A Synoptic Problem Solution: Mark 1:1 + Galatians 1:1 introduce the OG NT

[rgprice]

This is indeed an import topic, and you've provided a lot of relevant material. I do recommend that you watch the entirety of my presentation on this topic from History Valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srDvhXanXHg

There I make the case, which I will be further developing and putting forward in my upcoming book, that what we call "the Gospel Mark" is the closest remaining text of the earliest narrative story about Jesus. From OGMark (Original Gospel of Mark), OGLuke (Original Gospel of Luke) was then produced. Marcion's Gospel is derived from OGLuke. Matthew's Gospel is written in response to Marcion. It is derived from OGMark and OGLuke. The Gospel of John was likely produced with knowledge of Marcion's Gospel as well, with reference to OGMark and OGLuke, however canonical John is complicated because it was produced in three phases. Canonical John was revised in the presence of the three Canonical Synoptics.

It is clear that Mark was the first Gospel, because only Mark has a special relationship to the Pauline letters. Likewise it is only Mark that opens with the introductory summary: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"

This introductory summary tells us that the narrative that follows is only the first part of, "the gospel of Jesus Christ". And, as this introduction indicates, the Gospel of Mark ends without closure: "And 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."

This ending leads us directly into the letter to the Galatians: "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through human agency, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia..."

The parenthetical statement in the opening of Galatians was no doubt added by the writer of OGMark. This is the segue from the ending of his introductory narrative to the beginning of the second part of "the gospel of Jesus Christ" - the revelation of the risen Christ. This is because the Gospel of Mark establishes that the risen Christ was not actually revealed by anyone. The writer of Mark leaves the revelation of the risen Christ to Paul.

Only the Gospel of Mark makes this connection between the narrative and the Pauline letter collection. Not even Marcion's Gospel does this.

So, I conclude, Mark is the first narrative. It was written as an introduction to the earliest form of the Pauline letter collection, which consisted of the following works in this order:

Galatians
Corinthians 1
Corinthians 2
Romans
Thessalonians 1
Thessalonians 2
Philippians

The writer of OGLuke, is the same person who modified this collection to add the letters to the Laodiceans and Colossians. The letter collection used by this writer consisted of the following in this order:

Galatians
Corinthians 1
Corinthians 2
Romans
Thessalonians 1
Thessalonians 2
Laodiceans*
Colossians*
Philippians
Philemon*

OGLuke was then almost certainly produced in Laodicea, when the letters from the Laodicean collection were added. When someone from this community added the Laodicean letters to the collection, they also saw fit to revise the introductory story, thereby creating OGLuke. The writer of OGLuke recognized that the Jesus figure in the story pre-fixing the letter collection was used to introduce the Pauline teachings of the collection. Thus, this writer modified the story and modified the Jesus character to have the Jesus character introduce teachings from the Laodicean community.

It is from this collection, OGLuke + Paul³, that Marcion's collection was derived.

But in response to Marcion and other Gnostics, Matthew was written. the writer of Matthew, in order to refute Marcion, leaned on OGMark and OGLuke, the works that the writer of Matthew knew preceded Marcion. The writer of Matthew was creating an explanatory synthesis, a harmonization, of Mark and Luke, to show how they could be interpreted against Marcionism/Gnosticism.

The creator of Canonical Luke essentially just added on an introductory birth narrative and modified the ending of OGLuke. Thus, Canonical Luke essentially preserves OGLuke. This is why Canonical Luke is similar to Marcion's Gospel, which was derived from OGLuke.

The creator of Canonical Luke further revised the entire collection, as a work against Marcion. The writer of Canonical Luke, produced Canonical Luke and Acts of the Apostles as an expanded introduction to a now greatly modified letter collection, that consisted of the Pauline letters along with supposed letters from other disciples. It was this writer who produced the Canonical version of the Pauline letters, adding the Pastorals and rearranging the letters to produce:

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians*
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy*
2 Timothy*
Titus*
Philemon
Hebrews*

Now, the Pauline letters were in fact revised and modified at each step along the way, with 5 distinct points of revision between the original letters and the Canonical collection. Interpolations were introduced at each of these 5 points.

This collection, then, of CLuke, Acts, General Letters and Pauline Letters, became the backbone of the proto-orthodox New Testament. To this collection was added the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. However, the canonical versions of Mark and John are not the same as the original versions of these works. CMark and CJohn were both revised in the presence of the entire collection by the editor of the first edition of the New Testament, who was likely Polycarp of Smyrna, or an associate of his shortly after his death. In any case, the first edition of the NT was likely produced in Smyrna by either Polycarp himself, a group led by Polycarp, or by associates of Polycarp after he died.

[MrMacSon]

... I make the case...that what we call "the Gospel Mark" is the closest remaining text of the earliest narrative story about Jesus. From OGMark (Original Gospel of Mark), OGLuke (Original Gospel of Luke) was then produced. Marcion's Gospel is derived from OGLuke. Matthew's Gospel is written in response to Marcion. It is derived from OGMark and OGLuke.

• How/why do you determine that Marcion's Gospel is derived from 'OGLuke'?

I agree

It is clear that Mark was the first Gospel, because only Mark has a special relationship to the Pauline letters.

And that —

Mark...open[ing] with the introductory summary: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"

— is noteworthy


But wouldn't it be more parsimonious if:

from OGMark came the-Gospel-attributed-to-Marcion (with or without a previous version), then Matthew, then Luke#2 ?

---

And I agree that

The Gospel of John was likely produced with knowledge of Marcion's Gospel as well, with reference to OGMark and OGLuke, however canonical John is complicated because it was produced in three phases. Canonical John was revised in the presence of the three Canonical Synoptics.

[MrMacSon]

However, the canonical versions of Mark and John are not the same as the original versions of these works. CMark and CJohn were both revised in the presence of the entire collection by the editor of the first edition of the New Testament

• I can accept

  "the canonical versions of Mark and John are not the same as the original versions of these works. CMark and CJohn were both revised in the presence of the entire collection"

But
... referring to what came next as "the first edition of the New Testament" is at odds with the likes of David Trobisch and Mark Vinzent

Here's the description of Vinzent's soon-to-be-published 'Concordance to the Precanonical and Canonical NT', the first at least two publications by Vinzent about the Marcionite 'collection', aka, as some people will call it, The First Edition of the NT

https://www.narr.de/concordance-to-the- ... nt-1060-1/

Description

For the beginnings of Christianity, only two collections of Christian texts are known, which were called the "New Testament" – one written before the middle of the 2nd century, organized by Marcion of Sinope, and the one known to us from the later canonical New Testament, which was brought together from the time around Irenaeus towards the end of the 2nd century.

For the first time, this concordance opens up the Greek vocabulary of both collections and lists the more than 5,500 different words in comparison with passage references.

Similarities and differences in the language of the two collections become immediately recognizable and serve to determine the relationship between these two corpora and the writings contained therein. Questions such as the priority of one or the other collection, its historical, social and theological orientation emerge clearly

[MrMacSon]

So, I conclude, Mark is the first narrative. It was written as an introduction to the earliest form of the Pauline letter collection, which consisted of the following works in this order:

Galatians
Corinthians 1
Corinthians 2
Romans
Thessalonians 1
Thessalonians 2
Philippians

• That seems about right, but bold ...

The writer of OGLuke, is the same person who modified this collection to add the letters to the Laodiceans and Colossians. The letter collection used by this writer consisted of the following in this order:

Galatians
Corinthians 1
Corinthians 2
Romans
Thessalonians 1
Thessalonians 2
Laodiceans*
Colossians*
Philippians
Philemon*

OGLuke was then almost certainly produced in Laodicea, when the letters from the Laodicean collection were added. When someone from this community added the Laodicean letters to the collection, they also saw fit to revise the introductory story, thereby creating OGLuke. The writer of OGLuke recognized that the Jesus figure in the story pre-fixing the letter collection was used to introduce the Pauline teachings of the collection. Thus, this writer modified the story and modified the Jesus character to have the Jesus character introduce teachings from the Laodicean community.

It is from this collection, OGLuke + Paul³, that Marcion's collection was derived.

• 

The creator of Canonical Luke essentially just added on an introductory birth narrative and modified the ending of OGLuke. Thus, Canonical Luke essentially preserves OGLuke. This is why Canonical Luke is similar to Marcion's Gospel, which was derived from OGLuke.

The creator of Canonical Luke further revised the entire collection, as a work against Marcion. The writer of Canonical Luke, produced Canonical Luke and Acts of the Apostles as an expanded introduction to a now greatly modified letter collection, that consisted of the Pauline letters along with supposed letters from other disciples. It was this writer who produced the Canonical version of the Pauline letters, adding the Pastorals and rearranging the letters to produce:

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians*
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy*
2 Timothy*
Titus*
Philemon*
Hebrews*

Now, the Pauline letters were in fact revised and modified at each step along the way, with 5 distinct points of revision between the original letters and the Canonical collection. Interpolations were introduced at each of these 5 points.

This collection, then, of CLuke, Acts, General Letters and Pauline Letters, became the backbone of the proto-orthodox New Testament. To this collection was added the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. However, the canonical versions of Mark and John are not the same as the original versions of these works. CMark and CJohn were both revised in the presence of the entire collection by the editor of the first edition of the New Testament, who was likely Polycarp of Smyrna, or an associate of his shortly after his death. In any case, the first edition of the NT was likely produced in Smyrna by either Polycarp himself, a group led by Polycarp, or by associates of Polycarp after he died.

• Robert M Price proposed in The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, 2012, that Polycarp had a hand in collecting and perhaps even writing some Pauline letters (+/- more eg. as you propose here)

[rgprice]

@MrMacSon I explain in the presentation why Marcion's Gospel is derived from OGLuke and why none of the canonical material is dependent on Marcion.

Bascially, the material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not present in Marcion is best explained by such a model, where neither Matthew nor Luke are derived from Marcion. In addition, it also just makes more logical sense. If Matthew and CLuke are written in opposition to Marcion, which I think there are many reasons to conclude that they are, then why would they derive their material from Marcion? Makes far more sense that they would have used non-Marcionite Gospels as sources to refute Marcion.

I argue in the presentation that Matthew is a harmonization of OGMark and OGLuke against Marcion. The writer of Matthew is creating an interpretation of the Gospels that preceded Marcion to show that those Gospels do not support Marcionite teachings. He is showing how Marcion has (according to him), mis-interpreted HIS source material.

So the writer of Matthew sees OGMark and OGLuke as Marcion's sources, and is creating a version of those sources that explains the ways in which, according to the writer of Matthew, Marcion has misunderstood his sources and has missed elements that contradict his teachings.

This is why the writer of Matthew goes on and on about prophecy fulfillment and pointing out the relationships between the Marcan narrative and the Jewish scriptures. He's showing Marcion how he missed the connection between Jesus and Jewish prophecy in Marcion's sources.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

There I make the case, which I will be further developing and putting forward in my upcoming book, that what we call "the Gospel Mark" is the closest remaining text of the earliest narrative story about Jesus.

Chapeau! It seems to me that anyone who is genuinely interested in the texts of the gospels will come back to some form of Markan priority. The idea of Marcion's priority might be provocative and therefore "really cool", but it just doesn't work.

[Giuseppe]

only Mark has a special relationship to the Pauline letters.

what do you think about Bauer's case that 1 Corinthians (and with it the rest of the epistles) is based on a Gospel (proto-Mark) and not the contrary?
Very curious about your judgement on that.

[Peter Kirby]

Split from Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis.

[JoeWallack]

There I make the case, which I will be further developing and putting forward in my upcoming book, that what we call "the Gospel Mark" is the closest remaining text of the earliest narrative story about Jesus.

Chapeau! It seems to me that anyone who is genuinely interested in the texts of the gospels will come back to some form of Markan priority. The idea of Marcion's priority might be provocative and therefore "really cool", but it just doesn't work.

JW:
Literary Criticism (Horae Synoptica) supports GMark as the earliest extant Gospel and it also has a reasonable explanation of development:

1) We can be certain that Jesus did not do the Impossible.

2) We can be certain that witness to Jesus did not witness the Impossible.

3) It's possible that witness to Jesus thought they witnessed the impossible but exponentially more likely that they did not.

4) More likely that witness to Jesus witnessed the possible. Teaching & natural healing Ministry.

5) Witness to Jesus wrote Q.

6) Israel had little interest in Jesus since most had never heard of him and those that did knew he did nothing impossible.

7) Those that did not know Jesus said Jesus did the Impossible.

8) Those that did not know Jesus said Jesus did the Impossible. Discredited historical witness to Jesus (GMark).

9) Those that did not know Jesus said Jesus did the Impossible. Credited historical witness to Jesus but said they (historical witness) did not understand Jesus (Marcion!).

10) GLuke/GMatthew wanted to credit historical witness to Jesus.


Joseph

[lsayre]

1 through 7 are spot-on!