i don't see how this rebuts him. it's also not really rhetoric it's his comments derived from his statistical analysis. one should really rebut the analysis if one doesn't agree with the comments. when you did do this it ignores his main point i think
Mark uses IC/Jesus all the time but barely knows Christ (92% / 8%)
the epistles use Christ all the time and their usage of IC/Jesus is much lower (12% / 89%)
so there is a difference in the proportion of the usages between gospels and epistles
i think he is saying that the gospels know Jesus but don't know Christ in the Pauline sense. Some of those few will just be normal 'Messiah's'
conversely the epistles don't refer to Jesus like Mark does (they sure don't know the historical Jesus!)
from this his argument is simple
if the epistles were first then the gospels would reflect the epistle's usage of Christ, but the gospels don't seem to know the epistles (like Acts)
but if the gospels were first then this problem goes away
the path from gospel to epistle is straighter and it just makes a lot more sense
this ties in with someone adding an existing gospel to the epistle collection
really, this is not all that different from the idea the gospels are dependent on earlier sources that also would pre-date the epistles except the gospels themselves predate them
all the attempts to see Mark as an allegory of Paul have been done, why not try it the other way?
it's not like you have to agree with all his conclusions if you do. might not he have a point that the traditional chronology should have an alternative?
Mark uses IC/Jesus all the time but barely knows Christ (92% / 8%)
the epistles use Christ all the time and their usage of IC/Jesus is much lower (12% / 89%)
so there is a difference in the proportion of the usages between gospels and epistles
i think he is saying that the gospels know Jesus but don't know Christ in the Pauline sense. Some of those few will just be normal 'Messiah's'
conversely the epistles don't refer to Jesus like Mark does (they sure don't know the historical Jesus!)
from this his argument is simple
if the epistles were first then the gospels would reflect the epistle's usage of Christ, but the gospels don't seem to know the epistles (like Acts)
but if the gospels were first then this problem goes away
the path from gospel to epistle is straighter and it just makes a lot more sense
this ties in with someone adding an existing gospel to the epistle collection
really, this is not all that different from the idea the gospels are dependent on earlier sources that also would pre-date the epistles except the gospels themselves predate them
all the attempts to see Mark as an allegory of Paul have been done, why not try it the other way?
it's not like you have to agree with all his conclusions if you do. might not he have a point that the traditional chronology should have an alternative?
Statistics: Posted by davidmartin — Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:28 am