gMark is intended to be history writing

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by Stefan Kristensen » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:00 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:02 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:26 am
I also think there are clear indications that Luke knew gJohn or some version of it. But I definately think that Luke had gMark and gMatt in pretty much the same forms we have them.
Both Klinghardt's and Vinzent's models allow for it all to have happened in close proximity in space and time* up to the finalisation of the forms we have.
If such a finalisation of the forms in fact did take place, then I also think it has to have happened very, very shortly after the production of the materials (the proto-versions). Because once this material had begun to spread, these proto-gospels, then it was out there and couldn't be retrieved. Kind of like a picture being put on the internet: if you wish for that picture to be spread in a changed version instead of the one that has been uploaded, then you'll have to act quickly! Once it's out there, it's out there.

But of course, though, if the new, changed versions (i.e. the finalised gospels) have much better quality and appeal so as to become more popular, then I suppose that in the passing of time they would perhaps go on to entirely supplant the originals that had been put out there. And whereas the internet never forgets, many things become lost forever in the fogs of history!

hakeem
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by hakeem » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:54 am

Stefan Kristensen wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:00 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:02 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:26 am
I also think there are clear indications that Luke knew gJohn or some version of it. But I definately think that Luke had gMark and gMatt in pretty much the same forms we have them.
Both Klinghardt's and Vinzent's models allow for it all to have happened in close proximity in space and time* up to the finalisation of the forms we have.
If such a finalisation of the forms in fact did take place, then I also think it has to have happened very, very shortly after the production of the materials (the proto-versions). Because once this material had begun to spread, these proto-gospels, then it was out there and couldn't be retrieved. Kind of like a picture being put on the internet: if you wish for that picture to be spread in a changed version instead of the one that has been uploaded, then you'll have to act quickly! Once it's out there, it's out there.

But of course, though, if the new, changed versions (i.e. the finalised gospels) have much better quality and appeal so as to become more popular, then I suppose that in the passing of time they would perhaps go on to entirely supplant the originals that had been put out there. And whereas the internet never forgets, many things become lost forever in the fogs of history!
Based on Christian writings there were many, many versions of the Jesus stories. See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation Against All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, Prescription Against Heresies attributed to Tertullian, First Apology attributed to Justin and others.


It must not be forgotten that people called Christians in antiquity did not all believe the Jesus stories. Some Christians claimed Jesus was not even born.

By the way, the stories of Jesus in the NT do not require memory of the past and witnesses. The stories of NT Jesus were invented as is clearly evident.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:01 pm

Stefan Kristensen wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:30 pm
Nice links, Ben. It makes me speculate that perhaps the arrival of gJohn on the scene is precisely that thing which motivated Luke to write his gospel?
I have not decided whether Luke knew John itself, the Asiatic traditions behind John, or some earlier edition of John. At least some of the items on that list would/could have been preserved in the liturgy (especially the date of the Passover celebration!), and would not necessarily require a gospel text to agree or disagree with.

I observed some time ago that, while Eusebius fails to quote Papias as knowing the gospel of John, thus making it likely that Papias never talked about that gospel, Papias' list of disciples also seems to be somewhat Johannine. So did he know the gospel of John or not? The ideal solution, to my eye, is to take Papias at his word when he says he inquired orally after the words of the disciples; he drew, essentially, from an Asiatic tradition which would later produce our canonical gospel of John. I do not think that the Asiatic tradition was Johannine, so to speak; rather, the exact reverse: the gospel of John is Asiatic.

Luke may have drawn from at least some of the same Asiatic streams as John. He also, however, principally defended the synoptic chronology. We should probably take seriously the Lucan prologue's claim that there were many who had taken in hand to write things up. Perhaps some of those "many" were responsible for some of the layers we can discern in John.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by Stefan Kristensen » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:01 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:01 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:30 pm
Nice links, Ben. It makes me speculate that perhaps the arrival of gJohn on the scene is precisely that thing which motivated Luke to write his gospel?
I have not decided whether Luke knew John itself, the Asiatic traditions behind John, or some earlier edition of John. At least some of the items on that list would/could have been preserved in the liturgy (especially the date of the Passover celebration!), and would not necessarily require a gospel text to agree or disagree with.

I observed some time ago that, while Eusebius fails to quote Papias as knowing the gospel of John, thus making it likely that Papias never talked about that gospel, Papias' list of disciples also seems to be somewhat Johannine. So did he know the gospel of John or not? The ideal solution, to my eye, is to take Papias at his word when he says he inquired orally after the words of the disciples; he drew, essentially, from an Asiatic tradition which would later produce our canonical gospel of John. I do not think that the Asiatic tradition was Johannine, so to speak; rather, the exact reverse: the gospel of John is Asiatic.

Luke may have drawn from at least some of the same Asiatic streams as John. He also, however, principally defended the synoptic chronology. We should probably take seriously the Lucan prologue's claim that there were many who had taken in hand to write things up. Perhaps some of those "many" were responsible for some of the layers we can discern in John.
That could definately be a possibility.
With regards to a possible Asiatic fondness for sevens, the seven letters in the beginning of Rev. to "the seven churches that are in Asia" definately ought to be mentioned also, represented in heaven by seven lampstands and seven stars. And maybe there are seven "signs" of Jesus in gJohn. In Acts 6 there are seven "deacons" chosen, who actually turn out to be missionaries, including one Philip. In a way these function as a Gentile version of the Jewish group of twelve, i.e. seven 'apostles'.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:31 pm

Howdy, Stefan
Because once this material had begun to spread, these proto-gospels, then it was out there and couldn't be retrieved. Kind of like a picture being put on the internet: if you wish for that picture to be spread in a changed version instead of the one that has been uploaded, then you'll have to act quickly! Once it's out there, it's out there.
Maybe an unfortunate example. The Christians against Dinosaurs hoax of a few years ago featured a "demonstration against dinosaurs" photo which had been 'shopped so that protestors' placards denounced dinosaurs. The source photo was a real demonstration against a parking fee increase in a small UK town. The original photo was on the web, the event had been covered by the BBC and local media (also on the web), the genuine photo came up in Google's search by image facility if you cropped the fake version a bit, the original was actually spotted as the original early on (but the guy who tweeted it neglected to give a source, so people could reasonably wonder whether he'd shopped the CAD photo, rather than CAD shopping the photo he'd spotted)...

Perhaps more timely, since the autograph is coming up for auction in December, there's the fake English translation of the German language Einstein-Gutkind ("God") letter that was widely circulated in mass-media circles, thanks largely to the Guardian pimping it. Einstein calling Bible stories childish was edited in, and his narrow qualification on the specific kind of Judaism he found primitive, etc. was edited out. Some prominent German media back-translated the Guardian English version to arrive at a new text in the original language (and of course the Germans disagreed with each other on the specific wording). This farce persisted though the 2012 sale, despite high resolution photos of the autograph becoming easy to locate. Even for this upcoming sale, and even though Christie's itself is using and directing inquirers to correct transcriptions, some prominent media are still peddling the made-up version.

The lesson I draw from these examples is that you raise a very interesting question - how can anybody possibly get away with "improving" a document that's already out there? But there is no question that somebody can get away with it, because Christians agaist Dinosaurs and the Guardian newspaper have done just that, despite 21st Century technology to establish the truth instantly - in principle.

Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by Stefan Kristensen » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:45 pm

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:31 pm
Howdy, Stefan
Because once this material had begun to spread, these proto-gospels, then it was out there and couldn't be retrieved. Kind of like a picture being put on the internet: if you wish for that picture to be spread in a changed version instead of the one that has been uploaded, then you'll have to act quickly! Once it's out there, it's out there.
Maybe an unfortunate example. The Christians against Dinosaurs hoax of a few years ago featured a "demonstration against dinosaurs" photo which had been 'shopped so that protestors' placards denounced dinosaurs. The source photo was a real demonstration against a parking fee increase in a small UK town. The original photo was on the web, the event had been covered by the BBC and local media (also on the web), the genuine photo came up in Google's search by image facility if you cropped the fake version a bit, the original was actually spotted as the original early on (but the guy who tweeted it neglected to give a source, so people could reasonably wonder whether he'd shopped the CAD photo, rather than CAD shopping the photo he'd spotted)...

Perhaps more timely, since the autograph is coming up for auction in December, there's the fake English translation of the German language Einstein-Gutkind ("God") letter that was widely circulated in mass-media circles, thanks largely to the Guardian pimping it. Einstein calling Bible stories childish was edited in, and his narrow qualification on the specific kind of Judaism he found primitive, etc. was edited out. Some prominent German media back-translated the Guardian English version to arrive at a new text in the original language (and of course the Germans disagreed with each other on the specific wording). This farce persisted though the 2012 sale, despite high resolution photos of the autograph becoming easy to locate. Even for this upcoming sale, and even though Christie's itself is using and directing inquirers to correct transcriptions, some prominent media are still peddling the made-up version.

The lesson I draw from these examples is that you raise a very interesting question - how can anybody possibly get away with "improving" a document that's already out there? But there is no question that somebody can get away with it, because Christians agaist Dinosaurs and the Guardian newspaper have done just that, despite 21st Century technology to establish the truth instantly - in principle.
Perhaps it's all matter of people being suckers for the truth they like, rather than what might actually be the truth.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: gMark is intended to be history writing

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:22 pm

Stefan Kristensen wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:45 pm
Perhaps it's all matter of people being suckers for the truth they like, rather than what might actually be the truth.
Yes, I think that was one factor in the Einstein-Gutkind case. Richard Dawkins, for example, was moved by the non-translation, and that may well have precipitated his not taking the obvious step of having the letter transcribed and translated independently.

That said, recall the full extent of the mystery: the bogus translation still survives, even though direct proof of what's really in the autograph is a mouse click away. There would be no such "bet settler" back when the Gospels were news; it would seem to have been even easier back then to circulate successfully a false document than it is now.

And something else seems to have been at work in the CAD hoax case. Yes, the overall idea of the hoax, that some Christians would be opposed to dinosaur science because of their faith, is probably something some people wanted to believe. But I don't think many people strongly wanted to believe that Christians had at some undisclosed time and place publicly protested dinosaurs with picket signs and banners (what the photograph was altered to depict).

Post Reply