Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Indeed, Paul did know of a gospel and that was the gospel according to John Mark.

John Mark was a companion of Paul on Paul's first missionary journey. John Mark traveled with Paul from Jerusalem to Perga (Acts 12:25 & 13:13)
John Mark was Barnabas's nephew. John Mark lived in a large house that was used by the disciples as a meeting place and where Peter first went to after escaping from Herod's prison. (Acts 12:12-17).

John Mark would have personally known some (if not all) all of the disciples and their accounts of Jesus.

Meaning, if Paul wrote a gospel about the life of Jesus it would likely be from an oral tradition according to 'kata' John Mark.

No one knows why John Mark separated himself from Paul. Perhaps it was because Paul was preaching a different/contradictory gospel that John Mark could not affirm and returned to warn Peter and James about what Paul was doing.

Who knows, perhaps that mysterious break-up was what inspired John Mark to start writing the first gospel around 50 A.D.

Sincerely,
John T

John T wrote:Kata as an accusative can mean: "according to".

That does not mean Mark wrote it, only that he is the primary source, i.e. 'according to Mark'.

Hardly a 'primary source' in the historiography definition of primary source.

But, granted, theology or ideas from a preacher of disciple such as a Mark may be a possible basis or background for others' pronouncements or preaching.

As unbelievable as it may seem I have to agree with John in general (although I am sure he won't agree with me). I've always read our Acts as a revision of a proto-text which has John Mark as the bridge linking Peter to Paul. Irenaeus later comes along introduces a version of the narrative where Paul rejects John Mark and prefers Luke. The Lukan additions are very sloppy (the "we" parts) and IMO secondary. But you can see how someone like Clement might have read the proposed proto-text as about Mark the evangelist

John T wrote: John Mark was a companion of Paul on Paul's first missionary journey.

Maybe, maybe not. It is not substantiated either way. Acts has little historical reliability.

If it agrees with Paul it is noted and has plausibility, if not it puts it is often discounted unless other sources can back it up.

if Paul wrote a gospel about the life of Jesus it would likely be from an oral tradition according to 'kata' John Mark.

I doubt it.

John Mark would have personally known some (if not all) all of the disciples and their accounts of Jesus.

No way.


Not one part of the NT was written by anyone close to the Aramaic Galilean or the real followers.

I love certainty like the certainty a man has when he sees a beautiful woman on the escort webpage. All he has to do is call the number pay in advance and wait for this cheerleader to come appear at his door. There are no certainties my friend. Back to Terullian's reference to the "secret gospel" of the Pauline heretics. Dunn summarizes the narrative here http://books.google.com/books?id=7GLm2X ... CB0Q6AEwAA. and Bray

g http://books.google.com/books?id=6fyCAg ... CDIQ6AEwBw and again http://books.google.com/books?id=5AM5UT ... CCYQ6AEwAw

also.Eph 6:19 τὸ μυστήριον  τοῦ  εὐαγγελίου

That Tertullian meant Marcion and his "secret" gospel:

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit (sacrosanctum) in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near, to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood (quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt) ... I say, therefore, that in them - and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ - that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication (id evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare quod cum maxime tuemur); whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned (Marcionis vero plerisque nec notum, nullis autem notum ut non eadem damnatum). [Adv Marc 4.5.4 - 5]

MrMacSon wrote:

John T wrote:Kata as an accusative can mean: "according to".

That does not mean Mark wrote it, only that he is the primary source, i.e. 'according to Mark'.

Hardly a 'primary source' in the historiography definition of primary source.

But, granted, theology or ideas from a preacher of disciple such as a Mark may be a possible basis or background for others' pronouncements or preaching.

I did not mean to imply that John Mark was one of the original 12 disciples of Jesus but that he was likely a key/trusted source for Paul in regards to the story of Jesus.

Keep in mind, John Mark's mother, Mary, certainly knew Jesus and who knows, perhaps she was an eye witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus. No matter how you dice it, John Mark had direct contact with the most important leaders of the early Christian church and whatever account he decided to tell others and/or dictate to scribes would have instant credibility among the first century Christians.

Also, Paul would have been smart enough to know that if he wrote his own gospel about the life and sayings of Jesus, that if he had any unforced errors in his gospel that James the Just would have used it against him simply by pointing to people who knew better because they were actually with Jesus when he was alive.

Therefore, common sense would dictate that Paul would not have been so foolish enough to write his own gospel about the history of Jesus.

Sincerely,

John T

Stephan Huller wrote: The Church Fathers also repeatedly emphasize that Paul taught his doctrine openly (hence the emphasis on his 'preaching' i.e. you can't secretly 'preach'). But that the heretics thought that Paul had a secret gospel and was referring to that in statements like those cited above - that can't be doubted also.

Exploitation of a 'secret' gospel by a long-dead church original and authority figure would easily serve a political purpose. It's a very appropropriate and effective technique that is designed to influence the gullible. Those who read Paul's gospels and still believe there was a very different 'secret' gospel IMO have been duped by their own gullibility. Paul's gospel message as seen in the epistles he wrote is quite consistent. Claims to 'secret knowledge' from Paul sound a lot like Roswell sightings and alien abductions by people looking to gain religious influence. Of course it isn't proven and those that like conspiracy theories can chase these rainbows their entire adult lives if they want to.