Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 04-11-2003, 10:29 AM

On Mark's order this is Helm's list as translated by the NEB

Once he was approached by a leper (1:40)
When after some days (2:1)
Once more (2:13)
When Jesus was at a table (2:15)
Once, when (2:18)
One Sabbath (2:23)
On another occasion (3:1)
On another occasion (4:1)
When he was alone (4:10)
That [same unspecified] day (4:35)
He left that place (6:1)
On one of his teaching journeys (6:6)
On another occasion (7:14)
There was another occasion about this time (8:1)
Jesus and his disciples set out (8:27)
On leaving those parts (10:1)

This in itself may be possible to reconcile with a direct link to Peter though: Mark was just remembering incidents as Peter preached what he remembered. So I won't press this but one might expect a little more order from one carefully writing down what an eyewitness has to say. But lets go back to the controversy traditions:

E.P. Sanders Historical Figure of Jesus pp. 130-131:

Quote:

For the sake of emphasis and clarity, I wish to comment once more on the nature of the material that the gospels incorporated and also on how the authors utilized it. When Mark wrote his Gospel he had before him a lot of individual pericpes, and he put them together in a narrative without, however destorying the basic pericope form. We saw above his brief links: 'immediately', again', and similar vague indications (pp. 73f.). The quick stringing together of the pericopes allowed Mark to open his gospel in a dramaticaly forceful way, by racing through brief accounts of healings and conflicts, up to the conclusion that some people plotted Jesus' death. Matthew and Luke did not always keep Mark's order sequence, and they moved some of the stories to other places in their gospels. Thus, for example, Matthew did not put the story of the healing of the paralytic where it would go if he had been following Mark's order, in his ch. 4, but rather with other miracle stories in ch. 9. The pericope could be moved to suit the interests of each author. This reminds us once again that the gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word.

Mark may not have been the first to put pericopes together to make a story. Many scholars think that the series of conflict scenes in 2.1-3.6 came to him ready-made. It is noteworthy that the conclusion (the Pharisees and the herodfians plotted Jesus' death) comes too early for the structure of the gospel as a whole. The Pharisees and Herodians are reintroduced nine chapters later (Mark 12:13), where they are said to be trying to entrap Jesus. Historically it is not likely that the fairly minor conflicts in Mark 2.1-53.5 actually led to a plot to put Jesus to death (3:6), and editorially it is not likely that Mark himself created the plot where it now stands in 3:6, only to reintroduce a weaker version of opposition from these two parties in 12.13. The most likely explanation of 3.6 is that the conflict stories of 2.1-3.5 had already been put together and that they immediately preceded a story of Jesus' arrest, trial and execution. That is, a previous collection--a proto gospel-- may have consisted of conflict stories, a plot against Jesus, and the successful exocution of the plot.

For the moment it is important to see that, in reading the first chapters of mark, we are not reading a first-hand diary of 'life with Jesus in Galilee', but an edited collection of individual events that may originally have had another context." pp 130

Vinine

Peter Kirby · 04-14-2003, 06:40 AM

I surrender, mighty Vinnie, for my defeat is abject and total. If you will but have mercy upon me, I shall give you all of my energy credits and share all of my research data. I shall never trouble you again. (from the computer game Alpha Centauri)

Seriously, I appreciate all the work you have put into these posts. You might want to work it into an article for your web site. Recall that my initial reply was, "Why do we think that the author of Mark hadn't heard Peter say stuff? I haven't seen the subject addressed in detail." That statement is no longer true. You have gone into impressive detail on why you disbelieve the traditional attribution of the Gospel according to Mark.

An additional and potentially powerful argument against Petrine authority behind Mark has come to my attention since writing my last post. I have recently read St. Paul versus St. Peter by Michael Goulder, who claims that the Gospel of Mark is virulently Pauline. Here is what Goulder has to say:

Quote:

And is there not a tradition that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome in later years?

There is indeed, and a very unreliable tradition too: it comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in western Turkey about 130, and it comes alongside a series of other pieces of wishful thinking designed to defend the Gospels against those who pointed out contradictions between them. A little earlier the author of I Peter (who was not St Peter) ends his letter: 'She who is at Bablyon (i.e. the church at Rome) . . . sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark'. Mark was a well-known figure in the Roman church, and mentioning him made it more plausible that Peter was the writer. But arguments of this kind of reference and from tradition are always perilous. The only way to find out Mark's attitude to Peter is to look carefully at what he says about him, and compare it with the other accounts we have. All arguments of the form, Surely Mark would have . . ., prejudge the issue. We need to look fairly at the evidence, and as before, to try to forget for the moment our interests in what Peter was actually like, and to concentrate on what Mark (and the others) thought about him. For this purpose we must certainly note all the positive stories Mark includes about him, which are for the most part the same incidents I have mentioned with James and John. But there are two passages which are about Peter on his own, and these are instructive. We may seee Mark's emphasis most easily by taking another account alongside.

, , ,

It is clear that Peter was the first to hail Jesus as 'the Christ' (the long promised king of the line of David - see below ch. 14); and that this was a big moment, and greatly to his credit in the eyes of all Christians, Mark included. But a comparison of the two texts above shows how enthusiastic Matthew is about it, and how grudging is Mark. (1) In Mark Peter gives Jesus the merely human title 'Christ'. But Mark thought that the real significance of Jesus was that he was divine, 'the Son of God' (ch. 14); it is Matthew who adds 'the Son of the living God'. (2) In Mark Peter gets absolutely no credit for his great moment of insight; the response is chilling, like a schoolchild who feels he has written a marvellous essay and the teacher makes no comment at all. Contrast Matthew: Blessed . . . revealed . . . Peter . . . this rock . . . the gates of Hades . . . the keys of the kingdom. We begin to see reasons for thinking that Matthew is a Petrine. (3) Mark makes it clear that Peter has only begun on the road to understanding. He has not taken in that Jesus has to suffer, die and rise again, which are crucial to a true understanding. Matthew has this too, but he separates it from Peter's scene of triumph with 'From that time . . .'

Mark seems even to take the offensive against Peter. (4) Although Jesus explained things plainly, Mark says Peter had the gall to rebuke him - to rebuke the Son of God! Matthew makes the rebuke ever so gentle - 'God forbid, Lord!' - so gentle that it is hardly a rebuke at all. (5) This causes Jesus to rebuke Peter, calling him Satan, which is a pretty stinging remark; and he does it publicly, 'turning and seeing his disciples'. Matthew drops the latter; he retains the famous 'Satan' saying, but lets it down to mean that Peter is not only the rock on which the church is built, but also a rock which has nearly tripped Jesus up. (6) There is a worse matter, which is often not noticed. Jesus goes on immediately in Mark: 'If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life shall lose it . . .' Can you think of anyone in the Gospel story who wanted to save his life, who refused to come after Jesus and take up his cross, who did not deny himself but denied Jesus? Well, so could St Mark. (St. Paul versus St. Peter, pp. 16-18)

If true, this seems to be the most powerful argument against the tradition of Petrine authority behind the Second Gospel. I will let you read Goulder himself to decide whether his theory is true.

E. P. Sanders writes, "The key fact to recall is that the tradition about Mark does not surface until approximately 140, which on balance must make us doubt that Papias had an old and reliable tradition." (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 12) Is that a fact? All we have to go on for dating Papias (within the rough range of 80 to 180) are the patristic statements. Robert H. Gundry offers us this analysis:

Quote:

The date of the tradition depends on the date of Papias's writing and on the identity of the elder whom he quotes regarding Mark. Modern handbooks used to put the date at ca. 130 C.E. or later (see the survey by R. W. Yarbrough in JETS 26 [1983] 181-82), but a consensus seems to be developing that Papias wrote earlier by a quarter century or more, i.e. in the first decade of the second century. Eusebius leads us to the early date by saying that Papias became famous during the time of Polycarp and Ignatius, with whom he associates Clement of Rome (H.E. 3.36.1-2; 3.39.1). Polycarp did not die till the middle of the second century; but Ignatius died ca. 107 and Clement ca. 100. Eusebius's discussion of Papias's writings comes right at this point, i.e. before Trajan's persecution, which started ca. 110 and which Eusebius does not describe till Book 4 of his Ecclesiastical History whereas the fragments of Papias appear in Book 3.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Yarbrough (op. cit. 186-90), Eusebius's Chronicon puts together and in order the Apostle John, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius and assigns the date 100 to this entry (R. Helm, Chronik 193-94); and J. B. Orchard (in The NT Age 393-403) shows that Eusebius is following a chronological order according to which all the events recorded in H.E. 3.34-39 take place during the bishopric of Evarestus at Rome (101-108 C.E.). Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, describes Papias as an "ancient man" and as "the hearer of the Apostle John" (Haer. 5.33.4; cf. Eus. H.E. 3.39.1, 13; cf. also R. H. Gundry, Matthew 614-15). The failure of Irenaeus and Eusebius to quote Papias against Gnosticism is best explained by Papias's having said nothing against Gnosticism because he wrote before it became a serious threat, i.e. before 110 (cf. also M. Hengel, Studies 152, n. 61). And the Papian fragments exhibit a general similarity to the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, written early (for details, see Yarbrough, op. cit. 188-90).

U. H. J. Kortner (Papias 225-26) agrees that Papias's polemics fit an early rather than late date and adds that it is easier to think of an early date for Papias's making inquiry of those who had heard "the elders" (Eus. H.E. 3.39.3-4), but it is hard to think of the Elder John and Aristion as still alive toward the middle of the second century. The present tense of legousin, "are saying" (ibid.), implies that they are still alive when Papias writes, however. It is also hard to believe that he lived so long as to have both had personal acquaintance with the daughters of "Philip the Apostle" in the middle of the first century (Eus. H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Acts 21:8-9) and written toward the middle of second century. Papias's use of "the Lord's disciples" and of "the elders" instead of "the apostles" for the guarantors of orthodoxy favors an early date, i.e. a date before "the apostles" developed such a connotation; and Papias's lack of great attention to John's writings favors an early date, i.e. a date so soon after John had written that those writings did not yet command much attention. Finally, E. Stauffer (in Neutestamentliche Aufsatze 283-93) and H. H. Schmidt (in TZ 44 [1988] 135-46) have noted a large number of Semitisms in the Papian fragment on Mark, Semitisms favoring the tradition of the Elder John had a very early and therefore likely reliable origin.

The only hard evidence favoring a late date consists in a statement by Philip of Side, who makes Papias refer to the reign of Hadrian (117-138; see the citation in Aland's Synopsis 531). But we have good reasons to distrust Philip's statement. He is notoriously unreliable and wrote approximately a century later than Eusebius did (Philip - ca. 430; Eusebius - ca. 324). Comparison of Philip's statement with Eusebius's favors that Philip depended on Eusebius but garbled the information he got. Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus, who addressed an apology to Hadrian, the very emperor during whose reign Philip puts Papias's writings. The claim of Quadratus that some of the people whom Jesus healed and raised from the dead have lived up to his own day sounds something like the claim of Papias to have gotten information about the Lord's commands "from the living and abiding voice" of the elders and other disciples of the Lord (see Eus. H.E. 3.39.1-4 with 4.3.1-2). More strikingly, however, when Philip quotes Papias, the phraseology sounds more like Eusebius's quotations of Quadratus than of Papias. Thus, just as Eusebius associates Quadratus with Hadrian's reign and quotes Quadratus as referring to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living, so Philip associates Papias with Hadrian's reign and writes that Papias referred to people raised form the dead by Jesus and still living. Furthermore, there appears to have been another Quadratus, who was a prophet, not an apologist. Eusebius discusses him in association with Jesus' original disciples and their immediate successors (H.E. 3.37.1). Philip probably confuses Quadratus the apologist with Quadratus the prophet. It was easy for him to do so, because he found Eusebius's similar discussion of Papias bounded by references to the name "Quadratus." A final cause of Philip's confusing Papias's writings with an apology by a Quadratus is Eusebius's associating this Quadratus with the daughters of Philip the evangelist (H.E. 3.37.1) just as Eusebius associates Papias with them (H.E. 3.39.9). Poor Philip fell into a trap. In summary, a large number of considerations unite to disfavor a date of 130 or later in accordance with Philip of Side and to favor a date of 101-108 (see R. W. Yarbrough in JETS 26 [1983] 182-186 against arguments even less substantial than the one from Philip).

Now by his own testimony Papias is not surmising. He is passing on an earlier report by a certain elder. Properly speaking, the tradition does not go back merely to Papias, as most discussions leave the impression it does, but behind Papias to an elder. If Papias writes 101-108, then, the tradition that he passes on reaches back into the first century. (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pp. 1027-1029)

If Gundry is right about the antiquity of the tradition, would that be an argument for taking it seriously?

I am not sure. In line with Goulder's theory, the battle between the Paulines and the Petrines for control of the church would have been in issue in the early period, shortly after the war, and what better way would there be to discredit the ideas of the Petrines than to say that Peter didn't teach them and was rather on the side of Paul? And, well look here, his son Mark was so close to Peter that he interpreted his words and left us this gospel, which shows the glorious truth of the mission to the Gentiles. The consensus seems to be that the gospel was anonymous, so its authorship could be up for grabs to anyone who had a good idea. Are there similar cases in history in which an anonymous document is quickly given a false attribution?

Even though I am now less optimistic about the authorship of Mark, I think that you make many good points and questions that deserve comment, so here are some comments.

Yes. I would take that a little further. Several other Christians seemed to have no interest in Gospel authorship from what we can tell of their surviving thoughts. Its hard to combine literary silence with an accurate transmission of authorship.

That sounds awfully like the dreaded argument from silence! What makes this argument from silence good and another one bad (such as those of Earl Doherty)?

I will answer my own question: There are indeed good and bad arguments from silence. "I submit that at least three criteria can be used to evaluate the strength of an argument from silence. The first criterion is the presumption of knowledge. This criterion asks, how likely is it that a particular writer knew of an event if it had happened? The second criterion is the presumption of relevance. This criterion asks, how likely is it that the writer would mention this event in this document? The third criterion is applied after we have a number of different writers and documents that have been evaluated through the first two. The third one asks, how likely is it that all these documents fail to mention this event? While perhaps it would be understandable if any particular one failed to make a note of the event, the argument is strengthened by several silences when it would seem a strange coincidence for every one to happen not to mention the event." (from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...b/silence.html - "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated")

How do the criteria apply to this case? The criterion of the presumption of knowledge does not hold securely. If the Gospel of Mark was published without an author's name attached, it is possible that some people knew who the author was and that other people didn't, at least for a while. But the opposing argument would be stronger if it were "general knowledge" that the oldest Gospel was written by one Mark, and this is particularly the case if the Gospel was published openly by Peter's disciples. So the criterion of the presumption of knowledge holds well enough, though not securely. What about the presumption of relevance? Well, why would these authors (who are they?) make a note that the Gospel of Mark was by a disciple of Peter? For one thing, do these authors even mention the Gospel of Mark at all? Further, do these authors depend on the Gospel of Mark in such a way that it would be worthwhile to mention the tradition of authorship? After all, plenty of people quote from the Gospel of Mark today without going into a whole song and dance about its origins. And, how extensive is this silence? At least four second century writers mention the Petrine connection: Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria. What are the names of the people who should have mentioned the authorship of Mark but didn't?

Yes, but more than that. Some of the material probably reflects ideal situations for the early church.

Later you write: The question that this will boil down to is what is from Peter and what is from Mark and other sources?

Yes, that does put a damper on the whole Petrine authority thing. Here is what the Catholic NAB says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources - miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion - so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day." Certainly everyone critical can agree that Mark is not dictated by Peter as Jerome said.

If Paul says he met Peter in a surviving letter we would probably believe him I think unless evidence to the contrary came up. It would be a contemporary-primary eyewitness source datum that would seemingly warrant a deal of presumption. Of course, even these are sometimes disputed (e.g. some of Josephus' references to himself). But in this case where this issue was disputing from different sides I am not sure why Papias should get any sort of presumption.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that there was a dispute over the authorship of Mark?

I don't see how your bifurcation is valid. Whether Peter wrote his own account or whether Mark wrote Peter's account (e.g. Papias), whats the difference? The authority is the same either way.

This would be an important point. Some today would say that the Gospel of Mark has the authority of Peter even if composed by his disciple, while others would say that it is hearsay if it were not written down by the eyewitness. But what people would think today is not the crucial issue: the question is, what was the ancient attitude towards authorship? On this question, though I could be wrong, I think you are right: the work of someone who wrote under the authority of a worthy was considered to be basically by that worthy. We even carry on that practice today, what with the lecture notes called the Nicomachean Ethics being treated simply as the work of Aristotle. So I could see Justin Martyr agreeing with the statements of Papias and still calling it the memoirs of Peter.

I was relying on Keoster for the claim that Justin knew Papias. Papias or the presbyter tradition. Either way multiple attestation seems to be ruled out.

There is something that I have sometimes wondered about multiple attestation: don't a lot of "independent" accounts go back to the testimony of one person? For example, the denials of Peter, if they had been historical. They are present both in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John. Perhaps the author of the Gospel of Mark heard the story from Peter (or perhaps from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from Peter), and perhaps the author of the Gospel of John heard it from the beloved disciple who heard it from Peter. In that case, don't we only have one witness to the event, that of Peter? Doesn't multiple attestation for hearsay suffer from the fact that all the sources may go back to a single eyewitness? In our case, the single witness would have been the author who said, "hey, I just wrote this book based on the stories Peter told." If it's ok for multiply attested claims to go back to a single witness, then how exactly is it multiple attestation? Does it make a big difference if the tree, instead of having two nodes branching off from the root (the first person to recount the Papias tradition and the first person to recount the Justin tradition), has a single node coming from the root (the elder who is the source behind Papias and Justin)? Isn't still the same source and the same number of steps between the source and the written reports? I guess the point is, what is it about multiple attestation that makes stories that are multiply attested more reliable, if it's not that there are multiple eyewitnesses?

Quote:

That Justin should have known the term "LONGGREEKWORDICAN'TTYPE" from its occasional use in the Second Sophistic is possible, but not very likely. It is highly unlikely, however, that his choice of the term as a designation for the gospels was dependent upon this usagem, and it is certainly not the case that Justin adopted the term in order to lend to tye written gospels the rank of historical sources--simply because "SAMEGREEKWORD" did not have any such meaning iat Justin's time. On the other hand, the simple form of the verb "to remember" (GREEKWORD) occurs frequently in the quotation formulae for orally tranmitted sayings of Jesus. The composite form of the verb "to remember" (FORMGREEKWORD) had been used by Papias of Hierapolis as a technical term for the transmission of oral materials about Jesus. If Justin's term "Meemoirs of the Apostles" is derived from this usage, it designated the written gospels as the true recollections of the apostles, trustworthy and accurate, and more reliable than any oral tradition which they are destined to replace.[1]

Moreover, when Justin composed the interpretation of Psalm 22--an earlier treatise that was later incorporated in his Dialogue--it is evideent that he knew of the presbyter tradition quoted in Papias's work. In Dial. 106.3 he refers to the "Memoirs of Peter" in the context of a citation from Mark 3:16-17. This reveals that Justin connected the Gospel of Mark with Peter like the presbyter tradition that is quoted in Papias. That Justin, relying on Papias, coined the term "Memoirs of the Apostles" with an anti-Gnostic intention, is quite possible, considering the use of the terminology of "remembering" in such writings as the Apocryphon of James. But what is of primary importance is the fact that the use of this term advertises the written gospels as replacement for the older oral traditions under apostolic authority."

Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels pg. 39-40

I had forgotten about this passage from Koester. Basically, aside from the point that they agree that Peter is the authority behind Mark (the tradition in question), Koester points out that Justin speaks of "memoirs" while Papias speaks of "remembering," the same root word, while Justin considers the memoirs to be superior to oral tradition. Koester's argument would be more plausible if Justin had mentioned Papias. As it is, there were probably many people who had appealed to the oral memory of the living Jesus, with Papias just being the most famous to us. Another writer who promoted the memory of Jesus is the author of 1 Clement, who asks his readers to remember those sayings of Jesus stored up in their hearts. Justin, if he was using "memoirs" in an allusive way, was not isolating Papias for this allusion.

Where is the CofA reference? I am not familiar with this one.

Haran posted the quotes earlier in the thread. Here they are.

Quote:

Clement of Alexandria
From Eus. - Book 6:14

In the same volumes Clement has found room for a tradition of the primitive authorities of the Church regarding the order of the gospels. It is this. He used to say that the earliest gospels were those containing the genealogies, while Mark's originated as follows. When, at Rome, Peter had openly preached the word and by the spirit had proclaimed the gospel, the large audience urged Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write it all down. This he did, making his gospel available to all who wanted it. When Peter heard about this, he made no objection and gave no special encouragement.

Clement of Alexandria
From Eus. - Book 2:15

So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whoe gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go till they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the spirit what had happened, the apostle was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorized the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quotes the story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself....

There is also the letter published by Morton Smith.

Quote:

From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...

I agree that the story has become legendary by the time of Clement of Alexandria.

Of course, serious reconstruction is usually not based upon a single witness unless that witness is authenticated. Some scholars general trust that Jesus was a carpenter even though the only evidence occurs in one passage in the NT. But this seemed more incindental there.

Sure a single witness could preserve truth but what evidence can you give me that I should trust Papias here? Papias also relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day and that a man swallowed deadly poison and lived. Of course, neither of these, again, warrant cavalier dismissal of Papais. They only caution us against a naive reliance on Papias' evidence.

I recognize the difficulty in authenticating a single witness. It could be true, but how do we know? As to the resurrection and survival of deadly poison, I must ask whether you believe in miracles? I don't, and so the argument has some sway, but do you?

Where does it say Mark may certainly add to it? You seemed to have read that in. Sure Mark had to pice the material together into a narrative but is this the same as Mark may add to it? Of course when I ask that it is under the assumption of all the things I think Mark probably added that do not come from Peter and I'll list them on Sunday/Modany.

I agree that Papias does not say, "Mark may have added non-Peter stuff." What Papias does is to omit saying that Mark added nothing, though he does say that Mark left out nothing. Perhaps one could make an argument for implication, but that is not what I would do. I would just say that Papias's account is compatible with a scenario in which the author of Mark added non-Peter stuff.

For instance, does the historical datum where the historical Jesus is said to have declared all food clean come from Mark of Peter?

Not Jesus, but maybe Mark, as I think Paul would have used it if he had known of it.

Onward to the next post...

First I want to re-ask a question: What does it mean to say that Mark was the interpreter of Peter? Was he translating what Peter said or what? Or does "interpreter" mean he "rephraseed" Peter's preaching? In a footnote in his Intro NT Brown seemed to lean towards the former (p. 160 n. 84).

The word used in the Greek is herm�neut�s. Feyerabend offers the definition "herald, interpreter, expounder." I was able to find two other occurences of the word through Perseus.

Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae (ed. B. Niese) book 2, section 72. And he expected a prediction like to that of the cupbearer. But Joseph, considering and reasoning about the dream, said to him, that he would willingly be an interpreter [herm�neut�s] of good events to him, and not of such as his dream denounced to him; but he told him that he had only three days in all to live, for that the [three] baskets signify, that on the third day he should be crucified, and devoured by fowls, while he was not able to help himself.

Plato, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman div1 Stat., section 290c. There are men who have to do with divination and possess a portion of a certain menial science; for they are supposed to be interpreters [herm�neutai] of the gods to men.

Thus, in the only two other examples of the exact word that I could find, in neither place did the word refer to a foreign language interpreter. It is still possible that this is the meaning in Papias, for it is possible that Peter had insufficient command of either Greek or Latin. But it is equally possible that the meaning is "expounder," until I see a persuasive argument either way.

Sure, there are several �elegant answers�. How do we decide which one is correct? This argument is a complete failure in that it does not seem to demonstrate what it attempts to do so: John Mark wrote GMark. There are several "elegant" answers.

Here is how Sanders treats the problem:

Quote:

We shall find throughout our study of the gospels that we must often guess what someone would have done, based on our reading of general tendencies. We might as well start now emphasizing that such guesses, though 'informed' to some degree or other, are never certain. Our own judgment is that the 'alternative explanation' of two paragraphs above is more likely than Streeter's argument, but 'more likely' is the strongest term to use for arguments of this sort. We shall present the alterative again: Streeter: the second-century Christians would have assigned Mark to Peter if they could, but their inclination was overcome by their knowledge that actually Mark wrote it. We have proposed instead: the second-century Christians assigned Mark as close to Peter as they could, since it was well known that he did not write a gospel himself. (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 14)

Usually there is more than one possible explanation, but some are better than others. On the face of it, I thought that a good explanation is that the elder didn't attribute the gospel to Peter because it was known to be by Mark. But the explanation that Peter was known not to have authored a gospel would work just as well. And, as for example the argument of Goulder shows, there are difficulties with the traditional ascription. You go on to catalogue several difficulties yourself.

John Mark (the alleged author under discussion) was (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who had early become a Christian.

I know that the tradition refers to the John Mark of Acts, but couldn't Papias be speaking of a person that Peter befriended in Antioch or even Rome? There were plenty of Marks in the ancient Roman Empire.

The feeding of the five-thousand with a few loaves. The eye-witness reminiscing of Peter? The feeding of the 4,000

This is an excellent point, and not just because they are 'nature miracles'.

Here is what Meier has to say: "When compared to most Gospel miracle stories, the feeding of the multitude is supported by an unusually strong atttestation of multiple sources. It is not only attested independently in both Mark and John, it is also attested by two variant forms of the tradition lying behind Mark's Gospel. This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form." (A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 965)

All this talk about development and cycles leaves Peter out in the cold.

So, what exactly comes from Peter and what comes from Mark? Remember, Papias says Mark wrote carefully what Peter said not being careful not to omit. He did not write in order and Papais may have been okay with Mark adding to Peter but I guess we have to ask how much is Mark allowed to add and how much has to be accurate? The cases I brought up seem to go well beyond this. In all practicality, they render the link to Peter moot.

Taken as a whole, this material and my earlier points which posited other �elegant solutions� to the Papias question point me in one direction: This Gospel written around 70 AD was written by an unknown Christian.

According to Randel Helms, the Gospel of Mark was written within three and a half years of the destruction of the Temple, based on (the author of) Mark's rereading of Daniel.

I might have to read Helms again, but I am pretty sure that he doesn't buy into the Papias tradition.

The NAB says the Petrine link should not be exaggerated. This is an understatement. Based on this discussion, I think that the tradition of Peter's authority behind Mark carries little weight if any. Thank you for all this information. You are a scholar and a gentleman.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 04-14-2003, 06:57 AM

Responding to this is going to set me back a month

Very nice post. Thanks.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 04-14-2003, 07:08 AM

Please, don't feel obligated to reply to it. I basically agree with you on the issue.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 04-14-2003, 12:13 PM

Peter - how did you produce those Greek letters?

Peter Kirby · 04-14-2003, 12:29 PM

[ FONT = SYMBOL ] logoV [ / FONT ]

logoV

Note that accents are impossible with this method.

best,
Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2003, 06:57 AM	#33
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Responding to this is going to set me back a month Very nice post. Thanks. Vinnie

04-14-2003, 07:08 AM	#34
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Please, don't feel obligated to reply to it. I basically agree with you on the issue. best, Peter Kirby

04-14-2003, 12:13 PM	#35
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Peter - how did you produce those Greek letters?

04-14-2003, 12:29 PM	#36
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	[ FONT = SYMBOL ] logoV [ / FONT ] logoV Note that accents are impossible with this method. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.