|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
02-13-2009, 08:14 AM
|
#81 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
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 documented witness to HJ identified? 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 documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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] Quote:
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. 8) Subsequent Christianity can not find any quotes of "Mark" in Papias, who was a prolific writer and claims to be a collector of Jesus tales. 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Implication that Peter was a historical disciple of Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Sort of. Wrote what he remembered about Peter's teaching's of what Jesus said and did. We have the clear split here between claims of Historical vs. Revelation as sources of Jesus information. Note that once Christianity converts to the historical claim here, Paul is exorcised as a source (Papias never mentions Paul). The development of Impossible Jesus must be as follows: 1) Creation of Impossible Jesus = Impossible for historical witness to create. Must be created by revelation. 2) Transition from claimed source of revelation to historical. Must wait until historical witness is not able to dispute = 2 generations = 80 years: 1) Paul creates Impossible Jesus from revelation c. 50 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 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? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No Note that in addition to Marcion's agreement with "Mark" and Paul on the key attribute that Peter did not understand Jesus, Marcion also has key agreement with "Mark" that what is important about Jesus is that he is the Son of God and not that he is the Jewish messiah. This raises (so to speak) the question of where Paul stood on the issue of the relative importance of Jesus as Jewish messiah and Son of God. Paul clearly places more importance on Jesus being God's Son so it's a shorter putt for Marcion to interpret Paul as indicating that Jesus being the Jewish messiah was not important. We also have the issue of whether Marcion even needed to interpret Paul here. Did Paul claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah? Looking at possibly the first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, we see no mention of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (including "Christ crucified") or proof-texting from the Jewish Bible. Was this all forged by orthodox Christianity as reaction to Marcion? Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
||
|
|
02-13-2009, 08:17 AM
|
#82 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
Quote:
 )
|
|
|
|
|
02-14-2009, 08:04 AM
|
#83 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
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 documented witness to HJ identified? 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 documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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] Quote:
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. 8) Subsequent Christianity can not find any quotes of "Mark" in Papias, who was a prolific writer and claims to be a collector of Jesus tales. 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Implication that Peter was a historical disciple of Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Sort of. Wrote what he remembered about Peter's teaching's of what Jesus said and did. We have the clear split here between claims of Historical vs. Revelation as sources of Jesus information. Note that once Christianity converts to the historical claim here, Paul is exorcised as a source (Papias never mentions Paul). The development of Impossible Jesus must be as follows: 1) Creation of Impossible Jesus = Impossible for historical witness to create. Must be created by revelation. 2) Transition from claimed source of revelation to historical. Must wait until historical witness is not able to dispute = 2 generations = 80 years: 1) Paul creates Impossible Jesus from revelation c. 50 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 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? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No Note that in addition to Marcion's agreement with "Mark" and Paul on the key attribute that Peter did not understand Jesus, Marcion also has key agreement with "Mark" that what is important about Jesus is that he is the Son of God and not that he is the Jewish messiah. This raises (so to speak) the question of where Paul stood on the issue of the relative importance of Jesus as Jewish messiah and Son of God. Paul clearly places more importance on Jesus being God's Son so it's a shorter putt for Marcion to interpret Paul as indicating that Jesus being the Jewish messiah was not important. We also have the issue of whether Marcion even needed to interpret Paul here. Did Paul claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah? Looking at possibly the first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, we see no mention of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (including "Christ crucified") or proof-texting from the Jewish Bible. Was this all forged by orthodox Christianity as reaction to Marcion? 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Historical witness to Jesus 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
||
|
|
|
02-15-2009, 06:48 AM
|
#84 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
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 documented witness to HJ identified? 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 documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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] Quote:
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. 8) Subsequent Christianity can not find any quotes of "Mark" in Papias, who was a prolific writer and claims to be a collector of Jesus tales. 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Implication that Peter was a historical disciple of Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Sort of. Wrote what he remembered about Peter's teaching's of what Jesus said and did. We have the clear split here between claims of Historical vs. Revelation as sources of Jesus information. Note that once Christianity converts to the historical claim here, Paul is exorcised as a source (Papias never mentions Paul). The development of Impossible Jesus must be as follows: 1) Creation of Impossible Jesus = Impossible for historical witness to create. Must be created by revelation. 2) Transition from claimed source of revelation to historical. Must wait until historical witness is not able to dispute = 2 generations = 80 years: 1) Paul creates Impossible Jesus from revelation c. 50 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 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? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No Note that in addition to Marcion's agreement with "Mark" and Paul on the key attribute that Peter did not understand Jesus, Marcion also has key agreement with "Mark" that what is important about Jesus is that he is the Son of God and not that he is the Jewish messiah. This raises (so to speak) the question of where Paul stood on the issue of the relative importance of Jesus as Jewish messiah and Son of God. Paul clearly places more importance on Jesus being God's Son so it's a shorter putt for Marcion to interpret Paul as indicating that Jesus being the Jewish messiah was not important. We also have the issue of whether Marcion even needed to interpret Paul here. Did Paul claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah? Looking at possibly the first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, we see no mention of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (including "Christ crucified") or proof-texting from the Jewish Bible. Was this all forged by orthodox Christianity as reaction to Marcion? 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Historical witness to Jesus 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Historical witness to Jesus 4) Is he the most important authority? No. Just one of the twelve. John is mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Yes. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
||
|
|
|
02-18-2009, 07:17 AM
|
#85 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
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 documented witness to HJ identified? 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 documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 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? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A 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] Quote:
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. 8) Subsequent Christianity can not find any quotes of "Mark" in Papias, who was a prolific writer and claims to be a collector of Jesus tales. 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Implication that Peter was a historical disciple of Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Sort of. Wrote what he remembered about Peter's teaching's of what Jesus said and did. We have the clear split here between claims of Historical vs. Revelation as sources of Jesus information. Note that once Christianity converts to the historical claim here, Paul is exorcised as a source (Papias never mentions Paul). The development of Impossible Jesus must be as follows: 1) Creation of Impossible Jesus = Impossible for historical witness to create. Must be created by revelation. 2) Transition from claimed source of revelation to historical. Must wait until historical witness is not able to dispute = 2 generations = 80 years: 1) Paul creates Impossible Jesus from revelation c. 50 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 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? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No Note that in addition to Marcion's agreement with "Mark" and Paul on the key attribute that Peter did not understand Jesus, Marcion also has key agreement with "Mark" that what is important about Jesus is that he is the Son of God and not that he is the Jewish messiah. This raises (so to speak) the question of where Paul stood on the issue of the relative importance of Jesus as Jewish messiah and Son of God. Paul clearly places more importance on Jesus being God's Son so it's a shorter putt for Marcion to interpret Paul as indicating that Jesus being the Jewish messiah was not important. We also have the issue of whether Marcion even needed to interpret Paul here. Did Paul claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah? Looking at possibly the first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, we see no mention of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (including "Christ crucified") or proof-texting from the Jewish Bible. Was this all forged by orthodox Christianity as reaction to Marcion? 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Historical witness to Jesus 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? No 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. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Historical witness to Jesus 4) Is he the most important authority? No. Just one of the twelve. John is mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Yes. 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). Note the Roman connection here: 1) "Mark" is likely composed in Rome. The skill level alone makes Rome a good candidate as relatively few authors of the time would have been capable of writing such a work. 2) Marcion was based in Rome and therefore would have been familiar with "Mark". 3) Justin was based in Rome and was familiar with Marcion knowing that Marcion based his theology on Paul's supposed revelation. This explains why Justin never mentions Paul. Paul is Marcion's as Acts, which reconciles Paul to Peter, has not yet been written. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Historical witness to Jesus 4) Is he the most important authority? Implication that he is. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Yes. Generally identified as part of the memoirs of the apostles. No specific identification though. Coming up next, a summary of the relationship between time and the author's claim of the nature of Peter's witness. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
||
|
|
|
02-19-2009, 07:09 AM
|
#86 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
JW:
We have now inventoried early Christian assertian as to the nature of Peter's supposed witness to Jesus with the following checklist: 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 documented witness to HJ identified? Here is a summary of the Timelion with the best possible assertian from each author: c. 50 Paul Implication that Cephas = Peter who was a historical witness. c. 90 Fake Paul No mention of Cephas. c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas No mention of Cephas. c. 110 First Clement First mention of "Peter". Peter is not the most important witness but received an oral Gospel from Jesus. 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 Peter is equal to Paul as witness and Issued commandments as Apostle. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians No mention of Peter. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians No mention of Peter. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians No mention of Peter. c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians No mention of Peter. c. 125 The Apology of Aristides No mention of Peter. c. 125 Papias Peter was a historical witness and his teachings about what Jesus said and did were the basis of writings by Mark. c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion Peter was a historical witness but did not understand Jesus and did not document his witness. c. 145 Second Clement [Forged] Peter was a historical witness but did not document his witness. c. 145 Epistle of the Apostles Peter was a historical witness and one of the authors of the written Gospel. c. 155 Justin Martyr Peter was a historical witness and implication that he was one of the authors of memoirs about Jesus. Note that through Justin, c. 155, no one has connected Mark to Canonical "Mark". Justin, by implication, is the first to connect Peter with Canonical "Mark". As far as evidence for the existence of "Mark", Marcion, c. 135, is the first evidence, although indirect, as he is said to be using "Luke". Justin, c. 155 is the first direct evidence as he is clearly familiar with "Mark". Coming up next, the reward for possibly this greatest compilation since Mishnah Torah, The Poll = When was "Mark" written? Gentilemen, start your apologetic engines. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
|
|
|
03-02-2009, 07:47 AM
|
#87 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
The Marks Brothers (of the Lord)
JW:
Here is the Wiki article regarding the supposed 70 disciples, note how many "Marks" there are:  Seventy DisciplesQuote:
Once again consider that Apologists boast that the only attribution tradition for "Mark" is Mark yet the list above, which Christian Tradition says goes back to 3rd century, sez that the author of "Mark" was: "2. Mark the Evangelist, author of the Gospel of Mark and Bishop of Alexandria" and not: "61. John Mark (commonly considered identical to Mark the Evangelist), bishop of Byblos" which Christian Tradition traditionally sez was the author. Even though this is comical the serious student should note that it is just more evidence that the process of Church Tradition to attribute authorship to "Mark" is backwards. It started with the conclusion that the author was Mark (because of Papias) and than looked for Marks. Joseph Church Tradition, n. A mysterious entity that unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically incarnated at an Apologist's whim to support Christian assertian as reliable and undisputed evidence and than disincarnate just as quickly as only the word of men and not Scripture when it goes against Christian assertian. http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
