The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

[Leucius Charinus]

So what are skeptical thinkers to think when these crazy Gnostics thought to do such a thing to Mark's twelve? Even Pontius Pilate gets an Act and Clement gets a Recognition. In the 20th century Monty Python produced "The Life of Brian".

[Charles Wilson]

Galba - thank you, never heard of him before, but the similarities can't be coincidental. Is John telling Galba's story, or the other way around? And are the passages genuine or perhaps interpolations?
But the contentual and contextual agreement, if I may, is undeniable

I'm working on a much longer Post but this points to Origins.

Teeple, Lit. Origin of Gospel of John ( https://www.amazon.com/literary-origin- ... B0006CA4VM ):

[[S-ource Material]]

"21 Then the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate [arthrous.], “Write not ‘the king of the Jews, 'but that that one said, 'I am king of the Jews. "' 22 Pilate [arthrous.] answered, "What I have written, I have written. " 23 Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus [arthrous.], took his garments and made four parts, a part for each soldier, and (they took his) tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven from the top through the whole (tunic). 24 Then they said [eipan] to each other, "Let us not split it, but choose about it by lot whose it shall be,”

Teeple has this from the "S" Material in John:

"The S source was not written very early. In 11:48 it alludes to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in A. D. 70. In various passages S displays the influence of the Gospel of Mark and possible the Gospel of Matthew. Since Mark was written after A. D. 75, S is later that that date.

"The author was familiar with Jewish Christianity, for he incorporates some of its terms and ideas. In S Jesus is the messianic Prophet (4: 19; 6: 14; 7: 40), while the Baptist is not (1: 21). Jesus, like Hebrew and Hellenistic pagan prophets, has extra-ordinary knowledge, and this is a cause of belief that he is the Messiah (4: 29, 42). Jesus is human, "the son of Joseph" (1: 45). Peter's name is his original, Hebrew name, "Simon." Jesus is addressed as a Jewish teacher, "Rabbi. " The author knows   the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in a Jewish-Christian community. S knows the Septuagint, for in 2:4 he quotes verbatim 3 Kings 17:18 (1 Kings 17:18 in Hebrew and English Bibles): "What (is that) to me and to you ?" This feature does not neces- sarily indicate a Jewish background, however, for gentile as well as Jewish Christians used the Septuagint.   

"S knows the Semitic world, for he uses the Aramaic term "Cephas, " the Aramaic form of the word "Messiah, " and "Rabbi" (which is either Hebrew or Aramaic), then explains them to his Greek-speaking readers with an expression such as "which is interpreted." He writes in Semitized Greek, introducing sentences with kai more frequently than any of the other writers in John. His usage of poieō, "make," in 6:10 ("make the men recline") reflects the Semitic causative construction. .."

Look for a moment at an ambiguity: There are supposedly four parts of the garments with the seamless tunic which is not to be divided. Can you find 4 "parts" in the following?:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"Mucianus entered the camp to examine more accurately the individual claims. The victorious army, wearing their proper decorations and arms, he drew up with moderate intervals of space between the divisions; then the Vitellianists, whose capitulation at Bovillae I have already related, and the other troops of the party, who had been collected from the capital and its neighbourhood, were brought forth almost naked. Mucianus ordered these men to be drawn up apart, making the British, the German, and any other troops that there were belonging to other armies, take up separate positions. The very first view of their situation paralyzed them. They saw opposed to them what seemed a hostile array, threatening them with javelin and sword. They saw themselves hemmed in, without arms, filthy and squalid. And when they began to be separated, some to be marched to one spot, and some to another, a thrill of terror ran through them all. Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic. And indeed the victorious army seconded the tears of the vanquished with their approving shouts. This terminated the proceedings for that day..."

The cuirass prevents a sword from slicing between seams in a personal armor. However, there are now no seams to split. How is this "Seamless Garment" to be divided? It will not be divided. It covers its subject entirely, "...the back and the body".

The Legions are one. The Civil War is over. No Sword of War will pierce these Legions of Rome. These are now "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor,".

Next: The Patches.

CW

[schillingklaus]

Sceptical thinkers do not credit Mk with the introduction of the Twelve, only uncritical ones do.

[mlinssen]

Martijn, it's so simple. One need only take Mark's list of the names of the twelve.

Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanean, Judas Iscariot

They all have a gospel named after them, or a letter, or a revelation, or a "Acts of ...". Only Simon the Canaanean is an exception. Even the craziest Gnostics have accepted this list and wrote an Apocalypse of James or an Apocryphon of John or a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Philip or ... All that mattered was that one of Mark's list was credited as the author or played an important role in the text. Then it could be sold.

For skeptical thinkers: Do not believe in a text whose alleged author is on Mark's list.

Berean literal fixed:

Mark 1:16 Καὶ (And) παράγων (passing) παρὰ (by) τὴν (the) θάλασσαν (Sea) τῆς (-) Γαλιλαίας (of Galilee), εἶδεν (He saw) Σίμωνα (Simon) καὶ (and) Ἀνδρέαν (Andrew), τὸν (the) ἀδελφὸν (brother) Σίμωνος (of Simon), ἀμφιβάλλοντας (casting around) ἐν (into) τῇ (the) θαλάσσῃ (sea); ἦσαν (they were) γὰρ (for) ἁλιεῖς (fishermen).

Σίμων - without Peter - and Ἀνδρέας

Mark 1:19 Καὶ (And) προβὰς (having gone on) ὀλίγον (a little), εἶδεν (He saw) Ἰάκωβον (James) τὸν (the son) τοῦ (-) Ζεβεδαίου (of Zebedee), καὶ (and) Ἰωάννην (John) τὸν (the) ἀδελφὸν (brother) αὐτοῦ (of him), καὶ (and) αὐτοὺς (they) ἐν (were in) τῷ (the) πλοίῳ (boat) καταρτίζοντας (adjusting) τὰ (the) δίκτυα (nets). 20 καὶ (And) εὐθὺς (immediately) ἐκάλεσεν (He called) αὐτούς (them); καὶ (and) ἀφέντες (having left) τὸν (the) πατέρα (father) αὐτῶν (of them) Ζεβεδαῖον (Zebedee) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) πλοίῳ (boat) μετὰ (with) τῶν (the) μισθωτῶν (mercenaries), ἀπῆλθον (they went away) ὀπίσω (after) αὐτοῦ (Him)

Ἰάκωβ, son of Ζεβεδαίος, and his brother Ἰωάννης

Mark 2:14 Καὶ (And) παράγων (passing on), εἶδεν (He saw) Λευὶν (Levi) τὸν (the son) τοῦ (-) Ἁλφαίου (of Alphaeus) καθήμενον (sitting) ἐπὶ (at) τὸ (the) τελώνιον (toll thing), καὶ (and) λέγει (He says) αὐτῷ (to him), “Ἀκολούθει (Follow) μοι (Me).”

Λευὶ, son of Ἁλφαίος

Mark 3:16 Καὶ (And) ἐποίησεν (He appointed) τοὺς (the) δώδεκα (Twelve). καὶ (And) ἐπέθηκεν (He added) ὄνομα (the name) τῷ (to) Σίμωνι (Simon), Πέτρον (Peter);
17 καὶ (and) Ἰάκωβον (James) τὸν (the son) τοῦ (of) Ζεβεδαίου (Zebedee), καὶ (and) Ἰωάννην (John) τὸν (the) ἀδελφὸν (brother) τοῦ (-) Ἰακώβου (of James), καὶ (and) ἐπέθηκεν (He added) αὐτοῖς (to them the) ὀνόματα* (name) Βοανηργές (Boanerges), ὅ (which) ἐστιν (is), Υἱοὶ (Sons) Βροντῆς (of thunder); 18 καὶ (and) Ἀνδρέαν (Andrew), καὶ (and) Φίλιππον (Philip), καὶ (and) Βαρθολομαῖον (Bartholomew), καὶ (and) Μαθθαῖον (Matthew), καὶ (and) Θωμᾶν (Thomas), καὶ (and) Ἰάκωβον (James) τὸν (the son) τοῦ (-) Ἁλφαίου (of Alphaeus), καὶ (and) Θαδδαῖον (Thaddaeus), καὶ (and) Σίμωνα (Simon) τὸν (the) Καναναῖον (Zealot), 19 καὶ (and) Ἰούδαν (Judas) Ἰσκαριώθ (Iscariot), ὃς (who) καὶ (also) παρέδωκεν (betrayed) αὐτόν (Him).

1. He adds the name Πέτρος to Σίμων.
2. Ἰάκωβ, son of Ζεβεδαίος,
3. and his brother Ἰωάννης - to both of whom he adds the name Βοανηργές, "sons of thunder".
0. Λευὶ isn't in this list
4. Ἀνδρέας
5. Φίλιππος
6. Βαρθολομαῖος
7. Μαθθαῖος
8. Θωμᾶς
9. Ἰάκωβον, son of Ἁλφαίου
10. Θαδδαῖος
11. Σίμων the Καναναῖος
12. Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώθ

Now, please show me all texts that have a name to them, so you can evaluate and quantify who goes to which and vice versa.

[MrMacSon]

Martijn, it's so simple. One need only take Mark's list of the names of the twelve.

Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanean, Judas Iscariot

They all have a gospel named after them, or a letter, or a revelation, or an "Acts of ...". Only Simon the Canaanean is an exception. Even the craziest Gnostics have accepted this list and wrote an Apocalypse of James or an Apocryphon of John or a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Philip or ... All that mattered was that one of Mark's list was credited as the author or played an important role in the text. Then it could be sold.

For skeptical thinkers: Do not believe in a text whose alleged author is on Mark's list.

Or, vice versa.
ie. The list of the Twelve could have been made from the names attributed to various gospels, Acts, or epistles.
(and it might have not have been original to Mark ie. it may have been finalised later)

[Leucius Charinus]

Martijn, it's so simple. One need only take Mark's list of the names of the twelve.

Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanean, Judas Iscariot

They all have a gospel named after them, or a letter, or a revelation, or an "Acts of ...". Only Simon the Canaanean is an exception. Even the craziest Gnostics have accepted this list and wrote an Apocalypse of James or an Apocryphon of John or a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Philip or ... :roll: All that mattered was that one of Mark's list was credited as the author or played an important role in the text. Then it could be sold.

For skeptical thinkers: Do not believe in a text whose alleged author is on Mark's list.

Or, vice versa.
ie. The list of the Twelve could have been made from the names attributed to various gospels, Acts, or epistles.

Theoretically that proposition might be possible but what evidence supports it?

The contrary view has some evidence. Irenaeus and the Fathers leading to Eusebius cite and quote the canonical literature a great deal. On the other hand how many of the non canonical books are mentioned and how much material is cited from them. Eusebius is the earliest witness for many of the other acts and gospels. You would need to explain Christian origins in a completely different light.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

So what are skeptical thinkers to think when these crazy Gnostics thought to do such a thing to Mark's twelve? Even Pontius Pilate gets an Act and Clement gets a Recognition. In the 20th century Monty Python produced "The Life of Brian".

Pilate is just another type of a (alleged) historical witness like Mary. The hero of the Pseudo-Clementines is not Clement, but Peter, who defeats Paul (in the figure of Simon) as a non-historical witness

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Martijn, it's so simple. One need only take Mark's list of the names of the twelve.

Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanean, Judas Iscariot

They all have a gospel named after them, or a letter, or a revelation, or an "Acts of ...". Only Simon the Canaanean is an exception. Even the craziest Gnostics have accepted this list and wrote an Apocalypse of James or an Apocryphon of John or a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Philip or ... All that mattered was that one of Mark's list was credited as the author or played an important role in the text. Then it could be sold.

For skeptical thinkers: Do not believe in a text whose alleged author is on Mark's list.

Or, vice versa.
ie. The list of the Twelve could have been made from the names attributed to various gospels, Acts, or epistles.
(and it might have not have been original to Mark ie. it may have been finalised later)

Yes, in theory, of course, everything is somehow within the realm of possibility. Just hardly likely

[schillingklaus]

It uis comopletely likely, as denied deceptively by Markan apologists like Goodacre.

[mlinssen]

Martijn, it's so simple. One need only take Mark's list of the names of the twelve.

Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanean, Judas Iscariot

They all have a gospel named after them, or a letter, or a revelation, or an "Acts of ...". Only Simon the Canaanean is an exception. Even the craziest Gnostics have accepted this list and wrote an Apocalypse of James or an Apocryphon of John or a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Philip or ... All that mattered was that one of Mark's list was credited as the author or played an important role in the text. Then it could be sold.

For skeptical thinkers: Do not believe in a text whose alleged author is on Mark's list.

Or, vice versa.
ie. The list of the Twelve could have been made from the names attributed to various gospels, Acts, or epistles.

Theoretically that proposition might be possible but what evidence supports it?

The contrary view has some evidence. Irenaeus and the Fathers leading to Eusebius cite and quote the canonical literature a great deal. On the other hand how many of the non canonical books are mentioned and how much material is cited from them. Eusebius is the earliest witness for many of the other acts and gospels. You would need to explain Christian origins in a completely different light.

http://gnosis.org/library/advh1.htm

The question is not whether you have even scanned Irenaeus, as the answer to that is blatantly obvious

The question is: when one makes statements like you do, when and where is the boundary crossed between incompetence, neglect, ignorance, outright stupidity - and intentional falsification, distortion of facts?