Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben wrote:

... I am also pretty certain that our canonical Mark was not the first gospel narrative.

I don't recall your reasons for it, but I agree with the above statement in the sense that the first person to mention Mark (Papias) says that Mark wrote down "whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ" that he heard from Peter.


EH 3.39.15:

Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses ...

I think you might mean that Mark used written sources though, and I have no opinion about that other than that I suppose someone could have written down what Peter (or any other apostle) said about "the things said or done by Christ" and Mark could have used it as a source in addition to "whatsoever he remembered" that Peter said.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:11 pm Ben wrote:

... I am also pretty certain that our canonical Mark was not the first gospel narrative.

I don't recall your reasons for it, but I agree with the above statement in the sense that the first person to mention Mark (Papias) says that Mark wrote down "whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ" that he heard from Peter.

Many of my reasons are found in the OP.

I think you might mean that Mark used written sources though, and I have no opinion about that other than that I suppose someone could have written down what Peter (or any other apostle) said about "the things said or done by Christ" and Mark could have used it as a source in addition to "whatsoever he remembered" that Peter said.

I have not (yet) committed either to written or to oral sources behind Mark.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:43 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:11 pm Ben wrote:

... I am also pretty certain that our canonical Mark was not the first gospel narrative.

I don't recall your reasons for it, but I agree with the above statement in the sense that the first person to mention Mark (Papias) says that Mark wrote down "whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ" that he heard from Peter.

Many of my reasons are found in the OP.

I think you might mean that Mark used written sources though, and I have no opinion about that other than that I suppose someone could have written down what Peter (or any other apostle) said about "the things said or done by Christ" and Mark could have used it as a source in addition to "whatsoever he remembered" that Peter said.

I have not (yet) committed either to written or to oral sources behind Mark.

Ah, thanks. I'm late to the show. After looking at the OP, I think what Papias says is applicable to the idea that Mark's readers were aware of the people and events you mention there. In that scenario, Mark would have naturally heard things from Peter besides "the things said or done by Christ" and known or assumed that at least some of his readers would have been aware of them too (if not via Peter then via other apostles or through the grapevine).

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:33 pm This interesting argument is at least compatible with the tradition that Mark was written for people who had already heard the preaching of Peter.

Andrew Criddle

Ah, just like Andrew said, then.

I would only add that what Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:4 seems like it could tie in with what Papias says about Mark writing down "the things said or done by Christ" that he heard from Peter.

For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily.

In this context Paul is talking about undercutting the Jesus and gospel of people he calls "super-apostles" (11:5) and "false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ" (11:13) who were "Hebrews" (11:22), and we know from Galatians that this was because of their pro-Torah stance, for which he castigated Peter in Antioch for siding with people sent there by James in Gal. 2:11-14.

When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group. The other Jews joined in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

So there was a different Jesus and gospel being "proclaimed" by Jewish Christians, including Peter, and Papias says that Mark followed Peter and wrote down "the things said or done by Christ" that he heard from him, and since Jesus is pro-Torah in Mark, I think Mark likewise (via Peter) proclaimed the Jesus and gospel of the "super-apostles" Paul mentions in 2 Cor. 11.

(dup)

Maestroh wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:06 am
... he's twisted your words, Mr Smith, and is quoting you elsewhere in his favor - because that's the type of sleaze ball you're dealing with)

Rather the trollish accusation.

Ben Smith is quite capable of speaking up if he objects to my presentation of the evidences, coming from a full Bible believer position, including the authenticity of the traditional ending of Mark.

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

PureBibleForum
Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... ding.1308/

"Here I am using the thread started on the BCHF forum, by Ben C. Smith, and include my additions on p. 8 and 9."

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

Clearly I appreciate the pioneering work of Ben on many of these evidences.

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

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.

No. Those elements depend upon the kind of story being told; their absence does not imply previous knowledge on the part of the reader.

This Bitch is running wild

JW:
We need to put this Thread on a leash:

• 1) What distinguishes the Gospels from each other is the relative claim of historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. GMark is at the extreme, no named historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. Subsequent Gospels used GMark as a base but wanted and claimed historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. This suggests there was nothing else for them to use and that GMark was the original Gospel narrative.
  
  2) The theme of GMark is faith and having no claimed named historical witness to a resurrected Jesus means based on GMark you have to have faith. Thus no narrated Galilee reunion is wanted.
  
  3) GMark has a primary theme of discrediting supposed named historical witness in general and as witnesses to a resurrected Jesus.
  
  4) Historically we can be certain that there was no named historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. Therefore, the closer you get to the events described the less likely it is that anyone claimed that historical witness claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus in Galilee.
  
  5) There is nothing extant before GMark claiming that named historical witness saw a resurrected Jesus in Galilee.
  
  6) The cruncher, as the Brits say, the only significant Christian author before "Mark", Paul, never claims that named historical witness saw a resurrected Jesus in Galilee. Except for the disputed 1 Corinthians verses Paul is consistent with GMark that you should believe Jesus was resurrected based on faith.
  
  7) Most people who heard GMark for the first time statistically either had never heard of Jesus or at least had never heard a narrative of Jesus.

To think that GMark is a simple straight-forward religious work based on Peter and designed to promote belief in a resurrected Jesus and deliberately left out the part about Peter meeting and believing in a resurrected Jesus because that part was already known is ridiculous. What that is is anachronistic. If you want to think the Galilee reunion was already known (not to all readers but to "Mark") then you need something other than a straight-forward religious work based on Peter and designed to promote belief in a resurrected Jesus. GMark is largely reaction as is Paul so it's possible that GMark is a reaction to the belief that named historical disciples were witnesses to a resurrected Jesus. GMark/Paul's reaction is that you should believe that Jesus was resurrected based on faith and not historical witness. Possible but one gets the sense from GMark/Paul that their reaction was primarily to named historical witness to Jesus' supposed teaching and healing Ministry and the lack/insufficient named historical witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection. All of the reasons above support this.

Conclusion = The overall uncertainty makes any conclusion here possible but from a relative standpoint the evidence favors "Mark" not showing named historical witness being witnesses in Galilee to a resurrected Jesus for a reason other than thinking his audience already knew it.


Joseph

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?