"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

[outhouse]

So you think the church of Jerusalem (as evidenced through Paul's epistles) was founded by Diaspora Jews AFTER other churches were established among the Diaspora?

No, nor did I claim it did.

There is no evidence it is the first or primary assembly.

And where would Paul persecute proto-Christians before he became "in Christ" himself?

Unknown

Did you consider Gal 1:17: "[right after Paul's conversion] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus."

Cordially, Bernard

No one is stating there were no followers in Israel. Hellenist flourished there.


THINK about it.

Paul was not hunting leaders of the movement in Israel, he hunted then down in the Diaspora where the movement started everywhere after Hellenist went home with new mythology and theology after every Passover.

[outhouse]

If some Hellenistic Jews though he would be king of the Kingdom to come soon when Jesus was still alive, would they give up that idea after he got crucified? .

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, Jesus was unknown to Hellenist before his crucifixion. And only you stated Hellenistic Jews, I would state Hellenist led by Proselytes.


In my opinion, he was not famous until his crucifixion and martyrdom, and that is when the mythology started over his perceived selfless actions at Passover.


BEFORE his crucifixion, he was an Aramaic Galilean teacher who took over Johns movement. His mythology and parables back filled with what Hellenist could find which for the most part amounted to Johns teachings Jesus learned from him. I would say typical Galilean apocalyptic Aramaic Judaism were all attributed to Jesus by these Hellenist.

[outhouse]

Hellenist Judaism was not exactly like orthodox Palestinian Judaism.


Cordially, Bernard

This is the crux of your mistake. There was no orthodoxy, that is not how Judaism in the first century existed. It was as wide and varied as early Christianity.

You would be better off saying orthodox to some of the Zealots, or orthodox to the Some of the Pharisees, or those in between, or even orthodox to the Essenes.

[outhouse]

. Many clues indicates proto-Christianity started among them and then propagated away from this city.
Cordially, Bernard

More clues indicate the movement spread faster and sooner in the Diaspora DUE TO the lack of any Aramaic primacy. Not just a lack a COMPLETE lack.

Every book we have comes from the movements widespread origins all over the Diaspora.


Paul and his community have our earliest writing and it did not come from Israel. Nor the gospels.


Had traditions existed in Israel we would have MUCH more Aramaic primacy, instead of a 99% lack of it with almost no transliterations at all.

[outhouse]

I would agree that the apologetic version dictates the first real apostles spread out from Jerusalem into the Diaspora. But we are a bit beyond apologetic rhetoric here.


Do you think his inner circle roamed the diaspora spreading the movement? And if so, how come no traditions from ANY eyewitness exist in any form, when these would have been eyes on Christ?


So if we have no evidence of Aramaic Galilean apostles teaching anything, id ask you why?


Id also ask you if Jesus started trouble in the temple for Hellenistic corruption, what makes you think Aramaic pious Jews would take their message to the very Hellenist they were fighting against, who were spreading a perverted version of their religion?

[Michael BG]

I am quite certain the whole empty tomb story was added later, as also 14:28. Explanations at http://historical-jesus.info/79.html. Therefore the original gMark did not have Jesus planning to see his disciples in Galilee.
Furthermore if they were not aware of the Resurrection and, as prophesied by (allegedly) Jesus (who could not be wrong ), they dispersed and forgot about him (Mk 14:27 And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'). They did not have any reasons for expecting to see (a dead) Jesus somewhere in Galilee.

Cordially, Bernard

Firstly I am glad your conclusion brings you certainty, mine are only the most likely!
Secondly I have looked over the post you provide the link for, but I failed to find a convincing case that everything from 15:40 and 14.28 are later additions to Mark.

You are not the first to believe that 15:39 (‘And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"’) would be a good place to end Mark’s gospel. It has been suggested that both 14:28 and 16:7 are Marcan additions to an older tradition.

The passion predictions in Mark assume that Jesus will be resurrected – “and after three days rise again” (8:31), “after three days he will rise” (9.31) and “and after three days he will rise”. It is possible that “after three days” is one earlier Christian tradition that had been influenced by Jonah’s time in the whale.

It has been suggested that Mark is using an early Christian Tradition (I think a different one) and he has edited it to make it match his own theology. It has been suggested (Nickelsburg, Robbins and Catchpole) that Mark presents Jesus’ death in the Wisdom tradition (The Wisdom of Solomon). There is a claim that God will demonstrate the claims before death (Mk 15:29-30, 32, 36) “for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (Wis 2:18 RSV) and “Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected” (Wis 2:20 RSV). There is an alternative that “death is the prelude to a higher life in the presence of God” (Catchpole p.12), “he (has) been numbered among the sons of God … his lot (is) among the saints (Wis 5:5). Those who had a shameful death will be exalted to be with God, “But the righteous live for ever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them. Therefore they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord, because with his right hand he will cover them, and with his arm he will shield them” (Wis 5:15-16). If this wisdom pattern is true then Mark’s gospel cannot end at 15:39 because God has to reward Jesus – that is he has to be resurrected.

Mark has added 16.8b “and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” – Marcan Messianic Secret motif parallel to Mk 1:44 “See that you say nothing to any one” another Marcan addition. It has been suggested that being “afraid” is a natural and therefore good response to a supernatural event such as seeing an angel and the transfiguration (Mk 9:6), both are Mark redaction.

It has been suggested that Mark purposely framed the passion narrative between two anointing stories – Mk 14:3-9 and 16:1-8. It has been suggested that Mark added “when the sun had risen” in 16:2 like he did in 1:32 “That evening, at sundown”.

The pre-Marcan tradition has Jesus being dead longer than the Marcan version. He is crucified on the day before Passover (Thursday), rather than the Friday. Russell B. Smith states, “Jewish documents from that time indicate that there was a common belief that after death, the soul hovered over the body for a period of time until decomposition set in. The climate of Israel encourages rapid decomposition, so within three days, a corpse will start to decompose. At that point, it was believed that the soul of the departed would recognize there was no hope of going back and would depart.” This links into Ps16:10 “God would not allow his holy one to see corruption.” Therefore Jesus has to be resurrected on the third day, the fourth day is too late.

The evidence for 15:40-16.8 being part of the original Mark is that it fits the wisdom tradition that Mark uses, that Jesus predicts he will be raised and Marcan redaction can be seen in 16:1-8.

[Bernard Muller]

to outhouse,

Bernard Muller wrote:

So you think the church of Jerusalem (as evidenced through Paul's epistles) was founded by Diaspora Jews AFTER other churches were established among the Diaspora?

No, nor did I claim it did.
There is no evidence it is the first or primary assembly.

If it was not AFTER, then if was BEFORE. You are contradicting yourself here.

No one is stating there were no followers in Israel. Hellenist flourished there.

So, if you think so, why don't you accept proto-Christianity starting in Jerusalem, certainly a part of Israel, among Hellenist Jews?

Paul was not hunting leaders of the movement in Israel, he hunted then down in the Diaspora where the movement started everywhere after Hellenist went home with new mythology and theology after every Passover.

How do you know that Paul did not hunt Hellenist leaders and their "Greek" followers of the movement in Jerusalem?
Acts 8:1-3 "And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
[2] And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
[3] As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."

Bernard, Jesus was unknown to Hellenist before his crucifixion. And only you stated Hellenistic Jews, I would state Hellenist led by Proselytes.

How do you know that? Don't you think there were no Hellenist Jews in Jerusalem during or just prior that Passover period when Jesus was crucified?

BEFORE his crucifixion, he was an Aramaic Galilean teacher who took over Johns movement. His mythology and parables back filled with what Hellenist could find which for the most part amounted to Johns teachings Jesus learned from him. I would say typical Galilean apocalyptic Aramaic Judaism were all attributed to Jesus by these Hellenist.

I do not think he was a teacher: how an uneducated rustic be considered a teacher. And no parables: they were all fabricated for later early Christians:
http://historical-jesus.info/30.html, http://historical-jesus.info/31.html, http://historical-jesus.info/35.html, http://historical-jesus.info/36.html
for parables: http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html
What made Jesus interesting is not him as a teacher, but the (believed by some) future king of the kingdom of God.
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

This is the crux of your mistake. There was no orthodoxy, that is not how Judaism in the first century existed. It was as wide and varied as early Christianity.
You would be better off saying orthodox to some of the Zealots, or orthodox to the Some of the Pharisees, or those in between, or even orthodox to the Essenes.

I should have said traditional Judaism, as the one of the Sadducees.
But you said yourself the Aramaic Jews of Palestine would not believed in a dead Messiah, but obviously other Jews did believe a Messiah could survive bodily death. Yes there were many brands of Judaism, some rejecting any kind of resurrection, others who believed the spirit of a dead person would keep living (Pharisees & Essenes according to Josephus). I do not see why you are making a fuss about it.

More clues indicate the movement spread faster and sooner in the Diaspora DUE TO the lack of any Aramaic primacy.

Yes, there are more clues the movement spread faster and sooner in the Diaspora DUE TO the lack of any Aramaic primacy. I agree but that was after the "Greek" dispersion, before there was any Aramaic primacy (the earliest Church of Jerusalem was mostly "Greek"). Then after the dispersion, the Church of Jerusalem came under "Aramaic" control, but the leaders (Peter, James, etc.) were not Christians (http://historical-jesus.info/108.html), so their influence on the development of Christian beliefs was very limited. So there was never any Christian Aramaic primacy.

Every book we have comes from the movements widespread origins all over the Diaspora.
Paul and his community have our earliest writing and it did not come from Israel. Nor the gospels.
Had traditions existed in Israel we would have MUCH more Aramaic primacy, instead of a 99% lack of it with almost no transliterations at all.

Yes about books, but I explained that through the lack of "Aramaic" primacy. However James' epistle, not written by James, is mostly about James' sayings, in my view. Despite a little bit of Christianization, it describes very well the beliefs of the "Aramaic" church of Jerusalem: http://historical-jesus.info/38.html.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to outhouse,

I would agree that the apologetic version dictates the first real apostles spread out from Jerusalem into the Diaspora. But we are a bit beyond apologetic rhetoric here.

Why apologetic rhetoric? These apostles were Greek, not Aramaic, according to Acts. The ones who preached all over the eastern Roman empire were not the disciples of Jesus (which would have been much preferable ). Actually in the second century and some time after, several authors (Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, Origen) came out, with the added ending of gMark, to say it was Jesus' own "Aramaic" disciples who, right after the alleged resurrection/ascension, went all over the known world converting Jews & Gentiles: http://historical-jesus.info/64.html. That would be the apologist version.

Do you think his inner circle roamed the diaspora spreading the movement? And if so, how come no traditions from ANY eyewitness exist in any form, when these would have been eyes on Christ?

No, if you mean the inner circle were the Aramaic Jesus' disciples and brothers.
I think that eyewitness(es) accounts exist mostly in gMark & Q, but "buried" or laced with a lot of embellishments and fiction. Of course, these accounts were about a not divine but mundane earthly Jesus, as a apocalyptic rural prophet and admirer of John the Baptist, and not from a Christian perspective.

So if we have no evidence of Aramaic Galilean apostles teaching anything, id ask you why?

These Galilean apostles were not Christians, and their message was very limited, as the one of Jesus.
However the Didache and James' epistle probably contain some of this Aramaic preaching.

Id also ask you if Jesus started trouble in the temple for Hellenistic corruption, what makes you think Aramaic pious Jews would take their message to the very Hellenist they were fighting against, who were spreading a perverted version of their religion?

I think Jesus' tantrum in the temple was about commercial activities being considered uncleaned. I do not know for sure about what do you mean next.
But I do not think those were fighting the Hellenists, but they had to tolerate them, and at the same time tried to impose a strict observance to Judaism. That's very obvious in Galatians, about James' men in Antioch.
Tolerance, because the Church of Jerusalem needed donations in order to survive.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Michael BG,

You are not the first to believe that 15:39 (‘And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"’) would be a good place to end Mark’s gospel. It has been suggested that both 14:28 and 16:7 are Marcan additions to an older tradition.

But I never claimed to be the first one. If I was the 20th, I would rejoice because I have supportive company. My goal was certainly not to be innovative at every turns, but to analyse the evidence in order to find out the most probable beginning of Christianity.

The passion predictions in Mark assume that Jesus will be resurrected – “and after three days rise again” (8:31), “after three days he will rise” (9.31) and “and after three days he will rise”.

Of course. But that does not mean Jesus' disciples believed in the Resurrection after Jesus died. And Jesus' alleged predictions in gMark about anything were fabricated:
Proof: the kingdom of God was supposed to happen for Christians very soon after the fall of Jerusalem: it did not.
Proof: the kingdom of God was supposed to happen for Christians before the last one of Jesus' generation died: it did not.
Proof: Jesus allegedly predicted his resurrection after three days. If you want to believe the empty tomb passage is truthful, then Jesus was wrong: it happens well before three days elapsed.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

to Michael BG,

You are not the first to believe that 15:39 … would be a good place to end Mark’s gospel. ..

But I never claimed to be the first one.

I don’t think I was implying you claimed to be the first one and I think you quote support for your view on the page you linked to. I think I was just being chatty.

The passion predictions in Mark assume that Jesus will be resurrected – “and after three days rise again” (8:31), “after three days he will rise” (9.31) and “and after three days he will rise”.

Of course. But that does not mean Jesus' disciples believed in the Resurrection after Jesus died. And Jesus' alleged predictions in gMark about anything were fabricated:
Proof: the kingdom of God was supposed to happen for Christians very soon after the fall of Jerusalem: it did not.
Proof: the kingdom of God was supposed to happen for Christians before the last one of Jesus' generation died: it did not.
Proof: Jesus allegedly predicted his resurrection after three days. If you want to believe the empty tomb passage is truthful, then Jesus was wrong: it happens well before three days elapsed.

Cordially, Bernard

I am quite certain the whole empty tomb story was added later, as also 14:28. … Therefore the original gMark did not have Jesus planning to see his disciples in Galilee.
…

I note that you wish to change the nature of what we are debating, which I am content to do so long as we establish where we are with the original discussion.

The purpose of my last post was to establish that 14.28 was added by Mark and 15.40-16.8 was part of Mark’s gospel and these were not added later. Therefore Mark’s gospel always had Jesus planning to see his disciples in Galilee and the empty tomb. Can I assume that you are no longer as certain as you were?

Turning to your most recent points.
I am not convinced that the passion predictions were fabricated by Mark.

In the gospels there are somethings which Jesus predicted that did not happen. This could be seen as good evidence that the prediction is historical, for why would Christians have Jesus predict things that didn’t happen?

I am quite content with the idea that there were different traditions regarding the resurrection. Luke only has the resurrected Jesus being seen for 40 days! Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels both include the traditions that Jesus would be resurrected “on the third day” and “after three days”. It is quite possible that both are not historical and have been added to an earlier tradition.

All this is a long way from making out a strong case that Peter, John and James did not have a resurrection appearance experience of Jesus.