Quote:
Originally Posted by pelagius
(Post 196632)
I think you are being unfair here: to mormons in general and FARMS in particular. No one here (although no doubt you can find your fair share of Mormons who deny Greek influence but you can probably find Mormons that Believe Jesus spoke in Jacobian English so that is hardly remarkable) is denying the importance of Greek thought or influence upon early Christians. However, when Mormons usually talk about Hellenization they are talking about more of a full embrace. For example Reynolds' clearly has in mind articulating "Christian belief and understanding using the content and methods of philosophy" in a systematic way.
Also, some of your paragraph is false. For example,
This is clearly not true for all of the gospels. Find me some reputable scholars that actually believe that Mark wrote in sophisticated Greek. Every scholar I read says that Mark's Greek is awful. In fact, Matthew and Mark often correct Mark's poor Greek when they use Mark as a source.
Not this is not to deny the importance of Greek culture and language to early Christianity. However, it does point out that you are overstating things a bit and like all of us here there appears to be some gaps in your understanding of Christianity.
I provide you with evidence that FARMS is moving away from understanding the through the lens of Hellenization. This should make you happy. SU and FARMS are aligned. You could go write fore them However, you continue to rail against position that doesn't really exist anymore.
|
I'm glad at least you and I (and perhaps some at FARMS) agree on the material stuff. The quality of Mark's Greek is of course a trivial point. He wrote in Greek for a Greek speaking audience, employing Greek traditions. I've read many times that by and large the Gospels were written in excellent Greek, but it's Greek to me. Here's the main point:
"Audience
"The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36).
"Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance, Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18–20); Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.
"The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were already surfacing around 40–60, and the Gospel of Mark came at a time when Christian faith was rising. Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes:
"Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66–70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.[33]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark