Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

In a message dated 3/15/01 1:46:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca writes:

<< All this suggests that the idea of free-wheeling invention is to put it
 mildly quite out of kilter with the reality.  However, if you can show me
 some workable analogy then fine.  In the meantime, I'm afraid all this stuff
 about invention etc. seems to me to be fairly groundless speculation, and
 contrary not just to the bulk of the evidence we have but to all the
 evidence we have on how people behaved wrt these kinds of traditions.
 
 Appealing to the NT stories themselves, while a fascinating topic in its own
 right, is of course to beg the question posed above since that is the point
 under discussion.  
  >>
=========
Three times now you've mention "free-wheeling" as if the gospel creation I 
was referring to was uncontrolled.  I tried to make the point in my last post 
that creation of the stories was evolutionary, incremental, and at each stage 
partially guided by the teller's wish to amplify the connection between Jesus 
and the holy men of scripture.
Furthermore, these weren't "inventions" in the sense they were fake.  I've 
repeatedly suggested that those who passed on the traditions merely added to 
the stories whatever it was that they thought was missing and *must* have 
occurred in the life of Jesus in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.

Now, about your suggestion that I'm question-begging.  I guess it depends on 
your point of view.  You wish to begin with the question of whether there 
existed a precedent for tradition modification in the first century which 
could serve as possible evidence for such to have happened with the gospel 
stories.  In that event, it would, indeed, be question-begging on my part to 
cite the gospel's arguable development as evidence.  However, *my* starting 
point is not yours.  My starting point is my theory that gospel stories were 
based on the Old Testament.  To test that theory, I just look for believable 
antecedents; to the extent the search is successful, then to that extent so 
is the theory.  If you wish to show the theory is wrong, you need to show me 
why my alleged parallels are not believable.  If you counter by saying that 
there's no precedent for the type of tradition development I'm talking about, 
then you are begging the question by assuming to be false the very thing I've 
put up for debate.

May I suggest that you show why you don't think the story of the fishes and 
loaves arose almost entirely from the Old Testament?  A summary of the 
parallels is at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Loaves_and_Fishes.htm



Regards,

Joe Alward