'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:10 am The Gospels didn't emerge out of a demand for more information about a real life Jesus, the Gospel of Mark created the concept of a real-life Jesus, and everything else was produced in response.
I think that is very likely. I also think that the Pauline texts could have initially been about a nebulous Christ and the name Jesus got inserted in them later, as or after ur- or proto- Mark was being written (or, if the Pauline texts did initially have have reference to a Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ or both (perhaps as an angel), and then that 'character' would have been further enhanced as or after ur- or proto- Mark was being written).

But I think that most if not all of the eventual 27 NT books were either started in or shaped during a period of growth of mystical, gnostic, or gnostic-like texts (especially Revelation). Current scholarships affirms that the terms 'heretical' and pagan are later-developed concepts and terms used to create an illusion of orthodoxy during the 2nd century (e.g 'pagani' was coined in the mid-late 4th century).

The purpose of the OP was to highlight that now even the orthodox Christian scholars are engaging with these concepts. We might get more light shone on the texts and other things that were happening when the Pauline texts and Mark, etc, were written; and that might help place them in the first C, but I don't see anything that does at present, other than the fact Mark is likely to be a response to the First Jewish-Roman War, at least.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:31 pm As far as I know, the discussion of influences from Josephus focuses on Luke.
That's my understanding, though I think there are Josephean influences in other texts. I haven't gathered or collated information about that, yet, either.

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:31 pm I think Mark comes between 70 and 80, then Matthew likely comes between 90 and 110, with Luke likely between 100 and 140 and John between 110 and 150.
Your timeframe is more spread out than 'convention', and more feasible than 'convention' (I think that many people think Matthew came after Luke; though if the view that Matthew essentially = Mark and the Didache, then Luke may not be necessary ... so many possible permutations ...)

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:31 pm Paul's letters are clearly written before the 1st war. Mark is clearly written after the 1st war. I think the relevance of Mark to both Paul and the war indicates that is was written in close proximity to those events (the war and Paul's ministry). It's a topical story. The story's focus is on both Paul and the war. Why would such a story be written decades later? I think the story was written shortly after the war and Paul's passing, within 10 years of those events.
Yes, the 1st war would have been a very topical story, especially among the Jewish people. Hence there would have been frequent reference to it and accounts of it by the generations immediately after; and ongoing references and accounts to the 1st war are likely to have been enhanced by the events of the 2nd 'war' (and references to and discussions of both).

And after the 1st war the Jewish priests of Judaea had decamped to Galilee and started reviewing the Oral Torah, halacha, aggadah, etc, and started the Tosefta (and then the initial texts that became the Mishnah).

There would have been a lot of contemplation, at a time many other beliefs and cults were spreading around the eastern Mediterranean: the Romans had adopted and adapted Mithras, the Egyptian mystery religions were coming in, Hadrian started the cult of Antinous in 130 AD/CE, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:31 pm As far as I know, the discussion of influences from Josephus focuses on Luke.
Lena Einhorn has shown some 'commonality' and alignment between both Antiquitates Judaicae and De bello Judaico of Josephus and Acts of the Apostles - http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by DCHindley »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:37 pm
rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:31 pm As far as I know, the discussion of influences from Josephus focuses on Luke.
Lena Einhorn has shown some 'commonality' and alignment between both Antiquitates Judaicae and De bello Judaico of Josephus and Acts of the Apostles - http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf
Lena did not find these alignments all by herself. Steve Mason has several books out that more than touch this issue, but the principal one is:

Josephus and the New Testament Nov 01, 2002 (Revised ed. I think the original edition was 1992)

Here's a chart that is online at the BYU Journal website, which I attach below in order to make an illustration (and no, I am not a Mormon):
13-3.png
13-3.png (114.72 KiB) Viewed 10816 times
https://byustudies.byu.edu/new-testament-charts This chart was #13-3, and was based on Mason's book above.

DCH
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by MrMacSon »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:25 am
Lena did not find these alignments all by herself. Steve Mason has several books out that more than touch this issue, but the principal one is:

Josephus and the New Testament Nov 01, 2002 (Revised ed. I think the original edition was 1992)

Yes, and Lena acknowledged Mason and Josephus and the New Testament early in her book -
Which sources, then, has Luke made use of? Apart from using information from the other Synoptic Gospels— Mark, and either Matthew or sources used by Matthew— it is a fairly common, although not uncontested, opinion that Luke would have read another historical source central to us: the chronicles of Flavius Josephus, and in particular his Antiquities of the Jews (which, if true, would push the writing of Luke and Acts into the 90s, at least).4 For one, there are a couple of episodes described by both Luke-Acts and Josephus, where the accounts are decidedly similar (see, for instance, the description of the death of Agrippa I, mentioned above), but more important are the similarities in themes, vocabulary, and literary style, and the sense that the author of Luke-Acts knows the highlights and viewpoints of Josephus’s work. As Josephus scholar Steve Mason puts it in his book Josephus and the New Testament:
Luke-Acts is unique among the NT writings in the extent of its affinities with Josephus’s narratives […] I cannot prove beyond doubt that Luke knew the writings of Josephus. If he did not, however, we have a nearly incredible series of coincidences, which require that Luke knew something that closely approximated Josephus’s narrative in several distinct ways.5

Einhorn, Lena (2016) A Shift in Time: How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus (pp. 27-28). Yucca Publishing.


4 Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas (Leipzig: Haessel, 1894); F. Crawford Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911), 105– 110, https://archive.org/ details/gospelhistoryits00burk (accessed 20 Aug. 2015); Clark Robinson Smith, “Fresh Light on the Synoptic Problem: Josephus a Lukan Source,” American Journal of Theology 17 (1913): 614– 621, https://archive.org/ details/jstor-3154865 (accessed 20 Aug., 2015); Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 251– 295; Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006), 149– 200. For a critical view, see, for example, F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 43– 44; Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 365– 69; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 235– 239; Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 41– 43. For a review, see Heinz Schreckenberg, “Flavius Josephus und die lukanischen Schriften,” in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien, eds. W. Haubeck, M. Bachmann (Leiden: Brill Archive, 1980), 179– 209.

5. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 291– 292.

.
(Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000) might be an interesting read.)

DCHindley wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:25 am Here's a chart that is online at the BYU Journal website, which I attach below in order to make an illustration (and no, I am not a Mormon):

https://byustudies.byu.edu/new-testament-charts This chart was #13-3, and was based on Mason's book above.
Cheers DCH, the chart and that url are useful to have access to.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by DCHindley »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:41 pmCheers DCH, the chart and that url are useful to have access to.
Yeah, BYU can put out some very good, and also some very - well - weird, stuff.

Have you ever seen their Rhetoric program? Very interesting.

DCH
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by MrMacSon »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:02 pm
Have you ever seen their Rhetoric program? Very interesting.

DCH
No, I haven't seen that site before.

13-4 Four Lists of the Original Twelve Apostles is interesting. I was just reading about the three lists in the synoptic gospels and the fact that Matthew is never mentioned in the NT as an apostle or disciple despite being on that those list;: a Matthew is only mentioned once, as a tax collector in Matt 9:9 (there is a Levi as a tax collector in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:27). And the article I was reading didn't mention the list in Acts.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by Ben C. Smith »


Have you ever seen their Rhetoric program? Very interesting.

DCH
No, I haven't seen that site before.

13-4 Four Lists of the Original Twelve Apostles is interesting. I was just reading about the three lists in the synoptic gospels and the fact that Matthew is never mentioned in the NT as an apostle or disciple despite being on that those list;: a Matthew is only mentioned once, as a tax collector in Matt 9:9 (there is a Levi as a tax collector in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:27). And the article I was reading didn't mention the list in Acts.
Here are the main extant lists of the twelve:

Matthew: Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot.

Mark: Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot.

Luke: Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Jude of James, and Judas Iscariot.

Acts: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Jude of James.

Epistle of the Apostles: John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas.

Ebionite Gospel: John, James, Simon, Andrew, <lacuna?>, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot, and Matthew ("you").

Apostolic Church Order: John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, Thomas, Cephas, Bartholomew, and Jude of James.

Apostolic Constitutions: Peter, Andrew; James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, Matthias instead of Judas, James the brother of the Lord, and Paul the teacher of the Gentiles.

And here are (most of) the source texts:

Matthew 10.2-4: 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus [D Λεββέος, 1141 καὶ Λεββαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Θαδδαῖος]; 4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

Mark 3.16-19: 16 And He appointed the twelve; and to Simon he gave the name Peter, 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus [D Λεββαῖον], and Simon the Zealot; 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.

Luke 6.13-16: 13 And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: 14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; 15 and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Acts 1.13: 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.

Epistle of the Apostles 2: 2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2b-3: 2b There was a certain man, Jesus by name, and he was about thirty years of age, who chose us. And he came to Capernaum and went into the house of Simon, who was called Peter, and opened his mouth and said, 3 "Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew, and <lacuna?> Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot; and you, Matthew, while you were sitting at the tax booth, I called, and you followed me. I wish, therefore, you to be twelve apostles for a testimony for Israel."

Apostolic Constitutions 6.14: 14 On whose account also we, who are now assembled in one place — Peter and Andrew; James and John, sons of Zebedee; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus [Λεββαῖος, codex h Λευαῖος] who is surnamed Thaddaeus; and Simon the Canaanite, and Matthias, who instead of Judas was numbered with us; and James the brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, and Paul the teacher of the Gentiles, the chosen vessel, having all met together — have written to you this Catholic doctrine for the confirmation of you, to whom the oversight of the universal Church is committed....

You may recall that a while ago I wrote up some broad conjectures both about the apostolic lists in general and about the relationship of the apostle Matthew to the apostle Matthias and the disciple Levi: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3814. My conjecture(s) may or may not be correct, but I am pretty sure that something is going on with those three names.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:18 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:00 pm 13-4 Four Lists of the Original Twelve Apostles is interesting. I was just reading about the three lists in the synoptic gospels and the fact that Matthew is never mentioned in the NT as an apostle or disciple despite being on that those list;: a Matthew is only mentioned once, as a tax collector in Matt 9:9 (there is a Levi as a tax collector in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:27). And the article I was reading didn't mention the list in Acts.
Here are the main extant lists of the twelve[^] ...

You may recall that a while ago I wrote up some broad conjectures both about the apostolic lists in general and about the relationship of the apostle Matthew to the apostle Matthias and the disciple Levi: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3814. My conjecture(s) may or may not be correct, but I am pretty sure that something is going on with those three names.
:cheers: I was thinking about that Herculean effort. I liked the simple responses -
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:36 pm btw Doesn't it look crazy how they [fought] to substitute one name for another? :mrgreen:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:50 pm Thanks. :) I think the way the names are presented in most of these Christian materials is a bit crazy.

Joe proposed an interesting dimension to Levi -
JoeWallack wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:46 pm JW:
Mark 2
14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
It looks to me that "Mark" (author) is the original author of this story and playing his usual contrived name games:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Names Use As Evidence of Fiction

"Levi" just represents the Levites from the Jewish Bible who were the tax collectors (Priests).

"Alphaeus" refers to the Greek "alpha" = the first. An illustration of the key Parable of the Sower:
Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.
Levi of Alphaeus is straightaway replaced by James of Alphaeus.

... GMark does not want historical witness to promote his Jesus and GMatthew does want supposed historical witness to promote GMatthew's Jesus.

By replacing Levi with Matthew as the taxman, "Matthew" can than have the same supposed person follow and witness his Jesus all The Way through.

etc ....
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: 'Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide'

Post by outhouse »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:10 am Well I do address the non-canonical gospels in my book, but my conclusion is that every single one of them is dependent on the Markan narrative.
Which is unsupportable and seems to quite imaginative.
Post Reply