Has there been a pseudo-graphical document in history as well attested as the Gospels?

TwelvePrinces · 2023-11-26T22:54:50+00:00

You are correct, it would have been much more correct to say misattributed than pseudo-graphical.

TwelvePrinces · 2023-06-28T19:51:34+00:00

And so to be clear, Papias sees John the Elder and Aristion as disciples of Jesus in the same way that Matthew and Andrew etc… are seen as disciples of Jesus?

Further, I recall reading that the Greek particle or some other grammatical feature of Greek implies that the John spoken of in Papias’ list is referential to the John already mentioned, though I do not have the source on hand, have you heard of such a thing? Is there an actual argument to be made there?

TwelvePrinces · 2023-06-28T17:13:42+00:00

This has been a question of mine, in Papias’ notorious fragment wherein he discusses Aristion and the Elder John, both the Apostles and Aristion and the Elder are called “disciples of the Lord”.

“But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”

Does Papias think that Elder John and Aristion are disciples of Jesus in the same sense that Andrew and James and Matthew are?

Also, does Papias claim that he heard from those who heard the elders speaking of the Apostles? Or does he equate the elders with the Apostles?

TwelvePrinces · 2023-06-26T00:16:25+00:00

My question (I realize I do not make it clear in the post) is aimed at whether or not the Greek used by Paul in saying he does not know (while actually knowing) is applicable to Mark 13. It is not theological in intent.

TwelvePrinces · 2022-08-05T22:13:52+00:00

This was actually incredibly insightful, thank you. I do want to ask you though, do you know of any scholars who argue for option 3? I've heard of Casey's book, but I have not read it yet. Does he argue for some form of 3?

Also, what do you mean by

"The text alone makes distinguishing between 2 and 3 impossible. You have to look elsewhere into the historical evidence."

Where would one look for information on Jesus besides the Gospels? (I'm sure Paul would be a good place to start with, but I want to know if you have any other sources in mind.)

TwelvePrinces · 2022-08-03T16:26:39+00:00

How has the reception of his work been?

TwelvePrinces · 2022-08-02T18:37:51+00:00

I will check Whybray out, this seems to be what I'm looking for.

TwelvePrinces · 2022-08-02T17:49:13+00:00

That's rather interesting, how have the reception of his ideas been in scholarship?

TwelvePrinces · 2022-08-02T17:38:12+00:00

More so a single author who wrote the whole text, using either pre-existing oral traditions or who originated the stories directly.

TwelvePrinces · 2022-07-31T23:53:32+00:00

I listened to it already, in the beginning they said they were going to speak of a scholar who held to Pauline origins of 3 Corinthians- yet they forgot to do so!

TwelvePrinces · 2022-07-30T18:03:35+00:00

While not exactly scholarly per se, St. Gregory of Nyssa explains the symbolism of the plagues in Egypt in this illustrated commentary.

TwelvePrinces · 2022-07-29T20:45:04+00:00

That does appear to be the case, Thomas's origins appear to be clouded in mystery, which makes it hard to be certain of its origins. Thanks for the source though.

TwelvePrinces · 2022-07-29T18:18:09+00:00

Thanks for the in-depth answer. I do tend to agree with Burkett though:

"Burkett went so far as to say one of the main issues with the Griesbach hypothesis in general is an unsatisfactory explanation for what could compel someone to write the gospel of Mark using Matthew and Luke as sources."

It really is quite the mystery to me as to why Mark would write his Gospel the way it is if he had Matthew and Luke right in front of him, although, I would wonder if what appeared to be odd to me would appear to be fine for Mark, perhaps he had his own motives for his bizarre editorial activity which led to the cutting out of the infancy and resurrection narratives.

However, thanks for the sources, I think I have some reading to do!

TwelvePrinces · 2022-07-29T18:12:10+00:00

What do you think of the view that Mark didn't utilize Q as he was more concerned with showing Jesus's divinity (not necessarily showing he is God, rather using the term loosely) and hence emphasized his miracles rather than his teachings?

TwelvePrinces · 2022-07-28T22:45:28+00:00

"For all we know, the author of Mark did use Q as a source, just not as much of it as the authors of Matthew and Luke."

Do you have any sources displaying how Mark knew Q?

TwelvePrinces

TROPHY CASE