The conclusion I've reached...

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

I think now essentially that Paul was a Gnostic (he claims his authority comes from revelation, what more needs be said?)

Paul claimed he had revelations only to boost his credentials as an apostle in order to compensate for his lack of eloquence, a weak bodily presence, with speech of no account. (1 Co 2:1, Cor 10:10).
I would not call that Gnostic.

that Marcion and the other 2nd century heretics had the most correct reading of Paul, and likely the only authentic copies of his letters.

Not the authentic copies, because epistles such as 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians are combinations of several shorter gospels. Even the Catholic Church had to admit it:

"... the letters we call 1 and 2 Corinthians formed part of a larger collection that originally consisted of several letters... We are left with the impression that the extant letters reflect an editing and combining of writings, compiled as the community processed and integrated the words of the apostle"

The Catholic study bible, second edition, page 450

For details, see http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html#corinth1 and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html#corinth2

Marcion dealt with the combination of these epistles, not from the authentic parts.

Paul clearly distinguished between God (the Most High God) and the Lord, a divine son of the Most High God.

Yes, and the Lord is Jesus: Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Co 1:3).
BTW God is never said to be Most High in Paul's epistles but is said to be the God of the Jews:
Ro 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also?

Paul's Lord is Yahweh, son of the Most High God.

That would require alterations by orthodox Christians from Marcion's text.

Matthew, Luke and John are all anti-Marcionite works written in the mid-second century.

That's too late because:

Because about 150, gMark, which places Jesus' public life under Pilate's rule (26-36 CE) (also as the other gospels):
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
How could someone around 150 write that when the Kingdom of God obviously had not come yet. That would Jesus a (very) false prophet and a big liar.
Same comment for:
13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Note: "everything done" includes the fall of Jerusalem and: 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

These 2 sayings are repeated in gLuke and gMatthew.
In gMarcion, the first saying is not attested, but the second is modified, taking away the generation of Jesus: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished."
I don't see why somebody around 150 would change Marcion's wording in three gospels.

And I don't think that having Jesus born from a human mother, and with human brothers, would make these gospels anti-Gnostic and against Marcion.

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

Paul claimed he had revelations only to boost his credentials as an apostle in order to compensate for his lack of eloquence, a weak bodily presence, with speech of no account. (1 Co 2:1, Cor 10:10).
I would not call that Gnostic.

Paul makes several claims of revelation. In Paul's view, neither scripture nor the priesthood are the final authority, revelation - gnosis - is.

Not the authentic copies, because epistles such as 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians are combinations of several shorter gospels. Even the Catholic Church had to admit it:

"... the letters we call 1 and 2 Corinthians formed part of a larger collection that originally consisted of several letters... We are left with the impression that the extant letters reflect an editing and combining of writings, compiled as the community processed and integrated the words of the apostle"

The Catholic study bible, second edition, page 450

Yes, but who assembled the letters and the collection? Paul, as Trobish argues? Who was "the community"? A community of Marcionites or proto-Marcionites?

Marcion dealt with the combination of these epistles, not from the authentic parts.

And you know this how?

BTW God is never said to be Most High in Paul's epistles but is said to be the God of the Jews:

Other texts also use simply "God" instead of "Most High God" when referring to the Most High God.

That would require alterations by orthodox Christians from Marcion's text.

Not sure what you mean by this. See below:

Galatians 1:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever.

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being

Romans 14:
For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

That's too late because:

Because about 150, gMark, which places Jesus' public life under Pilate's rule (26-36 CE) (also as the other gospels):
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
How could someone around 150 write that when the Kingdom of God obviously had not come yet. That would Jesus a (very) false prophet and a big liar.
Same comment for:
13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Note: "everything done" includes the fall of Jerusalem and: 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Trying to date works like this is a fool's errand. All of that stuff comes from literary references. Secondly, I didn't say Mark was written in 150. Mark could have been written any time between 70 and 120.

These 2 sayings are repeated in gLuke and gMatthew.

Which both copy from Mark...

In gMarcion, the first saying is not attested, but the second is modified, taking away the generation of Jesus: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished."
I don't see why somebody around 150 would change Marcion's wording in three gospels.

Not what I said. Mark > Marcion > Matthew, Luke, John

And I don't think that having Jesus born from a human mother, and with human brothers, would make these gospels anti-Gnostic and against Marcion.

That is very much against Marcion. According to Marcion Jesus was unborn, not of this world, not a part of the Creation and not known to the Jewish God until he arrived on earth. Making Jesus a descendant of David, born of a human mother, makes Jesus a part of the Creation and a figure who was predicted by the Jewish prophets, who were inspired by the Jewish God. There is nothing more anti-Marcionite.

[Giuseppe]

That is very much against Marcion. According to Marcion Jesus was unborn, not of this world, not a part of the Creation and not known to the Jewish God until he arrived on earth. Making Jesus a descendant of David, born of a human mother, makes Jesus a part of the Creation and a figure who was predicted by the Jewish prophets, who were inspired by the Jewish God. There is nothing more anti-Marcionite.

True, true.

Note that also the rivalry between Jesus and his family is a way to judaize the Gnostic myth of Sabaoth revolting against his father Sabaoth:

Now when his offspring Sabaoth saw the force of that angel, he repented and condemned his father and his mother, matter.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

There is the Gnostic origin of the logion in Luke/Matthew: who doesn't hate his mother and his father is not worth of me.

Hence, insofar also in Mark there is a rivalry between Jesus and his family, one has to concede that also Mark was partially made anti-marcionite (i.e. proto-Mark comes before Marcion, but our Mark comes after Marcion).

[Jax]

Paul claimed he had revelations only to boost his credentials as an apostle in order to compensate for his lack of eloquence, a weak bodily presence, with speech of no account. (1 Co 2:1, Cor 10:10).
I would not call that Gnostic.

Paul makes several claims of revelation. In Paul's view, neither scripture nor the priesthood are the final authority, revelation - gnosis - is.

Not the authentic copies, because epistles such as 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians are combinations of several shorter gospels. Even the Catholic Church had to admit it:

"... the letters we call 1 and 2 Corinthians formed part of a larger collection that originally consisted of several letters... We are left with the impression that the extant letters reflect an editing and combining of writings, compiled as the community processed and integrated the words of the apostle"

The Catholic study bible, second edition, page 450

Yes, but who assembled the letters and the collection? Paul, as Trobish argues? Who was "the community"? A community of Marcionites or proto-Marcionites?

Marcion dealt with the combination of these epistles, not from the authentic parts.

And you know this how?

BTW God is never said to be Most High in Paul's epistles but is said to be the God of the Jews:

Other texts also use simply "God" instead of "Most High God" when referring to the Most High God.

That would require alterations by orthodox Christians from Marcion's text.

Not sure what you mean by this. See below:

Galatians 1:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever.

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being

Romans 14:
For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

That's too late because:

Because about 150, gMark, which places Jesus' public life under Pilate's rule (26-36 CE) (also as the other gospels):
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
How could someone around 150 write that when the Kingdom of God obviously had not come yet. That would Jesus a (very) false prophet and a big liar.
Same comment for:
13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Note: "everything done" includes the fall of Jerusalem and: 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Trying to date works like this is a fool's errand. All of that stuff comes from literary references. Secondly, I didn't say Mark was written in 150. Mark could have been written any time between 70 and 120.

These 2 sayings are repeated in gLuke and gMatthew.

Which both copy from Mark...

In gMarcion, the first saying is not attested, but the second is modified, taking away the generation of Jesus: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished."
I don't see why somebody around 150 would change Marcion's wording in three gospels.

Not what I said. Mark > Marcion > Matthew, Luke, John

And I don't think that having Jesus born from a human mother, and with human brothers, would make these gospels anti-Gnostic and against Marcion.

That is very much against Marcion. According to Marcion Jesus was unborn, not of this world, not a part of the Creation and not known to the Jewish God until he arrived on earth. Making Jesus a descendant of David, born of a human mother, makes Jesus a part of the Creation and a figure who was predicted by the Jewish prophets, who were inspired by the Jewish God. There is nothing more anti-Marcionite.

As to Mark, I always felt that the fact that Josephus wrote his histories between the end of the Jewish Roman war and the end of the first century to be a real clue as to when Mark could have had access to the material that he writes about.

The only other place, that I know about, that mentions John the Baptist, is Joseph's history of the Jews, written in the middle of the 90s. If Josephus is a source for Mark, and mark is first of the Gospels, then the Gospels could not have been written before that point.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:58 pm
Paul claimed he had revelations only to boost his credentials as an apostle in order to compensate for his lack of eloquence, a weak bodily presence, with speech of no account. (1 Co 2:1, Cor 10:10).
I would not call that Gnostic.

Paul makes several claims of revelation. In Paul's view, neither scripture nor the priesthood are the final authority, revelation - gnosis - is.

Paul was not the one to involve priesthood, in view of what he preached, which certainly was not acceptable by priests and even most Jews. About scripture, Paul did use them occasionally as authority to support what he preached.
The so-called gnosticism of Paul has little to do with the one of Basilides and Valentinus for example.
Furthermore, many OT prophets claimed (or are claimed) to have revelations from God, even dialogue with God. Would that make them Gnostics?

Not the authentic copies, because epistles such as 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians are combinations of several shorter gospels.

Even the Catholic Church had to admit it:

"... the letters we call 1 and 2 Corinthians formed part of a larger collection that originally consisted of several letters... We are left with the impression that the extant letters reflect an editing and combining of writings, compiled as the community processed and integrated the words of the apostle" The Catholic study bible, second edition, page 450

Yes, but who assembled the letters and the collection? Paul, as Trobish argues? Who was "the community"? A community of Marcionites or proto-Marcionites?

If Marcion would be able to assemble the letters and the collection. Then, orthodox Christians would also be able to do just that before Marcion.

Marcion dealt with the combination of these epistles, not from the authentic parts.

And you know this how?[/quote]
Because that's not reported he did that. What was reported is Marcion truncated gLuke and the epistles. Tertullian and Epiphanius had copies of Marcion's Pauline epistles.

BTW God is never said to be Most High in Paul's epistles but is said to be the God of the Jews:

Other texts also use simply "God" instead of "Most High God" when referring to the Most High God.

Yes, but not in the Pauline epistles.

That's too late because:
Because about 150, gMark, which places Jesus' public life under Pilate's rule (26-36 CE) (also as the other gospels):
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
How could someone around 150 write that when the Kingdom of God obviously had not come yet. That would Jesus a (very) false prophet and a big liar.
Same comment for:
13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Note: "everything done" includes the fall of Jerusalem and: 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Trying to date works like this is a fool's errand. All of that stuff comes from literary references.

What's wrong with internal evidence?

Secondly, I didn't say Mark was written in 150. Mark could have been written any time between 70 and 120.

You have to decide on this one.

These 2 sayings are repeated in gLuke and gMatthew.
Which both copy from Mark...

Yes, but if gMatthew & gLuke were written around 150, they would have avoided to involve Jesus' generation, as Marcion did.

In gMarcion, the first saying is not attested, but the second is modified, taking away the generation of Jesus: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished."
I don't see why somebody around 150 would change Marcion's wording in three gospels.

Not what I said. Mark > Marcion > Matthew, Luke, John

You said mid-2nd century for gLuke and gMatthew in your OP.

And I don't think that having Jesus born from a human mother, and with human brothers, would make these gospels anti-Gnostic and against Marcion.

That is very much against Marcion. According to Marcion Jesus was unborn, not of this world, not a part of the Creation and not known to the Jewish God until he arrived on earth. Making Jesus a descendant of David, born of a human mother, makes Jesus a part of the Creation and a figure who was predicted by the Jewish prophets, who were inspired by the Jewish God. There is nothing more anti-Marcionite.

That's because you take Marcion as the reference. But there is evidence gLuke was known before gMarcion appeared and truncated/modified gLuke : http://historical-jesus.info/53.html.

Futhermore, Marcion pretended his gospels was written earlier than gLuke (before 70, of course), and corrupted by orthodox Christians:
Tertullian's AM, IV, IV "For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,".
It certainly looks that Marcion knew about gLuke.
That would also explain Marcion did not have in his gospel anything positive about Jesus not having mother and brothers, and being Son of another God other that the One of Jews and orthodox Christians. Because that would be too obvious as being Marcion's additions.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

Matthew, Luke and John are all anti-Marcionite works written in the mid-second century.

That's too late because:

Because about 150, gMark, which places Jesus' public life under Pilate's rule (26-36 CE) (also as the other gospels):
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
How could someone around 150 write that when the Kingdom of God obviously had not come yet. That would Jesus a (very) false prophet and a big liar.........

But, wouldn't someone still say Jesus that was a very false prophet and a big liar when the Kingdom of God was not seen up to 150 CE?

Up to today NT Jesus is not regarded as a false prophet and liar by those who believe the Gospels although he would have been a false prophet and liar if he did live but he did not--the very NT stated he was fathered by a Ghost.

The Gospels are not historical writings-they are all fiction with respect to Jesus written no earlier than the 2nd century or after Pliny the younger letter to Trajan.

No-one standing at any time will ever see the kingdom of God.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

But, wouldn't someone still say Jesus that was a very false prophet and a big liar when the Kingdom of God was not seen up to 150 CE?

But certainly not Christians, such as the authors of gMark, gLuke & gMatthew, who must have written Mk 9:1 and repeat in gLuke & gMatthew during the 1st century, when Jesus was still not seen as very false prophet and a big liar (because then, not everybody of Jesus' generation had died).

Up to today NT Jesus is not regarded as a false prophet and liar by those who believe the Gospels although he would have been a false prophet and liar if he did live but he did not

Today, Christians, most of them, are rather ignorant of embarrassing stuff in the OT and NT. And Christian apologists found ways to circumvent Mark 9:1, by dubious and long arguments.

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

If Marcion would be able to assemble the letters and the collection. Then, orthodox Christians would also be able to do just that before Marcion.

There is zero evidence of that. The first collection of Paul's letters was made public by Marcion.

Because that's not reported he did that. What was reported is Marcion truncated gLuke and the epistles. Tertullian and Epiphanius had copies of Marcion's Pauline epistles.

Tertullian and Epiphanius were writing 3 or 4 generations after Marcion.

Yes, but not in the Pauline epistles.

The point is that its not unusual use the term God to mean "The Most High God".

What's wrong with internal evidence?

In general, #1 Ancient writers used a number of techniques to make their works appear older than they really were. This was common. #2 In the case of Mark, almost everything said in the work work is derived from source documents. The words of Jesus are almost all derived from source documents. In Mark 13 is practically every word comes from source documents. The relationship of the words to events comes from the source documents, not from the time of the writer. Jesus is a character that says the things the source documents say.

Yes, but if gMatthew & gLuke were written around 150, they would have avoided to involve Jesus' generation, as Marcion did.

Why? You can't suppose their motives, intentions, methods, etc. If Marcion avoided it, he did so because he didn't believe that there would any recent end at all. And anyway, I'm sure that many interpreted the events of the First Jewish-Roman War as fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus, so why wouldn't Matthew and Luke include it?

You said mid-2nd century for gLuke and gMatthew in your OP.

Yeah, I don't know where you are getting three Gospels from. Mark wrote the first. Marcion's is a derivation from Mark's. Matthew and Luke are harmonizations between Mark's and Marcion's (a simplistic explanation). Matthew & Luke are mid-second century, not Mark.

But there is evidence gLuke was known before gMarcion appeared and truncated/modified gLuke

Nope, lots of recent studies show it going the other way. Marcion came first, then GLuke was derived from it. There is way too much evidence supporting this. Indeed, GLuke doesn't even make the effort to really revise Marcion, so it still has many Marcionite elements in it, which is kind of funny. Its basically Marcion's Gospel with an anti-Marcionite beginning and ending tacked on to it.

[hakeem]

But, wouldn't someone still say Jesus that was a very false prophet and a big liar when the Kingdom of God was not seen up to 150 CE?

But certainly not Christians, such as the authors of gMark, gLuke & gMatthew, who must have written Mk 9:1 and repeat in gLuke & gMatthew during the 1st century, when Jesus was still not seen as very false prophet and a big liar (because then, not everybody of Jesus' generation had died).

What you say doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. If Jesus lived and actually stated at around c 30 CE "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God" then by c 150 CE he would be known as a very false prophet and a liar since everyone who lived around c 30 CE would be dead.

It doesn't make sense for Christians to have written stories that Jesus show was a false prophet and a liar in order to convert non-Christians.

And by the way, that is not the only lie by NT Jesus. It would have been known that NT Jesus was idiot, a false prophet and a liar since c 30 CE if he did live and crucified under Pilate.

Do you remember it is claimed in the Gospels that Jesus told his disciples he would resurrect after three days?

Mark 8:31

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

The resurrection never happened.

Jesus, if he did live, would have been known as an idiot, a false prophet and a liar within 72 hours of his death by his own disciples. They would not have to wait for the generation to pass.

The fiction and lies in the NT about Jesus do not indicate that they were written since c 70 CE.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

What you say doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. If Jesus lived and actually stated at around c 30 CE "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God" then by c 150 CE he would be known as a very false prophet and a liar since everyone who lived around c 30 CE would be dead.

I don't endorse (and never did) 150 CE for when the Synoptic gospels were written, but the 1st century (71 to around 85-90).
Did you read what I wrote?

hakeem wrote:
But, wouldn't someone still say Jesus that was a very false prophet and a big liar when the Kingdom of God was not seen up to 150 CE?

But certainly not Christians, such as the authors of gMark, gLuke & gMatthew, who must have written Mk 9:1 and repeat in gLuke & gMatthew during the 1st century, when Jesus was still not seen as very false prophet and a big liar (because then, not everybody of Jesus' generation had died).

And by the way, that is not the only lie by NT Jesus. It would have been known that NT Jesus was idiot, a false prophet and a liar since c 30 CE if he did live and crucified under Pilate.

Most what shows in gMark is mostly invention, and that would include 8:31.

Cordially, Bernard