The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
robert j
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by robert j » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:16 am

Jax wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:45 am
robert j wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:57 am

I certainly agree that much of the character of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention, but that doesn't erase the Paul responsible for the 5 extant letters addressed to his 4 congregations.
Hi robert j, what five letters may I ask?
The same 5 you asked me about a couple of weeks ago in another thread ---
robert j wrote:
... the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations ...
Jax wrote:
What five might those be Sir?
robert j wrote:
... Those would be 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.
Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:54 pm

Ah, Thank you for that clarification.

Jax

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:01 pm

robert j wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:16 am
Jax wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:45 am
robert j wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:57 am

I certainly agree that much of the character of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention, but that doesn't erase the Paul responsible for the 5 extant letters addressed to his 4 congregations.
Hi robert j, what five letters may I ask?
The same 5 you asked me about a couple of weeks ago in another thread ---
robert j wrote:
... the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations ...
Jax wrote:
What five might those be Sir?
robert j wrote:
... Those would be 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.
Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:54 pm

Ah, Thank you for that clarification.

Jax
Opps! My bad. Won't happen again.

Is there a reason that you don't include Romans or Philemon? Personally I think that Philemon belongs to the Colossians and Ephesians letter set but I am really curious as to your reasoning for not including Romans in the authentic letters of Paul.

Thank you for your patience.

moses
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by moses » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:11 pm

I am not denying your thought of the presence or lack of specific structural parallels, but I just want to note for the record that Mark does have the idea of a post-resurrection appearance in 16:7: "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." The reader would only be expected to believe that this actually happened, given the kind and source of the guarantee the disciples get here. But you are right to say that there is no narrative of such an event in the short gMark.
you mean just a belief without any details?


The commission might be seen as implied in Mark 13:9f: "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10 And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 When they bring you to trial ..."
i wonder if mark had his audience in mind and not peter when he said 13:9 and what followed :
“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
the believers who were reading already knew that peter did the unforgivable crime of lying and denying. the believers should not be like peter and do the opposite.

was peter ready to be handed over ?

71 Peter swore, “A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know this man you’re talking about!” 72 And immediately the rooster crowed the second time.
the audience reading mark 13:9 , in my opinion , could not have had peter in mind.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4037
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:25 pm

Jax wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:01 pm
robert j wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:16 am
Jax wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:45 am
robert j wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:57 am

I certainly agree that much of the character of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention, but that doesn't erase the Paul responsible for the 5 extant letters addressed to his 4 congregations.
Hi robert j, what five letters may I ask?
The same 5 you asked me about a couple of weeks ago in another thread ---
robert j wrote:
... the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations ...
Jax wrote:
What five might those be Sir?
robert j wrote:
... Those would be 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.
Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:54 pm

Ah, Thank you for that clarification.

Jax
Opps! My bad. Won't happen again.

Is there a reason that you don't include Romans or Philemon? Personally I think that Philemon belongs to the Colossians and Ephesians letter set but I am really curious as to your reasoning for not including Romans in the authentic letters of Paul.
Robert was listing epistles of Paul to his own congregations. Rome was not his own congregation, and Philemon was not a congregation at all. I believe Robert accepts Romans as Pauline.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

robert j
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by robert j » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:39 pm

Jax wrote:
robert j wrote: ... the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations ...

... Those would be 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.
Is there a reason that you don't include Romans or Philemon? Personally I think that Philemon belongs to the Colossians and Ephesians letter set but I am really curious as to your reasoning for not including Romans in the authentic letters of Paul.
I’m not interested in the odd little Philemon. I’ve seen enough questions about the authenticity to raise doubts, but I have spent zero time evaluating the claims. The letter does not support nor detract from my theories on Paul, so I just don’t really care to spend the time on it.

Now Romans is a different case entirely. Romans is advanced fare, it’s messy, and it’s hard. I don’t exclude Romans from some of my discussions of Paul’s letters because it's hard --- but rather because I am not convinced of the authorship.

I’ve summarized on this forum some textual issues, and suggested a possible solution for a non-Roman address here ---- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2000&p=44323#p44323 — (ETA: Perhaps some of the “Paul”s in that post should be replaced with “the author of Romans”)

Over the past few years, I’ve written and re-written an essay with arguments and even some evidence that Paul was not the author of Romans. I’ve never posted it --- none of the arguments alone are particularly strong. And even all the arguments and evidence together are not strong enough, IMO, to provide a convincing enough case to stand against what “everyone knows”, or think they know, about who wrote the Pauline flagship Romans. I may post what I have some day, or perhaps hope for some greater insights. I don’t know.

I think a core of the letter may have been written, after Paul had died or retired, by one of Paul’s faithful and well-educated junior partners with the intention of accurately reflecting Paul’s teachings --- in Paul’s “voice”. And, if not by Paul, the author did a remarkable job. But as a work by Paul, for me, Romans is a bit off-key.

I think a core text of Romans may be the earliest of the deutero-Paulines. I think open-minded investigators should be skeptical of herd mentality and remain open to the possibility that Paul did not write Romans.

With all that said, I’m certainly interested, at any time, in comments and criticism about what I've written here (though somewhat off-topic of the thread), but I’m not likely to have the time to respond or get involved in any discussion for several weeks.
Last edited by robert j on Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:59 pm

robert j wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:39 pm
Jax wrote:
robert j wrote: ... the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations ...

... Those would be 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.
Is there a reason that you don't include Romans or Philemon? Personally I think that Philemon belongs to the Colossians and Ephesians letter set but I am really curious as to your reasoning for not including Romans in the authentic letters of Paul.
I’m not interested in the odd little Philemon. I’ve seen enough questions about the authenticity to raise doubts, but I have spent zero time evaluating the claims. The letter does not support nor detract from my theories on Paul, so I just don’t really care to spend the time on it.

Now Romans is a different case entirely. Romans is advanced fare, it’s messy, and it’s hard. I don’t exclude Romans from some of my discussions of Paul’s letters because it's hard --- but rather because I am not convinced of the authorship.

I’ve summarized on this forum some textual issues, and suggested a possible solution for a non-Roman address here ---- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2000&p=44323#p44323

Over the past few years, I’ve written and re-written an essay with arguments and even some evidence that Paul was not the author of Romans. I’ve never posted it --- none of the arguments alone are particularly strong. And even all the arguments and evidence together are not strong enough, IMO, to provide a convincing enough case to stand against what “everyone knows”, or think they know, about who wrote the Pauline flagship Romans. I may post what I have some day, or perhaps hope for some greater insights. I don’t know.

I think a core of the letter may have been written by one of Paul’s faithful and well-educated junior partners with the intention of accurately reflecting Paul’s teachings --- in Paul’s “voice”. And, if not by Paul, the author did a remarkable job. But as a work by Paul, for me, Romans is a bit off-key.

I think a core text of Romans may be the earliest of the deutero-Paulines. I think open-minded investigators should be skeptical of herd mentality and remain open to the possibility that Paul did not write Romans.

With all that said, I’m certainly interested in any comments and criticism about what I've written here (though somewhat off-topic of the thread), but I’m not likely to have the time to get involved in any discussion for several weeks.
First. Thank you for the link. :thumbup:
Over the past few years, I’ve written and re-written an essay with arguments and even some evidence that Paul was not the author of Romans. I’ve never posted it --- none of the arguments alone are particularly strong. And even all the arguments and evidence together are not strong enough, IMO, to provide a convincing enough case to stand against what “everyone knows”, or think they know, about who wrote the Pauline flagship Romans. I may post what I have some day, or perhaps hope for some greater insights. I don’t know.
I personally would like to read it. If you don't want to post it here could you at least let me read it somehow?

Thanks

Jax

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:22 pm

robert j, Have you ever come across this? Romans: Two Writings Combined: A New Interpretation of the Body of Romans
Junji Kinoshita
Novum Testamentum
Vol. 7, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1965), pp. 258-277
It can be found on JSTOR.

If so what were your thoughts?

Thanks

Jax

robert j
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by robert j » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:31 pm

Jax wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:59 pm
robert j wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:39 pm
Over the past few years, I’ve written and re-written an essay with arguments and even some evidence that Paul was not the author of Romans. I’ve never posted it --- none of the arguments alone are particularly strong. And even all the arguments and evidence together are not strong enough, IMO, to provide a convincing enough case to stand against what “everyone knows”, or think they know, about who wrote the Pauline flagship Romans. I may post what I have some day, or perhaps hope for some greater insights. I don’t know.
I personally would like to read it. If you don't want to post it here could you at least let me read it somehow?
Maybe I'll work on it some more and post it some day. I haven't posted it because I've never felt it was ready, and I don't want to share this particular work-in-progress. But I sincerely appreciate your interest.



I guess I've been glossing-over my doubts about Romans well, as evident from Ben's comment above.

ETA: I sometimes use portions of Romans because I think at least a core text was written to accurately reflect Paul's teaching, whether written by Paul or not.

hakeem
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by hakeem » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:31 am

It must be noted that all claims that there are authentic Pauline Epistles are products of propaganda. No evidence has ever been presented by anyone at anytime to show that an actual person called Paul, a supposed Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, ever lived in the time of Aretas.

Contemporary Non apologetic sources do not mention any character called Paul and his Epistles and the earliest manuscripts with so-called Pauline letters [P 46] were written sometime in the 2nd-3rd century.

In addition, the claim that a character called Saul/Paul became a believer after he was blinded by a bright light and spoke to the resurrected non-historical Jesus is an invention.

Paul the convert was manufactured

Now, we have the short gMark--the earliest version of the Jesus story.

The author of the short gMark did not know of post-resurrection visits and the commission by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel.

In the so-called Pauline Epistles it is claimed over 500 persons were seen at once by the resurrected Jesus---not even the author of Acts, a supposed close companion of Paul record such a story.

Justin Martyr a supposed 2nd Christian century writer wrote nothing of Paul and the post-resurrection visit of 500 persons by Jesus.

Justin Martyr appears to know a post-resurrection story similar to gMatthew where it is claimed that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Diaologue With Trypho CVII
...... his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Celsus a 2nd century skeptic wrote nothing of Paul and the post-resurrection visit of over 500 persons by Jesus.

Celsus claimed that only one woman and his boon companions were secretly seen by Jesus after the resurrection.

Origen Against Celsus 2.70
but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions..


Against Celsus 1.63
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles were manufactured after the short gMark, after the writings attributed to Justin and Celsus.

pavurcn
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by pavurcn » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:41 am

I see that an entire book of essays focuses on Paul and the Second Century. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 / 108) mentions Paul and some of the letters.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Bing [Bot], JoeWallack, John2, MrMacSon, rakovsky, Stefan Kristensen, Ulan and 29 guests