a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by Michael BG »

I don’t know what level of critic you are looking for.

I don’t know what level of knowledge you assume from your intended audience.

I am going to assume that you are writing for a general audience who don’t know New Testament Greek and don’t want to have find a copy of the Septuagint in both Greek and English to refer to as they read what you have written. I also am going to assume that you can edit what you have already written.

I have a general criticism – in what I have read so far you are making sweeping conclusions from the use of very few words from the Old Testament (for example the use of μεσημβριαν in Acts 8:26 and 22:6 links to the same word in Isaiah 18:4).

Some scholars believe that the gospel writers decided to use the language of the Septuagint even when not quoting it. However, it is possible that their language was just heavily influenced by it, as my mother’s was by being educated by a school run by nuns. Therefore shouldn’t you try to determine which it is?

In “Cleverley devised myth? …” you use “OG” which is not an abbreviation I am familiar with and couldn’t find on the internet.

In “Introduction: part 1 ...” I like your section on Mt 28:18 and 2 Chron. 36:23 as you quoted both and put the Greek words you are comparing in brackets. However, you don’t continue to do this.

I can’t notice how Mt 28:18f parallels Daniel 7:14 because you don’t post it.

You use the word “Theodition” without defining what it is. So I can’t see how Mt 28:10b combines the different versions of Daniel 7:14 because you don’t point them out.

The idea that Mt 5:33-37 especially 5:37 has a relationship to James 5:12 is not new. I think you need to state why you think Matthew used James as a source rather than James using Matthew or a common source such as Q.

As far as I can see you are linking James 5:11 and the Beatitudes by only the use of μακαρίζομεν in James and μακάριοι in Matthew, or even using James 1:12 with its μακαριος.

I am surprised you are implying that the word εκατονταρχος is used in 2 Kings 11:5 rather than 11:4. This mistake seems to be because you are not quoting the texts.

In “Introduction: part 2 …” you state there are parallels between the story of Heliodorus in 2 Macc 3:24-36 and Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. I wish in Acts 9 there was a vision of young man on a horse accompanied by two other young men who scourged Paul inflicting many blows on him. Unfortunately not even Paul sees anyone, he has a ‘vision’ with sound only. It is not until Acts 22 that anyone sees even a light and Acts 28 before it is implied that Paul sees Jesus.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pm Some scholars believe that the gospel writers decided to use the language of the Septuagint even when not quoting it. However, it is possible that their language was just heavily influenced by it (as my mother’s was by being educated by a school run by nuns). Therefore shouldn’t you try to determine which it is?
It is unlikely that scholars are likely to be able to differentiate whether specific NT (and perhaps apocryphal/ pseudepigraphical) texts arose through influence of or use of the LXX/Septuagint.

Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pm I don’t know what level of critic you are looking for.
I'd say a forum such as this is excellent for getting feedback for new ways of looking at things (some people's style of criticism notwithstanding), and what you have provided is a great example of how constructive to-and-fro dialogue can play out (or at least start to play out).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pmIn “Cleverley devised myth? …” you use “OG” which is not an abbreviation I am familiar with and couldn’t find on the internet.
I imagine OG = Old Greek. Since the term Septuagint properly applies only to the Pentateuch, some people refer to the Greek translation of the rest of the Hebrew scriptures as the Old Greek. I do this myself when I remember to do so.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pmIn “Introduction: part 1 ...” I like your section on Mt 28:18 and 2 Chron. 36:23 as you quoted both and put the Greek words you are comparing in brackets. However, you don’t continue to do this.
This kind of multi language comparison is a tedious and drawn-out process (I know, I am in the process of doing several now) but this is the kind of helpful criticism that Beverly, I think, was looking for. The blog is, after all, a work-in-progress.
I can’t notice how Mt 28:18f parallels Daniel 7:14 because you don’t post it.

You use the word “Theodition” without defining what it is. So I can’t see how Mt 28:10b combines the different versions of Daniel 7:14 because you don’t point them out.
Funny you mention this, as this is one of the comparisons that I had actually completed.

For the visions of Daniel 7 & 9, I compared the "Old Greek"* translation of Daniel to the later translation of Theodotian, giving the Greek (from Rahlfs via BibleWorks 8) and the NET translations of these, as posted by Ben Smith a little while ago, and to the WTT Hebrew and the RSV ET. I found a PDF version of the file, some of which was posted below:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... %22#p85374

However, the PDF itself was never uploaded. So I've uploaded a PDF of it below in case Beverly, or anyone else for that matter, might find it useful. The two translations are quite different in several places.**

Beverly, feel free to use the analysis if you like it (but attribute it to me, if you would). The investigation of why the OG & Theodotion's translations of Daniel differ at key points here is exceptionally fraught with difficulties, as will surely become evident as you review the comparison.

As I always say: Have Fun!

DCH

Notes:
* I also call it the OG, as the OG translations are much younger than the Lxx translations of the five books of the Law)
**
Oopsie! Went off on a tangent above, so split that part off here:

Ben seemed to suspect that there was a connection between the visions of Daniel 9 and how this related to the imperial propaganda machine's (e.g., Josephus) interpretation that the anointed-one to come was Vespasian, and the leader of his army was V's son Titus, thus making the capture and destruction of their capital city and temple divinely predicted events.

After I had expressed some strong reservations to the idea that Josephus' endorsement of Vespasian and Titus as the prince who is to come and his general was alone an interpretation of the visions of Daniel 7 & 9, I now agree with him (if what I wrote above was really what Ben was thinking). The difference between the OG & Theodotion translations of the "70 weeks" prophesy may have something to do with consolidation of the view, in Theodotion's day (around 100 CE) that Israel was, after Vespasian & Titus captured the national capital and destroyed it along with their temple, again in a period of exile from their land until God's anger towards them was spent. The earlier OG (around 1st century BCE) may have reflected the "political crisis" that existed as the Romans stepped in to exert control over Judea, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the claims of the contending princes (Aristobulus II & Hyrcanus II, and ultimately Herod & Antigonus II).
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:18 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:47 amHowever, the PDF itself was never uploaded. So I've uploaded a PDF of it below in case Beverly, or anyone else for that matter, might find it useful.
I find I now have 26 files of yours on my external hard drive. One of them is a spreadsheet, but the rest are in PDF. Eleven of them deal with Ignatian epistles. I have looked back through many of them a number of times. They are quite useful. :) :cheers:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:10 am
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:47 amHowever, the PDF itself was never uploaded. So I've uploaded a PDF of it below in case Beverly, or anyone else for that matter, might find it useful.
I find I now have 26 files of yours on my external hard drive. One of them is a spreadsheet, but the rest are in PDF. Eleven of them deal with Ignatian epistles. I have looked back through many of them a number of times. They are quite useful. :) :cheers:

Thanks! It's nice to know someone at least is finding them useful. :cheers:

My intent was, originally, to just provide reference resources to those who read through scholarly literature or original sources such as Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel. 8.2. These sources and scholarly analysis often presume that the reader is intimately familiar with source texts and their differences, which amateur non-professionals (like me) will not be so familiar with. :scratch: We need an edge.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:27 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:10 am
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:47 amHowever, the PDF itself was never uploaded. So I've uploaded a PDF of it below in case Beverly, or anyone else for that matter, might find it useful.
I find I now have 26 files of yours on my external hard drive. One of them is a spreadsheet, but the rest are in PDF. Eleven of them deal with Ignatian epistles. I have looked back through many of them a number of times. They are quite useful. :) :cheers:

Thanks! It's nice to know someone at least is finding them useful. :cheers:

My intent was, originally, to just provide reference resources to those who read through scholarly literature or original sources such as Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel. 8.2. These sources and scholarly analysis often presume that the reader is intimately familiar with source texts and their differences, which amateur non-professionals (like me) will not be so familiar with. :scratch: We need an edge.
That was basically the purpose of my personal "notes and quotes," which I kept in binders for my own use and which eventually turned into my website (which I no longer really update). Scholarly books would refer casually to some obscure lost gospel or Jewish historian found only in fragments, and it was not always easy to look up the text and/or translation. So I created my own resource, and of course linked copiously to already existing resources like Early Christian & Jewish Writings. As well you know, the laying out of the texts relevant to some problem in synoptic or analytic format resonates deeply with me. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:47 am
Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pmIn “Introduction: part 1 ...” I like your section on Mt 28:18 and 2 Chron. 36:23 as you quoted both and put the Greek words you are comparing in brackets. However, you don’t continue to do this.
This kind of multi language comparison is a tedious and drawn-out process (I know, I am in the process of doing several now) but this is the kind of helpful criticism that Beverly, I think, was looking for. The blog is, after all, a work-in-progress.
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:28 pm
Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pm I don’t know what level of critic you are looking for.
I'd say a forum such as this is excellent for getting feedback for new ways of looking at things (some people's style of criticism notwithstanding), and what you have provided is a great example of how constructive to-and-fro dialogue can play out (or at least start to play out).
Thank you both for your positive comments (I hope my future criticisms are seen as positive).
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm
Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pmIn “Cleverley devised myth? …” you use “OG” which is not an abbreviation I am familiar with and couldn’t find on the internet.
I imagine OG = Old Greek. Since the term Septuagint properly applies only to the Pentateuch, some people refer to the Greek translation of the rest of the Hebrew scriptures as the Old Greek. I do this myself when I remember to do so.
Thanks, my point was that when first used the abbreviation OG should be defined.
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:47 am
Michael BG wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:31 pm
I can’t notice how Mt 28:18f parallels Daniel 7:14 because you don’t post it.

You use the word “Theodition” without defining what it is. So I can’t see how Mt 28:10b combines the different versions of Daniel 7:14 because you don’t point them out.
Funny you mention this, as this is one of the comparisons that I had actually completed.

For the visions of Daniel 7 & 9, I compared the "Old Greek"* translation of Daniel to the later translation of Theodotian, giving the Greek (from Rahlfs via BibleWorks 8) and the NET translations of these, as posted by Ben Smith a little while ago, and to the WTT Hebrew and the RSV ET. I found a PDF version of the file, some of which was posted below:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... %22#p85374

However, the PDF itself was never uploaded. So I've uploaded a PDF of it below in case Beverly, or anyone else for that matter, might find it useful. The two translations are quite different in several places.**

Notes:
* I also call it the OG, as the OG translations are much younger than the Lxx translations of the five books of the Law)
** (Hindley, David C) Analysis of Daniel 7 & 9 and Barnabas in WTT, RSV, OG & TH, ETs (3-11-2018).pdf
Your English translations of 7:14 are:
OG: “And royal authority was given to him, and all the nations of the earth according to posterity, and all honor was serving him And his authority is an everlasting authority that shall never be removed — and his”
Theodotian: “And to him was given the dominion and the honor and the kingship, and all peoples, tribes, languages shall be subject him. His authority is an everlasting authority, which will not pass away, and his kingship”

Mt 28:10 is:
“Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.’”
I think this must be a mistaken reference.

Mt 28:18f is:
“[18] And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
[20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’”

I am not seeing what Beverly was saying is here. All I can see is “authority”, “given” and “all nations” from the OG version.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by DCHindley »

Ahh,
Beverly's blog wrote:-Matthew’s commission at 28:18-20 connects with poetic parallel to Matt 11:25-30 = notice how Matt 28:18f parallels Daniel 7:14 (= edothe, eksousia panta ta ethne)
-Matthew 28:10b (sic) has combined BOTH the different wordings of the Greek translations of the LXX and Theodition lines of Daniel 7:14! That seems to be some proof that these NT authors were very meticulous and extremely thorough in their nerdy love of and erudite comparison of OT texts—if such a redundant statement even needs utterance.
MichaelBG wrote:I am not seeing what Beverly was saying is here. All I can see is “authority”, “given” and “all nations” from the OG version.
Michael, you are right in your observations about what Beverly's Blog was talking about. A comparison was being made between Matt 28:18 (not 10) and Dan 7:14:

Old Greek translation of Dan 7:14
NETS ET of OG Daniel 7:14
Theodotion's translation of Dan 7:14
NETS ET of Theodotion's translation of Dan 7:14
BGT Matthew 28:18-20 (BW version of NA 27)
RSV ET of Matthew 28:18-20
--- --- --- --- 18 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· 18 And Jesus came and said to them,
14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία 14 And royal authority was given to him, 14 καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ 14 And to him was given the dominion ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
--- --- καὶ ἡ τιμὴ and the honor --- ---
--- --- καὶ ἡ βασιλεία and the kingship, --- ---
καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς and all the nations of the earth καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί φυλαί γλῶσσαι and all peoples, tribes, languages 19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα according to posterity, and all honor --- --- --- ---
αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα was serving him αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν shall be subject him. --- ---
--- --- --- --- βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
--- --- --- --- 20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;
καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος And his authority is an everlasting authority ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος His authority is an everlasting authority, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ that shall never be removed ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται that will not pass away, --- ---
καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ — and his kingship, which will never perish. καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται and his kingship will not be destroyed. --- ---

I would add that there is also a connection with Matt 28:20. Like you, however, I did not see where the author of Matthew 28:18-20 used BOTH the OG & Theodotion's Greek translations. The closest is to the OG, as Theodotion's translation consistently only uses only one of the several elements present in the OG. FWIW, Theodotion usually seems to preserve the order of the Hebrew better than the OG.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: a new 'Mythicist' commentary on Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:21 pmI think I figured out what the Blog was talking about. A comparison was being made between Matt 28:18 (not 10) and Dan 7:14.
The Great Commission is well nigh universally recognized as an allusion to Daniel 7.13-14:

Charles H. Talbert, Matthew (Paideia Commentary), page 312: Commission (28:18–20a): All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Dan. 7:13–14; cf. Phil. 2:9–11).

David L. Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary), page 689: God’s bestowal of universal authority or power upon Jesus echoes Dan. 7:13–14, 18, 22, 27 (cf. Matt. 11:27; 26:64; Eph. 1:20–23; Phil. 2:6–11; Col. 1:15–20; 1 Pet. 3:18–22; Rev. 5:1–14). In Dan. 7 and Matthew alike, the Son of Man’s authority passes to his community (W. Davies and Allison 1997: 683).

Margaret Davies, Matthew, 2nd Edition (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), page 237: Once more, the description of this meeting centres on Jesus’ words: ‘And Jesus came and spoke to them saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me” ’. The human being Jesus, like the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel’s vision, had been given all authority by God (Dan. 7.14).

D. A. Carson, Walter W. Wessel, & Walter L. Liefeld, Matthew, Mark, & Luke (Expositor's Commentary), page 595: This well-defined exercise of authority is given Jesus as the climactic vindication of his humiliation (cf. Phil 2:5-11); and it marks a turning point in redemptive history, for Messiah's "kingdom" (i.e., his "king-dominion," the exercise of his divine and saving authority; see on 3:2; 13:37-39) has dawned in new power. This is still clearer if we accept the view that there is a conscious allusion here to Daniel 7:13-14 (see esp. France, Jesus, pp. 142-43): the Son of Man, once humiliated and suffering, is given universal authority (same word in LXX).

But I, like Michael and you, am also not seeing where Matthew is using both the OG and Theodotion, either in 28.10b or in 28.16-20. Perhaps Beverly can explain what she means.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply