aa5874

The Pauline epistles are NOT "known earlier" Christian writings some are PRESUMED early.

When the same analysis that is used to claim gMatthew is a copy of gMark is applied to the Pauline writings then hardly anything from the Pauline writings is found the Synoptics.

The FUNDAMENTAL clue that an author is aware of another source is WORD-FOR-WORD copying that is one very significant reason why some have DEDUCED that gMatthew is a copy of gMark.

And it is for this lack of WORD-FOR-WORD copying by the author of gJohn that it can be DEDUCED that the author of gJohn did NOT use gMark or a similar source.

If gJohn did NOT use gMark then it is NOT logical at all that gMark used the Pauline writings when virtually ALL the details about Jesus in gMark cannot be found anywhere at all in the Pauline writings.

And if "Paul" actually persecuted the Christian Faith then the Gospel writers did NOT need "Paul". The Jesus story would have been KNOWN whether or not "Paul" wrote anything at all.

"Paul" did NOT even claim that his Jesus was from Nazareth so we know the author of gMark did NOT use the Pauline writings for the story about Jesus of Nazareth.

Vorkosigan

Actually, there's quite a bit about Jesus and early Christianity in the Paulines.

Assume for the nonce that the writer of Mark was familiar with Paul's letters, most probably Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians. What narrative items does that enable us to assign to the writer's knowledge of Paul? Here's a few:

Jesus was designated, not born, the Son of God
Philippians 2:6-11
Jesus was of Davidic Descent
Romans 1:3
Jesus was handed over (betrayed)
1 Cor 11:23
Importance of Peter, James and John
Galatians 2:9
James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars,....

Indeed, Peter only appears in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the two most commonly echoed letters in Mark.
Pharisees hate Jesus
Philippians 3:5-6
...circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
Peter = Cephas
Several places in the Paulines, including 1 Cor 9:5 in some manuscripts
Peter is married and has a mother-in-law
1 Cor 9: 5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? (the Greek actually says "sister-wife")
Abba, Father
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Divorce in Mark 10:12

1 Cor 7
Extensive discussion on divorce
Last Supper
1 Cor 11:23-5
Jesus Raised on the Third Day 1 Cor 15:4
Interpretation
It is widely argued that the Gospel of Mark is about discipleship, and that an important aspect of it is imitating Jesus.. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
Possible Source: 1 Cor 4:15-6
Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.
"Food" and "eating" as a metaphor for the message of Jesus and its reception.
1 Cor 10:1-4

1: I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2: and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3: and all ate the same supernatural food
4: and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.


The insertion of Nazareth in Mk1 was probably a back edit from Matthew. No need for it to have been in the Paulines. Originally Mark did not say Jesus was from nazareth.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

O yes, if there's an afterlife, I want to spend it tormenting the bastard(s) who ripped Mark up.

That's an interesting suggestion. Some exegetes argue the beginning of Mk 1 has been lost. That makes any connection we speculate on highly problematic.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

You must mean "speculate". Speculations cannot be really argued.

aa5874

Well, there is EXCEEDINGLY FAR MORE about Jesus in gJohn than the Pauline writings yet it has been deduced that the author of gJohn did NOT use gMark.

Let us be rational. By simple deduction we can theorize that gMark did NOT get his Jesus story from "Paul" because the DETAILS about Jesus in gMark are NOT found in the Pauline writings and ALSO that details about Jesus in the Pauline writings which would have ENHANCED the Jesus story in gMark are not used.

For example, The author of gJohn did NOT get the "water into wine" miracle from gMark likewise the author of gMark did NOT get the story about Jesus "WALKING on the SEA" from the Pauline writings.

You are NOT making much sense. You CANNOT ASSIGN a probability to an ASSUMPTION. You are SPECULATING and I don't deal with SPECULATION if you cannot provide ACTUAL written data for what you say.


Where are the corroborative sources of antiquity for "PAUL"? It is ALREADY known what is written in the Pauline writings and that the Pauline Jesus was NOT human.

It is SO easy to DEBUNK your flaws.

"Paul" stated that he was NOT apostle of a Man. See Galatians 1.1



Please STATE the historical source of antiquity for what you write.

You are TALKING FAST but without a single shred of credible corroborative historical evidence.

Well now, why did the author of gMark claimed Jesus WALKED on the SEA?

The Pauline writers did NOT state Jesus walked on the sea.

It MUST be OBVIOUS that the author of gMark did NOT use the Pauline writings for the following:

1. Jesus of Nazareth

2. The temptation by the Devil.

3. The baptism of Jesus when the Holy Ghost entered him like a DOVE.

4. The INSTANT healing with the "SPIT and TOUCH" technique.

5. The walking on the sea.
.
6. The transfiguration.

andrewcriddle

One problem with this is that, (assuming Markan priority), the acceptance by Christians of Jesus' baptism by John precedes either the emphasis on John as forerunner in Luke or the emphasis on John's unworthiness in Matthew.

IE initially Mark accepts the baptism with little attempt to explain away the possible problems, these explanations come later in the development of the tradition.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi Vorkosigan

This seems to require that Mark was not only Adoptionist in his Christology but also saw the baptism of Jesus by John as providing a basis for Christian baptism.

Later Christian writers certainly understood the baptism by John in this light, but is there any evidence that this idea is already present in Mark ? (It doesn't seem to occur explicitly anywhere in the New Testament.)

Andrew Criddle

Atheos

That would be a good point, but it looks to me like GMark does paint JTB as an humble forerunner:

Vorkosigan

Hello, Andrew. It is good to see you again.

I think you're turning everything upside down. Mark is not positing a basis for Christian baptism which was already present in his strand of Christianity (which was Pauline-based). Mark already had Christian baptism; that's present in Paul. The trick was to find someone to baptize Jesus as God's son. Who better than a famous baptizer?

In any case I would argue that Pauline baptism is present in Mark, not only in the baptism of Jesus into "sonship" but Paul also says that believers are baptized into Jesus' death, something present in Mark as well, in Mk 10:35-45

"And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;"

Of course that is a prediction of their martyrdom too.

Vorkosigan

Doug Shaver

I guess you also don't think that the credibility of a proposed reason has anything to do with its consistency with Christian orthodoxy?