jakejonesiv

Why not? Paul allegedly wrote an epistle to them! But I take your point, there is definitely something amiss in the standard chronolgy.

Jake

jakejonesiv

If Paul was indeed known to orthodox Christians in the early 2c., then he was demoted much more than just what you have noted above. He was completely ignored by several Church fathers, and virtually ignored by many others. Peter Kirby had a list one time.

A possible solution to this odd sitiuation is as you say. Paul was orginally venerated by the proto-orthodox, but then stolen by the heretics, mainly Marcion. This caused so much embarassment that the proto-orthodox Church Fathers shunned Paul. But then in the latter part of the second century, Paul was rehabilitated (by Ireneas?) and returned to his rightfull place in Christian origins. This is called the "Second Coming of Paul" theory.

An alternative is that Paul was unknown to early 2c. proto-orthodox, and originated in heretical circles. (Paul may have been vaguely heard of from the east, but he was accorded little or no veneration in Rome). Marcion set Paul up in opposition to Peter. In the second half of the second century, the proto-orthodox harmonized Peter and Paul in Acts, and likewise created other pseudonymous works to give hoary authenticity to the fiction.

Why would they? How can you have a "catholic" (i.e. universal) church, if you have an untamed rival Apostle?

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

I finally did a while ago. It didn't do much for me.

He defined a very broad category of suspended endings and argue fit right into them, but the differences to me seem to overwhelm the similarities. But, that's just an impression. To properly evaluate his case, I'd have to (re)read all the examples and judge it for myself.

The odd part is that if Mark ended at 16:7, I wouldn't have a problem with the ending.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Ignored by Justin, but that could be his anti-Marcionism. On the other hand, Paul is better represented than the gospel materials in 1 Clem, Polycarp, and Ignatius, who are usually dated to the early second century (and a little earlier for 1 Clem). Obviously, if you don't like these date, your mileage will vary.

I've been toying a scenario in which Paul died betrayed in the mid first century, rehabilitated at the beginning of the second, co-opted by Marcion in the middle of the second, and re-rehabilited by Irenaeus. Call it the "Third Coming of Paul" theory.

I date 1 Clem, Polycarp, and Ignatius (and Acts) too early for this alternative to work.

If Paul had been unknown to the proto-orthodox prior to Marcion, I'd expect the proto-orthodox response would be to marginalize him much as they did to Simon Magus, Menander, Cerinthus, Cardo, etc. and lionize their own heroes. Coopting Paul just doesn't fit their M.O. (at least to me).

Stephen

jakejonesiv

That is a very interesting scenerio. I would like to read more of it.

Have you read Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) (October 2006) by Joseph B. Tyson? He is professor emeritus of religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. The book has several items that could support your theory. There is a good review of it on the University of South Carolina web site.

Some of the same material is available on line in Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations

I can recommend Tyson because he has taken the first few steps down the road to the radical position, but has not entirely broken with traditional scholarship. His "middle approach" may be amenable to your viewpoint. Best wishes on your research.

Jake

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for all the cites to Tyson. I heard Tyson's paper at SBL 2006 on Acts in the second century. He's obviously done a lot of work in this connection, but I'll have to read more of it and think it over.

Stephen

Amaleq13

I completely agree that an appearance to the disciples is implied by the text and would have been assumed by Mark's readers if not known as tradition but I question how much "rehabilitating" is involved. Jesus fulfilled his promise but it is neither stated nor implied that Peter and the boys finally wise up. The absence of an actual depiction of the appearance(s) seems contrary to the notion of the author wanting to rehabilitate the stupid disciples. It seems to me more of an acknowledgement of tradition with a profound silence regarding support for Peter, et. al.

John Kesler

Does this make you a Papias-myther? Will we soon be seeing The Search for the Historical Papias, Papias: Historian of the New Millenium, The Papias Seminar, or "The Tomb of Papias"?

Ben C Smith

My thoughts exactly! Mark 16.8 leaves completely in the air how, or even whether (to some minds), the apostles are going to meet up with Jesus again and fulfill his words again.

Ben.

Solo

But if Mark did end at 16:7, it would still have left completely in the air whether the apostles were going to meet up with Jesus in Galilee as he promised during the Last Supper. And, we would not have known that the young man, who apparently knew everyone and everything (including why he and not Jesus was in the tomb), was hugely frightening and astonishing, and therefore credible as the messenger of the Lord !

OTOH, if we are willing to accept that the encounter with the νεανισκος represents the aura before the glory of the Risen Lord, i.e. the experience of a synaesthesic brain during a complex partial seizure, then it follows that the form Jesus proposed to have in the future encounter with his wayward disciples in Galilee was the same as he had on the mountain in 9:2, μετεμορφωθη. The absence of his body in the cavern, coupled with the messenger, then reveals his resurrectional transfiguration - the scene is purely symbolic (i.e. coded ) and complete. 16:8 is Mark's intended ending. Methinks.

Jiri