JoeWallack

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.


So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias.


c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Claimed individual: None. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus.

Claimed source: Historical. Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical.

Note the Motivation for transition from Revelation to Historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but Historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.


So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias.


c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Claimed individual: None. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus.

Claimed source: Historical. Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical.

Note the Motivation for transition from Revelation to Historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but Historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides.


c. 125 Papias

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

[Eusebius claiming to quote Papias]
We have the following reasons to think the above is not referring to Canonical "Mark":

1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

Claimed individual: Peter. No mention of Paul. Heard that there was a writing with Peter as a source. Not familiar with it though. Not aware of any Gospel. Refers to individual historical Disciples of Jesus. First mention of an individual "Mark". First mention that Peter was behind written documentation of Jesus. Does not give a clear chain of identified witness going back to Jesus. At this point than, c. 125, claim of Historical source has developed to the Assertian that there was a written documentation of Jesus with Mark as an original source, who had Peter as a source.

Claimed source: Historical.

This time, c. 125, may be illustrative of the split between the orthodox and Gnostics. The orthodox have moved to Historical claim and therefore invoke Peter, the supposed historical witness, while the Gnostics continue to invoke Paul, the Revelation witness. The early Gnostic Basilides, claimed as a source, Glaucias, the Interpreter of Peter. This may have meant a Theological interpreter (Revelation) and not language. The orthodox claim of Papias, who never mentions Paul, that "Mark" was a language Interpreter of Peter (Historical) may be a Reaction to the Gnostic claim.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.


So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias.


c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Claimed individual: None. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus.

Claimed source: Historical. Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical.

Note the Motivation for transition from Revelation to Historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but Historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides.


c. 125 Papias

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

[Eusebius claiming to quote Papias]
We have the following reasons to think the above is not referring to Canonical "Mark":

1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

Claimed individual: Peter. No mention of Paul. Heard that there was a writing with Peter as a source. Not familiar with it though. Not aware of any Gospel. Refers to individual historical Disciples of Jesus. First mention of an individual "Mark". First mention that Peter was behind written documentation of Jesus. Does not give a clear chain of identified witness going back to Jesus. At this point than, c. 125, claim of Historical source has developed to the Assertian that there was a written documentation of Jesus with Mark as an original source, who had Peter as a source.

Claimed source: Historical.

This time, c. 125, may be illustrative of the split between the orthodox and Gnostics. The orthodox have moved to Historical claim and therefore invoke Peter, the supposed historical witness, while the Gnostics continue to invoke Paul, the Revelation witness. The early Gnostic Basilides, claimed as a source, Glaucias, the Interpreter of Peter. This may have meant a Theological interpreter (Revelation) and not language. The orthodox claim of Papias, who never mentions Paul, that "Mark" was a language Interpreter of Peter (Historical) may be a Reaction to the Gnostic claim.


c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

Note that the orthodox can not identify any orthodox user of a canonical Gospel before Marcion suggesting that the Gnostics were the first to use "Mark" and that "Mark" was not used by the orthodox until the Forged ending showing that Peter El-all did understand Jesus.

Thus the External evidence indicates "Mark" was probably written after Papias c.125, since he shows no evidence of it, and before Marcion c. 135. Another possibility though is that "Mark" did exist earlier but was ignored by the orthodox because it was used by the Gnostics.

The dominant related historical event for a Roman audience would have been the Bar Kochba revolt c. 134 supporting a date of composition for "Mark" of around this time.

Claimed individual: Paul. Accepts that Peter was a historical witness who did not understand or document Jesus, all of which agrees with "Mark".

Claimed source: Revelation.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.


So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias.


c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Claimed individual: None. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus.

Claimed source: Historical. Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical.

Note the Motivation for transition from Revelation to Historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but Historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides.


c. 125 Papias

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

[Eusebius claiming to quote Papias]
We have the following reasons to think the above is not referring to Canonical "Mark":

1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

Claimed individual: Peter. No mention of Paul. Heard that there was a writing with Peter as a source. Not familiar with it though. Not aware of any Gospel. Refers to individual historical Disciples of Jesus. First mention of an individual "Mark". First mention that Peter was behind written documentation of Jesus. Does not give a clear chain of identified witness going back to Jesus. At this point than, c. 125, claim of Historical source has developed to the Assertian that there was a written documentation of Jesus with Mark as an original source, who had Peter as a source.

Claimed source: Historical.

This time, c. 125, may be illustrative of the split between the orthodox and Gnostics. The orthodox have moved to Historical claim and therefore invoke Peter, the supposed historical witness, while the Gnostics continue to invoke Paul, the Revelation witness. The early Gnostic Basilides, claimed as a source, Glaucias, the Interpreter of Peter. This may have meant a Theological interpreter (Revelation) and not language. The orthodox claim of Papias, who never mentions Paul, that "Mark" was a language Interpreter of Peter (Historical) may be a Reaction to the Gnostic claim.


c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

Note that the orthodox can not identify any orthodox user of a canonical Gospel before Marcion suggesting that the Gnostics were the first to use "Mark" and that "Mark" was not used by the orthodox until the Forged ending showing that Peter El-all did understand Jesus.

Thus the External evidence indicates "Mark" was probably written after Papias c.125, since he shows no evidence of it, and before Marcion c. 135. Another possibility though is that "Mark" did exist earlier but was ignored by the orthodox because it was used by the Gnostics.

The dominant related historical event for a Roman audience would have been the Bar Kochba revolt c. 134 supporting a date of composition for "Mark" of around this time.

Claimed individual: Paul. Accepts that Peter was a historical witness who did not understand or document Jesus, all of which agrees with "Mark".

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

Claimed individual: None. Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. Aware of supposed Jesus' Sayings which mostly have parallels in "Matthew". No mention of Paul but aware of sayings which have parallels in Paul. Appears to be familiar with Q but not aware of any Canonical Gospel. This fits the Timelion that to this time the orthodox are gradually building the Assertian that Peter was a historical witness to Jesus who documented the Sayings of Jesus. The Gnostics are already using a Gospel at this time, "Mark", to support a claimed source of Revelation. Peter and the disciples were Historical witness but did not understand Jesus. The Gospel is the Revelation.

Claimed source: History and Revelation.

Motivation for the creation of "Mark" Timelion:

1) To c. 145 the orthodox Assert that Peter and the disciples are Historical witness to the Sayings of Jesus.

2) Early 2nd century "Mark" is written as Gnostic Reaction to 1). Accepts that Peter and the Disciples were historical witnesses to Jesus but claims they did not understand Jesus. Understanding comes from Revelation of the Gospel.

3) While "Mark" lacks the Forged ending and therefore shows supposed history (Peter and the disciples) failing Jesus, the orthodox consider "Mark" Gnostic and therefore not authoritative.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.


So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias.


c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Claimed individual: None. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus.

Claimed source: Historical. Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical.

Note the Motivation for transition from Revelation to Historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but Historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides.


c. 125 Papias

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

[Eusebius claiming to quote Papias]
We have the following reasons to think the above is not referring to Canonical "Mark":

1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

Claimed individual: Peter. No mention of Paul. Heard that there was a writing with Peter as a source. Not familiar with it though. Not aware of any Gospel. Refers to individual historical Disciples of Jesus. First mention of an individual "Mark". First mention that Peter was behind written documentation of Jesus. Does not give a clear chain of identified witness going back to Jesus. At this point than, c. 125, claim of Historical source has developed to the Assertian that there was a written documentation of Jesus with Mark as an original source, who had Peter as a source.

Claimed source: Historical.

This time, c. 125, may be illustrative of the split between the orthodox and Gnostics. The orthodox have moved to Historical claim and therefore invoke Peter, the supposed historical witness, while the Gnostics continue to invoke Paul, the Revelation witness. The early Gnostic Basilides, claimed as a source, Glaucias, the Interpreter of Peter. This may have meant a Theological interpreter (Revelation) and not language. The orthodox claim of Papias, who never mentions Paul, that "Mark" was a language Interpreter of Peter (Historical) may be a Reaction to the Gnostic claim.


c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

Note that the orthodox can not identify any orthodox user of a canonical Gospel before Marcion suggesting that the Gnostics were the first to use "Mark" and that "Mark" was not used by the orthodox until the Forged ending showing that Peter El-all did understand Jesus.

Thus the External evidence indicates "Mark" was probably written after Papias c.125, since he shows no evidence of it, and before Marcion c. 135. Another possibility though is that "Mark" did exist earlier but was ignored by the orthodox because it was used by the Gnostics.

The dominant related historical event for a Roman audience would have been the Bar Kochba revolt c. 134 supporting a date of composition for "Mark" of around this time.

Claimed individual: Paul. Accepts that Peter was a historical witness who did not understand or document Jesus, all of which agrees with "Mark".

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

Claimed individual: None. Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. Aware of supposed Jesus' Sayings which mostly have parallels in "Matthew". No mention of Paul but aware of sayings which have parallels in Paul. Appears to be familiar with Q but not aware of any Canonical Gospel. This fits the Timelion that to this time the orthodox are gradually building the Assertian that Peter was a historical witness to Jesus who documented the Sayings of Jesus. The Gnostics are already using a Gospel at this time, "Mark", to support a claimed source of Revelation. Peter and the disciples were Historical witness but did not understand Jesus. The Gospel is the Revelation.

Claimed source: History and Revelation.

Motivation for the creation of "Mark" Timelion:

1) To c. 145 the orthodox Assert that Peter and the disciples are Historical witness to the Sayings of Jesus.

2) Early 2nd century "Mark" is written as Gnostic Reaction to 1). Accepts that Peter and the Disciples were historical witnesses to Jesus but claims they did not understand Jesus. Understanding comes from Revelation of the Gospel.

3) While "Mark" lacks the Forged ending and therefore shows supposed history (Peter and the disciples) failing Jesus, the orthodox consider "Mark" Gnostic and therefore not authoritative.


c. 145 Epistle of the Apostles

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...ng/episaps.htm

Claimed individual: The historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas). Paul is predicted by Jesus to come later and missionize to the Gentiles. No mention of an individual "Mark".

Claimed source: History

Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical.
Explicit claim that historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas) have written this Gospel. Assertian that supposed authors are aware of Gnostics Simon and Cerinthus. Conflict between orthodox and Gnostics, both originally based on Revelation, which has moved to supposed Historical claims. Note that for this author to claim that Peter and Cephas are part of a joint effort behind the Gospel and no mention of "Mark" indicates that this author either has never heard of "Mark", does not consider it authoritative or even considers it a Gnostic product.




Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.


So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias.


c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Claimed individual: None. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus.

Claimed source: Historical. Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical.

Note the Motivation for transition from Revelation to Historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but Historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides.


c. 125 Papias

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

[Eusebius claiming to quote Papias]
We have the following reasons to think the above is not referring to Canonical "Mark":

1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

Claimed individual: Peter. No mention of Paul. Heard that there was a writing with Peter as a source. Not familiar with it though. Not aware of any Gospel. Refers to individual historical Disciples of Jesus. First mention of an individual "Mark". First mention that Peter was behind written documentation of Jesus. Does not give a clear chain of identified witness going back to Jesus. At this point than, c. 125, claim of Historical source has developed to the Assertian that there was a written documentation of Jesus with Mark as an original source, who had Peter as a source.

Claimed source: Historical.

This time, c. 125, may be illustrative of the split between the orthodox and Gnostics. The orthodox have moved to Historical claim and therefore invoke Peter, the supposed historical witness, while the Gnostics continue to invoke Paul, the Revelation witness. The early Gnostic Basilides, claimed as a source, Glaucias, the Interpreter of Peter. This may have meant a Theological interpreter (Revelation) and not language. The orthodox claim of Papias, who never mentions Paul, that "Mark" was a language Interpreter of Peter (Historical) may be a Reaction to the Gnostic claim.


c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

Note that the orthodox can not identify any orthodox user of a canonical Gospel before Marcion suggesting that the Gnostics were the first to use "Mark" and that "Mark" was not used by the orthodox until the Forged ending showing that Peter El-all did understand Jesus.

Thus the External evidence indicates "Mark" was probably written after Papias c.125, since he shows no evidence of it, and before Marcion c. 135. Another possibility though is that "Mark" did exist earlier but was ignored by the orthodox because it was used by the Gnostics.

The dominant related historical event for a Roman audience would have been the Bar Kochba revolt c. 134 supporting a date of composition for "Mark" of around this time.

Claimed individual: Paul. Accepts that Peter was a historical witness who did not understand or document Jesus, all of which agrees with "Mark".

Claimed source: Revelation.


c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

Claimed individual: None. Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. Aware of supposed Jesus' Sayings which mostly have parallels in "Matthew". No mention of Paul but aware of sayings which have parallels in Paul. Appears to be familiar with Q but not aware of any Canonical Gospel. This fits the Timelion that to this time the orthodox are gradually building the Assertian that Peter was a historical witness to Jesus who documented the Sayings of Jesus. The Gnostics are already using a Gospel at this time, "Mark", to support a claimed source of Revelation. Peter and the disciples were Historical witness but did not understand Jesus. The Gospel is the Revelation.

Claimed source: History and Revelation.

Motivation for the creation of "Mark" Timelion:

1) To c. 145 the orthodox Assert that Peter and the disciples are Historical witness to the Sayings of Jesus.

2) Early 2nd century "Mark" is written as Gnostic Reaction to 1). Accepts that Peter and the Disciples were historical witnesses to Jesus but claims they did not understand Jesus. Understanding comes from Revelation of the Gospel.

3) While "Mark" lacks the Forged ending and therefore shows supposed history (Peter and the disciples) failing Jesus, the orthodox consider "Mark" Gnostic and therefore not authoritative.


c. 145 Epistle of the Apostles

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...ng/episaps.htm

Claimed individual: The historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas). Paul is predicted by Jesus to come later and missionize to the Gentiles. No mention of an individual "Mark".

Claimed source: History

Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical.
Explicit claim that historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas) have written this Gospel. Assertian that supposed authors are aware of Gnostics Simon and Cerinthus. Conflict between orthodox and Gnostics, both originally based on Revelation, which has moved to supposed Historical claims. Note that for this author to claim that Peter and Cephas are part of a joint effort behind the Gospel and no mention of "Mark" indicates that this author either has never heard of "Mark", does not consider it authoritative or even considers it a Gnostic product.


c. 155 Justin Martyr

http://www.textexcavation.com/justinmartyr.html#misc

Claimed individual: The historical disciples. No attribution of names to Gospels. Familiar with Synoptics. No mention of "Mark" and no mention of Paul. It would appear that at this time orthodox Christianity accepted that there were Gospels from Historical witnesses but had not given these Gospels official names. Presumably no one has connected "Mark" to a Gospel until Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") c. 180 based on misidentification of what Papias supposedly wrote. Justin shows no awareness of Acts which means it has not been written at the time and therefore Paul has not been reconciled to Peter via narrative. More quality support for Marcion having the original "Luke". The greater the time lag between "Luke" and Acts the greater the likelihood that the compatible Canonical "Luke" is the later "Luke" and written closer to the companion Acts. Note that Irenaeus of Lyons is probably the first to recognize the Forged ending of "Mark" as original. Support that "Mark" was not considered kosher by the orthodox until the Forged ending flipping "Mark's" source from Revelation to Historical. This is consistent with "Luke" not being kosher to the orthodox until the Forged infancy narrative flipping Jesus from descended from Heaven Separationist (Gnostic) to, and with apologies to Father Donahue, descended from sapiens (homo).

Claimed source: History



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are:

1) Revelation

2) History

Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source.

To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut.

The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?:

1) Is Peter mentioned?

2) Is he a claimed authority?

3) What is the nature of his authority?

4) Is he the most important authority?

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?


c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Not explicitly. Possibly by implication.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

No.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are:

1) Revelation

2) History

Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source.

To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut.

The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?:

1) Is Peter mentioned?

2) Is he a claimed authority?

3) What is the nature of his authority?

4) Is he the most important authority?

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?


c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Not explicitly. Possibly by implication.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

No.


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

No.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

No.

Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are:

1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul.

2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century).



Joseph

aa5874

This is a completely flawed analysis of Paul.

Paul cannot ascertain his own existence, there must some other credible source to corroborate Paul's existence. And to further complicate the problem of Paul, in the writings with his name, scholars have deduced that there were more than one person using the name "Paul".

So, it is only sure that there was a Fake Paul in the 1st century, and ALL other "Pauls" are questionable, for sure.

A concensus solely based on belief or only the words of a character whose writings have been manipulated is a sound or feasible position.

aa5874

This should read