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
- 1. "As I recall, zealots were a radical wing of essenes. If I'm wrong, I can look it up."
Yes, you're wrong. Look it up.
"Not a real problem. They can fix the whole picture together later."
They can't fix what was incapable of having been memorized in the first place.
"No one says anyone has memorised everything."
Either your imagined scenario of a group memorizing things works or it doesn't.
"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."
Your claim has been that a group of men had memorized what was written down. So, talking about individual memories would be irrelavent to your claim.
"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."
I'm talking about many events.
A. Finding Disciples
B. The Capernaum Healings
C. The Leper
D. Fasting and the Sabbath
E. The Twelve Appointed
F. A House Divided
G. Mother and Brothers
H. The Sower
I. The Mustard Seed
J. The Stormy Sea
K. Legion
L. The Daughter of Darius (sic - Jairus)
M. Home Town Rejection
N. The Twelve Sent Out
O. The Feeding of the Five Thousand
P. The Entry Into Jerusalem
Q. The Cleansing of the Temple
R. The Anointing for Burial
The above is the order of events as presented in Mark. For the other accounts, the orders are
Matthew
A
C
B
J
K
Da
L
Na
E
Nb
Db
F
G
H
I
M
O
P
Q
R
Luke
M
B
A
C
D
E
R
H
G
J
K
L
N
O
F
I
P
Q
John
A
Q
O
R
P
"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."
If it had been a group effort as you had imagined, then yes, they would have wanted to put everything in a single work. The Torah was written in 5 scrolls so no one was ever limited in presenting everything in a single scroll.
"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.
What you portrayed simply didn't work and therefore wasn't credible for what is portrayed by the texts.
2. a) "As if there were only he and the "persons in the fictional account" and none between them we know names of."
As if the names we know leading up to Polycarp and Ignatius aren't as fictional as well.
"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."
None of that is true. The writers of the two works aren't even the same person much less written at the presented times.
"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."
Yes, I do. I get to say it because for literally hundreds of years no one had known of it combined with the fact that the tradition isn't even credible.
2. b) "Exactly how many contemporary texts are there referring to them at all and in situations of conversation?"
Contemporary texts make references to all kinds of people with titles, none of them being 'Rabbi' or 'Rabban'.
"Hoshianna Ben David" would be equivalent to "thou art ha-Meshiakh"
No one have been publicly calling him that either.
3. "Your failure to understand a technique of memorisation doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
Your failure to imagine something credible does mean that it doesn't exist.
4. a) "Or one below the other."
Look up the verses to the order of events in the texts as presented above.
"You could refer me to such a comparison too - BUT to an example that struck you as important."
Or you could actually look up the parallel synoptic accounts and see for yourself. As an example, you could look up Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 and see how Luke 21:12-17 follows Mark 13:9-13 but how Matthew 24:9-13 abbreviates the matter. Then you can see how Matthew 24:15-22 follows Mark 13:14-20 but how Luke 21:20-24 differs with them. These differences are clearly not the product of some imagined group effort to memorize speeches but are the product of copying a text and making individual changes.
"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."
And that's why you need to look it up and see for yourself. Look up the orders of events presented above.
4. b) "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."
No, there was no such situation so there's nothing obvious about it.
"St. Peter skipped some."
No, 600 of Mark's 666 verses are reproduced in Matthew. 300 are reproduced in Luke. There would have been no sense in anyone reproducing the texts only to greatly abbreviate Matthew or Luke to create a much shorter account.
"Or Markan Gospel as the ultimate outlet, as St. Mark heard St. Peter reading Matthew and Luke."
Again, no such situation. In fact, it is absurd to believe that Peter would need to be informed by a text of Matthew pertaining to events that Matthew had not been a part of. In Mark 9:7, Peter, John, and James, are to have been with Jesus and heard a voice that said "This is my beloved son, hear him." Neither Matthew nor anyone else had been there. In the Matthew 17:5 account, the voice says "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear him." Again, neither Matthew nor anyone else had been there so if the Mark account had been produced from Peter's memory, one would expect Peter to have known what he had heard rather than Matthew who hadn't been there to have heard anything. So, in 2Peter 1:17 when the voice is recalled as having said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." it is absurd to believe that Peter had to recall the writing of someone who hadn't been there instead of his own memory supposedly recorded in Mark. This shows that these texts are not the product of the individuals claimed from tradition. The fact that ALL of them are written in the third person testifies to the fact that none of them had been written by any eye-witnesses.
4. c) "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."
In other words, Papias provides no chain of evidence as he only provides what others have said about anonymous texts and John had not been known to have been a cohen. If anyone would have been a cohen, it most likely would have been Cephas but nothing is known of either of them having been so. And the reference to Matthew obviously isn't a reference to the received text called Matthew as that text is not a collection of logia. It's also obvious to anyone who's read Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews that they weren't written by the same person.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- 1 "Yes, you're wrong. Look it up."
In case you missed, I did. I admitted my error.
"They can't fix what was incapable of having been memorized in the first place."
It was, as already specified, not incapable of having been memorised.
If there are twentyfour sentences to memorise, each has to memorise two of them, and as the order between the disciples is fixed, the one who memorised alpha and nun (Peter) is followed, twice, at the right moments, by the one memorising beta and xi (Andrew) and so on.
Your problem with this is attending to one sentence to memorise and hearing other sentences at the same time. In principle, this is no different from the recorded practise of two sthenographers writing down a sentence up to when it's no longer spoken while trusting the colleague will pick up what they are hearing. It is also not very different from singing one tune while hearing people who sing three other tunes (four part counterpoint).
"Either your imagined scenario of a group memorizing things works or it doesn't."
It works up to when they can get an overview of the thing said. After that, different people would have been differently well versed in each of the speeches.
"Your claim has been that a group of men had memorized what was written down. So, talking about individual memories would be irrelavent to your claim."
Your objection is confusing short term memory - piecing a speech together on stepping aside - and long term memory.
"I'm talking about many events."
The internal order of which was obviously not memorised in above method. I mentioned it as applying to speeches, one by one, not as applying to the whole sequence of events over 3 and a half years.
Q - cleansing of the temple. There were two of them. St. John records the one which the Priests could consider as "immaturity" and the synoptics the one which they could consider as a "repeat offense".
M, hometown rejection, also more than one, not necessarily restricted to only two.
O - you forget that there were two feedings of multitudes, 5000 and 4000. Matthew 15 and Mark 8 deal with the 4000. Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9 and John 6 deal with the 5000.
J and K always come in that order - when they come at all.
C the leper comes as part of B the Capharnaum healings, which had started before A the finding of disciples.
"If it had been a group effort as you had imagined, then yes, they would have wanted to put everything in a single work. The Torah was written in 5 scrolls so no one was ever limited in presenting everything in a single scroll."
I did not say any single Gospel was a group effort. I said the speeches in them were - at short term.
The Torah is five different books, not a continuous work just subdivided for convenience. Genesis and Exodus are both c. twice the length of a Gospel, Numbers and Deuteronomy one and a half the length of a Gospel, and Leviticus matches the length of a Gospel. Taking, as I do, chapter numbers as useful indicators of length.
"What you portrayed simply didn't work and therefore wasn't credible for what is portrayed by the texts."
To get that skewed result, you'd need to be very ignorant on how teaching is done in oral cultures or even in places where schoolbooks are scarce.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- 2a) "As if the names we know leading up to Polycarp and Ignatius aren't as fictional as well."
Well, where do you draw the line? How do you propose the transition from a fictional church to a factual church happened? Or alternatively, supposing the factual church started c. 100, how do you propose it entirely forgot its real history and substituted a fictional one for it?
"None of that is true. The writers of the two works aren't even the same person much less written at the presented times."
I'm sorry, you are wrong. And I am very sorry, you are addicted to a wrong principle, likely to make you wrong in the future as well. That one being ignoring Church tradition (about as sensible as ignoring the US tradition about the order of the presidents) in favour of reconstruction. A flight of fancy that can take any liberties, when it doesn't serve the handed down informations, but serves to pretendedly invalidate them.
2b) "Contemporary texts"
I note you shirk the question how many, and obviously also which ones they were.
"make references to all kinds of people with titles, none of them being 'Rabbi' or 'Rabban'."
And what exact type of references are we talking about? Like do they involve conversations?
"No one have been publicly calling him that either."
In Pharisaic contempt of the people, as long as the crowd shouting that so everyone could see and hear weren't backed up by the P¨arisees or Priests, that was not "official" to you ... unless you simply meant to deny the historicity, in which case it falls under the heading of preferring reconstruction over tradition.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- 3 "Your failure to imagine something credible does mean that it doesn't exist."
Your "credible" just shows your inexperience with how information is handled outside where you were learning.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- 4a) Part of what you deal with is a strawman, as it would apply to a group effort to memorise not just single speeches and confrontations, but actual order of all events, which I did not say. B U T you gave, thank you very much, an actual example.
"Or you could actually look up the parallel synoptic accounts and see for yourself. As an example, you could look up Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 and see how Luke 21:12-17 follows Mark 13:9-13 but how Matthew 24:9-13 abbreviates the matter. Then you can see how Matthew 24:15-22 follows Mark 13:14-20 but how Luke 21:20-24 differs with them. These differences are clearly not the product of some imagined group effort to memorize speeches but are the product of copying a text and making individual changes."
Mark 13:9-13 = Luke 21:12-17?
Mark 13:14-20 = Matthew 24:15-22
Peter comparing Matthew and Luke read Luke 21:12 - 17 and Mark noted down 13:9-13, then he read Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark noted 13:14-20.
[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake. [10] And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. [11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. [12] And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. [13] But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.
[9] But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them. [10] And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached. [11] And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost. [12] And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death. [13] And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.
[12] But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake. [13] And it shall happen unto you for a testimony. [14] Lay it up therefore into your hearts, not to meditate before how you shall answer: [15] For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay. [16] And you shall be betrayed by your parents and brethren, and kinsmen and friends; and some of you they will put to death. [17] And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake.
I will take one piece of common text.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.
... they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake.
It does not strike me as copying and changing, it strikes me as memorising with different wording - Matthew, as you say, giving a shorter version.
4b) "No, there was no such situation so there's nothing obvious about it."
According to Clement the Stromatist, of Alexandria, the city where St. Mark was the first bishop, there definitely was.
"No, 600 of Mark's 666 verses are reproduced in Matthew. 300 are reproduced in Luke."
There are 677 verses in Mark. And it is entirely possible that both sets were reproduced into Mark and not from it.
"There would have been no sense in anyone reproducing the texts only to greatly abbreviate Matthew or Luke to create a much shorter account."
If you deliberately ignore the scenario provided by Church tradition from Alexandria : St. Peter was not trying to make a new and shorter account, he was skimming through both Matthew (which he already knew) and Luke (which was presented to him for approval) and showing the agreement by reading from both and changing them at turns. And St. Mark, habitual as St. Peter's secretary, taking notes as if hearing St. Peter dictate a Gospel of his own.
"Again, no such situation."
Again, if you a priori deny situations presented by tradition.
"In fact, it is absurd to believe that Peter would need to be informed by a text of Matthew pertaining to events that Matthew had not been a part of."
Complete strawman. St. Peter did not need information, he already knew Matthew agreed with his memories and he was checking by Matthew and his memories that Luke was a good Gospel too.
"Neither Matthew nor anyone else had been there." In the Matthew 17:5 account, the voice says "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear him."
Difficulty disappears if Matthew had his information from Peter.
"So, in 2Peter 1:17 when the voice is recalled as having said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." it is absurd to believe that Peter had to recall the writing of someone who hadn't been there instead of his own memory supposedly recorded in Mark."
In Douay Rheims, the verse reads:
For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
In other words, no discrepancy in lacking the final imperative.
"This shows that these texts are not the product of the individuals claimed from tradition."
Only by a shallow analysis that sets out to "prove" that by dishonesty.
"The fact that ALL of them are written in the third person testifies to the fact that none of them had been written by any eye-witnesses."
Yeah, anyone involved in events would naturally refer to himself in first person, always ... Moses and Caesar never existed .... duh!
Are your grades in mathematical subjects somewhat better than those in letters? Like, languages, philosophy, history?
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- 4c) "In other words, Papias provides no chain of evidence as he only provides what others have said"
No, he provides what one fairly significant other than himself has informed him of. He says John and Aristion were disciples of Christ.
"about anonymous texts"
According to John's information to Papias, they were precisely not anonymous.
"and John had not been known to have been a cohen."
You are missing a reference from Asia minor (I think another early CF than Papias, about same time) where John is said to have worn the golden head band. See L'énigme du disciple que jésus aimait by Jean Colson. You are also missing the beloved disciple in his Gospel knew the chief priests. No one says Cephas did so.
"If anyone would have been a cohen, it most likely would have been Cephas but nothing is known of either of them having been so."
Very obviously, no one pretends Cephas had ever been a Cohen.
"And the reference to Matthew obviously isn't a reference to the received text called Matthew as that text is not a collection of logia."
It is a collection of logia set in the background setting of the story. You are imagining, every reference a text receives in ancient times (or our times!) absolutely has to be prosaically precise in the way a librarian's catalogue description is.
"It's also obvious to anyone who's read Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews that they weren't written by the same person."
Actually very few have read the Gospel according to the Hebrews, so the claim is moot. But it is also irrelevant. Matthew writing first in Hebrew does not mean his text equals "Gospel to the Hebrews". Or is claimed to equal it.
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
- The gospels also present speeches that could never have been instantly written down or memorized to have been recalled later to be put into a gospel account. That's why the claim that the accounts had been inspired by the holy spirit is made even though there are no witnesses to that either.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Leo Yohansen That claim would have diverse merits for diverse speeches.
And remember, the environment was well versed in the art of instant memorisation. For instance, in John 3 a Pharisee of an older generation (not the one to which Jesus said over and over "woe to ye Pharisees" but the one which had been astonished in the Temple when He was twelve years) is there, and if Nicodemus became a Christian, he is obviously the one St. John knew the speech from. It is also a hypothesis that St. John was not one of the Twelve, but the host at the Last Supper, and that means he could have been the host of Jesus when Nicodemus came as well. By the way, St. Nicodemus, both RC and EO consider him a saint ...
But overall, it was a given in historiography at the time that the historiographer was giving his wording of what someone had said, often for embellishment, while it was also generally a given that the speaker sought to embellish his words when speaking - this means the actual wording in a historic text and when spoken need not strictly coincide.
The content would.
As the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek, only Matthew had an Aramaic or Hebrew first version, and Nicodemus arguably spoke Aramaic, the fact of translating is already a remove from actual wording, while giving same content.
- I
- Leo Yohansen
- 1. There is no such thing as the 'art of instant memorization'.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 1. 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
- 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.
- II
- Leo Yohansen
- 2. Trying to justify how the information of a fictional account had been transmitted by speculating about characters in the fictional account is useless. Especially when the characters in the account are made to use the title 'Rabbi' (John 3:2, 3:26) which hadn't been used until after 70 CE, when Rabbinic Judaism had been established decades after the time portrayed in the gospel accounts. In other words, no gospel accounts had been written before 70 CE and no supposed eyewitnesses would have been around after.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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
- Leo Yohansen
- "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?
2. a) Would you mind pointing out where Irenaeus is mentioned as a character in any of the fictional accounts referred to?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 2. a) 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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
- Leo Yohansen
- b) "which hadn't been used until after 70 CE," - I happen to think you are wrong, the title is older than Rabbinic Judaism."
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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 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. 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 2. b) "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?
"'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"
- III
- Leo Yohansen
- 3. Speaking about actual wording going from spoken to written is already redundant as the words couldn't have been instantly memorized in the first place. No one had stood by listening to something like The Sermon on the Mount being spoken while instantly memorizing it as it was still being spoken.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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.
"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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 3. Your failure to understand a technique of memorisation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- IV
- Leo Yohansen
- 4. There was no Aramaic first version of Matthew. The author of the gospel ascribed to Matthew had written the account in Greek and had used the gospel ascribed to Mark as his template. That's why the gospels ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are known as the synoptic accounts.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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
- Leo Yohansen
- "a) The actual reason is that they are very akin in storyline compared to St. John's Gospel;
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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4. a) Would you give examples of word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use?
- Leo Yohansen
- 4. a) 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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
- Leo Yohansen
- b) the theory of Markan priority is unhistorical, an invention from 19th C. Germany, and useful from start for apostates like Bismarck;
b) The theory of Markan priority is proven by the comparative analysis of the texts that is still done to this very day.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4. b) Comparative analysis cannot prove which one of the three has priority.
- Leo Yohansen
- 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. 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.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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
- Leo Yohansen
- 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."
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
- 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.
- Leo Yohansen
- 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. 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
- 4. c) "In Ecclesiastical History 3.39, ..."
// 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.
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.
