Jarek
But Paul and Mark do not use the word gospel anachronistically, belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.
-
“‘Titus’ benefits from the effective use of anachronistic elements like cars and loudspeakers”
-
belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned.“she is rebelling against the anachronistic morality of her parents”
-
the way Marcion did. For Paul, Mark, and Matthew, the gospel is something to be preached, not a book of stories about the earthly Jesus. As far as we know, Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
Steefen
Supposedly,
Paul had the gospel: Paul via Luke
Mark had the gospel of Mark
Matthew had the gospel of Matthew
all three had stories about the earthly Jesus.
You are not making sense.
Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
= = =
It is interesting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, before AD 99, did not publish their gospels with a collection of Paul’s letters.
One would think a collection of Paul’s letters would be just as important as Acts of the Apostles. For the Epistle to the Romans to have been such a work of Paul’s thesis, Luke did not refer to it.
And, the Gospel of John did not refer to the Acts of the Apostles–why would Acts which begins with a continuation of the resurrection and ends just 40 days later with the Ascension need decades more time for Luke to write his sequel?
Yes, the follow up to To Kill a Mockingbird was decades in the making …
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
It all started with watching the Ehrman-Wallace debate “Is the original NT lost”. In his first speech, Bart made it clear that we only had access to the Pauline Corpus collection from 100 CE, that all the letters were heavily redacted, that we don’t know if Paul wrote 2 Cor. because it is an amalgam of 2 to 5 different writings …
Jarek, Jarek, Jarek, we really do like you as a person, but … You’re greatly exaggerating. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** only doubts that one small part of 2 Corinthians was written by Paul (6 verses, 6,14–7,1). Other than this small section, the various partition theories consider that someone combined various parts of authentic letters.
We did not understand each other. Bart said that 2 Cor. it consists of 2 -5 different Paul’s texts connected together. I meant nothing else.
So when you said “Bart made it clear … that we don’t know if Paul wrote 2 Cor. because it is an amalgam of 2 to 5 different writings,” you didn’t really meant to say that?
And here we come to the difference between Bart’s version and mine.
If the ghost writer wrote the letter using 5 of his other works pulled out of the drawer, everything is simple. Full content control, clear motivation and safe operation. Work finally accepted, cash in a pocket.
If an editor pulled 5 of Paul’s different writings out of a drawer and created a sixth, nothing is clear here.
Was the editor sure he was the only owner of Paul’s 5 unknown writings? How could he know about it?
Why would he risk his forgery being discovered instead of publishing these texts separately?
Who composes some fictitious letter from real works? Where is the profit at such a great risk of being ridiculed?
No content control, high risk. What for?
I’m glad you are no longer attributing your position to Bart. This argument has no merit. Your scenario (also) entails great risk. Members of the communities of Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessaloniki, or Galatia might protest that they have never received any letters from this Paul character, or even heard of this fictional guy claiming to have founded some of these communities.
Come on, Jarek, come to your senses and return to your skeptical roots.
I’m glad that you are glad. Members of the various congregations in these cities, of course, reacted to the appearance of new literary works. As long as there was no canon, everyone cherished their own tradition, adopted a new tradition. And over time there was plenty to choose from. After all, these were meetings of a small groups in private houses similar to those of pagan agape. In Rome, the earliest clash of these sects occurred, because it was the most attractive market, impossible to miss for anyone with serious plans. Someone brought letters and claimed that it was a 40-year tradition of the Great Apostle and to deny it you would have to find everyone and question them. Did Paul write to you? Anyone knew him? Who was to do this investigation? Most said – scammers, invented Paul, but the letters were in the market and they were in the market game. They were not immediately authoritative, but they became increasingly popular. Same with the gospel – this must have been a scandal – liars, cheats, blasphemers! But a foot has been set on new land and rach, ciach ciach and New York is standing. Cannibalization is part of the evolutionary process. Religion grows not because of an increase in believers, but because of a positive balance between gaining believers and losing them.
If the scenario with Paul’s 7 authentic letters were true, then posting your own text is not burdened with too much personal risk. “I found it, looks like Paul’s style, patiently fabricated or could be a real thing.”
Whether you succeed or not, you are unlikely to be called a fraud as long as you have a good cover story about how you found the letter.
But if you take an original piece, and whose sources you don’t control, that are in circulation (Because they came to you) and you create an amalgam, you’re asking your competition to use it.
This is a valuable argument against Paul’s consensus reconstruction.
In the 1990s, Bishop Henryk Hoser ordered his parish priests to combat prayer groups fascinated by Pentacostal theology and spirituality. He forbade them from meeting in churches, which resulted in these people stopping going to church. In the first decade of the 21st century, Archbishop Henryk Hoser organized the largest Pentecostal retreat for Catholics.
This is the same age-old profit/loss logic that applies everywhere. Marcion understood this perfectly as an experienced entrepreneur.
Steefen said
JarekBut Paul and Mark do not use the word gospel anachronistically, belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.
the way Marcion did. For Paul, Mark, and Matthew, the gospel is something to be preached, not a book of stories about the earthly Jesus. As far as we know, Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
Steefen
Supposedly,
Paul had the gospel: Paul via Luke
Mark had the gospel of Mark
Matthew had the gospel of Matthew
all three had stories about the earthly Jesus.
You are not making sense.
Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
= = =
It is interesting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, before AD 99, did not publish their gospels with a collection of Paul’s letters.
One would think a collection of Paul’s letters would be just as important as Acts of the Apostles. For the Epistle to the Romans to have been such a work of Paul’s thesis, Luke did not refer to it.
And, the Gospel of John did not refer to the Acts of the Apostles–why would Acts which begins with a continuation of the resurrection and ends just 40 days later with the Ascension need decades more time for Luke to write his sequel?
Yes, the follow up to To Kill a Mockingbird was decades in the making …
There are many offers on the market. Your offer is also there. What does your market standing depend on? From the profit/loss balance sheet. With your actions, you can focus on acquiring new customers or focus on retaining existing ones. You can develop your product or adopt another competing product. Each action carries potential profit and risk.
This is the history of technical, scientific, cultural and religious evolution. The development of Christian literature and Christianity itself is governed by these rules, and those who understand this have won. They were leaders and had no scruples
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
The very fact that Marcion called his gospel a “gospel” shows that it was not the original gospel. As far as we know the gospels were not called “gospels” until the time of Marcion. It is sometimes thought that Mark called his own work a “gospel” (1,1), but that’s an anachronistic use of the term. It is possible that Marcion thought Mk 1,1 as a title identifying that work as a “gospel” and thus used that term to refer to other gospels circulating at that time. But the author of Luke’s gospel does not use the term not even once in his account of the life of Jesus.
———————————————————————–
Gospel as a word is present in Paul’s letters about 50 times. Synchronisation of different writings – Paul’s letters are gospel, new writing is also gospel. Marcion saw *E and knew he had to take it. He had no choice whatever he thought about the authenticity and veracity of this document. He knew Jesus’ resume would outpace the Pauline Corpus in the mass market. Marcion just understood the meaning of *Ev, meaning of Pauline Corpus before everyone else.
But Paul and Mark do not use the word gospel anachronistically, the way Marcion did. For Paul, Mark, and Matthwe, the gospel is something to be preached, not a book of stories about the earthly Jesus. As far as we know, Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
This is an assumption that needs to be proved or disproved. This is not the final result
We’re still waiting for any evidence or a good argument to support your assumption.
*Ev and Pauline Corpus were Marcion’s content choice.
He was the first to combine the two distinct traditions of Pauline Corpus and *Ev.
This is his contribution to the synchronization of these publications.
Marek, Matthew had no such problems. They didn’t want to synchronize anything because they were focused on their works.
Marcion was the leader and his problems were different from the writers’ problems. He brazenly connected *Ev to Paul’s teaching. Paul wouldn’t be pleased.
There are many offers on the market.
Oh Jarek Jarek Jarek
There is no market here. Commodities like letters and gospels simply had no purchasing power whatsoever. They were forms of communication, functionally to freely provide information, metaphorically to establish a webwork of belief and spiritual tradition. There is no commerce to be found in these exchanges. If the value of a commodity is in other than its purchasing power, then you have no market. Freely given freely give.
Robert said
Jarek said
*Ev and Pauline Corpus were Marcion’s content choice.
He was the first to combine the two distinct traditions of Pauline Corpus and *Ev. …
Jarek, you’ve completely ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ to refer to a book about Jesus’ life. The works of Paul, Mark, & Matthew all have an older usage of this term.
The word Gospel used at the beginning by Marcion is a proper name – that’s what he called the book. Shepherd is also a proper name and a word for profession. In *Ev 9:6 is also used in Paul’s sense – something to be preached.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
*Ev and Pauline Corpus were Marcion’s content choice.
He was the first to combine the two distinct traditions of Pauline Corpus and *Ev. …
Jarek, you’ve completely ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ to refer to a book about Jesus’ life. The works of Paul, Mark, & Matthew all have an older usage of this term.
The word Gospel used at the beginning by Marcion is a proper name – that’s what he called the book.
That’s precisely the problem. This is a later usage of the term, perhaps first used by Marcion. It is unlikely that this usage would date earlier than the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. At best, it is a (mis)reading of Mk 1,1, but not earlier than Mark.
… In *Ev 9:6 is also used in Paul’s sense – something to be preached.
Please remind me–you’re working with the reconstruction of *Ev by Klinghardt, right? Can you please show me the text as he constructs it at the beginning and at 9,6? And any other uses of εὐαγγέλιον in *Ev?
Klinghardt. No other use. Only title and 9:6. It is the same for Luke 9:6. Page 702 (reconstruction).translation:
*9,1-6: The Mission of the Twelve
9,1 But he called his twelve disciples together and gave them the power and the
authority over all demons, 2 and he sent the disciples out to proclaim the
kingdom of God. 3 And he said to them, “Take nothing with you on the journey,
neither a staff nor a bag, neither bread nor money, nor (should you) have two
undergarments. 4 And when you enter a house, stay there and leave from there.
And those who do not receive you, walk away from that town and shake the
dust off your feet as a testimony against them!” 6 But they departed and travelled
through all towns and villages, proclaiming the Gospel everywhere
Jarek
There are many offers on the market.
Steefen
Paul was not the only Jewish evangelist trying to exploit pious, rich Roman women for sex and money for Jerusalem. A Jewish evangelist tackled Queen Helena and she gave gold candlesticks to the Temple of Jerusalem.
Okay, we’ve got that.
= = =
Then, you were saying something about how the specific use of the word gospel was unique for Marcion.
But Paul and Mark do not use the word gospel anachronistically, belonging to a period other than that being portrayed the way Marcion did.
Robert said
Jarek, you’ve completely ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ to refer to a book about Jesus’ life. The works of Paul, Mark, & Matthew all have an older usage of this term.
Steefen
Why Robert said you ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ seems to be in error since you did bring this anachronism to our attention at the top of the page at comment 21.
For Paul, Mark, and Matthew, the gospel is something to be preached, not a book of stories about the earthly Jesus. As far as we know, Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
That did not make sense to me because while you say Paul, Matthew, and Mark said the gospel is meant to be preached, not a book of stories, all three of them do have stories: Marcion was not the first to use the gospel as a book of stories about the earthly Jesus, if Mark was written before Marcion and Matthew was written before Marcion, and Paul via Luke also wrote a gospel about stories of the earthly Jesus.
= = =
You then restate the obvious, already accepted: there were a number of evangelists about the Son of Man.
– The Book of Enoch community
– The Dead Sea Scrolls with the Teacher of Righteousness
– A Paul figure, as Josephus states, going to Rome talking about Moses
– Vespasian as the Messiah by way of Serapis
– Simon Magus
– The Christian Leader in Rome pre-existing the arrival of Paul
– Clemens and Flavia Domitilla
– Peter
All of them had a message [you call it commodity] to sell. That is a reply that does not advance the thread.
If you are trying to say there was no gospel (with Jesus biography) then you have to say Paul’s contribution to the gospel of Luke is mostly Paul’s thesis with Luke adding earthly biography.
Then you have to say, Luke was the first gospel as it appears in Marcion’s collection: Mark was not the first gospel.
Then you have to say, the Homeric Epics content in the Gospel of Mark comes after Marcion’s presentation of early version Luke.
Then you have to say, the Julius Caesar biographical information that shows up in the gospels was added after AD 90.
What? There was a collection of letters by Paul “found” by Marcion ! with a gospel of Paul recorded by Luke ! ?
And then ghost writers then put together a lives of Jesus sets of stories called gospels.
The joint cult of Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar did not make an impression on Biblical Jesus until ghost writers first created Marcion’s Luke followed by other gospels.
You say there were other producers of gospels but not before Marion’s “New Testament.” When are you dating the Johannine community?
Robert said
Steefen, you’ve been attributing to Jarek some of my points against Jarek because you didn’t realize that Jarek was only quoting me.
I’ve quoted you once and that was to say what Robert said seems to be in error.
Robert said
Jarek, you’ve completely ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ to refer to a book about Jesus’ life. The works of Paul, Mark, & Matthew all have an older usage of this term.
Steefen
Why Robert said you ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ seems to be in error since you did bring this anachronism to our attention at the top of the page at comment 21.
Did I post something that you said that Jarek repeated?
When I post what Jarek said, Jarek is finally admitting you were right about something?
Let’s see.
Jarek
There are many offers on the market. from Comment 24.
That is not you.
Robert said
Jarek, you’ve completely ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ to refer to a book about Jesus’ life. The works of Paul, Mark, & Matthew all have an older usage of this term.
That is you at comment 26.
= = =
Steefen
At comment 10, you wrote
Robert
The very fact that Marcion called his gospel a “gospel” shows that it was not the original gospel. As far as we know the gospels were not called “gospels” until the time of Marcion. It is sometimes thought that Mark called his own work a “gospel” (1,1), but that’s an anachronistic use of the term. It is possible that Marcion thought Mk 1,1 as a title identifying that work as a “gospel” and thus used that term to refer to other gospels circulating at that time. But the author of Luke’s gospel does not use the term not even once in his account of the life of Jesus.
Steefen
You also wrote
Robert
So you must admit to that there was a pre-existing Pauline tradition that was being co-opted by the author of the deutero-Pauline letters. Previously you had asked, “If the letters were … valuable enough to be copied and imitated, where was Paul’s tradition for 40 years? Why is there no one who would admit to being acquainted with anyone from the circle of Paul or his disciples or disciples of his disciples. Who copied these letters and why?” The deutero-Pauline letters prove the existence of an earlier Ur-Pauline cipher. Surely there must have been a certain amount of time for the Ur-Pauline component to become important enough for the deutero-Pauline forger to deem it worthwhile to try and co-opt this authority.
= = =
Robert
The very fact that Marcion called his gospel a “gospel” shows that it was not the original gospel.
Steefen
Paul used the term gospel before Marcion used the term gospel.
Luke 4: 43
But Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent.”
Steefen
Jesus used the term gospel (good news) before Paul.
Robert at p. 1, Comment 10 and 20
For Paul, Mark, and Matthwe, the gospel is something to be preached, not a book of stories about the earthly Jesus. As far as we know, Marcion was the first to use the gospel in this manner.
Steefen
Seems like not only Paul, Mark, and Matthew say the gospel (good news) is something to be preached but so does Luke (at 4: 43).
Again, what Robert said seems to be in error.
= = =
Conclusion: Porphyry, when you stop laughing and look at the thread, Robert is correct. I did attribute something to Jarek that Robert said at Comment 10 and 20 that I question.
Jarek could have said: I will leave that for Robert’s reply because he said it.
Robert could have jumped in earlier and said: I said that, not Jarek, and my reply to your reply is …
Robert said
Jarek said
*Ev and Pauline Corpus were Marcion’s content choice.
He was the first to combine the two distinct traditions of Pauline Corpus and *Ev. …
Jarek, you’ve completely ignored the issue of Marcion’s novel use of the word ‘gospel’ to refer to a book about Jesus’ life. The works of Paul, Mark, & Matthew all have an older usage of this term.
If the scenario with Paul’s 7 authentic letters were true, then posting your own text is not burdened with too much personal risk. “I found it, looks like Paul’s style, patiently fabricated or could be a real thing.”
Whether you succeed or not, you are unlikely to be called a fraud as long as you have a good cover story about how you found the letter.
But if you take an original piece, and whose sources you don’t control, that are in circulation (Because they came to you) and you create an amalgam, you’re asking your competition to use it.
That’s partly why the letters addressed to individuals are the easiest to identify as forgeries. Next are the letters that claim to be addressed to no one or no specific community in particular. But you can’t have it both ways. You’re scenario is just as risky for all of the other letters. And you’re ignoring the possibility that the composite letters were pieced together by the recipients, the best they could, perhaps with a few self-serving emendations. And I’ve also known world class critical scholars who simply do not accept partition theories. So try to avoid creating strawmen.
My strawman does a simple job and nothing miraculous about it. He is a writer not a hero. It is you who create the wonderful anthology collection after 40 years, editing and amalgamation and deciding by voting what is a forgery. You underestimate the difficulties of these processes, staring at a well-written text and hoping that it was written by a heroic, real apostle.
By placing the character in the past, you can write what you want based on your own needs and you create authority, which in religion is a product. Sometimes you can catch on that someone like Gregory of Nyssa having 2 different testimonies signed by him.
Having only one collection of texts to which subsequent authors were attached, one should check the other side of the coin, if only because it may be possible to exclude or confirm this possibility. Both results are highly valuable.
The philologists I know claim that 2Thess is more Pauline than the genuine letters from the point of view of language, and point to the significant limitations of this method. Morton Smith proved it.
You have to move away from the elephant to see it. The microscope doesn’t seem like a good tool.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert
… But the author of Luke’s gospel does not use the term not even once in his account of the life of Jesus. …
Steefen
Seems like not only Paul, Mark, and Matthew say the gospel (good news) is something to be preached but so does Luke (at 4: 43).
Again, what Robert said seems to be in error.
No, Steefen, you’re reading Luke in translation. Luke only puts the noun ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον) once on the lips of Peter and once on the lips of Paul. Elsewhere, including at the 4,43, he uses the verb εὐαγγελίζω. This is no doubt related to his programmatic use of Isaiah in Luke 4.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent.”
Steefen
So, Robert is saying when Jesus, not Peter, says, “I must preach the good news” and churches tell parishioners when you see “good news,” see “gospel;” hence, “Jesus told them, I must preach the gospel of the kingdom of God…” Robert is saying the exact translation at Luke 4:43 should be what, Robert? ?
I thought Robert was holding the traditional scholar version that the Gospels were written before Marcion’s Evangelion.
And, I thought Jarek’s was holding an alternative scholarly version that Marcion’s Evangelion came first.
That is how I got mixed up earlier: who would have thought Robert’s knowledge of Marcion’s collection would result in him going off the script of “the Bart Ehrman and the majority of critical scholars.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)