Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe

But Acts of Apostles contradicts your assertion, showing a young Saul/Paul active in Jerusalem to direct contact with the first apostles.

Acts' Paul interacts with no specifically named member of the movement before his conversion experience. He first appears after the events of the Gospel of Luke, which agrees with what I asserted (concurring with Bernard).

Therefore, by use of a similar expedient, the author of ''Mark'' could equally insert a young Paul in the narrative.

Of course he could have; a few pen strokes to name the sympathetic scribe in chapter 12 "Paul," and presto. But why would he? Paul's viewpoint is represented by the anonymous surrogate, if Mark is seeking balance. What would naming him "Paul" add to that?

Tricky business. If Paul is unambiguously portrayed as ever having met Jesus (they are contemporaries, after all, Mark doesn't have to do anything special to make a meeting possible), and Paul not only failed to recognize Jesus' legitimacy but even persecuted his survivors (or worse, him), then that'd add a whole new dimension to the Paul story. Is it really in a storytellers' interest to go there?

It's fun to think about , but I think Mark chose well here.

is never named Paul.

We agree about that. The effect, IMO, of not naming the scribe is to represent a viewpoint which is conspucuously similar to Paul's and speculate about whether such a man would have done better than the disciples did, while not messing with the sequence of events as Paul chose to present them.

Why can't I use modern religious splits to interpret ancient splits?

As I say, people besides you actually do it, so obviously you can, too. Nevertheless, in the absence of evidence about whether Mark was ever in the trenches, I think retrojecting an early modern split onto Mark's short ancient essay is a stretch.

Especially if all the people figuring in that Gospel are condemned to not recognize Jesus.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Quite a few characters in Mark understand Jesus to one extent or another - including Peter, who gets the Messiah part right, and let's not get started on the demons (and so, perhaps, the exorcised). Baptist John has a pretty good idea and even his nemesis, hapless Herod, shows some understanding of "rising from the dead," which none of the disciples grasp at all.

The trick would have been to wrap one's head around the whole "Son of Man" idea and understand Jesus completely, something I doubt Mark's Jesus himself does before he puts it all together right before he dies.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:36 am Giuseppe

But Acts of Apostles contradicts your assertion, showing a young Saul/Paul active in Jerusalem to direct contact with the first apostles.

Acts' Paul interacts with no specifically named member of the movement before his conversion experience. He first appears after the events of the Gospel of Luke, which agrees with what I asserted (concurring with Bernard).

More precisely, as correction: in Acts Paul first appears after the events of the Gospel of Marcion, edited by ''Luke'', which agrees with what I asserted: that who met a ''historical'' Jesus in the Gospel didnt't meet ''really'' him.

Therefore, by use of a similar expedient, the author of ''Mark'' could equally insert a young Paul in the narrative.

Of course he could have; a few pen strokes to name the sympathetic scribe in chapter 12 "Paul," and presto. But why would he? Paul's viewpoint is represented by the anonymous surrogate, if Mark is seeking balance. What would naming him "Paul" add to that?

If that young was named Paul, then Mark could no longer withdraw from a confrontation between Paul and Peter on the same ''ground of game'' of the latter: in front of a historical Jesus. Debunking the entire point of the his narrative: that who saw a historical Jesus was a loser (as Peter) and not a winner (as Paul).

Clearly I am meaning that the ''historical'' Jesus here is an invention of Mark.

Especially if all the people figuring in that Gospel are condemned to not recognize Jesus.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Quite a few characters in Mark understand Jesus to one extent or another - including Peter, who gets the Messiah part right, and let's not get started on the demons (and so, perhaps, the exorcised). Baptist John has a pretty good idea and even his nemesis, hapless Herod, shows some understanding of "rising from the dead," which none of the disciples grasp at all.

I'm about skeptical about that. Who recognizes (partially) Jesus is only anonymous people, ok, but then the first Apostle with a name to recognize fully him is Paul.
And SOLUS PAULUS was a marcionite motto.

Giuseppe

OK, but Acts doesn't contradict what I asserted, contrary to what you claimed previously. I am satisfied that you've now corrected that. No problem.

Marcion, Luke: Paul's role in Acts also begins after the events in Luke, as stated. What's the difficulty?

If that young was named Paul ..

You and I seem to agree that for Mark to name the character (any character who met Jesus) "Paul" would open a can of worms, going beyond anything that could be justified from any reading of Paul. That is a sufficient reason for Mark not to do that.

a winner (as Paul)

Mark doesn't mention Paul, and so doesn't tell us what he thinks of Paul. Paul himself seems to think Jesus' resurrection was a game changer. That's pretty much where Mark ends. The real game hasn't even been played yet, according to Paul. But Mark is following Paul?

I'm about skeptical about that. Who recognizes (partially) Jesus is only anonymous people, ok, but then the first Apostle with a name to recognize fully him is Paul.

Herod is anonymous? John the Baptist? Peter? I've lost track of what work we're discussing. We seem to agree that Paul doesn't appear by name in Mark, so what work are we talking about? On what basis and in what work do we find that Paul recognizes him fully? And even though Paul acknowledges that others had the same revelation before him, he's the first to get it fully? What work is that in?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:57 am

hakeem wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:30 am

It is clear that the so-called Pauline post-resurrection narrative is later than gMark, even later than gJohn.

But you may save the authenticity of the rest of the epistle, by considering only the Pauline post-resurrection narrative as a later interpolation.

At any case, my was a question of method: how can you claim that Jesus didn't exist if for you the earliest source about Jesus is only proto-Mark ?

You do not save authenticity by considering the passage to be an interpolation. You destroy it. The existing letters are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul.

It is also the same for the short and long gMark. It cannot be said the short gMark was actually written by Mark simply by removing the interpolation in Mark 16.9-20

Authentic writings do not contain interpolation.

The existing so-called Pauline letters are not authentic--they were written no earlier than the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:57 am At any case, my was a question of method: how can you claim that Jesus didn't exist if for you the earliest source about Jesus is only proto-Mark ?

The short gMark clearly states that Jesus was a character who walked on water.

No person ever existed who walked on water.

The author of gMark could not have mentioned Paul or the Epistles because they [Paul and Epistles] were not yet invented.

It is seen that the so-called Pauline Epistles will always have a later embellished version of any event of Jesus found in both the short gMark and the Epistles.



Look at Mark 14.

22 And as they ate, having taken bread and blessed, he broke and
gave to them and said: Take: this is my body.
23 And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave to them; and
they all drank of it.
24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many.

Now look at 1 Cor. 11.23-25

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was delivered up, took
bread,
24 and after giving thanks he broke and said: This is my body which
is for you; this do in remembrance of me.
25 In like manner also the cup, after he had supped, saying: This cup
is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of me.

The phrases "this do in remembrance of me" and "in remembrance of me" in 1 Cor.11 are later embellishments not found in the short gMark but in gLuke 22.

19 And having taken bread and given thanks, he broke and gave to
them, saying: This is my body, that is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner, after he had supped, saying: This cup
is the new covenant in my blood, that is poured out for you.

The so-called Pauline Epistles contain later versions of the Jesus story than the short gMark so must have been or most likely written later.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:20 am Giuseppe

OK, but Acts doesn't contradict what I asserted, contrary to what you claimed previously. I am satisfied that you've now corrected that. No problem.

But the fact itself that Acts, in the intention of the his author, mentions Paul (in the negative terms of a persecutor later converted), is a reaction to a Gospel of other (Marcion or Mark) where Paul is not mentioned. In other terms, even the author of Acts realized the strangeness of the absence of any mention of Paul in the Gospel edited by him. Accordingly, he did mention Paul in the Acts in the naive known way.

If that young was named Paul ..

You and I seem to agree that for Mark to name the character (any character who met Jesus) "Paul" would open a can of worms, going beyond anything that could be justified from any reading of Paul. That is a sufficient reason for Mark not to do that.

I am not so sure About that. Think if Mark had only named a children cherished by Jesus as Paul. Instead, he did like to legitimize Paul in a implicit way, by using the Parable of the Mustard Seed.

Mark doesn't mention Paul, and so doesn't tell us what he thinks of Paul.

But his entire Gospel is a canticle for the Pauline theology! You can't deny it.

But Mark is following Paul?

But surely!

Herod is anonymous? John the Baptist? Peter? I've lost track of what work we're discussing. We seem to agree that Paul doesn't appear by name in Mark, so what work are we talking about?

John didn't see the dove on the head of Jesus at the baptism, in Mark. For him Jesus was a perfect anonymous like the other people baptized by him, in Mark. My point is that only anomymous people recognize Jesus (see the woman with the alabaster oil, see the blind of Bethsaida, see the centurion before the cross, etc).

On what basis and in what work do we find that Paul recognizes him fully? And even though Paul acknowledges that others had the same revelation before him, he's the first to get it fully? What work is that in?

In Galatians Paul says that he was chosen by God before the his same birth, if I remember well. In this sense, he is ''Paul'' (the Mustard Seed) even before he is sown in the womb of his mother.

hakeem wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:35 am

The so-called Pauline Epistles contain later versions of the Jesus story than the short gMark so must have been or most likely written later.

And what about 1 Cor 2:6-8 ? Who were the killers of Jesus for ''Paul'' in your view? The Jews? I am not so sure as you about this point.

Giuseppe

When the progress of the story reached a time when the author had something to say about what Paul was doing, then Paul enters the story. That's pretty much how plotting a story works. There's nothing strange about it.

Think if Mark had only named a children cherished by Jesus as Paul.

That would be too young to mesh easily with the letters, and so would open up a different can of worms, but still a can of worms.

But his entire Gospel is a canticle for the Pauline theology! You can't deny it.

Sure I can, and do. Any story in which Jesus displays supernatural power and enjoys the overt blessing of God before his resurrection runs past Paul's christology.

John didn't see the dove on the head of Jesus at the baptism, in Mark.

One of the men saw the heavens torn. Then the spirit descended either like a dove or as a dove (hos peristeran), presumably toward Jesus, with no indication of the sensory modality involved, if any. The voice then has its own distinct construction - it came from above, with no indication who heard it. Maybe just one, maybe both, maybe others, too; Mark doesn't say.

Matthew cleaned that up very considerably, at the cost of losing Mark's effective portrayal of the chaotic nature of recalled short-course life-changing crises. (Either that, or he sucked at pronoun reference; either view is possible).

As to anonymous: yes, some people have names and some people don't. People of both kinds recognize aspects of Jesus' nature (also a non-people who has a name, Legion).

And finally, yes, Paul thought quite highly of himself as a man of destiny. Agreed.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:11 am

hakeem wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:35 am

The so-called Pauline Epistles contain later versions of the Jesus story than the short gMark so must have been or most likely written later.

And what about 1 Cor 2:6-8 ? Who were the killers of Jesus for ''Paul'' in your view? The Jews? I am not so sure as you about this point.

In the so-called Pauline Epistles it clearly claimed that the Jews killed Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 2.14-15 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men


The claim that the Jews killed Jesus is found in multiple Christian writings supposedly from the 2nd century or later.

Aristides' Apology---The Jews killed Jesus.
Justin/s Dialogue with Trypho---The Jews killed Jesus.
Origen's Against Celsus--the Jews killed Jesus.
Tertullian's Answer to the Jews---The Jews killed Jesus.
Lactantius' On How the Persecutors Died--The Jews killed Jesus.
Chrysostom/s Treatise Against the Jews--The Jews killed Jesus.