My interview on History Valley

[rgprice]

I just finished a live stream on History Valley where I give a presentation on the thesis of Deciphering the Gospels: https://youtu.be/xbvIwEiaAsU?t=0

[ABuddhist]

At one point Neil posted or sent me a link with comparisons between Justin's references to the Jesus narrative and what we have in the NT Gospels, showing all of the ways in which what Justin said compares across the four Gospels and how there are many subtle, but critical differences. I wish I could find that link...

I believe that this is that link: http://vridar.info/xorigins/justinnarr.htm

[rgprice]

At one point Neil posted or sent me a link with comparisons between Justin's references to the Jesus narrative and what we have in the NT Gospels, showing all of the ways in which what Justin said compares across the four Gospels and how there are many subtle, but critical differences. I wish I could find that link...

I believe that this is that link: http://vridar.info/xorigins/justinnarr.htm

That's it, thanks!

[Leucius Charinus]

IMO the heretical authors of the NT apocrypha (including the gnostic stuff and the NHL) wrote complete fiction about Jesus and in almost all stories the heretics present the Post Resurrection Jesus.

EVERYONE wrote complete fiction about Jesus.

Including the "Church Fathers" (IMO)

Irenaeus' views on orthodoxy (or proto-orthodoxy) include apostolic succession and the fact that scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament books. At the same time Irenaeus is a chief heresiologist and as you say "is able to list out a dozen or more major schools of heresy.".

Are we to trust and effectively reconcile Irenaeus as a reliable witness for both :

* apostolic succession and proto-orthodoxy
* Marcion and the gnostic heretics

It seems to me to be paradoxical that we accept Irenaeus as an authority in latter case but not in the former. Can you resolve this?

Clearly Irenaeus is reading the actual NT, or essentially the first edition of the NT collection.

Somewhere along the line with all these canonical and non canonical fiction stories it is natural to throw a mooring rope to a source which we might expect to be NOT writing fiction. Can we clearly "trust" the historical integrity of this source labelled "Irenaeus"? If we are inside of the Biblical History education system we clearly do. As outsiders we are not compelled to do so.

Irenaeus' views on apostolic succession are #1 conjecture and #2 part of his defense of the integrity of the NT collection against the writings of the so-called heretics. Its how he establishes the validity of his writings vs the writings of his opponents. We may question the validity of some of the claims that Irenaeus makes against his so-called gnostic opponents, but there seems to be little reason to doubt that such opponents existed.

(IMO) that there seems to be little reason to doubt that such opponents existed is not because Irenaeus says so, it is because that we have the writings of Irenaeus' opponents before us as the collection of all known NT apocryphal (NTA) texts. My approach is to define the heretics as the authors of the NTA . We don't know who they were. None of the heresiologists including Eusebius supply names for these authors. The only thing we know for sure is that many of these NTA texts - gnostic gospels, NHL, etc - exist.

Is it really reasonable to think that in a span of roughly 100 years according to Irenaeus' timeline, that the "true teachings" of Jesus had been so utterly corrupted and that the true identify of this figure had been so utterly forgotten? Especially if, as Irenaeus claims, the accounts of the NT were actually the base from which everything started?

This is what those who preserved "Ecclesiastical History" (within which are preserved the writings of Irenaeus) would want us to infer.

I have a problem with Marcion and his gospel in that we don't have it from Marcion. We have it quoted by his heresiological detractors. I place the Gospel of Marcion into the class of NTA texts for which we have no direct text. Other texts in this class are: the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Egyptians (Greek), the Gospel of the Nazoreans. We may have secondary evidence - quotations (and consequent reconstructions) of these texts from the "Church Fathers" - but we do not have the primary evidence - the texts themselves. I believe it is important to differentiate between the primary and secondary evidence, and the follow the primary evidence exclusively wherever possible.

[dbz]

I just finished a live stream on History Valley where I give a presentation on the thesis of Deciphering the Gospels: https://youtu.be/xbvIwEiaAsU?t=0

"Mark's Gospel as Allegorical Fiction - R.G. Price". YouTube. History Valley. 12 December 2022. @time:00:31:08

At time 31:08 Price notes that gMark opens with allusions to OT scripture that culminates in a later pronouncement by Jesus that deprecates the second-temple.

Price opines that gMark expects the reader to have OT familiarty. I concur and give e.g., ‘…How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?’ Mark 12:35. This appears to be direct injunction to search the scriptures!

"inclusio" side-note: that is, the narrative device common in biblical texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and structural integrity.

It's a recasting of the scriptural history of the Israelites that led up to the Babylonian destruction of the first temple in the context of the Roman destruction of the second temple. And that starts with line one.

[T]he precise beginning (the baptism) and the precise end (the death) of the earthly career of Jesus. This significant placement of the two instances of the motif of tearing suggests that we are dealing here with a symbolic "inclusio": that is, the narrative device common in biblical texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and structural integrity.

---

Ulansey, David (1991). "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusio". Journal of Biblical Literature. 110 (1): 123. doi:10.2307/3267155. online at "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Cosmic Symbolism in the Gospel of Mark". Mysterium.

I see the temple "Veil Torn" as symbolic of torah observance being deprecated. First-god has left and the END is coming, so follow Second-god to escape.

[dbz]

Request J. B. enable the auto closed captions. I listen at x2 speed while reading the captions .. quite a time saver

Perhaps as an appendix item: Notes on how some Jewish counter culture sects were anti-temple and the corrupt temple cult. Paul may of joined such a sect.

Mark is writing at least forty years after the religion began (then an average human lifetime), and thus responding to recent events (the destruction of Jerusalem), so we can’t explain the origins of Christianity by appealing to Mark or his motives; Mark is a latecomer, responding to profound changes in the religion and its circumstances. The religion itself began long before it was known the Romans would actually destroy Jerusalem (the thinking was then more in line with Daniel, which never mentions this, but only the temple’s “desecration,” after which God and his angels would destroy everything).

---

Comment by Richard Carrier—13 June 2021—per "Was Jesus-Is-Michael an Early Christian Mystery Teaching?". Richard Carrier Blogs. 2021-06-11.

[Leucius Charinus]

IMO the heretical authors of the NT apocrypha (including the gnostic stuff and the NHL) wrote complete fiction about Jesus and in almost all stories the heretics present the Post Resurrection Jesus.

EVERYONE wrote complete fiction about Jesus.

Including the "Church Fathers" (IMO)

In your recent discussion with Doctor Bob you made IMO an interesting observation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADB0zQ6xcOI

1:16:05

"The interesting thing about so much of this stuff is ..... even hearing many other people that have studied alot of this material for a long time there seems to be a real lack of acknowledgment or lack of willingness to accept the idea that writers made stuff up.

Whenever anything is in these stories there seems to be a strong desire for people to think - this idea must have come from somewhere outside of the writers brain.

But you know how many novels and stories have been written by writers ...

Acts is a contrivance ...

Agenda = "positioning Paul"?

The writer made it up

BOB: MAGIC OF NARRATIVE - "The true history of Richard III ...."

I'd like to focus on your interesting statement that
writers made stuff up.

If we are getting the information on Marcion from literary sources like Justin, Tertullian and Irenaeus then we are in the realm of the literary sources preserved within ecclesiastical history.

However what if these "Church Fathers" also made stuff up? What if they wrote complete fiction? Or in another instance what if the manuscripts have been fabricated or highly redacted at a later time period? So my question to you remains

- to what extent do you think it's possible that the church fathers (like Justin, Tertullian and Irenaeus) made stuff up

a) about Marcion

b) about the holy trinity, apostolic succession, and the first appearance of a four fold gospel.

Thanks.
Good interview btw

[rgprice]

I didn't have that in mind when I made that statement. I was thinking about about narrative stories, but by all means its something worth exploring. Merry Christmas!

[mlinssen]

@Leucius Charinus

Obviously the so-called heretics preceded the proto-orthodox. Even Justin Martyr, the earliest figure who could be called proto-orthodox, complained about Marcion and other Gnostic types. It is well established now that Marcion was the first to utilize a written "New Testament" type work, consisting of a Gospel and the letters of Paul, along with possibly other writings.

It also now becoming increasingly accepted that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, at the very least, all came after Marcion's Gospel and were produced in reaction to it. "The four" Gospels are not attested to until Irenaeus around 170, anywhere from 50 to 30 years after it is believed Marcion's Gospel was in use.

EVERYONE wrote complete fiction about Jesus. And there are good reasons to believe that the story of Jesus originally began with a post-resurrection ministry. The Markan type Gospel, whatever version of it came first, is likely the first narrative that described a pre-crucifixion ministry of Jesus. This Gospel recast Jesus in the likeness of Paul.

I think it likely that the earliest narrative about Jesus was similar to the one found in Vision of Isaiah, in which the heavenly messiah is transfigured into the world in order to hide his identity. This figure then deceives his way into being crucified in order to be able to enter the realm of Satan, where he can rescue the souls of those whom Satan has captured and defeat Satan once and for all. Then he returns from the grave, after having completed this mission, and embarks in a ministry that lasts approximately a year and a half before returning to heaven. I think its very likely something like this was the earliest story about Jesus.

The heretical authors I agree popularised the gospel story but only because because they mimicked and lampooned it, they embellished it, they mixed bits and pieces of the gospel stories together in various combinations and permutations and then added their own stuff which in many cases looks to be Platonist. The heresiologists turned it into a can of worms.

There simply is no evidence to show that the "orthodox" account of Jesus was ever known or popularized prior to the Gnostic account. There is none. And consider the fact that by 170 Irenaeus is able to list out a dozen or more major schools of heresy. It doesn't make sense that there was some "true" Christianity that looked like orthodox Christianity, and then it got corrupted and distorted by Gnostics, and then Irenaeus and others came in and defended the "original teachings". That simply is not plausible.

Clearly, the gnostic heresies preceded the version of Christianity that we know today. The NT isn't the original version of the story, it is the later reaction to Gnosticism. There is not a single ounce of evidence to show that the NT literature preceded "Gnosticism".

All that, save for the resurrection before and after.
John invented the narrative on top of Thomas, and ended with at least the trial of Jesus, Marcion slapped on 50+ logia from Thomas to that and ended with the brutal impaling - with all of that aimed at making the Judaics the subject of rage and bloodlust; where John merely offers a soft punch with his "salvation is from the Judeans", Marcion goes full metal jacket.
Mark countered all that fierce anti-Judaism and invented the resurrection so that his "prophecies" somehow could come true, hence his promise to deliver on those in Mark 13:30 - and why the watering down of the latter by Matthew in 24:35 doesn't happen is a true mystery to me, I'll admit

The entire goal of Mark 15:40-16:8 is nothing but to convince everyone of the resurrection, and of nobody having heard of it because the damn Thomasine / Marcionite women never told anybody - which became way too obvious afterwards, hence the attempts to finish Mark's story "in a proper way" with 16:9-16

I can't make better sense of Paul than a woolly rhetoric attempt at bullshit bingo in order to p0wn the Apostolikon, but he's getting way too much attention in all of this. What news does he bring us other than feeble fables about himself that have to be set straight or at least corroborated by Acts?
Tell me, seriously and honestly: what is Paul's achievement in the light of Christianity as a whole?

[lsayre]

Tell me, seriously and honestly: what is Paul's achievement in the light of Christianity as a whole?

I've mentioned this before, but it is my opinion that Paul's primary mission seems to have been to deliver the astonishing revelation that the Jews are of Hagar, and the Gentiles are of Sarah.