The Gospel of Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

JCarp wrote:In any case, the Markan and Pauline traditions a clearly distinct from the traditions of Matthew and Luke.
Hey, you're welcome, JCarp, thanks for your thoughts on the subject. In volume II of Mark and Paul there is a good exposition of Volkmar's work, thoughts and theories in an article (in English) by a scholar called Anne Vig Skoven.
In any case, the Markan and Pauline traditions a clearly distinct from the traditions of Matthew and Luke.
I think the author of gMark was inspired by Paul's letters (or some of them), and then another author decided to rework gMark thereby writing gMatt. Much later (110 CE perhaps?) the author of gLuke and Acts wrote his works using Paul's letters as well as gMark and gMatt. That's a fairly common view where I hail from (Copenhagen University), also no Q-source. The gospel writers were capable theologians and highly creative story-tellers. I also think that the reason Mark uses the word "gospel" the way he does is inspired by Paul's use of this word. But most interestingly imo, Mark has the same idea about conversion at baptism that Paul has, i.e. a taking part in Jesus' death and resurrection with its bodily transformation to a spiritual body. But in gMark this is shown with subtle symbolism such as changing of clothes for example Jesus on the mount or the naked young man (Mark 14,52) in conjunction with the angel at the tomb (Mark 16).
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Hey Stefan,
Stefan Kristensen wrote:Mark has the same idea about conversion at baptism that Paul has, i.e. a taking part in Jesus' death and resurrection with its bodily transformation to a spiritual body. But in gMark this is shown with subtle symbolism such as changing of clothes for example Jesus on the mount or the naked young man (Mark 14,52) in conjunction with the angel at the tomb (Mark 16).
Yes, of course. There also is the not-so-subtle "bookending" of the Markan gospel with the baptism and the resurrection, both symbolizing transformation, as you said. Leaving out the longer ending of Mark makes this clearer and more dramatic. There are many Pauline echoes present in Mark, echoes that warrant closer examination.

Regards,
QUAECUMQUE · SUNT · VERA
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

outhouse wrote:
Stefan Kristensen wrote:The field of comparing Mark and Paul is actually a growing field of interest withing NT scholarship these days, I think.

.

The nest we can do is infer plausibility based on common oral traditions. Mark is a compilation and thus some traditions by all rights existed a long with Pauline communities evolution of theology. Common traditions like the passion narrative a high plausibility, but there is no connection with any degree of certainty between the two.

Pauline text was not all that wide spread by the time Markan text was compiled, or we would see more parallels and or reaction against it. Instead we see different branches of the same tree.
But gMark is not just a "compilation" but clearly a story in its own right, wouldn't you say? Theology in narrative form. In that way we can indeed "see more parallels" with Paul.

A compilation can't possibly have a thematic as well as a narrative unity the way gMark does. All parts of gMark are clearly part of a whole. The style, vocabulary, characters, scene-building, etc. are extremely consistent throughout which would not be the case if it were a mere compilation.

Would you agree that there is a connection between Mark 1:10-11 where the spirit comes out of the heavens that are torn (σχιζω) apart and Jesus is declared the Son of God, the very beginning of his ministry, and then 15,37-39, the very end of his ministry, where Jesus' spirit comes out of him (εκπνευω) and the temple veil is torn (σχιζω) and Jesus is declared the Son of God? If there is a connection and if it is not a coincidence (which of course is a real possiblity), then we are dealing with a very conscious storyteller. Using extremely subtle symbolism. That's just one of many examples.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by outhouse »

Stefan Kristensen wrote:A compilation can't possibly have a thematic as well as a narrative unity the way gMark does. .

Yet is does.

Its not that difficult to redact traditions into a story based on not just what people thought took place, but what they wanted to take place.

This is completely non sequitur to a Pauline Markan relationship.
The style, vocabulary, characters, scene-building, etc. are extremely consistent throughout which would not be the case if it were a mere compilation.
Your dead wrong here. Its how we know its a compilation, because it is obvious to the trained eye.

The way people shared information changed forever with the fall of the temple, this was a way for one community to address the need to save tradition and proselytize their theology.

They were pros at compiling traditions, even though this author/s was less skilled then others.

we are dealing with a very conscious storyteller. Using extremely subtle symbolism. That's just one of many examples.
Nothing in your statement discounts a compilation. The above took place with said compilation.

No one is stating it was "only" a compilation

YOU have to place yourself in the actual community writing said text, in the house in the oil lamp lit room with people making ink while the scribe is actually writing.

Are you telling me they had no oral or written traditions to go on and just imagined this book into existence? of course not. They had traditions both oral and written.

ALL of our gospel text was a compilation. It is the nature of selling theology. You have theology, and you think of better ways to sell it.
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Hey Stefan,
Stefan Kristensen wrote:But gMark is not just a "compilation" but clearly a story in its own right, wouldn't you say?
Indeed, the Markan gospel presents the narrative in a remarkably coherent form, there are only a few places where it is rather clear some later scribal insertions have been made. The reason we can see those insertions is precisely due to the persistent style of Mark; if it would be a haphazard collection of disparate text snippets, no such recognition would be possible. Of course Mark as author was not an eyewitness to all the accounts he reports -- and by necessity thus also collates other peoples' recollections -- but the text is clearly Markan throughout (bar the few rather obvious insertions).

The consistent style -- such as never presenting an Aramaic phrase without also presenting a translation of the phrase, just as an example -- is what gives the gospel its character. Uncharacteristic passages are therefore easy to locate. It is, indeed, a story. A yarn, a memoir.

Regards,
QUAECUMQUE · SUNT · VERA
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by outhouse »

JCarp wrote:
Indeed, the Markan gospel presents the narrative in a remarkably coherent form

Regards,

The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Hey Outhouse,
outhouse wrote:The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings
I am certain you have source literature for those.

I wonder, are you making a point of some sort here; we know the gospels are not eyewitness accounts for every tittle and/or jot. In fact, no biographies are. Even news pundit Bill O'Reilly wrote a biography of Lincoln; hardly anyone assumes good ol' Bill was an eyewitness.

Regards,
QUAECUMQUE · SUNT · VERA
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by outhouse »

JCarp wrote:
I wonder, are you making a point of some sort here; we know the gospels are not eyewitness accounts for every tittle and/or jot.,
Agreed.

I am saying exactly what I posted before which was a direct cut from wiki. You arguing with the encyclopedia not me.

Most every credible scholar today views mark as a compilation of both written and oral traditions. The Passion narrative being a pre existing written tradition compiled into this story.

Factually the authors did not invent this from thin air. The authors added many pre existing elements in their compilation.
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Hey Outhouse,
outhouse wrote:You arguing with the encyclopedia not me.
I am not arguing anything at all.
outhouse wrote:The authors added many pre existing elements in their compilation.
Quite so. Thank you.

Regards,
QUAECUMQUE · SUNT · VERA
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by iskander »

Where did you find this?
(The opening post)
JCarp wrote:
Paul of Tarsus wrote:...
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

...
...
Post Reply