Did Jesus Baptise people?

[Secret Alias]

There's no point. The canonical gospel of John doesn't have to be the ultimate source of Johannine gospel material. Already Marcion knows about the Paraclete. That doesn't mean that Marcion accepted the canonical gospel of John. Marcion knows 'Matthean material.' That doesn't mean that Marcion used Matthew. Start thinking about the example of Ephrem who uses Johannine gospel material but not the canonical gospel of John. Aphrahat knows and cites Johannine gospel material but did not use the canonical gospel of John. Does religion attract the low IQ people or what? Maybe I should make a picture book to explain things.

[Michael BG]

The claim in both cases is that it is being said today. The verb "is saying" is in the present tense. That is not in dispute. What seems to be at issue is what it means to the average listener that something "is being said". I am saying that, to me and to a lot of others (though I cannot speak for all), it is an appeal to knowledge that is common in some way, at least in some circles. And common knowledge about past events normally has its roots in the past, not in the present, on a charitable view. (A less charitable view is the one we have both acknowledged is possible: the person is passing his/her own thoughts off as common knowledge; but that is dishonest precisely because of the points made above; if all the hearer is hearing is the present tense, then no deception need be involved; but only a robot would interpret sentences like that.)

I can agree that “it is being said” is an appeal to an idea of common knowledge, but I am not sure that the person being told this actually knows this knowledge, but I think they are just supposed to believe the teller. I think it is an appeal to common knowledge either because the person can’t remember the exact details or in the hope that they will not be challenged. I do not think that there is any time frame. An example regarding history would be – it is said that Richard III was a very popular king, particularly in the north.

Michael BG

Do you realize how silly what you are saying is? You say this:

Tatian’s Diatessaron, which is dated c 160-175.

Where is the evidence that Tatian 'invented' his super gospel? So Theophilus invented his super gospel? And everyone else invented, invented but only Irenaeus - living in an age of invention and novelty - resisted the temptation. Right. And who was Tatian's teacher? And what gospel form did he use? The fourfold or the super gospel type? Yes certainly it is said that Tatian makes explicit reference to Johannine material and Justin is not so clear. Fine. But how do you get around the fact that both Justin and Tatian formed a tradition and both individuals used 'super gospels'?

No it does not appear to me to be silly. I thought my comment was neutral and an appeal for you to provide a case to try to convince me of the correctness of your view.
I had assumed that a date range of c 160-175 would have been wide enough for you to be included and I also assumed this is the what most scholars would support.
If you believe Tatian’s Diatessaron was written earlier you only had to say so.

And then there is Irenaeus using Justin's treatise Against Marcion (or someone's treatise at least) which was originally written using a 'super gospel' and now adapted (falsely) to be a mouthpiece for Luke. Doesn't this close the book on whether the fourfold SEPARATED form or the 'super gospel' form was first? Where did Lukan material come from if Luke was only invented with Irenaeus? And then there is Irenaeus using Justin's treatise Against Marcion (or someone's treatise at least) which was originally written using a 'super gospel' and now adapted (falsely) to be a mouthpiece for Luke. Doesn't this close the book on whether the fourfold SEPARATED form or the 'super gospel' form was first? Where did Lukan material come from if Luke was only invented with Irenaeus?

I really thought I had made a simple request:

Do any scholars make a case for the Diatessaron being first which also explains the differences between the sections of Matthew and Luke that appear only in both (Q) and those also in Mark?

I hoped you would answer and if the answer was yes you would provide some of that case.
Of course you could have answered no and then provided your own case.

All you have done is make a suggestion, which doesn’t the close the book on anything. It is just the first stage. The next stage is to present the reasons for your suggestion and hopefully they would include an answer to my question, or at the third stage you would provide it.

[Secret Alias]

Read Peterson's book on the Diatessaron. But I am sure you will find some way to ignore reading it.

[Michael BG]

Do any scholars make a case for the Diatessaron being first which also explains the differences between the sections of Matthew and Luke that appear only in both (Q) and those also in Mark?

Read Peterson's book on the Diatessaron. But I am sure you will find some way to ignore reading it.

Telling me I should read a book does not move forward our debate, it kills it.
However W L Petersen writes,

Tatian’s most famous and enduring legacy is a gospel harmony known as the Diatessaron. Taking the four canonical gospels – in whatever state of redaction they stood in the mid-second century – and extra-canonical material from one or more Judaic-Christian gospels, Tatian wove his sources into a single continuous account. He excised duplications, removed or reconciled contradictions, and harmonized parallel passages.

Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance and History in Scholarship p 1.

He has a date c 150 CE, not that far from what you called a silly date. However he does not seem to supporting your position that Tatian’s Diatessaron is earlier than the canonical gospels (to use his term), therefore it is highly unlikely that his book will answer my questions regarding why Matthew and Luke are so different if they both had before them only one source.

[Secret Alias]

Mmmmm. Where do I begin. Let's start with this. Do you think the canonical texts are foundational to the other gospels, known or unknown, preserved or unpreserved? For instance Irenaeus only tells us about Luke c 180 or 190 CE but the same material shows up in the 'harmonies' of Justin and Tatian forty to sixty years earlier. What's the basis for assigning the 'Lukan material' to Luke rather than the 'harmonies'?

[Michael BG]

Mmmmm. Where do I begin. Let's start with this. Do you think the canonical texts are foundational to the other gospels, known or unknown, preserved or unpreserved? For instance Irenaeus only tells us about Luke c 180 or 190 CE but the same material shows up in the 'harmonies' of Justin and Tatian forty to sixty years earlier. What's the basis for assigning the 'Lukan material' to Luke rather than the 'harmonies'?

Why don’t we assume that by 180 CE the following were written?
Marcion’s gospel;
Tatian’s Diatessaron;
Mark’s gospel;
Matthew’s gospel;
Luke’s gospel;
John’s gospel.

Now all you need do is to make a case for which you think is earliest.

[Secret Alias]

No let's stick with the original proposition. Why people just switch off when the first mention of Luke as a text is so late. They substitute instead the reference to material found in Luke. Not the same thing. Luke is specifically referenced as a text in the last generation of the second century. The Diatessaron, which contained Lukan material is referenced much earlier. So too Justin's gospel and so too Marcion. Why do we assume 'Luke' the original form when it is the latest witness?

[Secret Alias]

Half of life comes down to asking the right questions.

[arnoldo]

Half of life comes down to asking the right questions.

What about the other half?

[Ulan]

Maybe I should make a picture book to explain things.

All snark aside, that idea isn't the worst one. A good graph can replace pages of text and long-winded explanations.