neilgodfrey

Back on Justin -- I see evidence he also knew of noncanonical gospels -- is that relevant for what you are trying to do here?

JoeWallack

JW:
It's evidence that Justin was not familiar with "John". He was not limited to using the Synoptics as Source and was willing to use potentially any Narrative, such as "John" which supported or he at least thought supported, his pre-conceived (pun intended) notion. Early Christian Attribution was always based on What was written and never based on a Scientific determination of Who wrote it.

Lack of Attribution is the Mark of writing to Insiders where it's Assumed that your audience knows the Source/Trusts you that there is one. That Justin generally lacks specific Attribution is evidence that he wrote primarily for fellow Believers and thus the related Bias is more than he is generally given credit for.

Note that Justin was in Rome, the Center, where there was the most need for official/authoritative Canon. The need for Justin to push an Authorized Gospel Narrative looks to be Motivated by requiring a response to Marcion. Marcion also just happened to be in Rome (surprise). The original Gospel, "Marcion", er, "Mark", is also commonly thought to have been written in ....Rome.

So far, this Thread is pointing to "Matthew" and "Luke" being 2nd century Creations since they are largely supportive of "orthodox" Theology and there is no good reason for Early Church Fathers not to refer to/quote them. The open question is when was "Mark" created because "Mark" as originally written is anti-hierarchy and anti-historical witness so they are very good reasons for "orthodox" not to refer to/quote it.

It would appear that "Mark" was not acceptable to the orthodox until the Forged Ending was added c. middle of the 2nd century and "Mark" may be the reason why the orthodox in General avoided any Gospel Narrative to this time.

The practical application of this Thread is How much historical witness is in the Canonical Gospels? "Mark" with it's Transformation of Possible Jesus into Impossible Jesus and Ironic Structure that everyone including Jesus is subject to, must contain very little historical witness. "Matthew" and "Luke" give "Mark's" Jesus a Job as a Teacher/Faith Healer but if they are written 2nd century, which I think they are, they also must contain very little historical witness.

I think the Development of the Canonical Gospels is as follows:

1) HJ Teacher/Faith Healer

2) Historical witness, Peter/James etc. promote Life of Jesus.

3) Paul Reacting to 2) promotes Death of Jesus.

4) Early orthodox use Paul to create basic beliefs about HJ, Birth, Passion, Resurrection.

5) "Mark" uses Paul to Flesh out original Gospel Narrative.

6) Orthodox avoid "Mark" because it is anti-hierarchy and anti-historical witness.

7) Marcion uses an Edited "Mark" to promote a Canon.

8) Orthodox use Edited "Mark" ("Matthew"/"Luke") to Counter Marcion with their Canon.

9) Once "Mark" has a Forged ending it is Kosher for the orthodox.

In a subsequent Thread:

Outsourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love, Paul as Source for "Mark"

I'll be analyzing the parallels between Paul and "Mark" with the Criteria you identified:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/02/...and-luke-acts/

JW:
Who knows, maybe Archaya S. is still reading here.

By The Way, I think the young man from "Mark", on "the right side", who is the Last but First to preach a Crucified Christ that contemporary Historical witness did not believe, was Paul.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

neilgodfrey

Mark is a favourite problem for many of us. While it appears to have strong traces of thought in common with Marcion it is in other fundamental ways anti-Marcionite. Its intro to Jesus with OT passages and John the Baptist are as opposed to Marcionite thought as it is possible to get. I still have more questions than answers about it.

schilling.klaus

that's because Mark's gospel is full of Antimarcionite interpolations,
as are the other canonical gospels.
In any case Mark's gospel is a very late and corrupted work,
not the beginning of gospel history.

Klaus Schilling

neilgodfrey

But can you demonstrate those propositions?

Amaleq13

Why no nativity, then?

neilgodfrey

or even just giving the disciples some redemption by allowing them a teensy peep at nothing more than the backside of the resurrected Jesus

JoeWallack

JW:
I see Revelations within Revelations. I see two great Houses fighting, House HarKohen and Paul's House. I see a House of Panarion Cakes up ahead. I see London, I see through RT France...

I think Marcion was on the Mark that the Primary source for the original Gospel was Paul. With Apologies to Bauckham, inclusios are nonsense if you otherwise consider an account straight-forward, literal history. On the other hand, if you consider the account Figurative and in need of Revelation:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

Paul's buy-line is that he is "Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ." "Mark" is using Paul as a Primary source and giving "the Rest of the Story".

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

JW:
And there's Paul at the End, the Last who is the First, with his Motto, Preaching a Christ Crucified who has been Resurrected, that Historical witness is Ignoring.

I think this Thread already demonstrates it Likely that orthodox Christianity had no interest in Original "Mark" because it was anti-hierarchy and anti-historical witness and it was not until Forged (Resurrection Sighting) "Mark" and Edited "Mark" ("Matthew"/"Luke") that orthodox Christianity saw "Mark" as support. Therefore, merely considering when Original "Mark" was Likely written is Misleading in the Context of looking for Historical witness support for the Gospel narrative as to that point orthodox Christianity Rejected it as Historical support. The necessary related question is When did orthodox Christianity accept "Mark" as Historical support and I believe this was not until Forged "Mark" = 2nd century.

As far as who was truer to the Original Gospel I don't think there's much competition there:

1) Source -

-----Marcion = Paul

-----Orthodox = Historical witness

Point Marcion. Score Marcion 15, Orthodox Love.

2) Intent -

-----Marcion = "Mark" is Revelation

-----Orthodox = "Mark" is History

Point Marcion. Score Marcion 30, Orthodox Love.

As far as who was truer to the Original Pauline Corpus it goes the other Way. Marcion (at least according to the orthodox) had nothing Explicit in the Letters to support Paul's belief in a new god. It all had to be done by Revelation and, dare I mention it, Logic.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Quick questions: How do we know how Marcion read Mark? And did not the orthodox read Mark both as revelation and as history?

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

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:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Magnesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Trallians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Romans c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

10) First Clement c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Evil and Wicked Early Christian Writing, Epistle of Barnabas, that ECW dates c. 100

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
JW:
As usual it's difficult to find much above that sounds Canonical that does not come Directly or indirectly from Paul or the Jewish Bible. Therefore, I think it Likely that "Barnabas" here was not familiar with the Canonical Gospels and:

1) Lacks Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude of following Fathers.

2) Seems Aware of some Sayings of Jesus that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus but does not generally Attribute them to Jesus.

3) Aware of the supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative.

6) Strong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical attitude.

We may be getting closer here to Paul in that at this time "Barnabas" shows no evidence of a well developed Christian hierarchy. "Barnabas" also seems to indicate that at this time there was no written Gospel Narrative:

"And when He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel,"

and again Jesus' supposed Passion and the Details of "Barnabas'" Jesus come from The Jewish Bible.

Through this time, c. 100, if there was little or no established Christian Hierarchy, the Motivation for "Mark" with it's primary theme of anti-Hierarchy, may not have existed. The orthodox Hierarchy looks to be an early 2nd century Assertian and this may have been What "Mark" was reacting to. If Clement was the first Christian leader to Assert Authority based on his Roman position and "Mark" was written in Rome...



Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.