https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfirxs_NUcE
One of the few things the Legendary Ben Smith struggled with here was presenting any quality evidence that there was a substantial Gospel narrative before GMark (he was likewise unable to present any random examples from classical writings of Markan like chiasms).
The title alone, "the Preaching of Paul", suggests a writing after all the Synoptic Gospels. So does Peter and Paul being in Rome together.
Joseph
The New Porphyry
JW:Ben Smith responded to this with "I agree":Justin's text also knew the story of the baptism as a story with fire on the water.The idea that the fire motif was suppressed or transformed into "light" makes a lot of sense.Cyprian (or pseudo-Cyprian), On Rebaptism 100.17: 17 There is a concocted book which is inscribed as the Preaching of Paul, in which book, against all the scriptures, you will find Christ even confessing his own sin, who alone failed in nothing at all, and that he was compelled by his own mother Mary almost unwillingly to accept the baptism of John, that likewise, when he was baptized, a fire was seen over the water, which is written in no gospel, and that after so much time Peter and Paul, after the bringing together of the gospel in Jerusalem and the mutual cogitation and the altercation and disposition of matters to be done, finally were in the city (of Rome), as if there first they recognized each other, and certain other things of this nature, absurdly and disgracefully concocted, which you will find all congested in that book.
At the same time, it opens up the question of whether we need to reconsider "Markan priority" as so often conceived. There may be a gospel before it.
Mark doesn't have the fire on the water. And reconstructions of *Ev don't have the baptism at all.
This seems like an important clue to the gospel behind canonical Mark. What is this gospel that begins telling of a baptism with fire? Why are its stories suppressed?
ThisFire Gospel
may be the key to gospel origins.
Fire Gospel One of the few things the Legendary Ben Smith struggled with here was presenting any quality evidence that there was a substantial Gospel narrative before GMark (he was likewise unable to present any random examples from classical writings of Markan like chiasms).
The title alone, "the Preaching of Paul", suggests a writing after all the Synoptic Gospels. So does Peter and Paul being in Rome together.
Ben was really good at always listening with an opening mind to arguments on the other side. The only real evidence he gave was a general observation also noted by spin. That just like the god-awful Highlander trilogy, there can be only one (first Gospel narrative). So the godds are that for any individual Gospel, it was not the original. People, especially CBS, underestimate the weight of general observations, such as most people are not crucified and outside of the Christian Bible as a source there is no evidence that anyone in the first third of the first century in Israel was crucified.1:8
Strong's Greek English Morphology Textual Criticism 1473 ἐγὼ egō I PPro-N1S - 907 ἐβάπτισα ebaptisa baptized V-AIA-1S - 4771 ὑμᾶς hymas you PPro-A2P - 5204 ὕδατι, hydati with water; N-DNS - 846 αὐτὸς autos He PPro-NM3S - 1161 δὲ de however Conj - 907 βαπτίσει baptisei will baptize V-FIA-3S - 4771 ὑμᾶς hymas you PPro-A2P - 1722 ‹ἐν› en with Prep - 4151 Πνεύματι Pneumati [the] Spirit N-DNS - 40 Ἁγίῳ. Hagiō Holy. Adj-DNS καί πυρί][and fire] (see Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:16) P[6th C] 1195 1241 l44m syrh*[7th C]
JW:
For Skeptical Textual Criticism the most important categories of evidence are Theme and Style. Regarding the candidate for originality at the end of 1:8, and fire, there does not appear to be any other verse in GMark that connects with that and specifically "Mark's" use of the word is only Chapter 9 with the unquenchable fire and the hot irony that people in Hell will be "salted"(preserved) with fire. In "Mark's" spiritual diechotomy world it ironically balances/reverses that the holy spirit gives eternal life and whatever is the opposite gives eternal death. Thus no clear theme/style for the use of "fire" here.
The star of the Textual support for fire is "Matthew" and "Luke". But they have a lot of surrounding agreement against GMark which then makes it look like Q is their source for "fire". The other textual support for "fire" can be explained by assimilation to "Matthew" and "Luke".
The Skeptical Critical Commentary thus judges "and fire" as an addition.
Joseph
The New Porphyry
Statistics: Posted by JoeWallack — Sun Jan 26, 2025 4:38 pm