Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMardk

Post by Stephan Huller »

Stuart

WTF does "pro-Torah" mean? Another meaningless scholarly terminology like being "against" vaginas

No one was "against" the Ten Commandments. Jesus and the first Christians were "against" the Law written by Moses on his own authority - a second Torah probably developed by Ezra to "guard" the heavenly utterances. Then the Pharisees took all the commandments (10 + 603) and built another Torah to protect that grouping. But no one was "against" the original Torah from heaven
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Peter Kirby »

JoeWallack wrote:But this is why I am trying to put a cap on all secondary discussion to the point of this Thread which is:

Demonstrating how and to what extent GJohn is a reaction to GMark.
Is it in any way possible that GMark is responding to GJohn?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Stuart »

Stephen,

I'll excuse your language (body parts, really?) and answer.

Pro-Torah means Matthew is pro "Nomon" (Greek for Law) the opposite of "Antinomon." Antinomon is of course the Pauline position, which is associated closely with the heretical movements who rejected the Creator God, who was seen as one and the same with the God of the Jews, the Law giver.

When we speak of being for the Law in the NT we are talking about Mosaic Law, rather than Roman Law. However there is overlap. For example It appears Mosaic Law was the Law of the land in the province of Judea, which includes Samaria, until the Romans dissolved the province of Judea at the conclusion of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. This is similar to Sharia Law in several Muslim countries (was in the Ottomon empire until its dissolution in 1918, is today in several countries such as Sudan, and at least partially in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran). As digression, it should be noted that different legal codes applied in Rome to different people depending upon their tribal ("ethnos") or citizenship status. We see a hint of how that works in the book of Acts were Paul declares himself a citizen and thus not subject to Judea's provincial law. We tend to overlook this aspect of the Law and look at it today as merely "spiritual" and assume that was the case back in the first and early second centuries.

Anyway back to the subject. When Matthew 5:17 declares that the Law is not annulled, but that it will be fulfilled, he is declaring support for Mosaic Law. This is often interpreted as Jewish Christian position, requiring adherence to Mosaic Law to be a Christian. The Pauline letters equate this with circumcision (by hands).

I hope that is clear enough.
Last edited by Stuart on Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Peter Kirby »

Stuart wrote:Peter,

I'll excuse your language (body parts, really?) and answer.
Think you mean Stephan.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Stuart »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Stuart wrote:Peter,

I'll excuse your language (body parts, really?) and answer.
Think you mean Stephan.
Sorry Peter. I should have known. Yeah, Stephen tends to try and bully people. and uses rather crude language.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by ficino »

Stuart wrote:
Pro-Torah means Matthew is pro "Nomen" (Greek for Law) the opposite of "Antinomen." Antinomen is of course the Pauline position, which is associated closely with the heretical movements who rejected the Creator God, who was seen as one and the same with the God of the Jews, the Law giver.
"Nomen" means "name" in Latin. The Greek word for "law" is nomos, νόμος. An "antinomian" churchman is someone who maintains that his, or believers', status with God exempts him/them from requirements to obey some or all laws - at least, qua laws.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Stuart »

ficino wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Pro-Torah means Matthew is pro "Nomen" (Greek for Law) the opposite of "Antinomen." Antinomen is of course the Pauline position, which is associated closely with the heretical movements who rejected the Creator God, who was seen as one and the same with the God of the Jews, the Law giver.
"Nomen" means "name" in Latin. The Greek word for "law" is nomos, νόμος. An "antinomian" churchman is someone who maintains that his, or believers', status with God exempts him/them from requirements to obey some or all laws - at least, qua laws.
Thanks, I hadn't had my coffee yet :facepalm:
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Stephan Huller wrote:But no one was "against" the original Torah from heaven
Except that pesky part of the First Commandment; אנכי יהוה אלהיך

and the restriction of;ויום השביעי שבת ליהוה אלהיך לא־תעשה כל־מלאכה אתה ובנך־ובתך עבדך ואמתך ובהמתך וגרך אשר בשעריך


כי מי־אל מבלעדי יהוה בדד

'Jesus' ? :roll:
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
This Thread starts with the answer to the question of whether GJohn" is evidence of Multiple Attestation or GJohn is denial of GMark. GJohn is denial of GMark. The question of this thread is how and to what extent GJohn is denial of GMark.

Case in point is Jesus' supposed baptism by John the Baptist. Historwrecktomes, proponents of HJ who remove all reproducing impossibilities and improbabilities and posture that what is left is fact, claim that Jesus' supposed baptism by John the Baptist is a historical fact largely because "John" (author) is an independent confirmation here to the Synoptics.

In general "John" uses "Mark's" (author) Passion as a base for his Passion and "John's" Teaching & Healing Ministry is a reaction to "Mark's". "Mark", reflecting the original Christianity (Paul), has a primary theme that Faith produces miracles. "John", a product of the "orthodox" Christianity of the second century, has a primary theme that miracles produce faith. We can see this in the John the Baptist stories. In GMark Jesus is revealed to be god's son while in GJohn, John is a supposed historical witness to it.

Theological Methodology (TM) only tries to proof-text supposed positive evidence for historicity. Here it claims that "John" supports John baptizing Jesus. But GJohn never states that John baptized Jesus. TM tries to use an implication of such baptism due to the overall similarities. The stories are very similar because GMark is the base so there is no independence anyway. Because GJohn is dependent on GMark, "John's" omission of John baptizing Jesus is deliberate and intended to deny that John baptized Jesus. Clearly "John" intended his Gospel as a replacement for GMark and not a supplement. Reading GJohn by itself, there's no reason to think that John baptized Jesus.

Using Historical Methodology and also looking for evidence against historicity, you also have to evaluate the differences in baptism stories between GMark and GJohn:

Information GMark Chapter 1 GJohn Chapter 1 Movement from Revelation to Historical Witness
Misquote of Jewish Bible Yes Yes Both need the misquote to claim prophecy fulfillment
Claim of Fulfilled prophecy? Yes Yes -
Is John Elijah? Yes No A claim of John being Elijah dilutes the strength of John as a historical witness
Location wilderness Bethany A specific location strengthens the claim of historical witness
Baptizing in the Jordan? Yes Yes -
John baptizes Jesus? Yes No In GMark the baptism creates who Jesus is (Revelation). GJohn exorcises the baptism because who Jesus is does not change (History)
John recognizes Jesus? No Yes No character recognition = Revelation. Character recognition = Historical witness
Jesus' identification as god's son witnessed by John? No Yes In GMark god's spirit creates god's son = Revelation. In GJohn god's spirit identifies who god's son is = Historical witness

Again, note that "John" is not just contradicting "Mark", but it is a conscious reaction of contradiction. "Mark" says location "Jordan". "John" says "beyond Jordan". These differences provide a context to support the position that "John" intended to show that John did not baptize Jesus.

Regarding trying to take "John" as confirmation that John baptized Jesus, I advise proponents of TM not to go there. You have "John" saying that the setting, other than the baptizing, was in Bethany beyond the Jordan. So this is no longer in Judea, yet all of Judea was coming to the baptizing and no one from Perea was. Comically Origen confesses that in his time he had no idea where this Bethany was:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf
TVU 13
Minority reading:
NA28
John 1:28
tau/ta evn Bhqani,a|evge,neto pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou( o[pouh=n o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwnÅ
...
Origen (Jo Comm. book 6), who was under the probably mistaken notion that the
only Bethany was that near Jerusalem (he couldn't find a Bethany near the Jordan in his travels), opted for
Bhqabara/which he apparently found in some copies (Bhqani,a|is found in "nearly all the
manuscripts"). He explained it (wrongly) allegorically as oi=koj kataskeuh/j
("house of the preparation"), but it actually means "house of passing over". It has been suggested that Origen
actually created this reading, but this is not clear. Note that Origen once writes the curious
ta. Bhqabara/.
Again, that GJohn is a reaction (denial) to GMark does not need to be demonstrated in this Thread. But if one felt such a need:
  • 1) Demonstrate good parallels in structure and insignificant wording

    2) Demonstrate high % of change in key information

    3) Demonstrate theological reason for changes (see above)



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar" - JW

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Lazarus Tagging (I'm Gonna Pop Some Dating Tags)

Post by JoeWallack »

I'm Gonna Pop Some Dating Tags

JW:
We've already seen evidence that either Secret Mark was original GMark or at least shared common material that is no longer extant in GMark:

Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

In the context of this Thread, considering GJohn as reaction to GMark, let's consider evidence for GJohn as reacting to Secret Mark:

Distinctive Excerpt from Secret Mark Edited GMark? Reaction from GJohn Commentary
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” 11
11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
12 And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he hungered.
11
1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
2 And it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.
1. Note that in GMark nothing happens in Bethany which I have faith is a unique phenomena in GMark. Evidence all by itself that GMark was exorcised here.
2. GJohn claims that something (big/huge) did happen in Bethany = possible reaction to (original) GMark.
3. Gee John, you have converted the anonymous characters of "Mark", "certain woman", "brother" into named characters, Lazarus of Bethany and his sister Mary = possible reaction to original "Mark".



The possible reactions of GJohn above to original GMark fit well with the likely related timetable:
  • c. 100 = GMark written. Based on faith/Paul and not supposed historical witness.

    c. 125 = Papias. Transition from faith based to supposed evidence based. Wants historical witness
    but knows that extant Gospels were written during his lifetime (fiction). No Paul.

    c. 150 = Justin. Synoptic Gospels for him always existed. Takes as historical witness. Knows
    GJohn written during his lifetime (fiction). No Paul.
Post Justin, GJohn accepted as historical witness and intentionally originally anonymous characters
in GMark converted into supposed named historical witnesses.

Timetable of reaction to original GMark Bethany story:
  • c. 100 = Story written

    c. 110 = GMatthew exorcises.

    c. 120 = GLuke exorcises.

    c. 140 = Reflecting orthodox Christianity, based primarily on claimed historical witness, GJohn
    converts blasphemous Bethany story of Jesus and young man into resurrection story
    of Jesus and old man and converts the anonymous into named. This has the added
    advantage for the orthodox of not only providing an orthodox story but dealing with
    the Gnostic one and claiming the Gnostic one just had some details wrong and lacked
    information as opposed to simply ignoring/denying it.

    c. 250 = P45 still has original Bethany story. Maintained/discovered by orthodox and exorcised.

    c. 290 = Lucian Recension. Original Bethany story exorcised.

    c. 350 = Sinaticus/Vaticanus, earliest extant, lack original Bethany story.

Joseph

The New Porphyry
Post Reply