The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

[mlinssen]

19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” 21 But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

The writer has Jesus essentially deny that Mary is his mother. This in a Gospel that begins with the most elaborate story of the birth of Jesus and a depiction of Mary and Jesus' family as devout and wholesome Jews who are fulfilling prophecy...

Joseph B. Tyson lays out an extensive case showing that the birth narrative was added on to a Gospel that started at Luke 3:1 in Marcion and Luke-Acts, pages 90-100.

I don't understand, this whole scene is in Mark 3:31-35 as well. And there are perfectly good reasons for why Mark has it this way

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7622&p=118369&hilit ... 22#p118369

[rgprice]

I don't understand, this whole scene is in Mark 3:31-35 as well. And there are perfectly good reasons for why Mark has it this way

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7622&p=118369&hilit ... 22#p118369

True, but gLuke has fewer mentions of Mary than gMark, and if the same person who wrote the body of Luke who also wrote the birth narrative, they of course could have made any number of narrative choices. They could have chosen not to include this scene. They could have altered it to say something else. They could have also added material about Mary. But none of that happens.

Luke 1-2 is full of new material about Mary and the family of Jesus. Then from Luke 3:1 Jesus' family disappears. If the same person wrote both the birth narrative and the main body, then why didn't they tie all of the new material that they added in 1-2 into the body of the story?

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ultspp=100

[mlinssen]

I don't understand, this whole scene is in Mark 3:31-35 as well. And there are perfectly good reasons for why Mark has it this way

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7622&p=118369&hilit ... 22#p118369

True, but gLuke has fewer mentions of Mary than gMark, and if the same person who wrote the body of Luke who also wrote the birth narrative, they of course could have made any number of narrative choices. They could have chosen not to include this scene. They could have altered it to say something else. They could have also added material about Mary. But none of that happens.

Luke 1-2 is full of new material about Mary and the family of Jesus. Then from Luke 3:1 Jesus' family disappears. If the same person wrote both the birth narrative and the main body, then why didn't they tie all of the new material that they added in 1-2 into the body of the story?

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ultspp=100

Ah, that. No, it is very clear that "Luke" is a mere copy of Marcion with a birth narrative prefixed to it, and some stuff shuffled around and added to it. It is a very lazy case of plagiarism, really

I count 8 Mary's in Matthew, 5 in Mark, 13 in Luke's chapter 1 & 2, 4 in the remainder, 14 in John and 3 in Acts (I just counted them, no idea which Mary's they were. Good eye! Never knew that, and indeed, with so much love for Lizzy and Mary you'd indeed expect luke to give them more attention in the real story

[hakeem]

True, but gLuke has fewer mentions of Mary than gMark, and if the same person who wrote the body of Luke who also wrote the birth narrative, they of course could have made any number of narrative choices.

You appear to be mistaken. GLuke mentions Mary [the supposed mother of Jesus] far more times than gMark which mentions Mary only once.

[Ben C. Smith]

Women named Mary are about as difficult to sort out as men named John in early Christianity. Here is a list of instances of Mary/Miriam (Μαρία[μ]) in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, and a few of the other important early texts:

Mary the Mother of Jesus

Matthew 1.16, 18, 20; 2.11 (nativity).
Matthew 13.55 = Mark 6.3.
Luke 1.27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 56; 2.5, 16, 19, 34 (nativity).
John 19.25.
Acts 1.14.
Ignatius to the Ephesians 7.2 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Ephesians 18.2 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Ephesians 19.1 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Magnesians 1.1 (long recension).
Ignatius to the Trallians 9.1 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Trallians 10.4 (long recension).
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 1.1 (long recension).
Philip 18 (×2).
Philip 36.
Papyrus Cairensis 10735 recto, line 2.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 210 recto, line 5.

Mary the Mother of James, the Other Mary, the Mother of Joses, the Mother of James and Joses

Matthew 27.56 = Mark 15.40
Matthew 27.61 = Mark 15.47
Matthew 28.1 = Mark 16.1
Luke 24.10
Philip 36?

Mary the Wife of Cl(e)opas (= the Other Mary??)

John 19.25.

Mary Magdalene

Matthew 27.56 = Mark 15.40.
Matthew 27.61 = Mark 15.47.
Matthew 28.1 = Mark 16.1.
Mark 16.9.
Luke 8.2.
Luke 24.10.
John 20.1, 11, 16, 18.
Thomas 24.1.
Thomas 114.1.
Peter 12.50.
Philip 36.
Philip 59.

Mary the Sister of Martha

Luke 10.39, 42.
John 11.1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45.
John 12.3.
[Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4009 has the anointing of Jesus, but the name of the woman is not present, possibly because the papyrus is fragmentary.]

Mary the Mother of John Mark

Acts 12.12.

Mary, a Hard Worker

Romans 16.6.

There is also an instance of Mary the mother of Jesus attributed to the gospel of the Hebrews in Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a, but this attribution is dubious. Also, Origen, commenting on Matthew 13.55 in On Matthew 10.17, attributes a statement about Mary being the mother of Jesus, but not of James and the other sons of Joseph, to the Gospel of Peter. Finally, I have not counted the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James, which are full of references to Mary the mother of Jesus, and the latter of which makes the same claim as the Gospel of Peter as Origen recounts it.

[mlinssen]

Women named Mary are about as difficult to sort out as men named John in early Christianity. Here is a list of instances of Mary/Miriam (Μαρία[μ]) in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, and a few of the other important early texts:

Mary the Mother of Jesus

Matthew 1.16, 18, 20; 2.11 (nativity).
Matthew 13.55 = Mark 6.3.
Luke 1.27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 56; 2.5, 16, 19, 34 (nativity).
John 19.25.
Acts 1.14.
Ignatius to the Ephesians 7.2 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Ephesians 18.2 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Ephesians 19.1 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Magnesians 1.1 (long recension).
Ignatius to the Trallians 9.1 (middle & long recensions).
Ignatius to the Trallians 10.4 (long recension).
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 1.1 (long recension).
Philip 18 (×2).
Philip 36.
Papyrus Cairensis 10735 recto, line 2.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 210 recto, line 5.

Mary the Mother of James, the Other Mary, the Mother of Joses, the Mother of James and Joses

Matthew 27.56 = Mark 15.40
Matthew 27.61 = Mark 15.47
Matthew 28.1 = Mark 16.1
Luke 24.10
Philip 36?

Mary the Wife of Cl(e)opas (= the Other Mary??)

John 19.25.

Mary Magdalene

Matthew 27.56 = Mark 15.40.
Matthew 27.61 = Mark 15.47.
Matthew 28.1 = Mark 16.1.
Mark 16.9.
Luke 8.2.
Luke 24.10.
John 20.1, 11, 16, 18.
Thomas 24.1.
Thomas 114.1.
Peter 12.50.
Philip 36.
Philip 59.

Mary the Sister of Martha

Luke 10.39, 42.
John 11.1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45.
John 12.3.
[Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4009 has the anointing of Jesus, but the name of the woman is not present, possibly because the papyrus is fragmentary.]

Mary the Mother of John Mark

Acts 12.12.

Mary, a Hard Worker

Romans 16.6.

There is also an instance of Mary the mother of Jesus attributed to the gospel of the Hebrews in Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a, but this attribution is dubious. Also, Origen, commenting on Matthew 13.55 in On Matthew 10.17, attributes a statement about Mary being the mother of Jesus, but not of James and the other sons of Joseph, to the Gospel of Peter. Finally, I have not counted the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James, which are full of references to Mary the mother of Jesus, and the latter of which makes the same claim as the Gospel of Peter as Origen recounts it.

True that. I bet you can pull the same stuff for Judas and Simon / Peter. It is as if they all got named and one point in time and then people tried hard to refute that by assigning them different identities

[rgprice]

4 in the remainder

None of those are Mary the mother of Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

Women named Mary are about as difficult to sort out as men named John in early Christianity.

True that. I bet you can pull the same stuff for Judas and Simon / Peter.

And the James ... (I wonder if there were a few 'authors' who were riffing of the accounts of Moses changing the name of Hosea/Oshea to Yehosua/Joshua (and the subsequent changes of that name ...) )

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

This by definition isn't Q. I'm not saying its necessarily an invalid proposition, but you can't call it Q, because Q is deemed to be a pre-Gospel list of sayings, something that was written before any Gospel had been written

I really don't care that Q was deemed to be pre-gospels. I think that's old school, by some (like Doherty) who wanted Q to start Christianity and the Jesus' myth.
I gave already examples about a Q author having knowledge of gMark, and integrating stuff from gMark in his/her material in order to concoct a Q saying.
See the beginning of http://historical-jesus.info/q.html and section: 1)

What you are proposing is that someone made a commentary on Mark and then Matthew and Luke both integrated that commentary. That's a fine proposition, but it has nothing to do with Q.

Not a commentary

But furthermore, there is little difference between that proposition and saying that Marcion's Gospel is derived from Mark, and than Matthew and Luke built from Marcion's Gospel. It is literally the same proposition.

I demonstrated Marcion derived his gospel from gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

I'm not going to re-argue Goodacre's case against Q. All I can say is, if you haven't read it yourself, then I highly recommend it.

But I have 4 examples proving Q existed as a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7622&p=118395&hilit=reminder#p11839

The writer has Jesus essentially deny that Mary is his mother. This in a Gospel that begins with the most elaborate story of the birth of Jesus and a depiction of Mary and Jesus' family as devout and wholesome Jews who are fulfilling prophecy...

Not really. Jesus is not said to deny Mary and his brothers, just that he prefers followers over his blood mother & brothers (which by the way were not believers in the "new" Jesus).

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

I demonstrated Marcion derived his gospel from gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

You could not have demonstrated such a thing. The contemporary of Marcion, Justin Martyr, showed that there was no Gospel named according to Luke and that Marcion preached about another God and another son.

Justin's First Apology XXVI

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works..

The Gospel according to Luke was fabricated no earlier than c 178 CE or not before Celsus' True Discourse.