Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldliness'?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Jax »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 2:15 pm
Jax wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 1:42 pm
John2 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:29 pm Did they leave the light on for you?
A red one, yeah.
Tell her she doesn't have to do that.

Those days are over.
How is she supposed to buy crack then?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Secret Alias »

And with respect to the similarities between Mark, Matthew and Luke. Given that they are forgeries of one another why do we have to 'figure out' their relationship with one another? We know what Papias said about Mark and Matthew. This statement seems to have been the launching point for Irenaeus or whomever organized the canon placing Matthew first in the order. But clearly since Papias also strongly implies that Mark was first chronologically do we have to know why Irenaeus agreed with Papias's preference for Matthew while acknowledging Markan primacy. In other words, Irenaeus and our canon ignore the facts as Papias has them and relies instead on his preference or taste. It would stand to reason that this 'taste' in preference to 'facts' would characterize the rest of the choices of the canon too. For instance, is our Matthew really Papias's Matthew? Well if the facts don't matter then it may or not be true. It might be equally true that the organizer of the canon could have just 'preferred' for instance to have the antitheses (Mt 5:17 - 44) in Matthew rather than in Mark or Luke. Clearly Tertullian's source acts as if the antitheses were found in another gospel just as Irenaeus makes reference to things that were in present in Mark in his day which are no longer found in Mark. Modern scholars like to imagine that the first New Testament canon must have been organized according to modern scholarly principles of fairness, truthfulness and transparency. But why is that necessarily true? If Matthew is placed first merely because an ancient witness liked it better than its actual source, and the antitheses could have only been moved to Matthew by our canon's editor and possibly even pro-Marcionite statements about the desirability of castration any number of other editorial manipulations could have also been added to the safe 'Jewish gospel' in the name of 'taste' or 'style' or 'usefulness.' Scholars imagine rules to have existed - rules of conduct - which likely didn't extend as far back as the organizing of the canon. The canon could just have been arranged in the way it was because it 'defeated heresy.' There might have been no more justification than winning a debate.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Secret Alias »

I guess I am not getting why corruption isn't the 'go to' explanation for why there are three forgeries at the head of our New Testament. I should add that as early as the Marcionites and the Dialogues of Adamantius (On the True Faith) the canonical gospels are also identified as pseudepigraphal and Acts 'spurious.' Why isn't the very idea that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written by apostles and apostolic men proof of the unreliability of the orthodox tradition? Mark had no ascription of authorship originally. So too the Marcionite gospel. It was just 'the gospel' and likely called 'apostolic' (apostolikon) i.e. belonging to or pertaining to the apostle. A gospel written by an unnamed gospel sort of like the Alexandrian gospel described in to Theodore without Morton Smith knowing must of the Marcionite backstory especially from Against Marcion Book 4 and 5. My point isn't to argue for a particular gospel (Secret Mark) as much as it is question why all of our modern 'habits' seems utterly rooted in the 'habits and assumptions' of our ancestral religion.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Secret Alias »

And the choice of beginning the discussion with corruption, prostitution and the like. The question as always is der Satz vom Grund, the correlation between Grund and Grundsatz (= 'principle'). If the world is an orderly place it is possible even likely that things can be passed along in an orderly fashion. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John or documents with these names could have been passed on an bundled in an organized manner. But if the world is corrupt then the suspicious things about Mark, Matthew, Luke and John should be grounds for supposing a principle of corruption. What does a fragment like P52 tell us about the origins of Christianity? It might not be as much as people like to imagine.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by John2 »

If you start with Judaism and the Jewish reports about Jesus, you see immediately that the Jews hated Jesus for being antinomian. That's it.

My understanding is that Jesus never opposes the written Torah in the NT, only the oral Torah (e.g., Mk. 7:5: "So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?'"). So in that respect I don't see any similarity between Marcion and Jesus.

I'm a little rusty on the accounts of Jesus in Rabbinic literature, but there is a summary of the references to Jesus in the Talmud on Wikipedia, and this appears to be the case there too, particularly in Git. 57a.

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:

* Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a–b)
* Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
* As a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
* As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
* As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
* Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
* Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
* Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud



Git. 57a:

Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy. Onkelos said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Jesus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them in this world? Jesus said to him: Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye.

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man [a euphemism for Jesus himself] in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages.

https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.57a.3?lang=bi
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Secret Alias »

Do you realize how fake this "oral law" argument was to Samaritans and likely Pharisees? The Samaritans to this day do not believe they have oral law. Only Torah they say. Cf Lowy on this point https://books.google.com/books?id=hJQ3A ... CXoECAkQAw
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri May 07, 2021 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by John2 »

To judge from Mk. 7 and Git. 57a there was a distinction between the written Torah and the oral Torah.


Mk. 7:8-11:

"You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said ... But you say ..."

Git. 57a:

And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Secret Alias »

Most people come to the conclusion Jesus was against the rabbinic oral law.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by Secret Alias »

The antitheses (Matt 5:17f) in their original form were said to be antinomian.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Were the Gospels Established by 'Other-Worldly' Means? Do Scholars Need to Defend Their Belief in 'Other-Worldlines

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 5:55 pm The antitheses (Matt 5:17f) in their original form were said to be antinomian.

What's their original form?
Post Reply