Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by GakuseiDon »

Also possibly between gMark and Hebrews: a common theme with regards Jesus praying before the upcoming suffering:

Gospel of Mark 14:

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.


Book of Hebrews 5:

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


If not influence, tnen a common source perhaps.

Then again, I don't think anyone thought much about the Gospels and the NT letters in terms of being authoritative, until Marcion forced the issue. So I'd question why we'd expect quotes from them. The Old Testament was the go-to book up until the end of the Second Century for justifying Christianity.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:57 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:10 am The gospels don't know the letters and the letters don't know the gospels - that is what we have, and there can be only one reason for that: neither was allowed to discuss the other
What do you think of 2 Peter:

1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.


That sounds like a restating of written Gospel material. Mind you, 2 Peter is a forgery that is dated to the first half of the second century so probably written after at least the first Gospels.

Gospel of Mark:

Mark.9
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:10 amPaul knows the resurrection and last supper, but not the virgin birth. He can't attest to any gospel but he does disclose some details that are decidedly Christian and not Chrestian
Jesus wasn't born of a virgin until after Paul, is my guess. Paul is consistent with gMark.
Precisely my point. And your quote from the transfiguration is in Marcion. And 2 Peter indeed what you say, yet much much later: no epistles are attested to by the FF until late 2nd CE, and Vinzent had them all lined up somewhere, but these smaller ones are at the very back
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:14 pm Also possibly between gMark and Hebrews: a common theme with regards Jesus praying before the upcoming suffering:

Gospel of Mark 14:

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.


Book of Hebrews 5:

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


If not influence, tnen a common source perhaps.

Then again, I don't think anyone thought much about the Gospels and the NT letters in terms of being authoritative, until Marcion forced the issue. So I'd question why we'd expect quotes from them. The Old Testament was the go-to book up until the end of the Second Century for justifying Christianity.
That is pivotal indeed, and a valid point. But I would really change "up until" into "starting from". Read the Patristics please
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:43 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:03 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:10 am Mark rewrites the Evangellion and Paul expands the Apostolikon, yanking both texts into the new Christian territory
'Paul' doesn't expand the [ Marcionite] Apostolikon, some unknown 'catholic'-orthodox people do ...
... adding the pastorals and almost certainly editing/redacting and expanding the ten Pauline epistles in the Apostolikon
mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:27 pm Paul never existed, no one did. I'm just sticking to the usual names here. Of course Paul didn't precede Marcion, how could he? Marcion didn't have a resurrection
  • You. Have. Completely. Missed. The. Point.

mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:28 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:56 am You haven't considered here post-production editing and redacting of Paul and Mark (& the other Synoptics) in relation to each other
Let's not unnecessarily complicate things at the very start Mac.
  • It's. You. Who's. Complicated. "Things". At. The. Start.
You make a good point -
mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:28 pm Mark is about the life of Jesus, Paul is about the religion that came after. It is nonsense that the latter would precede the former
- but you obscure it with muddle-headed-ness (and more)
You're being obstinate and unhelpful Mac. What's your point
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by mlinssen »

Let me reiterate my stance here:

1. Marcion didn't exist, he was just a sock puppet for the FF
2. Chrestianity did exist, and they had a single Gospel: *Ev
3. And there highly likely also was an Apostolikon within Chrestianity, which was a long memo to all congregations combined in order to let them know who's boss. One single letter, (half) a dozen or so copies perhaps, dunno

A. *Ev got redacted into Luke, there's little to add there
B. Apostolikon got expanded into the 5-7 generally accepted Pauline epistles, of which at least 80% is added material - this was a quite different exercise compared to creating Luke

There is no such thing as proto-Paul or anything the like, any Paul comes after any Mark. And we can fantasise about layered traditions all we want, but we have never found a shred of evidence for any of it - so let's just tick off that box and continue, shall we? And when we do find a version 0.5 or even 0.8 of any kind, we will say "hey now that's interesting, we finally have our very first evidence for a layered traditions" and then take it from there
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by Giuseppe »

Do you think that 1 Corinthians 2:6-11 was written with the implicit knowledge of a Gospel scenario? For me it is impossible.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by lclapshaw »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:50 am Let me reiterate my stance here:

1. Marcion didn't exist, he was just a sock puppet for the FF
2. Chrestianity did exist, and they had a single Gospel: *Ev
3. And there highly likely also was an Apostolikon within Chrestianity, which was a long memo to all congregations combined in order to let them know who's boss. One single letter, (half) a dozen or so copies perhaps, dunno

A. *Ev got redacted into Luke, there's little to add there
B. Apostolikon got expanded into the 5-7 generally accepted Pauline epistles, of which at least 80% is added material - this was a quite different exercise compared to creating Luke

There is no such thing as proto-Paul or anything the like, any Paul comes after any Mark. And we can fantasise about layered traditions all we want, but we have never found a shred of evidence for any of it - so let's just tick off that box and continue, shall we? And when we do find a version 0.5 or even 0.8 of any kind, we will say "hey now that's interesting, we finally have our very first evidence for a layered traditions" and then take it from there
Going to have to disagree with this. 1 Corinthians has passages in it that are consistent with a proto-Paul, or as I call him, urpaul.

He's just not what people generally want or expect. And he only seems to exist in 1 Corinthians and maybe Philippians.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by mlinssen »

lclapshaw wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:32 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:50 am Let me reiterate my stance here:

1. Marcion didn't exist, he was just a sock puppet for the FF
2. Chrestianity did exist, and they had a single Gospel: *Ev
3. And there highly likely also was an Apostolikon within Chrestianity, which was a long memo to all congregations combined in order to let them know who's boss. One single letter, (half) a dozen or so copies perhaps, dunno

A. *Ev got redacted into Luke, there's little to add there
B. Apostolikon got expanded into the 5-7 generally accepted Pauline epistles, of which at least 80% is added material - this was a quite different exercise compared to creating Luke

There is no such thing as proto-Paul or anything the like, any Paul comes after any Mark. And we can fantasise about layered traditions all we want, but we have never found a shred of evidence for any of it - so let's just tick off that box and continue, shall we? And when we do find a version 0.5 or even 0.8 of any kind, we will say "hey now that's interesting, we finally have our very first evidence for a layered traditions" and then take it from there
Going to have to disagree with this. 1 Corinthians has passages in it that are consistent with a proto-Paul, or as I call him, urpaul.

He's just not what people generally want or expect. And he only seems to exist in 1 Corinthians and maybe Philippians.
Well, please do hit me with the passages that you have in mind so that I can evaluate
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:08 am Do you think that 1 Corinthians 2:6-11 was written with the implicit knowledge of a Gospel scenario? For me it is impossible.
That passage reeks of Thomas, perhaps also *Ev

17. IS said: I will give to you him who no eye beheld and him who no ear heard and him who no hand touched and who did not come up on the heart/mind of human.

.
1 Cor 2:9 But as it has been written:
“What no eye has seen, and no ear has heard, and has not entered into heart of man, what God has prepared for those loving Him.”

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.64.3?lang=bi

Such things had never been heard or noted.
No eye has seen [them], O God, but You,
Who act for those who trust in You.

And then we have our fabricated LXX:

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/64-4.htm

From ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides You, who acts on behalf of those who wait for Him.

The order is evident: this comes from Thomas, and the awkward hand is dropped. There is no heart in either the MT or the LLX, and the Hebrew is clear that God is addressed as subject, and is not an object.
So yes, this certainly had "a gospel" in mind. But a Christian one? Not necessarily
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"

Post by lclapshaw »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:44 am
lclapshaw wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:32 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:50 am Let me reiterate my stance here:

1. Marcion didn't exist, he was just a sock puppet for the FF
2. Chrestianity did exist, and they had a single Gospel: *Ev
3. And there highly likely also was an Apostolikon within Chrestianity, which was a long memo to all congregations combined in order to let them know who's boss. One single letter, (half) a dozen or so copies perhaps, dunno

A. *Ev got redacted into Luke, there's little to add there
B. Apostolikon got expanded into the 5-7 generally accepted Pauline epistles, of which at least 80% is added material - this was a quite different exercise compared to creating Luke

There is no such thing as proto-Paul or anything the like, any Paul comes after any Mark. And we can fantasise about layered traditions all we want, but we have never found a shred of evidence for any of it - so let's just tick off that box and continue, shall we? And when we do find a version 0.5 or even 0.8 of any kind, we will say "hey now that's interesting, we finally have our very first evidence for a layered traditions" and then take it from there
Going to have to disagree with this. 1 Corinthians has passages in it that are consistent with a proto-Paul, or as I call him, urpaul.

He's just not what people generally want or expect. And he only seems to exist in 1 Corinthians and maybe Philippians.
Well, please do hit me with the passages that you have in mind so that I can evaluate
I thought you wanted to be part of the experiment. :)
Post Reply