Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 07-12-2013, 09:07 AM

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's (Writings). Paul as Markan Source Part Jew (II) (The Parallels of Pauline)

JW:
This Thread is a continuation of my award winning Thread:

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Quote:

You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

JW:
The purpose of this Thread is to Inventory evidence that "Mark" used Paul as a Source.

Author's Assumptions:

1) "Mark" is primarily Fiction so it's Sources are primarily not historical.

2) "Mark" has Significant sources other than his imagination.

3) "Mark's" literary Intent was one of the following:

1 - Promote Paul's Themes

2 - Use Paul's Themes to write a really good story (most likely)

3 - Make fun of Paul's themes.

Over at Neal Godfree's superior Vridar:

Clark’s criteria for valid parallels

Neal discusses criteria for valid parallels:

Quote:

1. Similarity in content

Too vague to stand on its own as a criterion of authorial intention for passages to be read in parallel. May complement other similarities.

2. Similarity in language

Lexical repetitions or synonyms. Rare words are more likely to be significant. Consider synonyms, too. Are compound forms forms apparently used as intentional parallels to their original forms?

3. Literary form

May not stand on its own but can complement other similarities. Healings of paralytics by Peter (Acts 3:1-10) and Paul (14:8-10) share a common literary form — both contain information about the place, action of the man, word of healing, gesture of healing, immediate occurrence of healing, demonstration of healing, and effect on the crowd (from Lüdemann, Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), 53).

Sometimes better to speak of distinct literary motifs in common: example, the double visions in each of the conversions of Saul (9:1-19) and Peter (10:1-48).

4. Sequence

The more extensive a sequence is the stronger it is as an indicator of intentional parallelism. Sequences may not always be in the same strict order, however.

5. Structure

Larger parallel structures, even though not always perfectly matched, are another strong indication of an intent to create a double pattern. Examples: Talbert’s 32 parallels of content and sequence between the Gospel of Luke and Acts; between Acts 1-12 and Acts 13-28. The parallel structures suggest an intention to highlight a theme of continuity between Jesus and his disciples, and between the apostles and Paul.

6. Theme

Another complementary criterion that carries weight when in conjunction with other criteria. Perhaps also an essential criterion.

Also note: Disruption of the text

If the flow of the text is disrupted, or if a pericope is awkward internally, where a parallel appears, this is a strong indicator that the parallel was an important feature in the author’s mind.

The current contribution to this Thread is inspired by Neil's recent discovery of my recent discovery of Joel Watts' secret life as a "Mythicist":

Joel Watts Acclaims Thomas Brodie a Scholarly “Giant” and His Work “A Masterpiece”

and according to the apparently Broadie standards of McGwrath as to what qualifies as a "Mythicist", portraying large chunks of Gospel narrative as large chunks of a source(s) that is not history, makes you a largely (SH, look out!) "Mythicist". Regarding the current relationship of McGwrath to Watts, last I heard McGwrath's attitude was still pretty far from okay.

So in an irony that the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, Godfree and Watts are now on the same side of the HJ/AJ/MJ issue. Me, Godfree, Bob Dole and the American public know it. Watts does not.

Not as important is that Watts' Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) has provided the Bridge for me to answer a question which has long eluded Christian Bible scholarship, Who was that Marked Young Man? While Christian guesses have contributed nothing to scholarship they have made significant contributions to comedy. Bauckham concludes that because the identity of the young man is unknown the identity of the young man is known.

The key to finding something lost is to start looking for it in the "right" places:

[T2]
The Jewish Bible|
Paul|
Markan Failure|
Markan Success|
Commentary||
2 Kings 2:13 "He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan."|
Galatians 3:27 "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ."|
14:51 "And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over [his] naked [body]: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. "|
16:5 "And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. "|
Per Markan Failure the Young Man loses the garment of Christ, the linen, which the sacrificed Christ was wearing, by abandoning Christ. Per Markan Success, the Young Man gains the garment of Christ, the white robe, which the transformed Christ was wearing, by proclaiming the resurrected Christ|
[/T2]

So let the Reader understand (Yahwan). Of course my greatest wish here is that I could charge you guys for this but a distant second is that we could all persuade The Legendary Vorkosigan to resurrect his "Mark" sight so he could add swell stuff like this.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 07-12-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's (Writings). Paul as Markan Source Part Jew (II) (The Parallels of Pauline)

JW:
This Thread is a continuation of my award winning Thread:

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Quote:

You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

JW:
The purpose of this Thread is to Inventory evidence that "Mark" used Paul as a Source.

Author's Assumptions:

1) "Mark" is primarily Fiction so it's Sources are primarily not historical.

2) "Mark" has Significant sources other than his imagination.

3) "Mark's" literary Intent was one of the following:

1 - Promote Paul's Themes

2 - Use Paul's Themes to write a really good story (most likely)

3 - Make fun of Paul's themes.

Over at Neal Godfree's superior Vridar:

Clark’s criteria for valid parallels

Neal discusses criteria for valid parallels:

Quote:

1. Similarity in content

Too vague to stand on its own as a criterion of authorial intention for passages to be read in parallel. May complement other similarities.

2. Similarity in language

Lexical repetitions or synonyms. Rare words are more likely to be significant. Consider synonyms, too. Are compound forms forms apparently used as intentional parallels to their original forms?

3. Literary form

May not stand on its own but can complement other similarities. Healings of paralytics by Peter (Acts 3:1-10) and Paul (14:8-10) share a common literary form — both contain information about the place, action of the man, word of healing, gesture of healing, immediate occurrence of healing, demonstration of healing, and effect on the crowd (from Lüdemann, Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), 53).

Sometimes better to speak of distinct literary motifs in common: example, the double visions in each of the conversions of Saul (9:1-19) and Peter (10:1-48).

4. Sequence

The more extensive a sequence is the stronger it is as an indicator of intentional parallelism. Sequences may not always be in the same strict order, however.

5. Structure

Larger parallel structures, even though not always perfectly matched, are another strong indication of an intent to create a double pattern. Examples: Talbert’s 32 parallels of content and sequence between the Gospel of Luke and Acts; between Acts 1-12 and Acts 13-28. The parallel structures suggest an intention to highlight a theme of continuity between Jesus and his disciples, and between the apostles and Paul.

6. Theme

Another complementary criterion that carries weight when in conjunction with other criteria. Perhaps also an essential criterion.

Also note: Disruption of the text

If the flow of the text is disrupted, or if a pericope is awkward internally, where a parallel appears, this is a strong indicator that the parallel was an important feature in the author’s mind.

The current contribution to this Thread is inspired by Neil's recent discovery of my recent discovery of Joel Watts' secret life as a "Mythicist":

Joel Watts Acclaims Thomas Brodie a Scholarly “Giant” and His Work “A Masterpiece”

and according to the apparently Broadie standards of McGwrath as to what qualifies as a "Mythicist", portraying large chunks of Gospel narrative as large chunks of a source(s) that is not history, makes you a largely (SH, look out!) "Mythicist". Regarding the current relationship of McGwrath to Watts, last I heard McGwrath's attitude was still pretty far from okay.

So in an irony that the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, Godfree and Watts are now on the same side of the HJ/AJ/MJ issue. Me, Godfree, Bob Dole and the American public know it. Watts does not.

Not as important is that Watts' Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark has provided the Bridge for me to answer a question which has long eluded Christian Bible scholarship, Who was that Marked Young Man? While Christian guesses have contributed nothing to scholarship they have made significant contributions to comedy. Bauckham concludes that because the identity of the young man is unknown the identity of the young man is known.

The key to finding something lost is to start looking for it in the "right" places:

[T2]
The Jewish Bible|
Paul|
Markan Failure|
Markan Success|
Commentary||
2 Kings 2:13 "He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan."|
Galatians 3:27 "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ."|
14:51 "And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over [his] naked [body]: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. "|
16:5 "And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. "|
Per Markan Failure the Young Man loses the garment of Christ, the linen, which the sacrificed Christ was wearing, by abandoning Christ. Per Markan Success, the Young Man gains the garment of Christ, the white robe, which the transformed Christ was wearing, by proclaiming the resurrected Christ|
[/T2]

So let the Reader understand (Yahwan). Of course my greatest wish here is that I could charge you guys for this but a distant second is that we could all persuade The Legendary Vorkosigan to resurrect his "Mark" sight so he could add swell stuff like this.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

There is no correlation between 2 Kings 2.13, Galatians 3.27, Mark 14.51, Mark 16.5.

Once we understand the argument and evidence for Markan priority then the Pauline Corpus could not have been the source for the Markan Gospel.

There is not a single sentence in gMark that can be found in the Pauline Corpus.

The parables of the supposed Jesus in gMark are not found anywhere in the Pauline Corpus.

The miracles of Jesus in gMark are not found anywhere in the Pauline Corpus.

The post-resurrection activities of the Markan Jesus are not found in the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The Markan Jesus was not related to the Pauline revealed Jesus

In gMark, Jesus despised Judas, his betrayer, and told his disciples that it would have been better if he was NOT born.

Mark 14:21 KJV

Quote:

The Son of man indeed goeth , as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had never been born .

1. The Pauline Corpus matches the LATER gJohn--NOT gMark.

John 3:16 KJV

Quote:

----For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

----I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

2. The Pauline Corpus matches the LATER gLuke---Not gMark.

Luke 22:19 KJV

Quote:

---And he took bread, and gave thanks , and brake it, and gave unto them, saying , This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:24 KJV

Quote:

----And when he had given thanks , he brake it, and said , Take , eat : this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The Pauline Corpus shows direct compatibility with the Later Gospels--NOT gMark.

The story of gMark is not about salvation by sacrifice and the resurrection but that the populace, the outsiders, would REMAIN in Sin and deliver him up to be killed.

Mark 4 KJV

Quote:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

Toto · 07-12-2013, 12:06 PM

Gal 3:27 speaks of the believer as putting on Christ as if putting on a robe - although similar terms seem to be used for putting on armor or a royal garment.

Is Christ the garment? I thought he was the bread and wine. I'm confused. Maybe Paul is confused.

From here

Quote:

Did put on Christ (Criston enedusasqe). First aorist middle indicative of enduw (-nw). As a badge or uniform of service like that of the soldier. This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here). See further in Paul ( Romans 13:14 ; Colossians 3:9 ; Ephesians 4:22-24 ; Ephesians 6:11 Ephesians 6:14 ). In 1 Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks of "putting on the breastplate of righteousness." He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite.

aa5874 · 07-12-2013, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gal 3:27 speaks of the believer as putting on Christ as if putting on a robe - although similar terms seem to be used for putting on armor or a royal garment.

Is Christ the garment? I thought he was the bread and wine. I'm confused. Maybe Paul is confused.

From here

Quote:

Did put on Christ (Criston enedusasqe). First aorist middle indicative of enduw (-nw). As a badge or uniform of service like that of the soldier. This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here). See further in Paul ( Romans 13:14 ; Colossians 3:9 ; Ephesians 4:22-24 ; Ephesians 6:11 Ephesians 6:14 ). In 1 Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks of "putting on the breastplate of righteousness." He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite.

Why are you confused when you can read the entire chapter of Galatians 3 and see that it is not at all compatible with Mark 14 and Mark 16?

There is no contextual relation to the stories in gMark 14 and 16 and Galatians 3.

Even in gMark 14 and 16 there is no relation with the story of the one who fled naked and the one who was clothed in white at the Empty Tomb.

It is extremely disturbing to me that out of context passages are constantly been employed to place the Pauline Corpus before gMark when it can be easily seen that the Pauline writings are directly compatible with the Later Gospels.

There are two versions of gMark, the earlier short ending and the late long ending gMark.

An author of the Pauline Corpus claimed he Spoke in tongues which is a Sign in the LATER gMark.

Mark 16:17 KJV

Quote:

And these signs shall follow them that believe ; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.

The author of the Later gMark invented or promoted a fictitious account of the resurrected Jesus which is also a sign for Paul.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV

Quote:

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all

The Pauline writer had the sign of a follower of the Resurrected Jesus.

It is extremely clear that the Pauline Corpus is compatible with the Later Gospels.

arnoldo · 07-12-2013, 12:54 PM

Frederick Grant writes in The Earliest Gospel ( Chapter 9: Was Mark a Pauline Gospel?) that any parallels between Mark and the Pauline writings are due to “common gentile Christianity.” Grant's view, IMHO, is more parsimonious than supposing Mark used any of Paul's writings as a source.

Toto · 07-12-2013, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Frederick Grant writes in The Earliest Gospel ( Chapter 9: Was Mark a Pauline Gospel?) that any parallels between Mark and the Pauline writings are due to “common gentile Christianity.” Grant's view, IMHO, is more parsimonious than supposing Mark used any of Paul's writings as a source.

Why is it more parsimonious to assume that there is a third source that we do not have that influenced both Mark and Paul?

Your source (published 1943) actually says:

Quote:

It is now quite generally held that the gospel of Mark reflects the influence of the teaching of Paul, though not, perhaps, in a direct and unmodified form. This influence is seen especially in such phrases as "the gospel of God,"(Mark 1:14. See my note above, p. 153, on the textual reading here, and also my article, "Studies in the Text of St. Mark," Anglican Theological Review, 20:103 ff.) in the ransom saying,(Mark 10:45) and in the words at the Last Supper, "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is shed for many."(Mark 14:24) On the other hand, the latest commentary in English, by Professor Branscomb, insists that these supposed examples of "Paulinism" really reflect the common Gentile Christianity of the time rather than the explicit or distinctive teaching of Paul.

MrMacSon · 07-12-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Frederick Grant writes in The Earliest Gospel ( Chapter 9: Was Mark a Pauline Gospel?) that any parallels between Mark and the Pauline writings are due to “common gentile Christianity.” Grant's view, IMHO, is more parsimonious than supposing Mark used any of Paul's writings as a source.

Why is it more parsimonious to assume that there is a third source that we do not have that influenced both Mark and Paul?

A "common gentile Christianity” may not be a third source - it may be editing & a degree of collation after Mark, Paul and other documents were gathered together, or 'reviewed' in relation to each other.

Tenorikuma · 07-12-2013, 06:07 PM

I tend to thing the young man at the garden and the tomb is Mark himself.

yalla · 07-12-2013, 07:42 PM

I give the young fella in the garden a name -Amos.

Amos 2.16
"and he who is stout of heart among the mighty
shall flee away naked in that day"

Actually he doesn't have to be derived from any one source.
He can be a composite character born out of the half remembered memories in the mind of the author borrowed from his readings, using the character to serve in multiple ways - a nod to a story in scriptures, a hint or two of subtle meanings that readers may want to guess or just a cute story within a story.

aa5874 · 07-12-2013, 10:20 PM

Any claim that the author of gMark used the Pauline Corpus is extremely weak. It can easily be seen that the theology of the Pauline Corpus is far advanced of gMark and matches the Later Gospels.

In gMark, Jesus taught virtually nothing to the populace. Essentially, there is really little or no theology in gMark but primarily predictions, miracles and parables.

The author of gMark wrote virtually nothing about the Love of God and the Sacrifice of Jesus for universal salvation.

Mark 14:27 KJV

Quote:

And Jesus saith unto them , All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written , I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered .

In gMark, the death of Jesus was to scatter the sheep. The death of Jesus was an offense not a product of sacrificial love.

Now examine the Pauline Corpus and the Later gJohn.

Romans 5:8 KJV

Quote:

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

John 15:13 KJV

Quote:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The Pauline Corpus and the Later gJohn are compatible--NOT gMark.

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

07-12-2013, 12:54 PM	#5
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	Frederick Grant writes in The Earliest Gospel ( Chapter 9: Was Mark a Pauline Gospel?) that any parallels between Mark and the Pauline writings are due to “common gentile Christianity.” Grant's view, IMHO, is more parsimonious than supposing Mark used any of Paul's writings as a source.

07-12-2013, 06:07 PM	#8
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	I tend to thing the young man at the garden and the tomb is Mark himself.

07-12-2013, 07:42 PM	#9
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	I give the young fella in the garden a name -Amos. Amos 2.16 "and he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day" Actually he doesn't have to be derived from any one source. He can be a composite character born out of the half remembered memories in the mind of the author borrowed from his readings, using the character to serve in multiple ways - a nod to a story in scriptures, a hint or two of subtle meanings that readers may want to guess or just a cute story within a story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.