Timeline of the Hebrew Peoples between 10th c BCE to 1st c CE

DISPERSION OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS

FORWARD DISCLOSURE OF DISPOSITIONS

I wanted to note that Ebionite is very much like Gnostic, as a term. You won't find a reliably tangible, "who", but we can follow a, "what".

It's best understood as a term we use to refer to an ideological culture, and not to go much beyond this too much more.

TRACKING OF THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS, EBIONITES & HYPOTHETICAL DISPERSION OF THE EARLY GOSPELS

Background to the Thread

This came up in the Historical Jesus thread vicariously, and some questions came up regarding some maps and theories that I was putting forward, so I decided that it would be best to explain the background of where those theories came from.

I produced a map of gospel dispersion, and the question came regarding how this concept was formulated.

What follows is not solid fact.

It is an ongoing hypothetical enterprise of mine.

Why the Ebionite Text?

Primarily because it offers some extra Biblical comparison to constructs of the Gospels and offers an entry point into tracking data by reference.

The Ebionite text, then, serves as something similar to the examination of Short and Long Mark.

It is not asserted as to the dating of the Ebionites; it is only of interest that relatively at the same time as the textual copies of the Gospel texts which we have survived to us today that the sect is noticed and mentioned. Thereby if we accept that the Gospels were themselves not produced at the time of our extant physical copies, then too it can be reasoned that the same could be accurately stated regarding the Ebionite text; that it predated indoctrination by the sect.

Starting Point

A summary (as the full listing is extensive) of my starting point is decently paraphrased in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I do not mean that I defer to the Catholic Encyclopedia; only that they summarize a lot of data that I do use as a starting point decently enough for explanation here).

Quote:

The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (Against Celsus V.61) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Church History III.27). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity.

Quote:

Their Gospel. St. Irenæus only states that they used the Gospel of St. Matthew. Eusebius modifies this statement by speaking of the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was known to Hegesippus (Eusebius, Church History IV.22.8), Origen (Jerome, Illustrious Men 2), and Clem. Alex. (Stromata II.9.45). This, probably, was the slightly modified Aramaic original of St. Matthew, written in Hebrew characters. But St. Epiphanius attributes this to the Nazarenes, while the Ebionites proper only possessed an incomplete, falsified, and truncated copy thereof (Adv. Haer., xxix, 9).

Quote:

They exerted only the slightest influence in the East and none at all in the West, where they were known as Symmachiani. In St. Epiphanius's time small communities seem still to have existed in some hamlets of Syria and Palestine, but they were lost in obscurity.

source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

This gives us a starting point.

We are looking, mostly, for something that is like the Gospel of Matthew, but appears to be formatted like short-form and long-form Mark (i.e. lacking virgin birth, and possibly lacking the exaggerated long ending of Matthew).

Preliminary Testing of Matthew

I needed to test the validity of the possibility of borrowing from Matthew to see if the endeavor is even sound to rely on Matthew, as if Matthew is far too late to be used by such an early group as the Ebionites, then the concept of comparison by the above citations can only be superficial and not possibly actually textually related.

The test logic runs that if Matthew is old enough to have been possibly shorter at some point, and the later expanded and from which later "Church Fathers" (using the term lightly) would consider the text heretical for lacking as much content as their received texts, then Matthew should produce a range of textual variants within itself more than most other texts and possibly as equal to the variations of Mark's texts if it (short-form Matthew) is of the relative same time and pattern of employment (two variations; like Mark).

The consideration proposes two main motives for variation - age and popularity (either good or bad popularity).

The longer a text exists as a popular text, the more variations it will subsequently contain - even simple and minor errors.

Test Results:

For simplicity (at the time) for data computation; I used the following source for data query.

http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/important.htm

http://www.dtl.org/alt/main/variants.htm

However, this can also be noted in Wikipedia [source] (which I may eventually flip to for the data; the other site had simple and clean line breaks that made it easy for an excel sheet to recognize each new variant entry; wiki's entries are not always computationally so clean and would take pre-formatting before tabulation)

The results of tabulating variants are as follows:

(Important Variants are word/line omissions, while Variants are grammatical differences and typos)

[For those who saw these graphs in the other thread, I corrected the spelling error of Revelation and corrected the data gap of Romans on Important Variants before posting the images here]

Preliminary Test Conclusion

This data offers confidence that Matthew may be looked at as it has high error counts similar to Mark and can therefore be a potential for being old enough to have existed in short-form and later added onto.

Logical Test for the Possibility of "Short-Form" Matthew having a prologue and/or epilogue added onto it:

The next test for potential is whether or not Matthew shows any sign of deviation in parts that may suggest variants in hands in prologue and epilogue to the main body of the text.

First, I'll focus on the Prologue and then the Epilogue.

For this test, for the purposes involved, a grammatical comparison between the Prologue and the Body is used.

The concept assumes that if there is merit to this idea, then there should be a deviation between grammatical forms in these sections.

Identity of Prologue and Body beginning boundary:

Because the Ebionites are not cited as denying John the Baptist or the Baptismal scene, yet deny (at least) the Virgin Birth narrative, a comparison of Matthew Chapter 3's grammar and Matthew Chapter 1:18 through Chapter 2 is conducted.

The simple method of grammatical "hand" is compared in the attribution of how the "Holy Spirit" is referred to, as this is a critical theological value that requires rendering as per the theological sympathy of the "hand" of the author.

Matthew Chapter 1:20 (in the Greek) reads:

Quote:

ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ' ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου

The grammatical identification here is πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου.

πνεύματός is a noun in the genitive singular neuter.

ἐστιν is a verb in the present tense [missing voice] Indicative mood 3rd person.

ἁγίου is an adjective in the genitive singular neuter.

For comparison, we'll take Chapter 3:11 where Jesus is baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν: ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι: αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί

The grammatical identification here is πνεύματι ἁγίῳ

πνεύματι is a noun in the dative singular neuter.

ἁγίῳ is an adjective in the dative singular neuter.

The difference in manner of selection for the "Holy Spirit" is novel to note, as πνεύματι appears in Matthew 3 through 22, but not before or after, and ἁγίῳ is found in Chapter 3 and 24.

Meanwhile, πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου is in Chapter 1 only.

Further of note, πνεύματός appears in Chapters 4-12 as a reference to a more generalized "spirit" and is always preceded by article τοῦ, while in Chapters 1 and 28 πνεύματός is being used as a proper title in terms that cite concepts of "Son and Holy Spirit" or, as is the case in Chapter 1, lacks an article τοῦ treatment that are expressed in the body of Matthew in its use of πνεύματός.

As such, it stands possible for a different hand to have been in play for Chapter 1-2 compared to Chapter 3 onward up to some boundary of the possible Epilogue.

Identity of Epilogue and Body ending boundary:

The identity of a possible Epilogue boundary is a bit more difficult as, unlike the Virgin Birth notice, there is no clear detail cited by any commentators regarding how it differed from Matthew.

That said, based on the same grammatical issue cited above, there can be offered a proposition of at least Chapter 28 (though there is debate about some chapters prior to Chapter 28 as well; however, I cannot verify those standings personally).

Short-Form Matthew Test Conclusion:

From grammatical comparison of critical theological terminology, it remains possible for the theory of a short-form Matthew to possibly predate long-form Matthew.

I have referred to this theoretical form as, "proto-Matthew", elsewhere.

Here, I will refer to it as, "short-form Matthew", so to not bias the thought process with implications of inherent predating.

Anthropological Demographic Considerations

A survey of cultural indications and possibilities.

Considerations of Mark

Matthew is often compared to Mark, as being similar to Mark, yet embellished.

The interesting question becomes a matter of why early commentators would compare the Ebionite text to that of a truncated Matthew, and not to that of Mark.

The difference may be a matter of demographic split in an early grouping of religious adherents.

To summarize (using the Catholic Encyclopedia again for simplicity of expression):

Quote:

Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy. These Ebionite Gnostics differed widely from the main schools of Gnosticism, in that they absolutely rejected any distinction between Jehovah the Demiurge, and the Supreme Good God.

Mark has been noted as carrying within it Gnostic tonalities regarding the Suffering Savior image and Hidden Knowledge implications; contrary to this, Matthew is quite a bit more expressive in being overt and damning peoples for not adhering to the obvious.

Gnostic followings are tied and related to Antioch and North of Antioch.

What we have cited for the Ebionites is that they were mostly Palestinian in origin and later fled the Judean area.

There lies a reasonable possibility that the difference between Short-Form Mark (the earlier form of Mark) and short-form Matthew is one of sectarian difference of this cited split of what became muddled and labeled as "Ebionite" (there's some controversy over the name, but it serves an historical reference label of tenet followings rather than explicitly groups that directly called themselves as such).

The non-Gnostic Ebionite diversion would likely not have followed the Gnostic travel North to Antioch as there is no such mention of these groups by the Antioch groups, nor do we see Pauling texts struggling with such figures in the many citations of groups that cause frustration in Galatia; nor do they reach West, unlike Gnostic "Mark-ian" followings who eventually arrive to the West in long-form Mark and may (without any current method of verification) be the group of which frustrated Galatians.

As such, this would leave us with the idea that the non-Gnostic group may very well have traveled Southwest out of Judea more towards Alexandria than Antioch.

Considerations of Luke

Luke is then where we turn next for a demographic consideration through inference.

Luke is very well polished and unlike either Mark or Matthew in the talent involved in the text.

It has been noted that Luke carries a link to Mark, but it is also noted that Luke carries within it tangents that are only shared between Luke and Matthew and not with Mark (which has caused the formation of the "Q" document theory; a theory that is becoming less accepted as time continues to fail to produce any direct evidence of a Q document aside from the theoretical proposition of an unknown document of an unknown peoples in an unknown region).

Due to the grammatical and literary talent of Luke, as well as the deeply Hellenistic prose and narrative story telling, Luke can make sense as an origin around the Athenian region where concepts such as "Logos" were very prevalent and around which schools were available with connections to Alexandria.

Reflection of Conclusions Against Known Quandries

If we theorize that Mark became long-form from running into the Asia Minor (the John/Revelation/Daniel apocalypse group), and that Luke received long-form Mark and not short-form Mark, and that Luke received long-form Matthew from being in contact with Alexandrian academia trade, and theorize that the John group in Asia Minor ripped off Luke (terribly I might add, as their grammar is incredibly inferior to Luke, and at times shows clear signs of stitching one section visually copied to another visually copied section with a section of inferior grammar to either section being stitched together) then this would account for the divergence from John from Matthew, Mark and Luke, and would account for the "Q" like isolated similarities of Luke to Matthew, as well as the isolated comparisons of Luke to Mark.

This would make sense if short-form Mark moved North with the "Gnostic Ebionite" movement, and then when moving West to the coast of Asia Minor became long-form Mark through the John group, meanwhile short-form Matthew moved south with the "non-Gnostic Ebionite" group who vanished quickly, but whose text was acquired into Alexandria whereby it was embellished with more Hellenistic tones than Hebrew tones (prologue and epilogue) borrowing from regional traditions of the Egyptian mysticism mythology which were popular in Hellenistic society at the time, then it would appear to us today as if we were missing a document like the theorized "Q" document as long-form Matthew and long-form Mark would not have had contact with each other until meeting up around the Athenian region comprised by the author of Luke.

The visual outline of this would look something like the below final map:

The maps below do not continue on into the culminating canons of the various orthodox churches, but it does lay the foundation for those eventual deviating groups.

The path of travel theorized in the final map is based on all of the above considerations in this writing, as well as the "hot spots" of proto-orthodox Christian groups and known primary trade routes of the same time period.

Here is a map of proto-orthodox Christian groupings:

Here is a map of the same era's trade routes:

And here's an overlay of what I described above on the trade map, but with the proto-orthodox Christian group maps in mind (as well as the content, grammar, and structure of the texts over time themselves):

Final Comments

Personally, I am so far satisfied that the theory outlined above shows enough merit to continue working towards a recreation of the commented, yet lost, Ebionite text by basing it off of Matthew starting with Chapter 3 and stopping at no later than Chapter 28.

Considering the divergence in perspective clearly noted by commentators of this text from the impressively supernatural flare of long-form Matthew, and considering the rigid Hebrew nature of the non-Gnostic Ebionite group per the reports of them by commentators, my current (slow) conjectural recreation work is not only just an exercise of chopping off everything except for Chapter 3 and 28 and calling it completed.

Instead, I also am working on re-translating the implied cultural meanings of every aspect of the narrative with a bias against supernatural interpretations of the lines and instead am looking for possible idioms and metaphors common to the Hebrew culture that would sympathize with the Ebionite group from what we know of them.

It is a form of "poetic license", yes, and I cannot claim that what work I translate is "authoritative" as it is clearly conjecture.

However, it aims to offer a possibility of interpritation that is rooted in Hebrew cultural ideals and meanings and does so from a basis of (forgive the pun) "What Would The non-Gnostic Ebionites Do"?

As an example of what kind of renditions are sometimes produced from this exercise, I'll show one section (that is still under construction, admittedly) that is Matthew 4:1-12.

It should be kept in mind that the below is a conjectural translation that aims to not only attend to grammar (as is often times not attended to in many standard translations), but also to attend to cultural contexts while at the same time aims to remove as much supernatural divinity from the figure as possible so to attempt to marry Matthew into the offensive non-divine (enough) Ebionite text as cited by the various commentators.

Theoretical Reconstruction of the Lost Ebionite Text Chapter 2:1-12 (Matthew 4:1-12).

Then the Jehoshoua departed into the desolate space of the desert under a strong force of spirit from within, to have examined under his accusing [1], and to abstain from meat and drink, other than water, spiritually in grace for a period of days as a personal trial for renewal [2]. He did this even before the time of sleep. He eventually hungered.

Indeed, it had came the examining having had spoken himself, “if a son you are that is of the divine, then you have had spoken so that these stones their breads may have been made.”

He but concludes, speaking, “The Law never places bread alone to have a life worth living; that man instead, upon each and every thing the living speaks, is departing through the mouth of the divine.”

Then takes with himself this slander unto the sacred city, indeed he stood himself upon the highest point of the temple, where the Judges rule [3], and he speaks himself, “If a son you are that is of the divine, having had thrown yourself beneath the Law [4], then since these messengers of himself will command through you, (then) indeed upon their agency lift up yourself, that never you may have struck toward a stone the foot of yours [5].”

Declaring repeatedly, himself the Jehoshua, again, “The Law is written never to put to test, the highest authority that is the divine of yours!”

[6]

Furthermore, he takes himself his slander unto a mountain high beyond measure; indeed to expose himself all this authority to power of this world and this judgment of herself - the land.

And speaking himself, “These things (the authority of Abraham [7]) to you, the whole [8], will receive if (you) (humble yourself) [9] honoring me (as you do a priest) [10].”

Then speaking himself the Jehoshua, “Depart from me my adversary [11]! The Law for the supreme authority that (is) of your divine will be your reverence, for himself alone; serve.”

While forsaking himself the slander, then appeared messengers that approached and served their charged message to him. Hearing then that John had been arraigned, He departed for Galilee

[1] Often rendered as "devil", the word is an adjective in the genitive singular masculine, and not a proper noun.

[2] 40 days/nights is an idiom of time of completion, especially if under examination or test of oneself (or a people)

[3] the highest point of the temple can be metaphorical for the highest authority of the temple

[4] throwing beneath the Law is to be bound under the law; a servant of it

[5]”Do not strike your foot on a stone” is a cultural idiom that refers to being quick; not to stumble as you walk or run by striking your foot on a stone.

As seen once before in Psalms 91 when it is referenced for speed among the blessings asked for in the song, “Upon their palms will they carry you so not to strike your foot on a stone.”

[6] the absence of any further action indicates no fault to be found, or that the highest authority of the Temple had nothing to comment on this awkward intrusion into the courts, as there was no plaintiff except for this figure who came and charged himself without clear citation of offense, nor witness.

[7] [8] This can be a coy idiom as the Hebrew peoples were themselves the living authority of Abraham by blood, and therefore, by technicality, already had access to their god without requiring direct hierarchical seeking of authority to act on their behalf unto their god. To give "these things to you the whole" is to give to the people what they already have (authority).

[9] [10] the form of honor being expressed is that one gives humbly to a priest, this could continue the coy idiom and double-speak as the authority was inherent, yet the comments the figure is making unto their self refer to giving back this open access of the authority by shifting power of hierarchy to this figure rather than other priests.

[11] the adversary is personal, and not a proper noun; it is in the vocative so it is being said to his thoughts as an intrusion

----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

This is the work I slowly pick away at.

I cannot claim authority over the matter in a means of conclusive fact.

It is more-so a representation as best as I can accomplish for what I think may make sense considering the context of information discussed above.

Regardless of fruitfulness of the final outcome, the process has been, and continues to be, rather fascinating and educational.

TRACING THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE TRADITION

---

SUMMARY OF BASIC REFERENCE MATERIAL

---

My input will rely on my dispersion position and be influenced from those considerations.

This position regarding my dispersion hypothesis is outlined and reasoned in the thread: Hypothetical Recreation of the Lost Ebionite Text

For quick reference in this post, I'm linking in the final map which outlines the gross estimate of dispersion given the considerations in my hypothesis:

Equally of use for quick reference will be this map which shows the general clustering of the early Christian communities:

---

END OF SUMMARY OF BASIC REFERENCE MATERIAL

---

IN-THREAD CITATIONS

---

The following comments from this thread (Proper Context of the Pericope Adulterae) are highlighted to briefly summarize which considerations I'm being asked to reflect upon given the above:

Originally Posted by pakeha

I found this little paper

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

The author mentions

Quote:

The PA is not found in the Eastern witnesses to the Diatessaron of Tatian (the Arabic Harmony, and the Syriac commentaries of Ephrem).

It is however found in all the Western Diatessaron witnesses (Fuldensis, Heliand, Liege Harmony, Pepysian Harmony), here at different positions.

It therefore appears probable that the PA was not in the original Diatessaron,

but has been added early, perhaps already in the late 2nd CE to the Western, Latin branch of the Gospel harmony.

It has been suggested that it was taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

So now we have three possible sources for the PA: Luke, Mark and Hebrews.

Originally Posted by eight bits

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Originally Posted by pakeha

The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus

Chris Keith

Although consistently overlooked or dismissed, John 8.6, 8 in the Pericope Adulterae is the only place in canonical or non-canonical Jesus tradition that portrays Jesus as writing. After establishing that John 8.6, 8 is indeed a claim that Jesus could write, this book offers a new interpretation and transmission history of the Pericope Adulterae. Not only did the pericope’s interpolator place the story in John’s Gospel in order to highlight the claim that Jesus could write, but he did so at John 7.53–8.11 as a result of carefully reading the Johannine narrative. The final chapter of the book proposes a plausible socio-historical context for the insertion of the story.

Originally Posted by pakeha

What we do know, is that the PA was circulating in the 2nd century in the West, but not the East.

Have you seen any explanations for that difference in distribution?

---

END OF IN-THREAD CITATIONS

---

GENERAL POSITION I WILL TAKE REGARDING THE POSITION OF PA IN GOSPELS:

I will be taking the thread's position of the PA existing in Mark, Luke, John, and the Gospel of the Hebrews and answering the question in regards to Western and Eastern Orthodox tradition variations in like fashion.

---

GENERAL CITATIONS

---

I will be pulling a few citations to aid as well, which may be familiar to those already engaged in the discussion:

[Quotes will post above citation url]

Quote:

Te PA originally would have been part of the Gospel of Mark and would have beensituated after the ﬁrst attack by the High Priests, the scribes and the elders, question-ing the authority of Jesus (Mark 11.27-12.12). Luke would have adopted it in his own work and would likewise have placed it after the ﬁrst conﬂict of Jesus with the same Jewish leaders mentioned in Mark (Luke 20.1-19). Because of the moral strictness thatprevailed at the end of the ﬁrst century, the PA would have been eradicated together with the end of the preceding pericope both from the Gospel of Mark and the work of Luke. For 20 or 30 years, the PA would have been freely transmitted, with the twoprimitive archetypes mutually inﬂuencing each other and giving rise to more textualvariants than any other document in the N. Gradually, as the churches collectedtogether the four canonical gospels, the PA would have been inserted in diﬀerentplaces of the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Luke. Most of the communities thatdecided to reinsert it, would have done so in the Gospel of John.

http://www.academia.edu/1515827/The_...fold_Tradition

Quote:

The Eastern Orthodox Church uses a New Testament based upon the Byzantine type text, meaning it includes John 7:53-8:11. The Syrian Orthodox and Maronite Churches, have never included John 7:53-8:11; their translation is based on Peshitta manuscripts that did not have it from antiquity.

http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm

Quote:

This leaves part three of the test... Was it recognized by all of God's church, east and west? Papias was in the area of modern Turkey, in the Eastern Church, yet it appears that this pericope first circulated mostly in the Western church, perhaps carried there at an early date by an influential traveler. It's acceptance in the Western Church became widespread and indeed virtually universal in the centuries which followed. In this, it deserved consideration and acceptance by the whole church within the test. Though its acceptance was fragmentary in the Eastern Church, it increased throughout the centuries, certainly taking longer than the acceptance of whole books, but it did gain that acceptance in all but some very small branches of the Eastern Church End Note 3. I believe that this qualifies as acceptance of the church, as a majority of the church, East and West, did accept and include the passage

http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm

The map at the beginning is described as flowing in dispersion as follows:

Quote:

From the Hypothetical Recreation of the Lost Ebionite Text thread.

---

END OF GENERAL CITATIONS

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

---

We will start with the Gospel of the Hebrews (GH), so mentioned as having the account lightly.

Then we will examine why there may be confusion over Mark including or not including the PA, how John would have generated its variation, the confusion over Luke including or not including the PA, why Matthew would not have this tangent, and why the West grew more quickly with the PA tradition than in the East (who did eventually accept it, mostly).

In the Ebionite hypothesis I drafted, I outlined how the Gnostic strand of "Ebionites" would have gone North from Judea rather than South.

We can infer this to be the case from the close tie between Antioch and Gnostic traditions (I do not claim here that Antioch is or was Gnostic, only that we can determine a close relationship in proximity between Gnostics and Antioch; given the disputes between them at the least).

We hear of nothing regarding the Gnostics in such regard around Alexandria, though we do eventually find many Gnostic books hidden away from the Alexandrian library which eventually were found in the Nag Hammadi library.

I must, in good conscience, briefly tangent to explain how a claim of not having Gnostics in Alexandrian areas while finding the Gnostic texts in the area are compatible views to hold.

We do not really have early conversations and disputes regarding Gnostics in Alexandrian related areas.

The Coptic church of Alexandria does hold Mark as their founder, and the Gospel of Mark is considered to be Gnostic sympathetic (meaning: Gnostic groups would be likely to use Mark as it did not outline concepts that were counter to Gnostic ideals), but the Coptic church of Alexandria does not appear to have founded itself on Gnostic concepts, nor did they appear to have as considerable issue with the group as the Antioch region clearly did.

We can note, however, that in the later years of the Gnostic movement, they were essentially run out of favor, and would be in need of retreat. As such, it is entirely possible for some to have ran off to Alexandria (if you can't be near Athens, then Alexandria would be your next best place for the educated and those who value knowledge) and attempted to hide their texts there for safe keeping. It is possible that the texts once resided in the Library of Alexandria (we don't know), but either they never did, or they were removed and stored secretly at some point until the 20th c CE discovered them.

So this is how these views can be held at once without conflict.

In exiting this tangent, we should note here that most Coptic manuscripts (e.g. African based following) lack John 7:53-8:11.

This is useful to note, as the dispersion hypothesis I outlined suggests that Matthew variants mostly moved south through Alexandrian areas and reached to Athens by way of the sea between Alexandria and Athens; skipping any need to mix with John on the way to meeting Luke.

With the tangents addressed, we move back to GH.

GH moved north to some small extent with the Gnostics, but at some point it was mostly (appears) dropped and Mark became the more favored interest.

This may have been from the time in Antioch; I am not at this time in a position to create a fully educated hypothesis for the motive.

GH appears to have taken more favor in the southern movement along the southern Judean belt, where we find citation of the non-Gnostic (favoring traditional Hebrew following of the Law) "Ebionite" groups where the text is compared in citation as being akin to Matthew.

Ignoring Matthew's migration across northern Egypt, we then continue to examine the trail of Mark going north, having the GH drop out from popular favor for unknown reasons.

Mark, at this point, is short-form (dark blue on the map).

Long-form Mark (light-blue on the map) appears to have emerged as the text moved further north and ran into the John groups.

We can somewhat see this in Tatian, who includes a long-form Mark in his Diatessaron; with attention noted that Tatian was of the Assyrian branch in the East, and died roughly around 185 CE.

This places a long-form Mark within his region (Assyria), which is east of the Mark dispersion on the map I displayed (this is reasonable, as the map attempts to capture the earliest movements, and not the movements of the texts after further mixing; meaning, we can induce that Tatian was working from a copy of Mark after it had moved into the north and been increased in length).

Before Titian's copy, short-form Mark then wraps around and runs into John groups (light green on the map) over in Asia Minor.

Asia Minor is where we have John; though I don't think we have "John" just yet developed when Mark first hits.

Mark mixes in these cultures and gains in length and drops the Gnostic sympathy culturally even further (we don't see John sympathizing much with Gnostic concepts, and the long-form Mark seems bent on removing any doubt as to what happened after the crucifixion, which would remove the option for conjecture, or variation on interpretation).

A simple line from Wikipedia summarizes some useful information:

Quote:

The Catholic NAB translation includes the footnote: "[9–20] This passage has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

This balances against the outline just provided; there is a relationship of sympathy between John and long-form Mark regarding the ending (note that the long-form Mark does not aid Matthew, nor does Matthew aid long-form Mark - agreeing with the proposition that Matthew was cut off from Mark for a time).

These deviations and textual disagreements tend to all take place within this region in and around modern day Turkey.

We can now focus on Luke.

Luke is so well written in prose and grammar, with regards to the Greek.

To the point that the following is noted about the text:

Quote:

Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as "the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature."

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

It is of further note to not dismiss the following either:

Quote:

The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[19] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read.

With this in mind, and looking around the cultural maps of this era, Athens plainly arrives in our vision as the most likely candidate for a general location to pin-point as influential in this texts production, as Athens (and the regions around it) is the Ivy League academic center of Greek culture within the region.

Luke contains counterparts of Matthew and Mark, but not much with John; oddly, John does of Luke.

This, for now, satisfies Luke, as there is nothing more to really address regarding Luke for the moment.

This leaves us with John, the late arrival of the four texts.

John, in brief, can be said to take Luke, pepper in Mark, and rely on an apparently already present Daniel tradition (which is easy to have accomplished with the Septuagint already well within creation by this point).

The Asia Minor groups are also the groups which produced for us Revelation.

As a result, we can understand that this group was quite attracted to the dramatic and "glamorous" ("flare"), and were extremely idealized in their views.

John fails us none at all in maintaining this consistency and leaves all the other gospels behind in its wealth of epic and dramatic imagery.

John is also filled with multiple variations of grammar; looking more like a collage of sections stitched together and amended than like a single narrative set out to be crafted (like Luke, for example).

As such, we have for us a position where we see John as the center-post group for the PA story, and a people who are very heavily interested in pulling information in from wherever they can get information, and do not appear to concern themselves over contextual application of sections they cite from other texts.

The sections are simply lifted out, placed in, and added onto with (at times, reckless) negligence to authenticity of the voice.

While I cannot prove the proposition, it would strike me as not at all extraordinary to imagine that a GH strand could have been picked up, and that the PA could have inspired the John group whereby they would have added the section in, and added onto it in their own flare with typical neglect to anthropological sense of the material.

This, it can be said, is what could easily account for the oddly absent information in the John PA section.

We have no idea what Jesus was writing.

The GH would not have listed what Jesus would have been writing, as it would have been in the hands of Gnostic "Ebionites" who would understand that no one is permitted to write the powerful words of Jesus' magic into the text, and would instead rely on oral secret rituals to inform each other of the material.

However, the John group would have no knowledge of this and (apparently) were far too uneducated to do the hard work of research we find the authorship of Luke clearly conducting.

However, the John group is quite a bit more interested in morals rather than secret powers and rituals.

As such, the writing would have seemed to this group as benign to their interests; they may have even assumed the writing action was simply what happened to be going on at the time without ever once considering the action odd or unique in any manner.

This proposes an hypothesis for the starting points of GH and John, but it doesn't answer the question of Luke and Mark regarding the PA.

Why is it that there is confusion over whether or not Luke and Mark may have or may have not had the PA tale?

I believe that it can be suggested, given all of the above, that the John group clearly valued the PA story as the moral instruction within it is well within this group's primary focus and interest in the Jesus story.

It would surprise me none at all if this group of peoples were to have introduced the PA tangent into their copies of Mark and Luke, which were clearly influences upon John.

This seems to me to be a reasonable induction.

As that process would have occurred, there would have been strong resistances by the surrounding Luke and Mark groups to the John groups left and right, as those groups already had their versions; leaving the John group a bit isolated in this respect - squeezed between to other variations.

The East (Eastern Orthodox) didn't really deny the PA iteration, but the far East (not Eastern Orthodox strictly speaking, but rather very closely related) of this region (as noted above in the citations) definitely did.

Meanwhile, in the West (Rome), this region would have been receiving Matthew from Alexandria (possibly short-form Mark as well), Luke from Athens, John and (long-form) Mark from Asia Minor.

Since John would have came in "part-and-parcel", and the West would have received Mark after the East, the West would be in a position to be less resistant to the PA tradition; especially since concepts like the PA are popular literature juxtapositions in Roman fiction, where adultery was picking up some social relationship with the social rise of women's independence movements which were taking place.

Over in the East, this cultural "Hellenistic punk" (we'll call it that) movement was not sympathized, nor did it even really exist.

Areas within modern day Turkey at this time were still very "traditional" (save for those excitable "weirdos" over in Asia Minor).

In this, we have our potential solution.

The reasons are many, but the bottom line of why was there a PA in the West and not in the East comes down to dispersion routes and cultural differences in social revolutions at the time.

Originally Posted by pakeha

Out of curiosity, JaysonR, is there any relation to the routes of the Diaspora of 136CE and the various transmissions of the Christian texts?

Here's a map of the Diaspora:

Here's the major trade routes:

Here's the dispersion map:

And to be thorough, we'll look again at the early Christian communities map:

What we can notice is that the dispersion of the texts proposition does not motivate the Diaspora, nor does the diaspora influence the motive of the dispersion of the texts; further, nor does either of these considerations motivate the early Christian settlement communities, nor they either of these previous.

However, the master of all of these is the trade routes.

We can easily see the Christian communities map aligns with trade routes, so does the dispersion map, and so does the Diaspora map.

This is sensible as following ideas and peoples is going to correlate with paths available to travel in almost all examinations of ancient times (there wasn't a mail service [at least for the majority] or internet).

Now, I think I would be overly downplaying the matter if I were to suggest that the Diaspora had nothing at all of an influence upon the dispersion of these texts; it is more my position that they would have had some influence, but not exclusively.

One example of how the Diaspora caused such influence, take a look over Africa's Jewish lineage:

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

Many of these communities are some of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, some stretching back before the Diaspora, and many from the Diaspora.

To be incredibly specific, the Lemba tribe in Africa:

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/e...c_tests_reveal

So clearly, the Judaic and Judaic-"Christian" adherence's had their influence upon these peoples, and was facilitated by the trade route capacity; for example, the Lemba tribe is as they are because the capacity to travel to their location (the following is the proposed route the Hebrew individuals traveled who genetically influenced the Lemba tribe in Africa):

Notice that this line in which they are thought to have followed would follow a more southern GH and (short-form) Mark tradition (south-eastern route*) and be more closely related to Coptic concepts than the Hellenistic Luke or John traditions.

*the south-west route would be southern GH and short-form Matthew (which would elongate to long-form Matthew), which allows us an understanding of how Northwestern Carthage would produce sympathy with the later would-be-Roman Catholic group

So there definitely was an influence, but I would consider it like considering the influential relationship between accidents and roadway designs; they are correlated, but not distinctly related.

I would say the trade routes are the "Lord of the Rings" in this case.

Cultural Traditions Dispersion:

Southern - Judean Traditions