bacht

Yes, the more I study the epistles, the more I wonder if there is anything original at all in the gospels. It's been suggested here that Mark was using Josephus in some way, and maybe so, but all the characters and ideas seem to have been stitched together from the earlier Xtian writings, and literalized into a "biographical" narrative.

aa5874

And further, there is NO information available that can show the Epistles could NOT have been written after the gospels.

And when ALL the extant writings of Justin Martyr is examined it will be noticed that there is NEITHER mention of Paul, any of his so-called letters to the Churches NOR any mention of Acts of the Apostles where Paul is a main character.

Justin Martyr, writing around 140 CE, appear NOT to have been influenced at all by Paul, his writings or his activities, yet about three decades later, Paul who is claimed to have lived over a hundred years before, became one of the most written about Christian personality.


Why didn't Justin write anything about Paul, the person regarded by many as probably the most important and influencial Christian and writer outside of Jesus and the Jesus stories?

There should have been 14 so-called authentic epistles and a history of Paul in Acts. Why did not Justin mention Paul?

One explanation is that Paul, the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles were NOT FABRICATED yet.

bacht

So the whole collection dates from the 2nd C? I'm guessing this is a minority position.

Were the epistles used much on their own at that time, or was there more focus on the Gospels and Acts?

spamandham

I tend to agree. I view Mark as coming along relatively late in regard to the origins of Christianity. I also think the version of Mark we have was revised multiple times by different authors - it is not the original version. There are some parallels between Josephus' Wars and Mark that are too uncanny to be coincidence - but I'm not claiming Mark was familiar with Josephus.

Mark is a biographical narrative designed to promote 'true' beliefs about Jesus and 'document' the origins of the cult, rather than to record history. It accomplishes this through a combination of symbolism, allegory, familiar stories, and familiar teachings. It's intended to answer questions in regard to cult practices that no-one knew the origin of.

"Why do we practice ritual immersion if we are not bound to Jewish customs?" - "Because even Jesus did it."

"Why do we ritually consume our savior? The Romans accuse us of caniballism" - "Because Jesus said to so we'd remember him"

"Why hasn't Jesus returned?" - "Because he wants it to be a surprise to test us and make sure we've been faithful"

...and so on

The ancient 'biographies' are closer to what we might call 'fan fiction' or maybe 'legendary fiction'. Although they might contain some historically accurate information about the founder, it's just as likely they would not.

bacht

Thanks. It seems as good an explanation as any, though Gerard Stafleu was arguing that there is more of a critical purpose in Mark, rather than simply an explication of ritual. I accept the idea that by the 2nd C Christians were re-thinking the teachings, once the original witnesses were gone.

aa5874

There is no information available to support your position. What you have assumed to be true may be totally erroneous.

There is NO preface or introduction to gMark by the author, his/her intentions are unknown, but in any event, gMark contains events that are known fiction.

bacht

Right, but maybe this document wasn't intended for public circulation, maybe it was only read by members of small group of Christians. There are few introductions to OT books either.

aa5874

The dates of writing of the Epistles cannot be confirmed, that is a fact, regardless of any one's position.

All new views introduced for the first MUST be a minority and then with time may become the majority, just like Christianity, Mormonism or the Muslim religion.

However, it is critical that one's position is supported by facts.

aa5874

Right, but maybe it wasn't. Again, nothing at all can be confirmed or accepted about gMark. Maybe no-one read gMark at all until the end 2nd century. Justin Martyr never mentioned that he read gMark.

Maybe gMark was written before Justin and was known as the Memoirs of the Apostles and then some-one or a group of people, later falsely claimed that parts of the Memoirs of the Apostles were written by Mark, a so-called disciple of Peter.

Nothing can be confirmed.

bacht

Of course, it's speculation based on probabilities and a few meagre scraps of evidence*. We don't know much about the OT stories either, and I don't accept them at face value, especially the supernatural bits.


* no I'm not up on text analysis or archeological remains of Christian activities or whether Pliny's letter to the emperor is authentic etc. No-one can be an expert on everything, I have to accept the conclusions of scholars I respect, as well all do