Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

For "Pauline priority" I mean the view that the last of the Pauline epistles was written some time before the (writing of the) Earliest Gospel.

Since the epistles have a cosmic Christ, then whatever the first gospel was, it however introduced a story that degraded Jesus from his original status.

From this POV, is it really important to know what was the Earliest Gospel, when the result is always the same: a degradation from the original very high christology to a low (although relatively still 'high') christology?

Apart from being a mere hobby (= a sincere desire of knowledge), is it really important to know that Mark preceded Marcion, or that Marcion preceded Mark?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 12:04 am For "Pauline priority" I mean the view that the last of the Pauline epistles was written some time before the (writing of the) Earliest Gospel.

Since the epistles have a cosmic Christ, then whatever the first gospel was, it however introduced a story that degraded Jesus from his original status.

From this POV, is it really important to know what was the Earliest Gospel, when the result is always the same: a degradation from the original very high christology to a low (although relatively still 'high') christology?

Apart from being a mere hobby (= a sincere desire of knowledge), is it really important to know that Mark preceded Marcion, or that Marcion preceded Mark?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Even if, for the sake of argument, that the Pauline writings were prior to any gospel writings - that would not at all diminish the gospel writings. Talk of the gospels 'degrading' the Pauline cosmic christ narrative is not only nonsense it is fundamentally a flawed argument.

Giuseppe, ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They need to relate to people, to places, to intellectual developments prior to their own existence. Which is simply to say that the Pauline writings, his cosmic crucifixion story, needed an earthly, physical counterpart. Body and spirit - like that horse and cart, or love and marriage - are inseparable aspects of our human nature.

Without the gospels Pauline philosophy would just be wishful thinking - taking us along on a magic carpet ride. At some stage, intellectual, philosophical ideas, have to come down to earth. They need to have some relationship, some relevance, to how we live our lives - that is if they are to have value. After all - that New Jerusalem does in the end (Revelation) come down to earth...... - The Word, re gJohn, does after all become Flesh......(i.e. ideas are given flesh, given some physical manifestation....)

Is it important to know which was the original, the earliest gospel? Indeed, for those, researching the development of the gospel story it is very important. Why ? Because the more we learn about the development of the gospel story the less likely there was ever a historical Jesus (of whatever variant it's supporters dream up...) For instance; if the 15th year of Tiberius with Pilate in Judea is viewed as a later interpolation into the Evangelion - then arguments about it's priority verse Markan priority would have to, as it were, go mainstream....The implications are indeed important for research into early christian origins. An early, an original gospel Evangelion - could well turn NT scholarship on it's head....

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 12:04 am Apart from being a mere hobby (= a sincere desire of knowledge), is it really important to know that Mark preceded Marcion, or that Marcion preceded Mark?

Important for what? Important for understanding what happened and how Christian literature developed? Yes, its very much important.

Gospels degrading Pauline cosmic christ? ok I'll bite

It's not hard to suggest other possibilities
such as the Pauline Christ was originally the holy spirit and paul elevated the human Jesus to be this spirit in some way
then the gospels wouldn't need to 'degrade' Jesus, but simply not do what Paul does or perhaps better put 'go as far as he does'
the gospels seem to ignore Paul's specific understanding intentionally. otherwise wouldn't the gospels have mentioned him?

the flaw in my argument would be that if originally the holy spirit was key then the gospels don't seem to say that
to get around this i put forward that the undercurrent of teaching in the gospels does in fact place the holy spirit key but it's not obvious because the gospel authors want to present Jesus in their own way and make him most important

what is shared by the gospels and paul is the descent of a salvationary saviour. this can either be a man or a spirit or both - a spirit in a man. the confusion seems to revolve around these differences but i recon the spirit idea was first.
look at it this way
paul may as well be docetic. his Jesus doesn't have to do anything. no wonder Mark seems ok with that.
but you can have a docetic Jesus who is unimportant (Paul) or one who is very important (Mark)
a docetic teaching supports a historical jesus as a teacher of some kind

Apart from being a mere hobby (= a sincere desire of knowledge), is it really important to know that Mark preceded Marcion, or that Marcion preceded Mark?

I used to think that Markan priority was important. On sober reflection, especially as appreciation sunk in about how extraordinary a literary achievement GMark is, I am less sure that GMark is the earliest canonical gospel, and less sure it matters all that much.

As long as it is approximately of the same vintage as the rest of the canon, then GMark sheds whatever light it might shed on early Christianity. The "conceptual distance" between the text and prompts in Paul's letters and the Jewish scriptures are what they are, typically "short" compared with other canonicals. That conceptual distance might correlate with temporal separation is heuristically reasonable, but far short of compelling.

The conceptual distance from Plutarch's lives of Brutus and Julius Caesar to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar isn't great, despite the temporal distance between them spanning centuries. Nobody seems upset that Shakespeare borrowed and stole from earlier writers, tuning them up considerably; so what if Mark did likewise? And although I like the image of a "fourth gospel" writer schooling the rest of the canonical writers in how aggressive apologetics ought to be done, what if Mark read John and decided to school him in how to convince educated intelligent people who think you're talking bollocks to hear you are out?

I conclude that Markan priority, and knowing whether it is true or false, resides in the vast territory of the NTK (nice to know). Of course, I'd like to know, just as of course I'd like to know whether Jesus was a real man who actually lived. But I don't, and odds are that I never will. Does it matter? Probably not. After the first generation, if not before then, it's probably more important for institutional success that prayers get answered, diseases get cured, demons get exorcised, etc., than whether a fictional celestial figure got historicized or a real man got deified once upon a time in a land far, far away.

All in my opinion, as always - but you did ask.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:07 am and less sure it matters all that much.
...
I conclude that Markan priority, and knowing whether it is true or false, resides in the vast territory of the NTK (nice to know)

I agree a lot with the specific claims above. My point is that, since any first gospel that may have been written after Paul could only and only degrade the divine status of the Paul's Jesus, then the identity of a such first gospel doesn't matter really.

I may go further and label a such operation of degradation with my preferred term: euhemerization.

We aren't interested about the theories of Euhemerus in virtue of the same reason: what does it matter, to imagine again and again, the specific way how the man Zeus became divinized as the god Zeus ?

It would be similar to make a lot of remakes of the movie Dune. Once you read the Herbert's book, all the film adaptations don't count really.