Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:18 am
I think it is natural to develop a history through the use of anecdotes. Nevertheless it does seem troubling that there is little in the way of connective 'tissue' to make the gospels appear 'historical' - i.e. for three days they did this. To be certain there are references to the numbers of days this or that took but they often don't make sense. For instance Jesus rose after three days all of which make it impossible for the resurrection to have occurred on a Sunday. Consider also Clement's (not in to Theodore but Stromata 6) approach to the reference to 'six days' in the transfiguration. It is not thought as a historical marker at all but an attempt by Mark to put something 'mystical' into his text. Clement's repeated notion of 'mysticism' or allegory being put into the gospel narrative challenges Papias's notion that all Mark did was assemble the anecdotes - and as many of them as possible - into his narrative to make a complete narrative. He must have had other considerations too.
Also consider Freeman's point here:
Was Mark really trying to construct a 'history'? This is what we gain from Papias. This is his claim. But I find it implausible. No one develops history purely from anecdotes. If we look at the most 'historical' of events in the gospel - let's say the crucifixion. There is no clear attestation to anyone who actually witnessed it. You'd expect that wouldn't you? I mean, that so and so - someone famous, someone reliable was there. That this so and so was said to have remarked such and such. Nothing at all. I don't know. If the gospel was intended as history you might have a declaration - Jesus Christ who died on such and such a day for this or that reason and then some anecdotes yes. But the anecdotes are highly polished and essentially the point of the narrative. They are highly polished - almost too polished for a historical narrative. I am not advocating mythicism here. Merely noting that the gospel isn't what Papias pretends it is. It's reliance on anecdotes can't be entirely attributable to a certain Simon Peter the witness to the historical Jesus teaching in 'anecdotes' and Mark writing them down and assigning them a certain order which was corrected by Matthew. Mark had a hand in shaping the anecdotes. I don't care what Papias says. Take the story of Jesus passing through Jericho. The lesson was clearly what the Marcionites said it was - that the blind see Jesus as the messiah but when their eyes are open they see the Lord. This is Paul's lesson in 2 Corinthians chapters 2 and 3. This can't be coincidence. Mark wrote this narrative not as a 'capture' of a historical teaching of Jesus but by constructing a pseudo-historical narrative which leads to this theological conclusion. The symbolism was undoubtedly invented by Mark not by Peter or Jesus.
Also consider Freeman's point here:
I think sometimes because our culture has considered the gospel truth - even truer than the truth - that we lose sight of the fact that the story is simply incredible and unbelievable. Surely it strong ancient ears the same way. And the fact that the 'history' is built around anecdotes adds to this implausibility.Around many famous men there gathers a mass of tales and anecdotes, the evidence for which is insufficient. Sometimes all that we can say is that the evidence is insufficient. The story may be neither improbable in itself, nor inconsistent with the recorded actions and character of the person spoken of. Of this kind is a largo proportion of the personal anecdotes handed down to us by Plutarch. They may have happened, but we cannot feel certain that they did happen. We know that anecdotes are often invented, and that they are often improved. We know that the fact of an anecdote being probable and characteristic is no proof of its historical truth. For clever anecdote-mongers always take care that their anecdotes shall be probable and characteristic. Many a living man has heard stories about himself, some of which are pure invention, some of which contain a kernel of truth, but which in both cases illustrate, if only by caricature, some real feature in his character. Stories of this sort, where a distinct play of fancy is at work, set us down within the borders of the land of romance. In pseudo-historical statements, the narrator is either himself deceived or he intentionally seeks to deceive others; in purely romantic statements deception hardly comes in either way. The teller and the hearer have no set purpose to contradict historical truth; they are simply careless about historical truth. They tell an attractive story, heedless whether it be true or false; the tale may be coloured by the narrator's passions or opinions, but it is not a direct pleading on the side of those passions or opinions, as are the statements which I have called pseudo-historical. If the teller and the hearer have knowledge and tact enough, they will take care that the story, if not true, shall be at least characteristic. But in more careless hands no such propriety is aimed at. The tale may, in such a case, be utterly improbable from the beginning, or, though it may have been characteristic at starting, it may, in process of telling, get encrusted with circumstances which make it no longer even characteristic. Every detail is exaggerated, improved, or corrupted; and circumstances are brought in from other stories about other people. In this last process we come across one of the most fertile sources of legendary matter.https://books.google.com/books?id=0LVNA ... 22&f=false
Was Mark really trying to construct a 'history'? This is what we gain from Papias. This is his claim. But I find it implausible. No one develops history purely from anecdotes. If we look at the most 'historical' of events in the gospel - let's say the crucifixion. There is no clear attestation to anyone who actually witnessed it. You'd expect that wouldn't you? I mean, that so and so - someone famous, someone reliable was there. That this so and so was said to have remarked such and such. Nothing at all. I don't know. If the gospel was intended as history you might have a declaration - Jesus Christ who died on such and such a day for this or that reason and then some anecdotes yes. But the anecdotes are highly polished and essentially the point of the narrative. They are highly polished - almost too polished for a historical narrative. I am not advocating mythicism here. Merely noting that the gospel isn't what Papias pretends it is. It's reliance on anecdotes can't be entirely attributable to a certain Simon Peter the witness to the historical Jesus teaching in 'anecdotes' and Mark writing them down and assigning them a certain order which was corrected by Matthew. Mark had a hand in shaping the anecdotes. I don't care what Papias says. Take the story of Jesus passing through Jericho. The lesson was clearly what the Marcionites said it was - that the blind see Jesus as the messiah but when their eyes are open they see the Lord. This is Paul's lesson in 2 Corinthians chapters 2 and 3. This can't be coincidence. Mark wrote this narrative not as a 'capture' of a historical teaching of Jesus but by constructing a pseudo-historical narrative which leads to this theological conclusion. The symbolism was undoubtedly invented by Mark not by Peter or Jesus.