Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I've been struggling with this for some time, and I can't really come to a definitive conclusion in my mind. Maybe its not possible to figure out with what we know today.

Of course there are many possible variations on what I'm presenting here, but these are the two main models I'm working with in my head.

The first is of Markan priority. There is a lot here that I know may be controversial or not part of any major academic positions, or whatever, but this is what I'm making a case toward in my book.

Let's not get hung-up on the "We Narrative" part of this. What I'm proposing there is that the first Gospel is derived from a narrative about Paul, parts of which are preserved in the "We Narrative" found in Acts. But we can set that aside and just focus on the relationship from the Letters to the first Gospel.

In this case, I propose that there was a proto-Mark that was based on both the Septuagint and the Original (pre-Marcionite) Letters of Paul. These letters consisted of the "big seven" are did not include Colossians or Ephesians. Those were added as part of the Marcionite collection.
In the above model, the writer of Mark worked from the Pauline letters and a narrative about Paul to create his Gospel, where he modeled Jesus on Paul himself. Proto-Mark was likely bundled with Pauline letters, and was used as the template for the creation of Marion's Gospel and collection.

Alternatively we have the potential of Marcionite priority below.
Edit: Actually ignore the above diagram. the corrected version is in a post below (for some reason it won't show the new version here, even though it has a different file name, it keeps showing the old version.

In this model, we start with the Pauline letters and a narrative about Paul, from which Marcion's Gospel was created. Marcion's Gospel had a few minor references to the Jewish scriptures , but not many, nor did the Marcionite Pauline letters. Under this model, the Pauline references that we find in Mark are carried over from Marcion's Gospel, not something produced by the writer of proto-Mark. The writer of proto-Mark took this Pauline Gospel and added many references to the Jewish scriptures. This also implies much more extensive revisions of the Marcion's Pauline letters as well, which originally would have had far fewer scriptural references. Most of those references would have been added later in the orthodox version.

Under the first model, the original Pauline letters had a more Jewish character, while under the second the earliest version of the Pauline letters had very little Jewish character (i.e. no references to Abraham, etc.)

In fairness there really is a third version of this that starts with "proto-Luke", from which Marcion is derived, etc., but you should be able to figure that out from these diagrams. So, I guess there are three main options in my view.

Now, part of what still brings me back to Markan priority is that from my reading, Mark does not include any relationship to Colossians and Ephesians, whereas the Marcionite line of Gospels (Marcion, Proto-Luke, Luke, Matthew) all do.

Thoughts?

[Edit: fixed typos]

The terrible weakness of your picture is that everything is everywhere, and everything has a proto version so basically all arrows are meaningless

Matthew doesn't use Mark in your picture yet instead Mark uses Matthew! Oh wait no, Matthew does use Mark but that's proto-Mark instead...

Especially the adding of Judaic elements, then their removal, and then their adding again: you have created a model that pays lip service to every possible textual dependency model that ever has been invented, and it is mighty complicated as a result of that

You need to make choices, Geoff - this is one great compromise where all gospels interact with each other in one giant textual orgy - and the question that immediately pops up is: well then, to which problem is this a solution? And how?

Now, part of what still brings me back to Markan priority is that from my reading, Mark does not include any relationship to Colossians and Ephesians

I see 2 possible allusions to Colossians in Mark.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:02 pm

Now, part of what still brings me back to Markan priority is that from my reading, Mark does not include any relationship to Colossians and Ephesians

I see 2 possible allusions to Colossians in Mark.

Interesting. Can you provide them?

Also, I realized that I messed up the diagram of Marcionite priority. Here is a revision:

Are you aware, Mr. Price, of the proposal that GJohn was originally an Appellean Christian work, written in part based upon messages from Philumena? Cf., https://vridar.org/2013/03/24/the-teach ... -deserter/ .

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:10 pm

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:02 pm

Now, part of what still brings me back to Markan priority is that from my reading, Mark does not include any relationship to Colossians and Ephesians

I see 2 possible allusions to Colossians in Mark.

Interesting. Can you provide them?

Same context in both texts : Mosaic Law and dietary law

• 1/ Human Tradition

Mark 7
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions (παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων).”

Colossians 2
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,
which depends on human tradition (παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων)
22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use,
are based on merely human commands (τῶν ἀνθρώπων) and teachings.

• 2/ Quotation of Isaiah 29:13

Mark 7:6
Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me (Isaiah 29:13)"

Colossians 2
22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings (Isaiah 29:13).


It would be an odd coincidence if both Mark and Paul quoted the same verse of Isaiah in the same context : oral tradition and dietary law.



----------------------------------------------------------



The Spiritual Seed

Same context : The converts and the development of the righteous deeds

Mark 4
8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying (αὐξάνοντα) thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”
20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and bring forth fruit (καρποφοροῦσιν) thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown.”

Colossians 1
5 the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospel
6 that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing (καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον) throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.
9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives,[e]
10 so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing (καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον) in the knowledge of God,


In both texts, the verbs to grow (αὐξανόμενον) and to bear fruit (καρποφοροῦσιν) refer to the number of converts to the gospel, and secondly, to the development of the righteous deeds by those who obey to the gospel.

• The verb auxanó (to make to grow, to grow) is used only there in Mark and 2 times in Colossians : here + 2:19.

• The verb karpophoreó (to bear fruit) is rare in the NT. It is used only here in Mark (4:20 + 4:28) and only 2 times in Colossians in these verses (+ 1 time in Luke, 1 time in Matthew and 2 times in Romans).

To my knowledge, we find those 2 words associated AND in the same context, only here in the whole Bible.

@Sinouhe Interesting. Thank you.

Another problem I have with Marcion first is that the Jesus figure in Marcion's Gospel is a teacher. Marcion's Gospel contained the Sermon on the Plain, etc. I have a hard time believing that the writer of Mark would have removed all such material.

It makes far more sense to me that someone would have taken Mark and added the teaching material to it, than that someone would have taken essentially the core of Luke and transformed it into the Gospel of Mark.

The orthodox letters have a large influence on the synoptics as they trigger the inclusion of the bread into narrative of the cena.

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:19 pm
Thoughts?

When you write "Septuagint", do you mean only the Jewish Bible translated in Greek, or also a collection of sayings and episodes derived from the Septuaginta and considered as having prophetic value ?
I say so because the mention of the "king" in Ascension of Isaiah appears to be justified only in virtue of a misere Biblical verse (Hosea 10.6).

Hence I think that the existence of a such collection is required "by construction".

Don't forget to factor in Memoirs of the Apostles and the Gospel of the Hebrews -- assuming those precede our canonical gospels. Cassels in the second part of his Supernatural Religion pretty well nails the case for our canonical gospels not appearing on the scene until the mid-second century -- after Justin.

Interestingly, Justin uses a reading known in Marcion's gospel and used by "heretics" generally to prove that Jesus introduced for the first time in human history knowledge of the Father (1 Apology 63:3, 13 -- but see Bellinzonl's work on Justin's text -- the Greek text available in earlychristianwritings via Ben Smith seems to be inaccurate here - I can go into more detail if anyone is interested). But Justin at no point indicates any knowledge of a Marcionite gospel so the possibility is open that the reading existed in "the Gospel" (of Hebrews?), singular, more widely known until our canonical works.