The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

[hakeem]

The version of the Jesus story in the short gMark predates the versions found in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

The short gMark as can be seen be in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices only contains the first 8 verses of chapter 16.

Due to the fact that there are later longer versions of gMark with 20 verses in chapter 16 we now know what later versions of the Jesus story would contain.

The later Alexandrinus Codex and others contain the long gMark.

1. The earliest version of the Jesus story did not contain post-resurrection visits.
2. The earliest version of the Jesus story did not the commission to preach the gospel.

All stories of Jesus with post-resurrection visits and/or the commission to preach the Gospel are later than the short gMark.

gMatthew contains post-resurrection visits and commission to preach the Gospel.
gMatthew is later than the short gMark.

gLuke contains post-resurrection visits and commission to preach the Gospel.
gLuke is later than the short gMark.

gJohn contains post-resurrection visits and commission to "feed my sheep".
gJohn is later than the short gMark.

The Pauline Epistles contain post-resurrection visits and commission to preach the Gospel.
The Pauline Epistles are later than the short gMark.

[pavurcn]

Interesting insight. and I am especially intrigued by the idea that Paul likely had some textual gospel material (without a particular redactor named because it was seen as primarily deriving from Jesus and a means of access to him--it was perhaps the "word of the Lord" or "the gospel of the Lord" that Paul references).

I am not denying your thought of the presence or lack of specific structural parallels, but I just want to note for the record that Mark does have the idea of a post-resurrection appearance in 16:7: "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." The reader would only be expected to believe that this actually happened, given the kind and source of the guarantee the disciples get here. But you are right to say that there is no narrative of such an event in the short gMark.

The commission might be seen as implied in Mark 13:9f: "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10 And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 When they bring you to trial ..."

[MrMacSon]

The version of the Jesus story in the short gMark predates the versions found in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.
.

Not necessarily (eg. they may be concurrent).

[hakeem]

It is clear that the short gMark was interpolated so that it could appear to be compatible with the later post-resurrection stories found in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

Now look at the words of the resurrected Jesus in the later interpolation of the short gMark.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

In Acts, the character called Paul is bitten by a viper and is not harmed.

Acts 28.3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

The character called Paul in Acts is a late invention after the version of the Jesus story in the short gMark.

Now, examine Acts of the Apostles.

Where does the author claimed Paul wrote Epistles to anyone or any Church anywhere??

Nowhere at all.

The Pauline Epistles were invented after Acts of the Apostles.

[Jax]

It is clear that the short gMark was interpolated so that it could appear to be compatible with the later post-resurrection stories found in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

Now look at the words of the resurrected Jesus in the later interpolation of the short gMark.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

In Acts, the character called Paul is bitten by a viper and is not harmed.

Acts 28.3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

The character called Paul in Acts is a late invention after the version of the Jesus story in the short gMark.

Now, examine Acts of the Apostles.

Where does the author claimed Paul wrote Epistles to anyone or any Church anywhere??

Nowhere at all.

The Pauline Epistles were invented after Acts of the Apostles.

My only questions about your theory are:

If the letters of Paul were written after Acts, why is the Paul of the letters so different than the Paul of Acts?

Why are they written by Paul and not Saul?

Why would whomever wrote the letters have made the letters look like a mishmash of letter fragments?

Why do the letters seem to have been written in the mid to late 1st century BCE when they are supposed to be from the mid 1st century CE? And further, why no statements in them like "when Barnabas and I in the third year of the reign of so and so...." to difinitively place Paul in some period in time?

Why did others later need to add interpolations to the letters? Do we see this in the "Pastorals" or the letters of Ignatius for instance?

[John2]

Jax,

Can you explain for me how Paul's letters "seem to have been written in the mid to late 1st century BCE"? Just curious.

[Jax]

Jax,

Can you explain for me how Paul's letters "seem to have been written in the mid to late 1st century BCE"? Just curious.

Hi John2, first let me stress the "seems" part of my statement.

It seems, to me and a few others, that the language that Paul uses in his letters fits in better with a 1st century BCE context than a mid 1st century one. His references to places like Illyricum instead of Dalmatia and Pannonia as it was known in the mid 1st century would seem to point to an author who is writing before 10 CE. Paul also talks about "fellow soldiers" which would be less likely for a Jewish man in the 1st century than the 1st century BCE.

You can get further info on my position here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3459&start=180

[robert j]

It is clear that the short gMark was interpolated so that it could appear to be compatible with the later post-resurrection stories found in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

Setting aside the NT Gospels for now, and focusing only on Paul's letters, you are assuming the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 represents a post-resurrection story. I don't think it does.

Certainly there are several solutions on the table for the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Some see it as an interpolation. I think Paul composed the formulaic passage with the help of one of his junior partners, one with a proper Greek-education.

I've made a case for a quite different solution for the well-known passage here --- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=674

The character called Paul in Acts is a late invention ...

I certainly agree that much of the character of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention, but that doesn't erase the Paul responsible for the 5 extant letters addressed to his 4 congregations.

Now, examine Acts of the Apostles.

Where does the author claimed Paul wrote Epistles to anyone or any Church anywhere??

Nowhere at all.

The Pauline Epistles were invented after Acts of the Apostles.

An argument from silence lacks traction if there is not an expectation of mention. In this case I don't think there is.

I think the author of Acts was attempting to co-opt the person and doctrines of Paul and align them with 2nd century Christian tradition, as well as to reconcile the traditions of Peter and Paul.

I agree with the findings of the Acts Seminar that the author of Acts had access to Paul's letters. But the author of Acts would not want to weaken his version of Paul by pointing readers to the writings of Paul that fail to support a great many of the tales and traditions found in Acts. Careful and critical reading of Paul's letters tell of quite a different person.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the ''continuity'' of the worship of Paul among the so-called Gnostics, plus the silence of the proto-catholics about his letters, talks about Paul being a proto-Gnostic, i.e. one who didn't believe that the Creator was the supreme God (see, for example, 2 Cor 4:4). It is not clear for me why this should be ipso facto a reason to consider Marcion behind the letters, as if in all the 1 CE it was impossible for a Jew to put the aeternal question: si deus est, unde malum ?

[Jax]

I certainly agree that much of the character of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention, but that doesn't erase the Paul responsible for the 5 extant letters addressed to his 4 congregations.

Hi robert j, what five letters may I ask?