Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2335
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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.
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.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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 backGakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:57 pmWhat 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.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
That is pivotal indeed, and a valid point. But I would really change "up until" into "starting from". Read the Patristics pleaseGakuseiDon 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.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
You're being obstinate and unhelpful Mac. What's your pointMrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:43 pm
- You. Have. Completely. Missed. The. Point.
You make a good point -
- It's. You. Who's. Complicated. "Things". At. The. Start.
- but you obscure it with muddle-headed-ness (and more)
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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
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
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
Do you think that 1 Corinthians 2:6-11 was written with the implicit knowledge of a Gospel scenario? For me it is impossible.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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.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
He's just not what people generally want or expect. And he only seems to exist in 1 Corinthians and maybe Philippians.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
Well, please do hit me with the passages that you have in mind so that I can evaluatelclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:32 amGoing 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.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
He's just not what people generally want or expect. And he only seems to exist in 1 Corinthians and maybe Philippians.
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
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
Re: Mark, Paul, LukeMatthew - and then some more "Paul"
I thought you wanted to be part of the experiment.mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:44 amWell, please do hit me with the passages that you have in mind so that I can evaluatelclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:32 amGoing 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.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
He's just not what people generally want or expect. And he only seems to exist in 1 Corinthians and maybe Philippians.