Mark, "Q", Synoptic Problem, Consistency, No more hypotheticals.

[anthonytd103]

Thanks, I was pondering that question today.

[trondreitan]

Thanks for making the video series. One comment: I've read through the synoptic gospels myself, but thought they were rather vague about the theology. Matthew in particular seems to be able to accommodate an Ebionite (Jewish-oriented adopted son of God) theology as well as a more orthodox interpretation, correct? I am picking up differences in details, but for me the overall message seems way too vague in each of them to be called different. Where are these gospels specific about the theology?

[Xoroaster]

@trondreitan The biggest apparent difference is in the treatment of "the Law." Though, that is an excellent question and I need to do a video on that. Mark uses an Apocalyptic pattern. Lot's of repetition, Jesus trying to be incognito, and Jesus being impossible to understand. Mark's Jesus is a "revealing Jesus." Trying to give wisdom, that his Apostles are too dumb to understand, and the Pharisees are incapable of understanding. It's an aspect that I need to explain more.

[trondreitan]

@Xoroaster Thanks, that cleared things up a little. My frustration with the text was that while I noted these patterns, I never quite got *what* it was his Apostles were too dumb to understand. Modern Christianity will give some fashionable answer, but that's no help. (New thought: While I got the impression from the story itself of Jesus as a Jewish renewer ala Ebionite teaching, this stressing of understanding and the lack thereof seems more gnostic, yes?)

[Xoroaster]

@trondreitan Yes. Spirit of Apocalypse, and Sophia, are highly related. Mark stresses Apocalypse. Matthew, Luke, and Marcion, have a slight emphasis on Sophia. Where Matt, Luke, and Marcion simply present Sophia almost in passing, Mark emphasizes the "piercing of Sophia." Jesus is trying to unveil Wisdom.

That's why in Mark's version, he doesn't even try with the Pharisees. The Pharisees are incapable of "understanding." Where the Apostles are capable of understanding, but don't.

[trondreitan]

@Xoroaster Interesting! Hope you will talk more about this later. Thanks again!

[Zeos314]

@Xoroaster I was thinking about this very thing over the last couple days. One thing that kept popping up was, e.g., Luke 9:27, Matthew 16:28, and say Mark 9:1. If these texts were written in mid second century, then why would the authors imply the second coming in the disciples' lifetime?

[Xoroaster]

@Zeos314 The "Kingdom of God" came in 70CE. That is what the Book of Revelation is all about. The early book of Revelation is only about the destruction of the Temple, and the coming of the "New Jerusalem" or "Heaven." According to Revelation, when the Temple was destroyed Heaven was now "open for business."

Significantly later, this book was turned into another version of Apocalypse that hinted at "end times," rather than "Heaven." Revelation was about change, not "end of the world."

[Zeos314]

@Xoroaster "The "Kingdom of God" came in 70CE...."

Ahh. I did listen to your relevation series, but didn't really understand the implication. I find it difficult to follow the ancient's way of thinking, and that gets muddled with my particular variant of evangelical upbringing...

[Xoroaster]

@Zeos314 lol, I have to fight the urge to go evangelical all the time. ;-D

But yeah, and I'm working on a Redacted version of Revelation that will just show the 70 and 71CE versions. The first versions of Revelation simply ended with the Demolition of the Temple, the Opening of Heaven, and the Lifting of the "Curse of Eve." It's Jewish, and positive, compared to the current version. Has an "everything is going to be alright" feel. It's more readable IMO, than the current version.

[apeek7]

@Zeos314 Maybe the author was writing a piece of historical fiction - a made up story that was later co-opted and incorporated into a religion...

[apeek7]

If they were not meant to be consistent - then what were they "meant to be?"

Why were the synoptic gospels written? Why were they so different? Why did they all derive from Marcion? Was Marcion the original “gospel” and Mathew, etc. new offshoots or new cults or whatever you want to call them and then in 185 an ecumenical movement sought to incorporate the major offshoots into a single religion and religious cannon and the synoptic gospels brought together was the result…

[Xoroaster]

@apeek7 Marcion was a very popular gospel. Where, other Gospel ended up being very Esoteric, difficult to remember, etc. Most thought Flesh was a burden or even evil. Which made the religions more esoteric.

On Matt and Mark, I think those are two sides of a coin. Matt sent to the Essenes or more likely Ebionites. Mark an Apocalyptic bridge attempt to bring Marcionites, Essenes, and Ebionites together. And Luke is an attempt to coopt the Marcionite texts, and bring them under one "church."

[apeek7]

@Xoroaster It sounds like Christianity is the result of an ecumenical movement about 185 CE. You had the “mother” religion, Marcionism, (A) and that spawned Mark, A1, and A2 and A3 and then there was John, B. Those together created what we know as Christianity. I wonder if the church leaders looked forward to presenting a single philosophy to the Romans in the hopes eventuality of replacing the pagan Roman gods with their God…

[Xoroaster]

@apeek7 Irenaeus seems to imply that he is doing exactly that. It's difficult to say how many texts Irenaeus rejected, but he ended up choosing four based on Enoch's Cosmology of the "four winds." It's the first known time that all four texts were together.

And Irenaeus hints that the previous owners of the John, Matt, and "Luke" Gospels were all types of "heretics." Doesn't build confidence in the "one theology" concept. There are hundreds of different groups by the time of Irenaeus.

[George4943]

Maybe I am looking at it funny, but aren't you saying that Q (the unknown Source) is, in fact, Marcion?

[Xoroaster]

@George4943 Q was supposed to be a "sayings Gospel." Sort of like Thomas. Not a lot of story, just sayings. So, most scholars would not recognize Marcion as Q, simply because that was not the original intent of the proposed Q-document.

On the other hand, yeah, Marcion works quite well in the Q position. I think it's more significant that the original Q concept, in that it probably has priority over Mark as well. However, it is all semantics really. ;-D

[NoFaithNoPain]

I feel cheeky for asking, but since this is out of left field, some sort of textual example to help visualise why Q is not needed would help here.

[Xoroaster]

@NoFaithNoPain I'll give it a try. I may end up giving a detailed breakdown of Mark. Mark is very peculiar. There are three overriding themes, and one smaller theme. They all seem to be intertwined, with no ability to remove one theme, without destroying the text. It's far more complicated than the other gospels, less homogenous, but still internally consistent. It is a very interesting text.

[NoFaithNoPain]

@Xoroaster I just skimmed through it. Its a rather simplistic horrible little text. I find it hard to understand how anyone can make a beief out of this. I know when I see embellishment to try and make things look good. i.e. "And he was astonished, with a great astonishment" The sentences and apragraphs don't hang together, the archaic nature of the language is totally overdone t give it authority. "And the chicken was choked, with a great choking".Mark -> Bin, sorted.

[Xoroaster]

@NoFaithNoPain I like that "overdone to give it authority." One thing about Mark, is that he a pattern of "Apocalypse", or Unveiling. Where Jesus seems to want to be hidden, and he seems to attempt to "Unveil" the "hidden mystery," that neither the Apostles nor anyone else can figure out. The best example I think, is the "Feeding of the 4000." Compared to Matthew's version, the Mark version has an Apocalyptic explanation. Very odd stuff.

[Jaybird196]

Around 6:31, do say the crudeness of Mark? I Just wanna be sure I heard what I thought I did :) . Like W0rstfest, I am very much looking forward to this book. Not just for my sake, but others. I honestly think this can help people.

[Xoroaster]

@Jaybird196 Hey thank you!

Yeah, someone had mentioned the "crude" way in which Mark is written. I think it was designed to be exactly that way. The "crudeness" of Mark, is strategic I think. It boils down to a couple things that Papias says. Just a few Papias fragments, I think, throws all kinds of doubt on the design of Mark. ;-D

[Jaybird196]

@Xoroaster You're very welcome. A suggestion, if you haven't thought of it. Make sure to cite sources in a bibliography. This can be helpful to people in the event people try to say to someone, " Oh, you're just makin' this stuff up" . I know it won't phase everyone, but against reasonable people it can very powerful.

Papias, huh? Thanks for clarifying the "crudeness" point. I didn't know if that was your personal opinion, or someone else's (not that it can't be ;) ) .

[Xoroaster]

@Jaybird196 Yeah, I know that a bibliography is supposed to be made out of my footnotes in the book. However, I might extract it myself so that I can post the whole thing. I've tried to post texts or links when I remember, but that doesn't always work.

Yeah, Papias says some very odd things about Mark. Papias seems to argue "for" Mark's authenticity based on an error. His statement can be proven inaccurate. It makes little sense, unless, Papias wrote Mark. I'll have to talk about Papias.

[Hereticbooks]

I think I mentioned the theoretical "Q" some time ago, and it's not because I believe this text exists or existed. But I think that certain scholars have used the hypothetical "Q" NOT to explain away inconsistencies, but to explain the consistencies that make the texts "synoptic."

[Xoroaster]

@Hereticbooks Yeah, I didn't say that right. I confused that in the video, pitfall of doing it without a script. The Q problem is that it attempts to do both. Q attempts to bridge the gap, explaining consistencies against Mark. Of course, that still leaves the problems of the inconsistencies of Mark/Matt/Luke which somehow people hope Q will explain in a reasonable manner. Q is a bizarre idea all around. And Matt, I don't see how anything Q-ish can explain Matt. Long story. ;-D

[deepashtray]

Would it be accurate to assume that the differences between the gospels indicates that in early Christianity each gospel was intended to be the base of separate Christian Churches, and not intended to be unified?

[Xoroaster]

@deepashtray Yep. And most of it pertains to aspects of Jesus, and how Jesus deals with certain issues. The overriding themes, are largely contrary. Mark's Jesus is highly complicated and Apocalyptic. Matt is mostly Jewish. Luke is about the movement from Jewish to Non-Jewish. John is very crude Essene theology. Marcion is a crude version of Luke, without the early Jewish emphasis. They're all different, representing different theologies.

[ketsan]

So would that make the Gospel of Peter a trasitional point between the Gnostic.astrological Christianity and the Catholic Church's physical jesus?

[Xoroaster]

@ketsan The Gospel of Peter is very interesting. Unfortunately, cobbling that together is not easy. I would suggest that Peter was at one time closer to John's theology. However, the Apocalyptic/Esoteric/Astrologi­cal thread probably had an effect on Mark more than any text. I think Peter may very well be early, and it may be either a bridge theology of sorts between John and Marcion, or at the very least, it could be a competing theology between the two. Maybe 110CEish. Maybe very early.

[gettingolder2]

Studying the bible, can surely get deep and strange.

[Xoroaster]

@gettingolder2 Yes it can. ;-D

[w0rstfest]

I hope the book is coming along, I would like to pre-order. So much information,it is difficult for me to wrap my head around. Hopefully seeing it in text will aid the digestion, I know you are on the right track, and I'm still hanging on. Thank you for the work. 

[Xoroaster]

@w0rstfest Hey thank you! In the next few weeks, I'm hoping to get some indication of what the next step is in the entire process. I'm a publishing novice, but apparently it's a lot bigger process than I originally thought. ;-D

[yrtemmyscirtemmysa]

@Xoroaster Do you have proof that these texts were never intended to be consistent?

[Xoroaster]

@yrtemmyscirtemmysa Other than they are in fact inconsistent, and they were not canonized together until about 185CE, while at the same time hundreds of other texts were deemed heretical, No.

That is far more evidence that simply assuming that Catholicism dates to Peter/Paul, and somebody screwed up. So, I'm not really sure what to think of that question.