Rudolf Bultmann, the father of demythologization, urged people to get behind the text. On that, I agree. I also agree that sometimes the superstition of the age, or the need to see things in a miraculous way, can be passed down in an oral society much easier than it can today. But, I don’t think that is what is happening with the story of the fishes and the loaves. At this point, I do not care if the event(s) actually happened. I don’t think that we can determine if Jesus set on a hilltop and fed even a single
I’d like you to compare, for a moment, Matthew 10 and Proverbs 22 (see it in the LXX here). Not, especially Matthew 10.18 and Proverbs 22.29. A man who is skillful in his work, you shall see: before kings, he will serve; he will not serve before the commoners. (Proverbs 22.29) And you will be brought before both governors and kings because of me, for a witness to them and to the Gentiles. (Matthew 10.18) I can turn to Mark 13.9 as the literary precursor — as if often the case with Matthew who uses Mark as his primary
Memory research is interesting exactly because of the way we remember things – even the way we remember the remembrances of the Gospels. I believe that such science can help us even in understanding how the Gospels shaped the early memory of Jesus and were themselves shaped by the early memory of Jesus. Some aspects of the memory can endure a long time, while others are more fickle. “The memory of a romantic first meal out with a partner may take on a different mood when the relationship falters,” said Tomonori Takeuchi and Richard Morris at the University of
I found this old post of James McGrath about the prediction of Jesus’s death. I guess I found it like Columbus discovered America. Amma right? Anyway, we know that in Mark, Jesus predicts his death 3 times: Mark 8.31-33 Mark 9.30-32 Mark 10.32-34 The most obvious prediction in John is at John 12.20-36. But, I think we are missing the connection between Mark and John at this point. John has three predictions, like Mark, of Jesus’s death. John 7.34 John 8.22 John 13.33 I have previously covered where the 7 signs came from. Anyway, just a thought.
I wanted to save this for later. If any Gospel is from an eyewitness account, it could be Mark – however, this doesn’t mean he wrote history.
I am in the midst of a lot of outside things at the moment and cannot contribute like I would want to the discussion. However, for background on the current discussion regarding Q, see the poll here as well as Mark Goodacre’s post. I do not believe the methodology behind Q is measurable nor demonstrable. Rather, it begins with a presupposition based on a previous generation’s lack of concern over writing styles in the ancient world. (in a really simplified version of the Q hypothesis:) It suggests that Matthew and Luke used several sources because their verbiage, when they
This essay must accompany your discussion, along with any of Mark Goodacre’s books on Gospel origins, including his recent on on Thomas and the Synoptics. WHY dig up solid foundations, why open questions long taken for settled? Much critical and expository work rests squarely on the Q hypothesis, and if the hypothesis loses credit, the nuisance will be great. The books we rely upon to guide our thought about the history of Christ will need to be read with painful and unrelaxing re-interpretation. Nor is it only the effect on past studies that disquiets us. We want an accepted