Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The most important disciples in Mark's Gospel, are Peter, James and John.
Paul says the 3 pillars were Peter, James and John.
Were these the same people?

Originally Posted by David Hillman

Yes I think they were, since Mark got much from Paul's epistles, as Turton has showed.

Originally Posted by http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark06.html

Mark 6: 3--> Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

v3: Mary: The writer of Mark has given Jesus' mother the name of Moses' sister. As Meier (1987) observes:
"It is probably not by accident that, like himself, all of Jesus' relatives bear names that hark back to the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the entrance into the promised land. His putative father was Joseph, the name of one of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel and the progenitor, through Ephraim and Manasseh, of two of the twelve tribes. His mother was Mary, in Hebrew Miriam, the name of the sister of Moses. His four brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, were named after the patriarchs who begot the twelve sons/tribes of Israel (James =Jacob) and after three of those twelve sons (Joses=Joseph, Simon=Simon, and Jude=Judah)"(p207).

in this context it should be emphasized that Jesus' own name was actually "Joshua" ("Jesus" being the Greek form of the Hebrew) or "Yeshua." This was identified with "Yehoshua" which originally meant "YHWH helps" but later came to be seen as "YHWH saves," the former being post-exilic (Meier 1987, p232).
v3: Several commentators have noticed that the names of Jesus' family echo the names of the Maccabean leaders. Joseph Atwill (2005) points out:
It is interesting that Jesus, like the sons of Matthias, the founder of the Maccabean dynasty, was also recorded as being one of five sons. Notice how some of the names of Jesus’ family are Maccabean.(p254)
v3: is sometimes viewed as having a historical root. However, since it leads into v4, the wisdom saying that is the foundation of this pericope, there is no reason to think it has a historical root. The embarrassment criterion is often deployed to claim that this is historical data, on the grounds that it refers to Jesus being a bastard, but that criterion can only be used if we know we are dealing with history. There are many ways this scene can be interpreted as fiction.
v3: "Son of Mary" may not be original to Mark, for p45 has "Is this not the son of the craftsman [and of Mary]?" (Brown 1993, p537). The parallel texts in Matthew and Luke read "Isn't this fellow the son of the carpenter? Isn't his mother called Mary?" (Matt 13:55) and "Isn't this fellow the son of Joseph?" (Luke 4:22). Jack Elliot (1981) also supports the originality of the "son of the carpenter" reference, pointing out that it was more natural to describe a male as the son of his father in Jewish literature. Similarly, John 6:42 echoes Luke: "Isn't this fellow the son of Joseph?" John Meier (1987, p225) argues that the text has been assimilated to Matthew here, and the original text will not support the apparent charge of illegitimacy ("son of Mary" often being read as a derogatory reference to bastardy). There is an OT precedent for referring to sons by their mother's name: Zeruiah, whose three sons were battle leaders under David. Abishai, son of Zeruiah, appears in 2 Sam 16, which the writer of Mark parallels in Mark 14. Josephus also refers to a man as the son of his mother: "John of Dorcas" (War 4.1), and "Joseph, son of Iatrine." (Life, 185).
v3: Davies and Johnson (1996) point out that:
...the implication that Jesus' "relatives and his own house" give him no honor is almost certainly added by Mark who also constructed 3:20-35 to show Jesus' relatives' failure properly to appreciate him.
v3: Further, as Price (2003, p57-8) observes, v3 makes no sense in light of v2:
And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him?" 3........ And they took offense at him.
How is it that they were at one moment astonished and the next offended? Perhaps the writer of Mark simply didn't think through the scene, and so has written something that is totally illogical, Price argues. However, if one takes the crowd reaction in v2 as signifying sarcasm, then v3 makes sense (expressions of sarcastic contempt followed by open rejection) and Price's argument fails. An indicator that the passage is intended to be sarcastic is that the locals are unlikely to be praising him for performing "mighty works" if (a) they don't believe he can do them (v3), and (b) he is unable to do them (v5).
v3: Price adds (2003, p95) that ancient Jewish scholars used "carpenter" as a metaphor for one skilled at interpreting the Torah. "The carpenter from Nazareth may have been a literalizing, historicizing transformation of the Scripture scholar from the Nazorean sect," he concludes.
v3: Origen, in Contra Celsus (6:36), notes that in his time "in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter."
v3: While Jesus is traditionally depicted as a carpenter, the Greek word used is "tekton," which can refer to a number of skilled artisanal professions, such as stoneworking. Socrates was also a "tekton" (a stone mason) who was executed by the authorities of his day.
v3: Bultman (1958) observes:
"But besides "prophet" another designation of Jesus appears in the gospels: he is addressed as "rabbi." (Mark 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14 :45 ) This title, which in the Greek gospels is usually rendered by the ordinary Greek form of address (Lord, Sir), marks Jesus as belonging to the class of scribes. And that implies, if it is to be taken seriously, that Jesus, being a scribe, had received the necessary scriba1 training and had passed the requisite scribal tests."
v3: Compare Jesus' profession with 1 Cor 1:20:
where [is] the wise? where the scribe? where a disputer of this age? did not God make foolish the wisdom of this world? (YLT)
v3: Another affinity between Mark and 1 Cor is also found in the word "offense," from the Greek skandalon, also a key idea of 1 Cor, found in 1 Cor 1:24.
v3: Crossan (1999) argues that the writer of Mark knows that Joseph is Jesus' father, and has edited the story to make him disappear, concluding that because Joseph had no place in the Jerusalem community, the writer of Mark had no interest in him.

Originally Posted by avi

Where is the evidence to refute the notion that BOTH Mark and Paul are second century creations

Originally Posted by David Hillman

Yes I think they were, since Mark got much from Paul's epistles, as Turton has showed. There are perhaps questions about the identity of Cephas, Peter and Simon, and which names were in the original manuscript of the epistles. But I think three leading epistles names do come from Paul.
This is significant because it shows that Mark did not understand bother of the Lord as a family relationship,primarily, since neither James son of Zebedee nor James son of Alphaeus or Cleopas are understood to be brothers of Jesus.
Now I say primarily, because pseudohistorians are happy to have it both ways (examples abound in Saxo, Geoffrey de Monmouth and elsewhere) and Mark could also have taken a hint that Jesus had siblings.
What this means for HJ is not certain.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 5:37
He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James.

The most important disciples in Mark's Gospel, are Peter, James and John.

Paul says the 3 pillars were Peter, James and John.

Were these the same people?

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 5:37
He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James.

The most important disciples in Mark's Gospel, are Peter, James and John.

Paul says the 3 pillars were Peter, James and John.

Were these the same people?

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Should that be the default notion? Why?

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Mark seems to clearly distinguish between James the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and James the brother of John and son of Zebedee.

If the James the Lord's brother in Galatians 1:19 is the same as James the pillar in Galatians 2:9, (which seems the most obvious and straightforward reading of Galatians), then it is unlikely that the James in Galatians 2:9 is the same as James the brother of John in Mark.

(If one accepts Acts as evidence then James the brother of John was almost certainly dead before the events of Galatians 2:9)

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am thinking Steven Carr's argument is a good one. For one thing, the plain meaning to us may not be the same plain meaning to those in the early church, who may have taken it for granted that James, the brother of John, was a respected leader, and that James, the brother of Jesus, was a lightweight. Secondly, the account of the death of James, the brother of John, in Acts 12 is wrapped up in a miracle story, and it smacks of martyrdom and anti-Jewish sentiment to boot. The coincidence of names between Mark and Galatians seems to carry considerable weight.

Originally Posted by Gal 2

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

12 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 from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.