Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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
Why? Dunno
But what is standing in the way of Mark preceding Paul, who then in turn is succeeded by LukeMatthew and the remainder of Paul?
Let's define Paul as Gal, Cor and Rom for the time being.
What we would have that way is a double edged sword: Mark rewrites the Evangellion and Paul expands the Apostolikon, yanking both texts into the new Christian territory
Paul 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
Go on, shoot
Why? Dunno
But what is standing in the way of Mark preceding Paul, who then in turn is succeeded by LukeMatthew and the remainder of Paul?
Let's define Paul as Gal, Cor and Rom for the time being.
What we would have that way is a double edged sword: Mark rewrites the Evangellion and Paul expands the Apostolikon, yanking both texts into the new Christian territory
Paul 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
Go on, shoot
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
Naturally Paul could precede Mark, given their agreement - but how could a story about a movement precede the story of the movement?
That makes no sense at all
That makes no sense at all
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
the problem then is reduced to what would be the Apostolikon, if "Paul" is a its expansion. Since the Apostolikon can only be a subset, a portion of our current Paul, then the contradiction is there, that in the mind of the same author (Marcion) two texts could be written:
- The Evangelion, where the Apostolikon is never mentioned;
- The Apostolikon, where the Evangelion is never mentioned.
"ortas esse in Cerdonis vel Marcionitarum scholis" ("arose in the schools of Cerdo or Marcion"
(source)
I.e. one as Cerdo wrote the original core of the Apostolikon, while one as Marcion wrote the Evangelion.
The catholics could preserve the distinction:
- They expanded the epistles, preserving their silence about the Gospels details, since that same silence was seen as evidence of their antiquity (which historically is true);
- They expanded/corrupted/distorted the Evangelion, preserving its silence about Paul: differently from the epistles, the preservation of the Gospel silence about Paul was a natural corollary of the corruption of the Earliest Gospel.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
- There's some scholarship that either contemplates or even advocates that the John epistles - 1, 2 and 3 John - precede the Gospel attributed to John
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:10 am
But what is standing in the way of Mark preceding [some of the] Paul[ine] corpus, who then in turn is succeeded by LukeMatthew and the remainder of Paul?
Let's define Paul as Gal, Cor and Rom for the time being.
What we would have that way is a double edged sword: Mark rewrites the Evangellion and Paul expands the Apostolikon, yanking both texts into the new Christian territory
Paul 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
.
You haven't considered here post-production editing and redacting of Paul and Mark (& the other Synoptics) in relation to each other
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
'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
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
I see the Apostolikon as a single managerial to the congregations doing some carrot and stick thingies. It would be like JK Rowling writing an open letter to fans all over the world after a decade or two / three, spelling out the then contemporary issues before her death or something.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:05 amthe problem then is reduced to what would be the Apostolikon, if "Paul" is a its expansion. Since the Apostolikon can only be a subset, a portion of our current Paul, then the contradiction is there, that in the mind of the same author (Marcion) two texts could be written:
- The Evangelion, where the Apostolikon is never mentioned;
It is impossible, in my view, that a such rigid division could arise in the mind of an only and same author, which makes me think that the Apostolikon is a collection:
- The Apostolikon, where the Evangelion is never mentioned.
"ortas esse in Cerdonis vel Marcionitarum scholis" ("arose in the schools of Cerdo or Marcion"
(source)
I.e. one as Cerdo wrote the original core of the Apostolikon, while one as Marcion wrote the Evangelion.
The catholics could preserve the distinction:
- They expanded the epistles, preserving their silence about the Gospels details, since that same silence was seen as evidence of their antiquity (which historically is true);
- They expanded/corrupted/distorted the Evangelion, preserving its silence about Paul: differently from the epistles, the preservation of the Gospel silence about Paul was a natural corollary of the corruption of the Earliest Gospel.
If anyone else would write that letter, JK would get mentioned - but, likely, authorship about *Ev was entirely unclear (and utterly irrelevant) so that wasn't an issue in either case
We first need to discuss the goal of the Apostolikon Mac, before we can say anything about what would have needed to be in it, and not
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
Let's not unnecessarily complicate things at the very start Mac.
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
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
- You. Have. Completely. Missed. The. Point.
- It's. You. Who's. Complicated. "Things". At. The. Start.
- but you obscure it with muddle-headed-ness (and more)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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.
Jesus wasn't born of a virgin until after Paul, is my guess. Paul is consistent with gMark.