Recent communications and discussions reveal that confusion has arisen over the past years, which may be solved by a new distinction
If we consider a Christian tradition we would generally hold Markan Priority to be valid there, along with Matthean Posteriority perhaps.
And if we then consider a Chrestian tradition we could hold Marcionite Posteriority to be valid there.
"Chrestianity precedes Christianity" then becomes a paradigm which would dispose with essentially futile arguments over a first gospel, as each tradition would have one
I think we will all benefit from this nuance, much more so because of the very, very different make up of each tradition.
And to further nuance the word nuance: in the Chrestian tradition I hold Thomas to be the very first text, and John to be the very first gospel; and we can see how Thomas is a perfect Quelle to a Chrestian tradition whereas it would be "way too skinny" to serve as the missing link to Christianity, dubbed Q.
Q exists only in the imagination of biblical scholars who fail to see that LukeMatthew was one single redaction aimed at completing the void that Mark introduced - which concerns a mostly single collection of additions and narratives that in itself gets diversified along with the intended audiences of Luke, respectively, Matthew
So I propose to introduce the notion of two separate traditions, Chrestianity versus Christianity, where the latter was a direct response to and reaction against the former, with each having its own first gospel.
And while *Ev served as Quelle to Christianity, Thomas served as Quelle to Chrestianity
First posted at https://www.academia.edu/s/faa7f58532#comment_1304311
"Ceterum censeo Marcion to be merely a sock puppet for the Patristics"
A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
iiuc, Matthean Posterity refers to Matthean Posterity wrt Luke. It and 'Matthean Priority WRT Luke' are, afaik, independent of Markan Prioritymlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:31 pm
Recent communications and discussions reveal that confusion has arisen over the past years, which may be solved by a new distinction
If we consider a Christian tradition we would generally hold Markan Priority to be valid there, along with Matthean Posteriority perhaps.
.
What 'Chrestian tradition' ?
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
an objection is that this scenario assumes the purity of both the traditions, i.e. their innocence derived from their being born in isolation the one from the other. But if the Origins are confused, then the presumed innocence in both the sides is compromised: Thomas may be a reaction to Judaism (as effect of a first clash with Judaism), just as Mark is a reaction to Marcion.
For example, while not disputing the antiquity of the Sayings, the name "Thomas" may be added by opponents to reduce the authority of the Sayings: they were spoken by a mere twin, not by the original Christ.
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
Not entirely; Matthean Posteriority naturally precludes Matthean Priority. But I just intended to use it as a nice bridge to Marcionite PosteriorityMrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:01 pmiiuc, Matthean Posterity refers to Matthean Posterity wrt Luke. It and 'Matthean Priority WRT Luke' are, afaik, independent of Markan Prioritymlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:31 pm
Recent communications and discussions reveal that confusion has arisen over the past years, which may be solved by a new distinction
If we consider a Christian tradition we would generally hold Markan Priority to be valid there, along with Matthean Posteriority perhaps.
.
The texts attesting to Chrestianity, the original movement which got hijacked by what came to be known as Christianity
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_i ... ristianity
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
I wholeheartedly invite you to demonstrate that Thomas contains even a shred of Christianity, Giuseppe.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:11 pman objection is that this scenario assumes the purity of both the traditions, i.e. their innocence derived from their being born in isolation the one from the other. But if the Origins are confused, then the presumed innocence in both the sides is compromised: Thomas may be a reaction to Judaism (as effect of a first clash with Judaism), just as Mark is a reaction to Marcion.
For example, while not disputing the antiquity of the Sayings, the name "Thomas" may be added by opponents to reduce the authority of the Sayings: they were spoken by a mere twin, not by the original Christ.
Just as LukeMatthew used Mark and Mark used *Ev, so did *Ev use Thomas
Thomas is not about any Jesus that we know. Nor about any Christianity, or even Chrestianity - Thomas has nothing to do with any of that. Yes it is fiercely anti-Judaic, and very anti-religious - but it is impossible to find anything in Thomas, even a single letter, that attests to reacting to Judeo-Christianity
Because none of that ever existed
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
And regarding purity or innocence: it is evident that Christianity has been proven guilty of plagiarising *Ev, so no one in their sane mind would be assuming any innocence there.mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:00 pmI wholeheartedly invite you to demonstrate that Thomas contains even a shred of Christianity, Giuseppe.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:11 pman objection is that this scenario assumes the purity of both the traditions, i.e. their innocence derived from their being born in isolation the one from the other. But if the Origins are confused, then the presumed innocence in both the sides is compromised: Thomas may be a reaction to Judaism (as effect of a first clash with Judaism), just as Mark is a reaction to Marcion.
For example, while not disputing the antiquity of the Sayings, the name "Thomas" may be added by opponents to reduce the authority of the Sayings: they were spoken by a mere twin, not by the original Christ.
Just as LukeMatthew used Mark and Mark used *Ev, so did *Ev use Thomas
Thomas is not about any Jesus that we know. Nor about any Christianity, or even Chrestianity - Thomas has nothing to do with any of that. Yes it is fiercely anti-Judaic, and very anti-religious - but it is impossible to find anything in Thomas, even a single letter, that attests to reacting to Judeo-Christianity
Because none of that ever existed
There is always one single item that starts it all, Giuseppe. All it takes is just one spark
Granted, the void between Thomas and Marcion hasn't been filled but for my conjecture of John in there - which can only be a trimmed down version of what we have now
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2853
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
Devoid of anything else as usual. Verbatim agreement implies direction of dependence now?Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:47 am114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life
And how exactly is this Judeo-Christian?
-
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
Markan priority is absolutely false even within Christian tradition, as best seen in the case of the feeding miracles. Right-wing apologists like Goodacre obstinately deny this.
Alread GA van den Bergh van Eysinga knew that Mt is frequently more original than Mk. This distinguishes him from uncritical scholars.
Alread GA van den Bergh van Eysinga knew that Mt is frequently more original than Mk. This distinguishes him from uncritical scholars.
Re: A call for clarity concerning Priority: separate the traditions
You are completely and utterly making a total mockery of yourself if you are arguing for Matthean priorityschillingklaus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:32 am Markan priority is absolutely false even within Christian tradition, as best seen in the case of the feeding miracles. Right-wing apologists like Goodacre obstinately deny this.
Alread GA van den Bergh van Eysinga knew that Mt is frequently more original than Mk. This distinguishes him from uncritical scholars.
Just provide me with 3 examples then please, go on