Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

I'm interested in your take on that Ish. Personally I think you can read the whole of Mark as a Gnostic document. I've always thought the Annunciation was the most blatant image of the Gnostic idea of secret knowledge transforming man into the Gnostic ideal of a 'saved' individual.

Mark written by Marcion, do you mean?

I've thought of that similarity. It's certainly possible and Marcion was around at the right time.

Decades earlier than Mark, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord was written in the Syro-Chaldee or Samaritan language.

Marcion's Jesus in the Gospel of the Lord was Gnostic, non-historical and not a Jewish man. Otherwise, the gospel is similar to Luke and John.

This gospel, however, was a great embarrassment to Irananeus and that crowd, so they accused Marcion of copying Luke and John and putting his own spin on it.

However, as demonstrated by Charles Waite (History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200) and others, Marcion's gospel was first and Luke's was created from it. Not only that, but GRS Mead (in Did Jesus Live?) also thinks that all three gospels - Matthew, Luke and Mark - could have used Marcion's Gospel of the Lord as their basis.

There's a reconstruction based on fragments of the text here:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm

[Ishtar]

Interesting quote from Mead:

The Marcionites were the most rigid of ascetics, abstaining from marriage, flesh and wine, the latter being excluded from their Eucharist. They also rejoiced beyond all other sects in the number of their martyrs.

The Marcionites have also given us the most ancient dated Christian inscription. It was discovered over the doorway of a house in a Syrian village, and formerly marked the site of a Marcionite meeting-house or church, which curiously enough was called a synagogue. The date is October 1, A.D. 318 and the most remarkable point about it is that the church was dedicated to "The Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Good - "Chrestos", not Christos.

In early times there seems to have been much confusion between the two titles. Christos is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah, Anointed, and was the title used by those who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. This was denied, not only by the Marcionites, but also by many of their Gnostic predecessors and successors.

The title Chrestos was used of one perfected, the holy one, the saint; no doubt in later days the orthodox, who subsequently had the sole editing of the texts, in pure ignorance changed Chrestos into Christos wherever it occurred; so that instead of finding the promise of perfection in the religious history of all the nations, they limited it to the Jewish tradition alone, and struck a fatal blow at the universality of history and doctrine.
.

[Minimalist]

Decades earlier than Mark, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord was written in the Syro-Chaldee or Samaritan language.

Mark is usually dated to c 70 AD so, it is hard to get "decades" earlier than Mark. Especially since Marcion was mid- second century.

[seeker]

Not only that but Luke copies major sections of Mark so it could not have preceded Mark

[Ishtar]

Yes, but have you seen what the dating of Mark is based on? It's total fucking nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Mark 13:14-23, known as the "Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, correspondences have been seen by scholars between this passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70.[26] The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus in the year 70.[27] Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70[28] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the Bar Kokhba revolt[29]). Others see the reference in Mark 14:58-59 to the false accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days as another reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70.[30]

and ...

The Olivet discourse or Little Apocalypse is a passage found in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew (24), Mark (13) and Luke (21), occurring just before the narrative of Jesus's passion beginning with the Anointing of Jesus. In the narrative is a discourse or sermon given by Jesus on the Mount of Olives, hence the name. According to most scholars, the versions of the discourse in Matthew and Luke are based on the version in Mark.

There may be no context that has become the focus of more controversy than the Olivet discourse. In each of the three gospel accounts, it contains a number of statements which at face value appear to refer to future events, and most modern Christians interpret as having been intended as prophecy. The topics involved are:

1. The future destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
2. Tribulation in Israel and the nations of the world
3. Various signs of the coming of the Son of Man

In other words, the dating is based on the 'prophecies' of a real Jesus Christ.

As I say, it's total fucking nonsense.

As we know that there's no evidence for a real Jesus, let alone that he made any prophecies, or that they came true, I think this dating is a joke.

[Ishtar]

Not only that but Luke copies major sections of Mark so it could not have preceded Mark

How do they know it's not the other way round? All three are remarkably similar.

[Ishtar]

I think the dating of the four gospels should have to follow the same rules as any other piece of writing, and should not be based on the life of a character who has never been proven to have lived, let alone his prophecies. To me, those arguments by biblical scholars are pure sophistry.

These are the earliest attestations for the four gospels that make any kind of sense to me. They’re not firm, but at least they have some sort of basis in historical fact, and not myth.

These dates comes from Acharya S's book: "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold."

Luke (170 CE)

Theophilus, to whom Luke addresses the gospel, the Bishop of Antioch, was bishop between 169 – 177 CE.

Mark (175 CE)

Attested by Eusebius, who says that Mark was in Rome writing during the time of Hadrian (incidentally, about the same time as Marcion).

The next two are much more open to interpretation:

John (178 CE)

Both Iranaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus flourished c 145 CE, and some scholars think that both John and Matthew had in view the building up of a Roman hierarchy which was taking place between 177 and 189 CE.

Matthew (170 CE)

Did not exist prior to the end of the second century, but is the only gospel to give the Roman church dominance (in its mention of Peter the Rock upon which the church should be built), thus possibly reflecting a violent schism (180 to 190) then taking place between the branches of the church over Easter.

The idea that these were the works of apostles who had recently been illiterate fisherman is a fairy tale that surely we have all grown out of by now:

According to Waite:

“...a Galilean fisherman could not have written what Kummel calls such ‘cultivated Greek’ with ‘many rhetorical devices’ and with all the Old Testament quotations and allusions deriving from the Greek version of these scriptures, not from the Hebrew original.”

[seeker]

Actually you have it a little backwards. The conventional dating of Mark is after the Jewish Revolt that Mark claims to prophesize so 70CE is an earliest date. I agree with you it is probably later and don't worry, nothing supernatural was used in the making of this date. I have seen dates as late as 135CE, the date of the Bar Kochba rebellion.

Mark is considered the earliest of the synoptic gospels because it is the simplest and because while others use the same passages found in Mark there are no passages unique to the other gospels found in Mark. It's typical of fiction writing that later stories are more embellished which is why Mark's lessor detail and more simplistic story line are considered indicative of an earlier work.

[seeker]

By the way, the problem with Acharya's dates is that they assume there were real authors with those names. It was a common practice for authors in those times to use the names of well known figures to lend authority to their works. Matthew, Mark, Like and John are all probably pseudonyms and likely have little in common with the actual people.

[Ishtar]

But it's still based on the idea of prophesy ... when it could (and I'm sure was) written after the event. And once you're writing after an event, who's to say how long after the event it is that you're writing? It could be hundreds of years.

Imo, there is nothing scientific about the dating of Mark earlier to when he is attested by Eusebius.

I'm sorry if I sound a little snappy about this .. and the snappines is not directed at you or Min or probably anyone on this board. I just get really irritated when the Christians demand such firm evidence from anyone questioning anything about their beliefs, and yet come up with a load of cock and bull on their own side that we are meant to swallow without question.

I think even Wiki in accepting that "rationale" for the 70AD date has bent its own normally stringent rules for the presentatiion of evidence.

[Ishtar]

By the way, the problem with Acharya's dates is that they assume there were real authors with those names. It was a common practice for authors in those times to use the names of well known figures to lend authority to their works. Matthew, Mark, Like and John are all probably pseudonyms and likely have little in common with the actual people.

I's sure Acharya is aware of that. She goes into pages and pages about John in that respect. And the quote about the fishermen came from her book. She know they're not real people.

But the gospels are named after certain people, so Eusebius would keep up the lie, eg, in referring to them in the 4th century would use those names. And Luke's dating is based on a real person, the Bishop of Antioch.

[Ishtar]

Mark is considered the earliest of the synoptic gospels because it is the simplest and because while others use the same passages found in Mark there are no passages unique to the other gospels found in Mark. It's typical of fiction writing that later stories are more embellished which is why Mark's lessor detail and more simplistic story line are considered indicative of an earlier work.

That sounds like a description of Marcion's gospel.

Waite again:

The first New Testament that ever appeared was compiled and published by Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of "The Gospel" and "The Apostolicon". No Acts, no Revelations, and but one gospel.

The Apostolicon comprised ten of Paul's epistles: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans (except the 15th and 16th chapters), 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians; arranged in the order here named. This canon was prepared and published shortly after his arrival in Rome; probably about 145 AD. ...Marcion's gospel resembles the gospel of Luke but is much shorter.

Ben Yehoshua says:

"...the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic."

Possibly, the compiler of Mark could have used the Latin version of Marcion's gospel, which Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, which would account for the differences you mentioned.

[seeker]

But it's still based on the idea of prophesy ... when it could (and I'm sure was) written after the event. And once you're writing after an event, who's to say how long after the event it is that you're writing? It could be hundreds of years.

Imo, there is nothing scientific about the dating of Mark earlier to when he is attested by Eusebius.

I'm sorry if I sound a little snappy about this .. and the snappines is not directed at you or Min or probably anyone on this board. I just get really irritated when the Christians demand such firm evidence from anyone questioning anything about their beliefs, and yet come up with a load of cock and bull on their own side that we are meant to swallow without question.

I think even Wiki in accepting that "rationale" for the 70AD date has bent its own normally stringent rules for the presentatiion of evidence.

Wikipedia has a lot of Christian leanings. The phrase 'we know from the bible' shows up there in almost every article.

I don't take your arguments as snappy. The dates could well be off by a couple of centuries if you really think about it.

I know you want to characterize the dating as based on prophecy but the fact is that dating of manuscripts is commonly done by using the latest event referenced as an earliest date

seeker wrote:

Mark is considered the earliest of the synoptic gospels because it is the simplest and because while others use the same passages found in Mark there are no passages unique to the other gospels found in Mark. It's typical of fiction writing that later stories are more embellished which is why Mark's lessor detail and more simplistic story line are considered indicative of an earlier work.

That sounds like a description of Marcion's gospel.

I agree, that is why I usually make the mistake of saying that presumably Marcion used Mark. Conventional history is that he used Luke. Personally I think that the material he used was probably quite different from what we think of now. The Church had lots of reasons to cover up what early believers believed

Waite again:

Quote:

The first New Testament that ever appeared was compiled and published by Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of "The Gospel" and "The Apostolicon". No Acts, no Revelations, and but one gospel.

The Apostolicon comprised ten of Paul's epistles: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans (except the 15th and 16th chapters), 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians; arranged in the order here named. This canon was prepared and published shortly after his arrival in Rome; probably about 145 AD. ...Marcion's gospel resembles the gospel of Luke but is much shorter.

Mark's gospel also resembles Luke but is shorter.

Ben Yehoshua says:

"...the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic."

Possibly, the compiler of Mark could have used the Latin version of Marcion's gospel, which Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, which would account for the differences you mentioned.

You could say this about all of the synoptic bibles. That's one of the reasons I suggested that Christianity's origins probably aren't Jewish.

[john]

All -

I believe what you are looking at is

A very early version of the Iraq WMD con

Viewed through the multiple fogs of history.

Who wouldn't want to control "the Gospel"?

The backalley brawl between

Religious, political, and economic interests,

And the military/industrial hegemony of those times

Were just as intense then as now.

To regard these texts as free of fiction and

Outright manipulation

Is to live in a fool's

- or a believer's - Paradise.

I could spin you a tale of the red of hematite converted to

The red of wine,

The Great Mother converted to the Immaculate conception,

And the use of boats diverted

To walking on water.

Not to mention the Shamanic inverted

To Christian fortune telling,

i.e., the "You Are Guaranteed a Seat in Heaven"

IF you follow the religio/political/economic lockstep.

Yes?

Ad nauseam.

No thanks.



hoka hey


john

[Minimalist]

But the gospels are named after certain people,

Um...not quite. Let's say that certain names were attached to them to give them more credibility or at least name recognition. The Gospel of St Mark sounds a hell of a lot more imposing than The Gospel of Shlomo the Shoe Maker.

I get that all the time when someone sends around an e-mail that says " George Carlin Knows What To Do With Illegal Aliens!" and then, upon checking Snopes.com we quickly find out that George Carlin had nothing to do with the fascistic drivel being put forth in his name. Snopes will usually find some right-wing nutter who was the original author but he has no name recognition so they find a well-known liberal to put forward as the front man. Same idea with the gospels.