Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:Also Celsus's objection that much of the gospel was stolen from Plato and the Persian mysteries this precludes the possibility that Jesus was a Galilean peasant. He must have implied the evangelist stole from Plato not the idiotes

This is where lack of education is evident.

It factually precludes nothing. The rhetorical prose and styles used, ACTUALLY means if we did not see this "borrowing" one should be worried.


This is the weakest nonsense you have dribbled. Here is what happens, The unknown authors wrote what they found valuable regardless of historicity, they also addressed CURRENT issues in the movement rhetorically. Their sole purpose of writing is to persuade those listening or reading the text. A scribe creating text "he or they" find valuable is going to mirror and contain style or memes of other popular text. We see it Judaism text influenced by Mesopotamian cultures and we see it here.

It FKN changes nothing historical speaking regarding the POSSAIBLE Galilean.

It's only 'unsubstantiated' if you ignore my tentative identification of Secret Mark as original Mark. A careful reading of the letter to Theodore and related statements made by Clement only reveals that a gospel developed from the notes of Simon Peter was written by Mark. Simon Peter apparently neither approved nor rejected this work but the statement is odd. In the Letter to Theodore there is a strong sense that this text might actually have been identified as a gospel of Peter written by Mark which is an even odder development but might shine a light on the earlier statement in the Hypotyposeis. Did Secret Mark develop from a gospel of Peter which the community of Peter (or a community claiming to be derived from Peter = Rome?) had difficulties accepting as genuinely Petrine? This text might be identified as the surviving Gospel of Peter fragment and even more certainly the Gospel of Peter condemned as being docetic by Serapion of Antioch.

Why this matters is that it brings to light the ignored reality that the heretical gospels themselves didn't simply develop from corrupting orthodox texts. These traditions themselves all had unique back histories for their texts which apparently ignored our familiar canonical texts (= because they hadn't been created yet?). More importantly for the present discussion, if Secret Mark developed from a 'docetic' text of Peter (the surviving fragment may well represent another 'cleaned up' apocryphal text after the likes of the surviving fragments of the Acts of John) we start to see great license in manipulating gospel material, first from Peter and then subsequently from Secret Mark (assuming this ur-Mark). In this environment there was likely a claim not only that mystical/docetic texts were original (if they compared them at all with our later canonical texts) it explains how and why someone could manipulate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first place - i.e. the various schools as far back as Peter and Mark were constantly revising and manipulating what was up until that point an acknowledged symbolic or mystic text.

In fact if we take things one step further, the stories that constantly resurface especially in the Praescriptione about Paul 'improving' or altering Peter's original gospel because he and the other apostles didn't have 'perfect knowledge' sounds uncannily similar to what Clement says about Mark creating Secret Mark from a thing written for Peter. Why add the bit about Mark writing the gospel of Peter (or 'for' Peter)? Because it seems that late in the second century there was a deliberate effort to take a step back from all the accusations of gospel forgery and manipulation that characterized the movement in the rest of the century. Paul and Peter 'reconcile' in Acts in a way that is not at all apparently in Galatians. In the same way now, Paul doesn't have a gospel (which closes the door on the tradition that like Mark he developed his text from 'according to Peter') even though 1 Corinthians chapter 2 - 3 can certainly be read as confessing that in fact he did write something developed from an earlier ὑπόμνημα = the ὑπόμνημα of Peter referenced in Clement's discussion of Secret Mark.

Even Justin references his 'apostle gospel' as a ὑπόμνημα or more correctly ὑπομνήματα so it is uncanny how - even groping in the darkness like this - we find the rough agreement about an apostolic collection of unfinished notes which someone subsequently developed into a final product as a skilled masterbuilder or architect. Others it seems build upon this foundation (= developed new gospel texts) which wasn't necessarily viewed as a bad thing by at least one of the masterbuilders. But in due course - one can argue - having all these mystical texts referencing a docetic or body-less Jesus was problematic for late second century authorities in Christianity and the texts may well have be reconstructed as multiple witnesses because the original apostle accepted that heresies were necessary always and acknowledges them existing in his own time .

if we did not see this "borrowing" one should be worried.

So a pagan (Celsus) and a Christian (Origen) agree in essence that Jesus and Plato are made to teach the same things is as irrelevant as Jerome saying that "either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes." There's no common ground here. There's nothing to consider, nothing to observe? Whatever moron. In Philo's case it is obvious why he knows Plato. In Jesus's case as an alleged 'Galilean peasant' there is no reasonable way to connect him to Plato. I would argue - as would many others including Celsus I imagine - that the layer of Platonizing in the gospel (IM0 originally at the 'secret Mark' level) derives from the author and not any imagined 'illiterate Galilean peasant.' But what would you have to offer here. Delving into these waters requires actually thinking and quiet moments of reflection. You're simply not capable of that.

Secret Alias wrote: Because Moses is excluded right off the bat, right? Unless he died and came back to life and wrote the account of his death and then died again ... but didn't include that interesting detail in his narrative.

Like these primitive people did not think god inspired these text, less the last 8 verses. STFU

Ren and Stimpy come to mind here.

Bugs bunny and Elmer Fudd

these primitive people did not think god inspired these text

Yes Irenaeus says that Ezra wrote the text under inspiration (read it yourself if you can). Book Two of Against Heresies. Even the most primitive people would have found it difficult to believe that Moses wrote a text describing his own death. The reason modern people don't have such difficulties is that they never make their way as far as the end of Deuteronomy. They rarely get past 'In the beginning ...'

Secret Alias wrote:It's only 'unsubstantiated' if you ignore my tentative identification of Secret Mark as original Mark. .

No. BS

The problem here Stephen is your forcing a particular interpretation when there were many wide and varied.


Secret Mark is your BS. Not reality.

Sure. Just wait. Something big. Coming to an academic journal near you ... Shhh.

Secret Alias wrote:

these primitive people did not think god inspired these text

Yes Irenaeus says that Ezra wrote the text under inspiration (read it yourself if you can). Book Two of Against Heresies. Even the most primitive people would have found it difficult to believe that Moses wrote a text describing his own death. The reason modern people don't have such difficulties is that they never make their way as far as the end of Deuteronomy. They rarely get past 'In the beginning ...'

And he was FKN Hellenist perverting Judaism, not retaining tradition.

But the Jews themselves acknowledge the same tradition. Read the rabbinic literature. The Jews are ok with Ezra writing the text too.

The rabbinic literature also brings up the description of the death of Moses in a document allegedly written by the man before he dies. Funny what happens when you read books. You learn things.