stephan huller

But that is the crux of the issue for me. If Clement and Marcion established that Paul had a gospel, and the Marcionites that he received a revelation and first composed 'the gospel' and this text was later corrupted by the Catholics, Paul becomes the promoter of a visitation of Jesus to the earthly realm. For your edification, Clement's argument regarding Paul's interpretation of the gospel ('according to the Egyptians') which has Jesus tell his disciple a new commandment - 'thou shalt not lust.' The point here is that it isn't just the Marcionites or just Clement and his Alexandrian tradition but the entire universe of Christians that Clement knew in the late second century. They all seemed to have possessed the same basic gospel, the same basic canon of Pauline writings and assumed that the gospel had sayings, known to Paul, known to them which reinforced an interwoven understanding of 'the truth.' Some highlights from the argument that starts at the beginning of chapter 3 (against the Basilideans not cited here) and continues down to:

A long exegesis of Romans 7 - 8 continues where - as we have noted - it is assumed by Clement, the Basilideans, the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, the Marcionites, the followers of Prodicus, the followers of Cassianus, that Paul had or wrote the gospel and wrote the letter to Romans especially knowing the contents of that text.

tanya

Thank you George, well written, as always, and a pleasure to read. I have plucked this single sentence out of your rejoinder, because I dispute its conclusion.

a. Who are these scholars, and where is the evidence of Pauline influence on Mark's gospel?

b. How do these scholars explain that parallel sentiments come from Paul to Mark, rather than vice versa?

c. Which scholars ( as opposed to internet mavens) dispute these conclusions, and upon which evidence?

Here's what I have found, this is certainly not an exhaustive review. I know that Jiri, for one, has a far more extensive series of arguments, favoring the same notion which you have proposed, George.

I dispute this facile notion, primarily because I haven't yet encountered a meaningful argument favoring the idea that Paul preceded Mark.

Here's my understanding of why one scholar, Joel Marcus professor at Duke University school of Theology, imagines that Paul influenced Mark (summarizing his two monographs, in a single sentence):

Holy Cow.

And this guy is one of guruGeorge's "scholars".

If forum members will pick up a copy of Origen's Contra Celsum, he uses the word "gospel", i.e. εὐαγγελίου, at least FORTY TIMES.

So, is this chap Marcus going to tell me that Origen too, influenced Mark's gospel, because he employs the word gospel in his text?

How does crap like this pass for academic accomplishment? :huh:

Martin Werner's
1923 monograph Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium had denied a relationship between Mark and Paul, but I do not know what his reasons were, and I have not read the book, nor have I access to Joel Marcus' article. I vigorously dispute the idea that εὐαγγελίου, appearing in both Mark and Paul, proves that either author preceded the other. Ditto for any other word. This is nonsense. George, I believe that you require a far more substantial investigation by someone, whether "scholar" or plain jane. I don't really care a whit about academic credentials, but I do care about

evidence
&
logic

I detect neither, in Marcus' article as summarized in the abstract available from the New Testament Studies article from Cambridge University Press.

Chili

The problem with gnosticism is the -ism itself that would require God to have grandchildren, which he does not, while the Christian is gnostic with the mind of Christ, that Plato called "actualizing our condition neologically" = no grandchildren for sure, as our 'condition of being' is not ours until it actually is realized.

The Son of Man is born unto man out of the nuclues wherein 'life' first was conceived already in the conscious mind of the male, so that he can be the Son who is destined to be become the father of Man and thus bring peace of mind in eternal bliss.

For this to happen a pathway must be imprinted by religion in the human mind to show the way home, or the magi would never be able to find the stable and thus is why they made a stop at Jerusalem instead of Beth-le-hem to ask where that stable is. Be it known here that the Star of Bethlehem is real in the same way that Jesus was real, as you can see by the error they made.

That was the common problem back then and is the reason why the 4 gospels are presented, in that order, to make known the difference between right and wrong.

It has nothing to do with history because already in Matthew 2:2 they showed exactly that a tragedy was to follow (never mind 1:1 where the Record already points at a tragedy when they introduced Joseph as the dreamer he was). My point here is that Matthew and Luke make a pair of opposites wherein the apparent differences are there to compliment each other instead of contradict. It so is that Luke at least was envisioned before Matthew was written.

And so it just is not good enough to be Marcionite regardless of how gnostic Marcion was, as 'down under' one must go to rise from 'tyranny to extacy' on our own.

The same thing is true with the Panteist who admires hand of God in nature while he fails to be one himself (hence, John 5:29 is a passage that nobody knows).

In this sense is the myth-icist is much the same, because if the Star of Bethlehem is needed for once in your life, one must leave history out of the argument for sure.

stephan huller

The point then is that claiming that Paul never understood Jesus to have set foot on the earth runs into a brick wall with respect to the heresies no less than the Church Fathers. The heretics understood Paul to have had a gospel and that gospel necessarily portrayed Jesus engaging disciples on earth. Once this beachhead is established (and I see you providing no evidence against this proposition) it is clear that Marcion and many other heretics viewed themselves as 'the Paraclete' a figure not only prophesied by Jesus while he was on the earth but also - most importantly - part of a narrative framework where a supernatural Jesus came to establish humanity 'in his image' through an elect individual, the same elect individual called 'Paul' by the Catholic sources.

I think you are right to point to the fact that Paul's understanding of Jesus came by means of revelation and thus was essentially ahistorical. I am not disputing you there. I go along with most of what you are saying. But it is one thing to argue against the 'late' Church Fathers's interpretation of a historical Jesus 'god' born of a virgin and another to also take on the opinions of dozens of enemies of the Catholic Church who believed that Paul knew and used a gospel (undoubtedly given to him by the same 'revelation' in which he met Jesus in ahistorical time) which set a 'visit' of Jesus to the Jews in some sort of historical framework. I don't see how you get around that merely by arguing that Paul's text as we now have it CAN BE READ in a way which supports your hypothesis.

Toto

I applaud your effort to look at the sources behind common assumptions, but you have missed the key words.

The singular noun euangelion is rare "prior to and in the rest of the New Testament." Origen is not prior to the NT.

Adam

Gurugeorge is correct. outhouse is not--yet another unsourced error. For example, Paul is mentioned in Wiki "Gospel of Mark" only as Mark's companion in Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

EarlDoherty

It is anything but clear to me from what you quote (and I've snipped what isn't essential, it seems, to your contention) that Paul wrote a gospel that he is quoting from. You even say "had or wrote". But that's really beside the point. By the time Clement was writing, it is very possible that a certain gospel text was being either attributed to Paul or considered to have been in his possession. Good grief, there are all sorts of traditions at the beginning of the 3rd century about the Christian documentary record and who wrote it and what it contained that we hardly need to place any stock in. Are you suggesting that it is very possible that Paul wrote a "gospel" about the man he was preaching? Or rather, that he was not preaching, since the epistles themselves scarcely present any such entity in Paul's mind.

By the way, what kind of gospel: a narrative of Jesus' life, or a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus? Or a collection of perceived communications which Paul believed he had received from Christ in heaven, or such a collection put together well after Paul's death which attributed such things to him? This is all so vague and uncertain, how can we possibly derive anything from it? And if Paul did indeed write a gospel of whatever sort, why does no clear reference to it surface either in Paul himself, in any late 1st century or early 2nd century record? Your 'universal assumption' comes much too late (its belief in certain circles at the end of 2nd century is hardly a "beachhead" tantamount to D-Day), preceded by a telling silence on any such thing. Sound familiar?

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

But I don't understand that we assume that if it is Clement writing in 180 CE the understanding he has can only be as old as the ink drying on the page. He is referencing countless witnesses (Marcion, Basilides, Valentinus, Carpocrates, Prodicus, etc) who reinforce the Paul wrote the gospel paradigm. He too seems to at least acknowledge that Paul had a gospel text in his possession. The critical piece of evidence from all I have cited:

"You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

This a variant of what is quoted as the Marcionite Question of the Rich Man:
Notice the Syriac Diatessaron lacks the 'woman' reference. It is a related development to Clement's text.

outhouse

Your going off topic with your mistake in promoting Mark as the author.

My statement stands.

stephan huller

I just noticed that Ephrem quotes the saying exactly as Clemenr had it on p. 111

Thanks Earl. It always useful to have discussions