorizing parts of speeches, only testifies to the imaginary nature of it all. Imagination is required to attempt to justify imaginary accounts."

Imagination is required to justify lots of real accounts too.

With what I portrayed, the actual text in the Bible would give the lesson without pulling out extras for how the memorisation was being effected, as that would have been taken for granted.

2. a) "There is no historical overlap. Irenaeus had been born c. 130."

As if there were only he and the "persons in the fictional account" and none between them we know names of.

"Whoever he may have had memories of it would not have been of a Palestinian Jew although if the anonymous gospel ascribed to John had been written c. 120, he may indeed have known its anonymous Greek author."

John wrote the Gospel c. ten years after the Apocalypse. AD 100 as opposed to AD 90. He was most probably a Cohen and one of the 72, not a fisherman and one of the 12.

"Ignatius had not been second successor of Peter who would have been dead by the time of his birth. Being the successor of Peter is yet another church tradition started 300 years after his death."

Here are bishops of Antioch, for you : Peter I ( c. 37/47– c. 53/54), Evodius ( c. 53/54– c. 68/83), Ignatius ( c. 68– c. 107 or c. 83–115). First successor : Evodius. Second successor : Ignatius. QED.

You do not get to state that a Church tradition was "started" year so and so just because it is the earliest recording you know of.

2. b) "Both "Rabbi" and "Rabban" are post 70 CE rabbinic titles that had never been used in the time of the individuals mentioned. It's how the rabbinic texts refer to them. It's not how any contemporary texts refers to them."

Exactly how many contemporary texts are there referring to them at all and in situations of conversation?

"It's like the way that Christians refer to Jesus as 'Jesus Christ' or simply as just 'Christ' as if it were his last name even though he would have never been referred to as such during his lifetime."

"Hoshianna Ben David" would be equivalent to "thou art ha-Meshiakh"

3. "This is already dealt with above. Not only is it merely imagined, but the length of the content makes it impossible for the sequential memorization being imagined."

Your failure to understand a technique of memorisation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

4. a) "I won't do so in this format as I can't do it justice by presenting them side by side."

Or one below the other.

"However, synoptic comparisons of the gospel accounts are available both in libraries and online. When I first studied them, I had to go to a library to see them but now people are fortunate to be able to find them online with as little as a google search."

You could refer me to such a comparison too - BUT to an example that struck you as important.

"With the texts presented side by side, you'll be able to see how the parallel narrations utilize the exact same word order"

Like SVO and SVO? Like same adjective to O? How much could be due to these being very natural word choices, and that's why I wanted a striking example from you.

"until a narration differs with the others in the use of its own material."

These parts being obviously outside the copying, if any.

4. b) "Comparative analysis does indeed prove which one has priority. In the material that all share in common, alterations will be made such that Mark and Matthew will match in material that Luke differs with and Mark and Luke will match in material that Matthew differs with but Matthew and Luke are never found to match in material that Mark differs with."

In a situation (as given by Clement the Stromatist) where St. Peter is reading from two texts side by side, Matthew and Luke, and adding some of his own, this would obviously be because St. Mark was noting the words of St. Peter. Believing he was editing a Gospel.

"They both have material that they share that isn't in Mark"

St. Peter skipped some.

"but of the material that all three share in common, the two never agree against the material of Mark. This establishes Mark as the primary source that the other two had copied word for word until making their own individual changes."

Or Markan Gospel as the ultimate outlet, as St. Mark heard St. Peter reading Matthew and Luke.

4. c) "In Ecclesiastical History 3.39, Papias is cited pertaining to his claim for the authorship of Mark and Matthew as having been told by a presbyter."

// 14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated. //

In other words, St. Papias is scrupulous enough to give us the chain of evidence. And this St. John the Gospeller arguably one of the 72 and a Cohen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leo Yohansen 1 revisited. "A Zealot is not an Essene. Josephus is very clear on their distinctions."

My bad. A zealot is otherwise a Pharisee, but also a freedom fighter, basically, not an Essene and a freedom fighter.

Pharisees would also have been teaching pupils from early on to memorise.