schilling.klaus

the canonical gospels are all forgeries of the same Roman Catholic forgery mill from mid second century onward, thus of course bear more resemblance to eacch other than any other gospel from diverging sects.

Klaus Schilling

gurugeorge

My point is, the books that made it into the canon are in the same general ballpark as the books that didn't - it's just that the ones that did are more like each other, they speak with more of a consistent voice. They're a touch more "realistic", less exaggerated, perhaps a bit more consistent and rational - less woo-woo, so to speak. But still of the same overall kind of writing.

Whether for the reason you say or for another reason I'm not sure (I think it's just Roman rationalism getting a hold of something that's in its origin ecstatic and mystical and making as much sense out of it as it can - kind of innocent, really, in a way, an innocent mistake initially).

The main thing is there's this style of writing that's part attempted history, part theological diatribe, part enthusiast's fan-fiction. None of those Christian works really fit into a modern category like "fiction" (unless, as I say, one means it in the abstract sense of "not fact").

aa5874

I don't think so. It appears to me that the author of Acts fabricated "Paul", and the very same author, it would appear, fabricated Luke which may have been fabricated from gMark.

Mark may have gotten some of his ideas from the OT and Josephus, since this historian wrote about John the Baptist, Pilate, the crucifixion of three persons where one survived, the Pharisees, Saducees, chief priests and other details of Galilee.

Amaleq13

If the author of Luke/Acts also wrote the letters attributed to Paul, wouldn't we expect much more compatibility between the two?

Do you imagine that this author cleverly included discrepancies to hide his identity?

schilling.klaus

no, as he had to work with gnostic material
that had to be cleverly reforged

Klaus Schilling

aa5874

You are not reading me correctly. The author of Acts appears to me to have fabricated the character called Saul/Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. I don't know who or how many persons wrote the "Pauline" Epistles, except that the figure called "Paul" in the Epistles is likely an alias or fictitious.

Amaleq13

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Jane H

Some unusual views here, which show an interesting range of alternative reconstructions to the normal academic arguments

My core argument remains however. Mark was saying, loud and clear, that the main turning point of history had occurred. The story of Israel had finally been played out. Now, in all this, history matters. The establishment of God’s kingdom was an event located in history, or it was nothing at all. As I’ve said, examine the different attitudes to Tobit, and to Mark, to see the difference between C1 fiction and C1 non-fiction. Had Mark written a fictional claim that Israel’s history had come to a climax, he would have written an obvious contradiction in genre. History mattered immensely in this genre; never forget that.



Now it is generally agreed that Mark has written a Hellenistic ‘bios‘, but there’s more to it than that. I am persuaded by the argument that he has also written an apocalypse. By which I don’t mean the sort of thing contained in the ridiculous “Left Behind” series, but the C1 Jewish writing form. Not the end of space-time, but the description of historical events by means of a complex of myth and metaphor.

Consider- Mark frequently talks about the revelation of mystery (e.g. 4.11f, 6.51f). He highlights the notion of a secret being penetrated, a mystery being explored. The destruction of God’s enemies is a regular refrain. The apocalyptic genre is used in the sower (4.1-20), and Mark 13 (understood as the destruction of AD70). We glimpse, in climactic moments, as the ‘veil is lifted‘, the nature of Jesus calling (Baptism 1.10; Peter’s declaration 8.29 etc). The use of ‘opening of heavens’ (1.10) is a regular way of speaking of truth revealed. The whole book, from start to finish, uses the ideas and literary modes of the apocalyptic genre. Just as Belshazzar had his writing interpreted by Daniel, and Daniel had his vision interpreted by an angel, Mark’s whole telling of the story of Jesus is designed to function as an apocalypse. The reader is asked to discover the mystery behind the story.

Now, if this genre analysis is correct, it makes no sense to talk of Mark as non-historical, because the outcome of a C1 apocalypse is always to be the real-life, ‘touch it and taste’, history of Israel.

Toto

I know this claim has been made, but I didn't think that it was "generally agreed" outside of Christian circles. Who are you reading on this?

Ben C Smith

This is nearly pure misinformation. Let us take it one mistake at a time:

The church claims this because we have this book. It is still extant, and its attribution to Eusebius is uncontested. Even by Pete Brown!!

We also have this mysterious document by Irenaeus; it is extant in a complete Latin translation and in partial Greek quotations by various fathers, and it is called Against Heresies, the relevant passage of which is to be found in 5.33.3-4. And loads of people have heard of it.

Nobody except Apollonarius, Philip Sidetes, Maximus, Anastasius, and Andrew of Caesarea, all of whom have heard of the works of Papias and preserve portions that do not depend on Eusebius.

Eusebius nowhere claims that Irenaeus quotes this part of Papias. Nowhere. Eusebius claims to be directly quoting Papias himself.

Ben.