"Mark is ff..frankly dead, as… dead. Matthew is coming back in a big ff… funny way." (from anonymous drug prophet) | The New Testament Gospels | Forum

A A A

Ranks

Lost password?

Forum→The New Testament Gospels→"Mark is ff..frankly dead, as… de…

"Mark is ff..frankly dead, as… dead. Matthew is coming back in a big ff… funny way." (from anonymous drug prophet)

RSS

Print Topic

Jarek

936 Posts

(Offline)

May 26, 2022 - 4:48 pm

I’m just sitting on Matthias Klinghardt’s The Oldest Gospel and The Formation of The Canonical Gospels. 1,400 pages divided into two parts. The first part of Inquiry is a comprehensive problem analysis. The second part is Reconstruction and Translation of the Gospel of Marcion. Regardless of the problems of this work, it can be seen that the history of the synoptic problem has come full circle.

Hermann Detering tried to do so in his 2000 essay on the Synoptic Apocalypse. In the essay, Detering showed the priority of Matthew’s text, and the dependence of Mark’s text on Matthew’s text. Basil Lourie, an Orthodox bishop and a biblical scholar, reached the same conclusion. In 2015, in his work The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mt 24-25 Par.) And Its Jewish Source , he confirmed Detering’s determination of the primacy of Matthew’s text.

Matthias Klinghardt in his reconstruction shows that the language of Matthew was the language of the Gospel of Marcion. The first one that started the rapid development of early Christian literature.

We came back to the same place.

Clement of Alexandria held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second and Mark wrote third; on the other hand, Origen argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second and Luke wrote third; finally, Tertullian states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later.

How could Marcion have survived in business by sticking solely to the gospel he was alleged to remake and falsify? Could he have survived and thrived with a gospel devoid of Nativity Story and other attractions? The answer is obvious. Could not. All the gospels on the market were used in his churches. How do we know this? From Larry Hurtado’s list of 3rd and 4th century manuscripts. Since the apocrypha was on it and they occupy ⅓ of the volume of this list, the literature of the great organization of Marcion would also be included on it. And it certainly is, it is only indistinguishable. More evidence that the Marcion-Roman Church conflict was about the “who is who” question and was not about some theology.

People wanted these stories. The demand for the stories of Jesus was many times greater than the supply. There were virtually no limits to creativity, as the James Proto-Gospel shows. Later authors were not so brave as to describe checking whether a woman after childbirth is still a virgin. That Woman. Then Authors were brave. They knew perfectly well what they were doing. They all knew exactly what they were doing.

Steefen

7786 Posts

(Offline)

May 26, 2022 - 7:11 pm

Steefen
Someone on this site has for many months been claiming Matthew comes before Mark, but a site administrator named Robert was not convinced. Maybe Robert can prove you wrong. Maybe Robert cannot prove you wrong.

Steefen

7786 Posts

(Offline)

May 26, 2022 - 7:40 pm

Steefen

** you do not have permission to see this link **

The New Testament Gospels and Jewish Apocalypticism and Sources in the Order of When They Were Written:

0. Book of Daniel
1. The Book of Enoch / 1 Enoch (Chapters 1-36) The Book of Watchers
2. The Book of Enoch / 1 Enoch (Chapters 37-71) The Book of Parables
3. Authentic Letters of Paul (see if they match what was in Marcion’s canon)
4. Mark
5. Q
6. Matthew
7. Luke
8. John
9. Marcion’s Gospel according to Paul with Marcion editing Luke’s gospel
10. Gospel of Thomas (AD 60 to AD 140)
11. Acts of the Apostles (a response to Marcion and brazenly re-writing the autobiographical information in the authentic Pauline Letters)
12. Gospel of Judas (280 C.E.)

Stephen

I support Johannine priority.

Why? For the same reasons people think John knew the synoptics, only in reverse. Matthew and Luke are responding to John’s theologizing and amorphous narrative details. (Currently I suspect that Mark did not know John but both Matthew and Luke clearly did. That could change as I keep making stuff up…uh, I mean, thinking things through.) Sooo…

1) Paul’s authentic letters

2) Mark and John, independent of each other

3) Matthew, who knows Mark and John (Q is simply one of Matthew’s sources)

4) Luke, who knows Matthew Mark and John

I still haven’t come up with a catchy name for the Johannine priority hypothesis yet. This is perhaps the most important part.

brenmcg

The correct ordering is

1. Matthew

2. Authentic Letters of Paul

3. Luke

4. Mark / John

5. Marcion’s Gospel

Q a non-existent hypothetical work.

Steefen
Are you saying Mark edited down Matthew as opposed to Matthew embellishing Mark?

Tall tales get longer, not shorter.

Bart D.E.
Critical scholars are widely agreed that the earliest Gospel was Mark, written around 70 CE; that Matthew and Luke were some years later, say, 80-85 CE; and that John was the last Gospel, around 90-95 CE. But how do scholars establish those dates?

Print Topic

Forum Timezone: America/Indiana/Indianapolis

All RSSShow Stats

Administrators:
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert

Sorting by

The New Testament Gospels and Jewish Apocalypticism and Sources in the Order of When They Were Written: