It's long. Also there is a bit of a technical malfunction in the beginning where my progress through the slides isn't shown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srDvhXanXHg
My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
Summary of the main points:
The Gospel of Mark introduces the Pauline collection in a unique way that is distinct from all of the other Gospels.
Importantly, the beginning and ending of the Gospel indicate that this narrative is intended to introduce another writing.
The Gospel of Mark beings with an introductory summary: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". This first verse of Mark is actually a "title" or introductory summary that is describing the entire story. The entire story is only "the beginning" of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So the reader knows from the very outset that this is only the first part of a multi-part composition.
What is the second part? The second part is the Pauline letter collection, starting with the letter to the Galatians.
I propose that the parenthetical state in Galatians 1:1 was likely added by the writer of Mark as a way to bridge the gap between the end of his story and the beginning of the Pauline letter collection.
My simplified proposal of the relationships between the early material, consisting not simply of relationships between Gospels, but between collections:
Importantly, the first Gospel was written in conjunction with a Pauline letter collection. The Gospel story was never independent of the Pauline letters. Marcoin's collection is an important witness to the early stage of the process, but Marcion was not the first to pair a Gospel with the Pauline letters, rather Marcion's collection is an artifact of the early period when all Gospels were paired with the letter collection.
Modifications to the Pauline letters happen at each point along the way in the editorial process.
The "Gospel of Mark" may have been written as an introduction to a Pauline letter collection that did not include the letters to the Laodiceans or Colossians. When such a collection was introduced to the community at Laodicea, that community added the letters to the Laodiceans and Colossians and also modified the Gospel narrative to reflect the teachings and types of sermons that were given in their community. They understood that the Gospel narrative was being used to introduce the teachings of the letter collection so they modified the Gospel accordingly when they added their letters to the collection.
Likewise, the creator of Canonical Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to be the new bridge between the narrative and his new collection, which would have included the non-Pauline epistles as well as his revised version of the Pauline letters, including the Pastoral letters. So the writer of Canonical Luke expands the letter collection to make it not just about Paul and creates a new segue that puts more emphasis on the pre-Pauline disciples.
The Gospel of Mark introduces the Pauline collection in a unique way that is distinct from all of the other Gospels.
Importantly, the beginning and ending of the Gospel indicate that this narrative is intended to introduce another writing.
- GospelSources_4.gif (143.99 KiB) Viewed 590 times
What is the second part? The second part is the Pauline letter collection, starting with the letter to the Galatians.
Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
To be continued…
To be continued…
Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me. To the assemblies of Galatia…
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. …
When God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me;
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. …
When God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me;
I propose that the parenthetical state in Galatians 1:1 was likely added by the writer of Mark as a way to bridge the gap between the end of his story and the beginning of the Pauline letter collection.
My simplified proposal of the relationships between the early material, consisting not simply of relationships between Gospels, but between collections:
- GospelSources_7.gif (136.08 KiB) Viewed 590 times
Modifications to the Pauline letters happen at each point along the way in the editorial process.
- GospelSources_8.gif (125.26 KiB) Viewed 590 times
Likewise, the creator of Canonical Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to be the new bridge between the narrative and his new collection, which would have included the non-Pauline epistles as well as his revised version of the Pauline letters, including the Pastoral letters. So the writer of Canonical Luke expands the letter collection to make it not just about Paul and creates a new segue that puts more emphasis on the pre-Pauline disciples.
Last edited by rgprice on Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
It's important to get an understanding of the "Gospel of Luke".
This is a graphical depiction of the content of the Canonical Gospel of Luke. The material in Blue and Purple would be the content of the original version of the Gospel of Luke. The material in Purple is what corresponds to Marcion's Gospel. The material in green is the material added by the canonical writer. So in the diagram above, the content of Luke' corresponds to the material in Blue and Purple here.
What can this tell us about where all of these works were produced?
The Pauline letter collection most likely originated in Ephesus, for a variety of reasons. It seems to have been Paul's base of operations and where many of the Pauline letters were written. If Mark is written as an introduction to the earliest version of the Pauline letter collection, it was most likely written in Ephesus.
Just down the road we have Laodicea. If the Markan collection originated in Ephesus, then it could have been introduced in Laodicea shortly after. here the letters to the Laodiceans and Colossians were added and the story was modified to reflect the teachings of that community, resulting in what we know as the first version of the Gospel of Luke. From here Marcion's collection was derived.
Nearby we have Smyrna, the home of Polycarp. Polycarp was in contact with Ignatius of Antioch. We know that information and writings flowed back and fourth between Smyrna and Antioch. Matthew is widely believed to have been written in Antioch due to references made to Matthew by Ignatius. Polycarp was the publisher of the letters of Ignatius and thus we know had contact with much material from the church at Antioch, where Matthew was likely produced.
The Gospel of John is also thought to have been written in Ephesus. This gives Polycarp ready access to all of the material of the proto-canonical NT collection, including Revelation, which also surely came from this region as the seven churches of Revelation include Smyrna, Ephesus and Laodicea. Surely the creator of the collection including all four Gospels and the letters and Revelation came from among the seven churches listed in Revelation, of which Smyrna is a candidate.
- GospelSources_9.gif (111.95 KiB) Viewed 588 times
What can this tell us about where all of these works were produced?
- GospelSources_10.gif (212.17 KiB) Viewed 588 times
Just down the road we have Laodicea. If the Markan collection originated in Ephesus, then it could have been introduced in Laodicea shortly after. here the letters to the Laodiceans and Colossians were added and the story was modified to reflect the teachings of that community, resulting in what we know as the first version of the Gospel of Luke. From here Marcion's collection was derived.
Nearby we have Smyrna, the home of Polycarp. Polycarp was in contact with Ignatius of Antioch. We know that information and writings flowed back and fourth between Smyrna and Antioch. Matthew is widely believed to have been written in Antioch due to references made to Matthew by Ignatius. Polycarp was the publisher of the letters of Ignatius and thus we know had contact with much material from the church at Antioch, where Matthew was likely produced.
The Gospel of John is also thought to have been written in Ephesus. This gives Polycarp ready access to all of the material of the proto-canonical NT collection, including Revelation, which also surely came from this region as the seven churches of Revelation include Smyrna, Ephesus and Laodicea. Surely the creator of the collection including all four Gospels and the letters and Revelation came from among the seven churches listed in Revelation, of which Smyrna is a candidate.
Last edited by rgprice on Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
This is stupid. Why would it have originated in Ephesus where the Letter to the Ephesians was originally called "according to the Laodiceans" by the Marcionites. I have read a lot of what you have written. I think you lack the ability to identify what is ESSENTIAL from ancient testimonies. The Epistle to the Ephesians is really the anonymous epistle. Even in orthodox canons it is the one epistle that doesn't get a name. Undoubtedly because of the influence of the Marcionite canon and its alternative name for Ephesus. Ephesus was a center for orthodox Christianity which means it was secondary.
All these "theories" you cite there just ways of making the elusiveness of antiquity seem less elusive. Because some "expert' says this or that for you creates a "firm world" where you can then develop these screwball theories. Embrace the elusiveness. That's the only reality. The truth was preserved in whispers not shouts from antiquity.
All these "theories" you cite there just ways of making the elusiveness of antiquity seem less elusive. Because some "expert' says this or that for you creates a "firm world" where you can then develop these screwball theories. Embrace the elusiveness. That's the only reality. The truth was preserved in whispers not shouts from antiquity.
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
What I am saying is. It's Marcion OR the orthodox. And then if you choose to go down (b) you choose from (c) this or that screwball theory and then (d) your version of that screwball theory. It's not convincing. Either accept the orthodox theory as it is or try to make sense of Marcionism. It's unlikely that the truth is found in the following formula:
ORTHODOX CANON + screwball theory of "ORTHODOX CANON" + personal screwball interpretation of aforementioned screwball theory of ORTHODOX CANON.
It's just very unlikely that truth gets uncovered in endless screwball theories piling on top of one another.
ORTHODOX CANON + screwball theory of "ORTHODOX CANON" + personal screwball interpretation of aforementioned screwball theory of ORTHODOX CANON.
It's just very unlikely that truth gets uncovered in endless screwball theories piling on top of one another.
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
Most of the people at the forum struggle with the elusiveness of antiquity. It's not just you. The solution is not to just treat complete nonsense as "firm fact" in order to pontificate with authority. We just don't know enough to make these sweepingly stupid statements.
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
It's like Chinese whispers.
There was a gospel in the beginning.
Then there were lots of gospels according to so and so and so and so.
Then they were canonized (and corrected)
Then they were preserved until scholars started studying them and scholars struggled to get back to (1) with various screwball theories.
The answer isn't to take a screwball theory or many screwball theories as a "fact" and work forward.
The answer is to try and figure out what the (original) gospel story was trying to say and work backwards from that refracted as it is from what survives which are (many times over) corrupt(ed) gospel(s). The textual history of the canon is corrupt. But if you accept that collection of writings just close your eyes and accept the orthodox version of its origins because you aren't going to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even AI isn't going to unravel this Gordian knot.
There was a gospel in the beginning.
Then there were lots of gospels according to so and so and so and so.
Then they were canonized (and corrected)
Then they were preserved until scholars started studying them and scholars struggled to get back to (1) with various screwball theories.
The answer isn't to take a screwball theory or many screwball theories as a "fact" and work forward.
The answer is to try and figure out what the (original) gospel story was trying to say and work backwards from that refracted as it is from what survives which are (many times over) corrupt(ed) gospel(s). The textual history of the canon is corrupt. But if you accept that collection of writings just close your eyes and accept the orthodox version of its origins because you aren't going to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even AI isn't going to unravel this Gordian knot.
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
The beauty of this convoluted schema is that it is infallibleSecret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:13 am It's like Chinese whispers.
There was a gospel in the beginning.
Then there were lots of gospels according to so and so and so and so.
Then they were canonized (and corrected)
Then they were preserved until scholars started studying them and scholars struggled to get back to (1) with various screwball theories.
The answer isn't to take a screwball theory or many screwball theories as a "fact" and work forward.
The answer is to try and figure out what the (original) gospel story was trying to say and work backwards from that refracted as it is from what survives which are (many times over) corrupt(ed) gospel(s). The textual history of the canon is corrupt. But if you accept that collection of writings just close your eyes and accept the orthodox version of its origins because you aren't going to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even AI isn't going to unravel this Gordian knot.
Luke precedes Marcion and Marcion precedes Luke, isn't that wondrous? As wondrous as it is useless, and likely there hasn't been conducted an inch of textual research other than browsing a few English bible translations, I reckon. And obnoxious disagreement with the latest, biggest and bestest of Marcionite investigations, "just because it can" as we say in NL
Each to his own, but yeah, screwball it is
Here, let me show how it's done
1. The NT, gospels and letters, centre around one very giant stumbling block: the false and fake elements of Judaism, that almost all are demonstrably untrue while contested for over a millennium. It is their core yet even the texts themselves refute it, struggle with it, fight over it: every single bit of Judaism is an anomaly in all of the NT, a continuous stumbling block to all
2. So if we take the NT, and throw all the Judaisation away, we have a remainder. Strikingly, that remainder, when we compare it to the only text that we can reconstruct, tells us that Luke + Judaisation = *Ev. Sadly, we have no other texts to go on
3. When we take *Ev, and remove the entire narrative, what remains is Thomas
2. So if we take the NT, and throw all the Judaisation away, we have a remainder. Strikingly, that remainder, when we compare it to the only text that we can reconstruct, tells us that Luke + Judaisation = *Ev. Sadly, we have no other texts to go on
3. When we take *Ev, and remove the entire narrative, what remains is Thomas
And when we start at the start, here is what happened:
1. Thomas happened
2. Narrative formed over the Thomas themes = John
3. John expanded with original Thomasine material = *Ev
3. Judaisation added to *Ev = Mark, which also marks (pun!) end of Chrestianity = start of Christianity
4. Mark fixed and corrected, once for the original Chrestian audience (Luke) and once for the new Christians (Matthew) in one large editorial (which solves the entire synoptic problem)
5. John redacted slapped onto those three yet in the back so it's "evident" that the others precede him - and end it with him closing the book on the gospels for good measure, where Mark started the Ἀρχὴ, and John ends with τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία
5 small steps, simple ones, evolutionary ones where the next one simply expands the previous one. No going back and forth, all of it attested to and verifiable via extant texts. Easy, logical, straightforward. At odds with dogma? Of course, very greatly so indeed - naturally
A. Acts placed in between because even though the latest of them all, it's the glue between gospels and letters
B. Letters following that, even though those are about the dead Jesus (XS) whereas the gospels are about the living one (IS)
C. Some more letters, all later than the first set
D. Revelations composed "John-style" in order to scare the shit out of the sheeple, and close the book on the book
2. Narrative formed over the Thomas themes = John
3. John expanded with original Thomasine material = *Ev
3. Judaisation added to *Ev = Mark, which also marks (pun!) end of Chrestianity = start of Christianity
4. Mark fixed and corrected, once for the original Chrestian audience (Luke) and once for the new Christians (Matthew) in one large editorial (which solves the entire synoptic problem)
5. John redacted slapped onto those three yet in the back so it's "evident" that the others precede him - and end it with him closing the book on the gospels for good measure, where Mark started the Ἀρχὴ, and John ends with τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία
5 small steps, simple ones, evolutionary ones where the next one simply expands the previous one. No going back and forth, all of it attested to and verifiable via extant texts. Easy, logical, straightforward. At odds with dogma? Of course, very greatly so indeed - naturally
A. Acts placed in between because even though the latest of them all, it's the glue between gospels and letters
B. Letters following that, even though those are about the dead Jesus (XS) whereas the gospels are about the living one (IS)
C. Some more letters, all later than the first set
D. Revelations composed "John-style" in order to scare the shit out of the sheeple, and close the book on the book
I really don't care about the epistles, they don't matter for the origins and we don't have sources to compare them to, nor anything to reconstruct anything from.
Pauline studies typically is for people who don't want to be proven wrong, precisely because they can never prove themselves right
This is not meant as a total put down Geoff, I've seen you make great progress in research on a whole - but it would seem that this is your last straw, and I have to admit that it made my head spin in the first few minutes of diagrams.
Base your theory on the evidence that we have, and I don't care whether or not you reserve the right to come back to it when the evidence that we suspect and desire does surface
But this is not helping anyone or anything really
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:46 am
It's important to get an understanding of the "Gospel of Luke".
This is a graphical depiction of the content of the Canonical Gospel of Luke. The material in Blue and Purple would be the content of the original version of the Gospel of Luke. The material in Purple is what corresponds to Marcion's Gospel. The material in green is the material added by the canonical writer. So in the diagram above, the content of Luke' corresponds to the material in Blue and Purple here.
- GospelSources_9.gif (111.95 KiB) Viewed 490 times
So you propose a proto-Luke, Luke1, which you think preceded the Marcionite gospeltext, thus was used and redacted by Marcion (?)
Re: My presentation on Hist. Valley re Mark and Paul
How do you connect 2 Corinthians to Mark?