External evidence that (Matthew and) canonical Luke comes after *Ev

[Giuseppe]

1 Timothy 3-4, even if a Catholic epistle, is still reluctant to accept the genealogies found in the incipit of Matthew and Canonical Luke.

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

Since the evidence is overwhelming that 1 Timothy comes after Marcion, then the conclusion imposes itself: that Matthew and Canonical Luke come after *Ev.

[maryhelena]

1 Timothy 3-4, even if a Catholic epistle, is still reluctant to accept the genealogies found in the incipit of Matthew and Canonical Luke.

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

Since the evidence is overwhelming that 1 Timothy comes after Marcion, then the conclusion imposes itself: that Matthew and Canonical Luke come after *Ev.

Love that - 'endless genealogies'. After all, the Logos can't be tied down to any one date on the calendar. However, if it's flesh and blood we are after - then genealogies do have their function.

Dropping birth narratives is one thing - but it does not negate their relevance. It simply suggests a two tier system....flesh and blood and spirit/mind/Logos.

[JarekS]

Great shot - you hit the center of the target, but you read the result incorrectly. You left out "mythos". Are there any "mythos"?
The authors of the letters see the gospels as made-up stories. The true gospel is contained in the letters and the stages described in them - calling, consecration and resurrection. Paul did not write any letters - he was brought to life because a hero was needed. The fact that 1Ti was written by a different ghostwriter than the previous 7 does not change the fact that it was another product under the same merchandising license for the character of Paul the Apostle.
1 Ti is against all the gospels and Christianity became aware of it well after 140 CE

[JarekS]

Marcion took two products from the available Christian content offer prepared by two suppliers.

[Giuseppe]

1 Ti is against all the gospels

yet 1 Timothy mentions Pilate who is part and parcel of the same fiction hence hardly that put the epistle against all the gospels.

The myths may be the Gnostic mirror of the Lukan and Matthean genealogies: the speculations on the emanation of the Aeons etc.

Even if the condamned "myths" are the gospels tout court, hardly they can be "all" the gospels since Pilate makes his first appearance (in connection to Jesus) in a (proto-)gospel, not in Josephus.

My current theory on the introduction of Pilate is that a releaser of the body of Jesus was necessary in order for Jesus have an anti-docetic body, and PLT is the Semitic root for "to release/to be released".

Alternatively, Pilate was introduced because Simon Magus and/or Dositheus and/or Menander was confused (right or wrong) with the unnamed Samaritan Impostor slain by Pilate, and by collateral effect also Jesus was dated under Pilate.

In both the cases, the docetism is the factor that lies behind the introduction of Pilate in the story.

[JarekS]

Pilate is present in Ant.- the only reliable source on Jesus fo authors of the letters

[Giuseppe]

Pilate is present in Ant.- the only reliable source on Jesus fo authors of the letters

Yes but in connection with the unnamed Samaritan Impostor.

Once the unnamed Samaritan Impostor slain by Pilate was confused with a heresiarch of the Docetist kind (Simon Magus and/or Dositheus and/or Menander), the other Christians could only date Jesus under Pilate accordingly.

And they went so far to deny that "Bar-Abbas" ("the Son of Father", i.e. the Jesus of the Docetists above mentioned) was the true victim of Pilate: in his place, "Jesus called Christ" was.

I invite you to read this important article.

https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... r_engl.pdf

[JarekS]

I will be happy to read the recommended work. For my part, I would like to remind you that Paul's letters were unknown for at least 40 years after his death, and that all the congregations with which he corresponded did not survive until the publication of Pauline Corpus. Not only the apostle but also his faithful disappeared. Jesus and Pilate are linked together in the Testimonium.
The authors of Paul's letters avoided any connections with the Gospel narrative because they did not believe in its success. The Calling, Sanctification and Resurrection take place in Paul's letters within a short period of time before and immediately after his death on the cross. No narration needed

[davidmartin]

Jarek, yes the gospels were ignored in writings known to have existed after the gospels existed (eg pastorals) and so too that applies to the earlier epistles, this is the way the gospels can be seen as being the earlier writings (or at least the 'earlier gospels, and their sources, are earlier than the earliest epistles').

Not sure the author of Paul's letters 'avoiding any connection with the Gospel narrative' for reasons of belief in it's success - more like the epistles and other contemporary more 'gnostic' systems were new and innovative. I think the framing of "Paul" to an early date is meant to counter the gospels own early date. But the epistles clearly are aware of the gospels - otherwise why do they present Paul as not being an original disciple? It was known that he wasn't from the gospel narrative which do not mention him

[JarekS]

Exactly as you wrote. The authors of Paul's letters are aware of the gospel but deliberately ignore it. Paul is a well-thought-out content product - an Apostle of the Risen Christ. What matters is Paul and his interpretation of the calling-sacrifice-resurrection and his inspired teachings. The product line was continued by those who treated the stories about the historical Jesus as myths invented for the masses. Like the Marian apparitions which today are received enthusiastically by some and skeptically by others. The Last Supper is a literary construct and not an event located in time and space.