Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

reader knowledge of Jesus origin

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:00 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:50 am
Should we not add the lack of a Jesus origin story, including genealogy, as an additional Markan reader's presumption element.
If we stick with actual extant writings, this would make Luke and/or Matthew circulating before Mark
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 6:27 am
No. Those elements depend upon the kind of story being told; their absence does not imply previous knowledge on the part of the reader.
The position for Mark presuming knowledge of the origin of Jesus looks quite strong.

Clement of Alexandria made the point very early, and it seems to be accepted by Eusebius.
The presumption element is clearly implied.

======================

Clement of Alexandria on the ‘Order’ of the Gospels (2001)
Stephen C. Carlson
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... B1323D0CA5

Clement presented a tradition of the original elders (παραδωσιν των ανεκαθεν πρεσβυτερων) about the ‘order’ of the gospels (περι της ταξεως των ευαγγελιων) in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were ‘written before’ (προγεγραϕθαι ελεγεν των ευαγγελιων τα περιεχοντα τας γενεαλογιας) ...

======================

The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem
By William Reuben Farmer
https://books.google.com/books?id=KkO4qzxHrsEC&pg=PA15

1. This hypothesis is supported by the testimony of Clement of Alexandria who, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that the Gospels with genealogies were written first. Subsequent interpreters in the church have understood this to mean that Matthew and Luke, each with a genealogy, were written before Mark and John, neither of which has a genealogy. Eusebius certainly accepted Clement’s testimony. He states that Clement is handing on a tradition from the primitive elders “concerning the order of the Gospels.” After mentioning the sequential priority of the Gospels with genealogies, Clement next mentions Mark and then John. This suggests that Clement regarded Mark and John as chronologically following Matthew and Luke.

======================

Note that you have some notes about the Eusebius exact wording here
http://www.textexcavation.com/gospelmatthew.html
And here
http://www.textexcavation.com/eldertraditions.html

======================

Here are two less detailed references.

Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (2002)
edited by Robert L. Thomas
https://books.google.com/books?id=xlWveEVuGscC&pg=PA141

======================

"Clement of Alexandria, living at the turn of the 3rd century, affirmed that the first Gospels must have been the ones including the genealogies of Jesus, namely mt and lk. "

The Synoptic Problem (2013)
Andrzej Kowalczyk
http://digital.fides.org.pl/Content/151 ... noptic.pdf

======================

If you see Gospels as ultra-late, after 70 AD (or even 2nd century) then you will likely see this differently, since you posit various intermediate writings.

And I am giving the consistent position for those who see NT writings as pre-70 AD. Plus, I see the Theophilus proposal as extremely strong, Luke writing his Gospel to Theophilus when he was the "most excellent" High Priest.

=======================

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7468
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: reader knowledge of Jesus origin

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:55 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:00 am
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:50 am
Should we not add the lack of a Jesus origin story, including genealogy, as an additional Markan reader's presumption element.
If we stick with actual extant writings, this would make Luke and/or Matthew circulating before Mark
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 6:27 am
No. Those elements depend upon the kind of story being told; their absence does not imply previous knowledge on the part of the reader.
The position for Mark presuming knowledge of the origin of Jesus looks quite strong.
There are literally dozens of ancient biographical or semibiographical treatments of people which lack accounts of the person's birth, childhood, or origin. This is a dead end, and one which I will not be debating because it is old ground. Thanks.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: reader knowledge of Jesus origin

Post by andrewcriddle » Wed Mar 04, 2020 11:41 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:00 am
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:50 am
Should we not add the lack of a Jesus origin story, including genealogy, as an additional Markan reader's presumption element.
If we stick with actual extant writings, this would make Luke and/or Matthew circulating before Mark
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 6:27 am
No. Those elements depend upon the kind of story being told; their absence does not imply previous knowledge on the part of the reader.
The position for Mark presuming knowledge of the origin of Jesus looks quite strong.

Clement of Alexandria made the point very early, and it seems to be accepted by Eusebius.
The presumption element is clearly implied.

======================

Clement of Alexandria on the ‘Order’ of the Gospels (2001)
Stephen C. Carlson
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... B1323D0CA5

Clement presented a tradition of the original elders (παραδωσιν των ανεκαθεν πρεσβυτερων) about the ‘order’ of the gospels (περι της ταξεως των ευαγγελιων) in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were ‘written before’ (προγεγραϕθαι ελεγεν των ευαγγελιων τα περιεχοντα τας γενεαλογιας) ...

======================
Stephen Carlson actually argues that Clement's statement is not intended to provide chronological information.
See http://hypotyposeis.org/papers/Carlson%202001%20NTS.pdf

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:54 pm

Origen’s order still places a genealogy and origin story published first, before Mark. Also Zahn’s tweak.
Also we have the Eusebius ability to understand Clement, which Stephen handwaves.

The switch to a theory of “open publication” looks strained against what has been “widely understood”.

Carlson’s alternative feels like scholastic overthinking, however his paper does a great service in laying out the issues.

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: reader knowledge of Jesus origin

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:20 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:55 am
There are literally dozens of ancient biographical or semibiographical treatments of people which lack accounts of the person's birth, childhood, or origin. This is a dead end, and one which I will not be debating because it is old ground. Thanks.
This is a fallacious analogy.

We are only concerned with.

Multiple stories.
Interconnected.
With and without origin.
Which came first.

Again though, a presupposition of ultra-late dating and non-inspiration will lesses this eveidence.

As it will weaken all the points in your OP.

perseusomega9
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:26 am

c'mon Ben, you can surely presuppose a bit of inspiration now can't you

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7468
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:15 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:26 am
c'mon Ben, you can surely presuppose a bit of inspiration now can't you
For you, perseusomega9, consider it presupposed. :D
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

TedM
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by TedM » Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:53 am

Very interesting OP Ben! You have put down a number of reasonable supports for my gut instinct that gMark wasn't conceived whole cloth by a literary master who was historicizing Jesus and his sayings and doings for the very first time. It is something other than that, at the least.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7458
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:24 am

TedM wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:53 am
Very interesting OP Ben! You have put down a number of reasonable supports for my gut instinct that gMark wasn't conceived whole cloth by a literary master who was historicizing Jesus and his sayings and doings for the very first time. It is something other than that, at the least.
for who interests, my criticism of Ben is here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

TedM
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by TedM » Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:04 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:24 am
TedM wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:53 am
Very interesting OP Ben! You have put down a number of reasonable supports for my gut instinct that gMark wasn't conceived whole cloth by a literary master who was historicizing Jesus and his sayings and doings for the very first time. It is something other than that, at the least.
for who interests, my criticism of Ben is here.
What you have written as a rebuttal to one of Ben's points does nothing to change my response to Ben's OP.

Whether 'delivered over'' was referring to John's arrest or not is irrelevant to the main point he was making, which was that the language reasonably implies that the readers had prior knowledge of what Mark was talking about. You got hung up on the literary meaning of what that specific action was while missing the main point. Do you see how you have missed the main point that was made? His entire OP included similar examples.
Last edited by TedM on Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply