FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Another origin for Mark (+ Matthew and Luke)?
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-23-2005, 02:24 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky


I completely disagree. Justin is definitely not using the canonical gospels in any shape or form. See above in my previous reply for the outline of what I think he's really using.

Regards,

Yuri.
My point is that I doubt whether the census under Quirinius, which Justin knows about is prior to canonical Luke, and I doubt whether the wise men following a star, which Justin also knows about, was prior to canonical Matthew. (The wise men in some form may well have been in the tradition before canonical Matthew but not the fully developed form of the story which Justin knows )

Hence Justin has been influenced by elements which are in all probability part of the redaction of canonical Matthew and Luke.

(I agree Justin is not using the canonical gospels, I'm saying that the harmony he was using was at least partly based on the canonical gospels.)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:17 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
My point is that I doubt whether the census under Quirinius, which Justin knows about is prior to canonical Luke,
I don't quite get your logic here, Andrew.

Quirinius was appointed governor ca 6 CE. So are you trying to say that the canonical Luke was written before that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
and I doubt whether the wise men following a star, which Justin also knows about, was prior to canonical Matthew.
Why are you so sure that the wise men following a star was later than the canonical Matthew?

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
(The wise men in some form may well have been in the tradition before canonical Matthew
That's right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
but not the fully developed form of the story which Justin knows )
Well, this needs to be discussed separately. Have you read Boismard's book on Justin's Harmony?

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
Hence Justin has been influenced by elements which are in all probability part of the redaction of canonical Matthew and Luke.
This needs to be demonstrated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
(I agree Justin is not using the canonical gospels, I'm saying that the harmony he was using was at least partly based on the canonical gospels.)

Andrew Criddle
There was no canonical gospels as yet at the time of Justin.

If by "canonical gospels" you mean either the Byzantine text or Alexandrian text, then nothing like that existed as yet even at the time of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus used the Western/Peripheral text. The Byzantine text goes back to the 4c. Westcott & Hort version of Alexandrian text can be firmly dated to the 19c.

Regards,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:43 AM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire
Posts: 498
Default
I hate to put words into other people's mouths (or posts) but IMO it's fairly obvious that andrewcriddle means that the story of the Quirinius census is no earlier than (indeed comes from) canonical Luke, and that the story of the wise men following the star is no earlier than (indeed comes from) canonical Matthew.
markfiend is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 10:22 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default
Hi, Neil,

I'll now continue with my comments about your theory where I left off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

5. Both GPeter and Justin Martyr make special reference to the nails piercing Jesus on the cross (GPt6 DT97,104), a point absent from Mark.
So this seems like yet another early element in both Justin and GPeter -- the material that was probably edited out by the canonical editors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
6. Both GPeter and Justin Martyr have those mocking Jesus on the cross ridicule his claim to have been "The Son of God" (GPt3 DT101). Mark avoids such identifications of Jesus (the Messianic Secret), and only after Jesus dies does the centurion ambiguously say that Jesus is the Son of God.
But this is what we find in our canonical Mt 27:40,43. Justin is probably using this.

It's not clear to me if this was already in the proto-gospel, but it's possible that Mk edited it out later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
7. Justin Martyr speaks of the disciples fleeing from Jesus at or after his crucifixion, not beforehand, and there is some suggestion, inconclusive I grant, that GPeter indicates something similar (1Ap50 DT53 GPt14,12). Mark of course has them flee at his arrest so that they are no longer anywhere in sight by the time of the crucifixion.
Hmm... This may be explored further. Only Mk and Mt say that the disciples fled at his arrest. Mt may have borrowed this from Mk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
8. Contra Mark, both GPeter and Justin do not have any of Jesus' acquaintances with him on the cross, not even the women who later came to his tomb (GPt12,14 1Ap50 DT53).
Interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
9. Both GPeter and Justin appear to link the destruction of Jerusalem directly and immediately with the crucifixion of Jesus (GPt7 DT25,51,52). More on the possible significance of this below.


I am not suggesting that Justin Martyr was using GPeter. That may be a possibility but there are also somewhat important differences between them. My point is that the details they have in common strongly indicate the existence of an alternative narrative of Jesus that did not mutate from Mark.
Yes, I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Both appear to be drawing on a narrative that is in places significantly different from the one we find in Mark and that appears to have evolved separately from a source that ultimately was originally shared with Mark.
Makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
The differences found between GPeter/Justin and Mark show no evidence of being revisions of each other in the way Matthew, Luke and John appear to be revisions of Mark.
That's too simple. We cannot say that Matthew, Luke and John are all revisions of Mark. There's quite a bit of material in Mk that is later than Lk, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
The common building blocks of the different narratives (e.g. Joseph asking Pilate for the body of Jesus; the desertion of the disciples, etc.) lack any ideological or theological point of the sort that suggests a dialogue between the two basic narratives. These common narrative building blocks merely appear in a different sequence to create different plot functions for themselves. This suggests storyline traditions at such variance that they defy any likelihood that they arose as a result of merely confused memories in the retelling (Crossan).


Those Christians claiming the authority of the all or some of the 12, whether gnostic or proto-orthodox, naturally had authenticating stories of the resurrected Jesus appearing to those favoured founders.

But if Mark was opposing all who claimed authority from the 12 (as we arguably find in Paul and Marcion) then a resurrection scene to them would surely run against the grain of this very point.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Further, Mark does show signs of being a more developed and hence later story than the basic narrative outline behind the one found in GPeter and Justin Martyr.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
With Mark we have the complexities of one of the disciples betraying Jesus and two trials of Jesus; in Justin and GPeter there is no apparent split in the 12 and it is the Jews, their judges and king Herod who condemn and crucify Jesus, Pilate merely allowing it under his jurisdiction. One would normally assume the more complex plot is later than the simpler.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
(GPeter does have more descriptive detail such as the name of the centurion guarding the tomb but the simpler basic plot structure indicates the original story is earlier than Mark's. Justin does say that Jesus was silent before Pilate (DT103,104) but whenever he speaks of the trial and condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus it is always "under Pilate" and by the Jews. GPeter and numerous noncanonical details by Justin warn us against reading any one story item through the canonical construct by default.)

Although Mark lacks a resurrection appearance at the tomb he does speak of a delayed "resurrection appearance" to the high priest (14:62) and the entire world (13:26 c.f.13:21). Mark 13, the Little Apocalypse, gives him room for this.
I don't quite follow you here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
The available evidence suggests that neither the GPeter nor Justin Martyr knew of anything like this long prophecy of Jesus. In the GPeter the Jews who have just crucified Jesus and witnessed the sun turn dark at noon suddenly cry out in fear that judgment has come and the time for Jerusalem to be destroyed. That does not sit with an earlier prophecy in the narrative predicting the destruction of Jerusalem only much later. Justin is more direct. Following hard on the execution of Christ Jerusalem was captured by Rome and the land lay waste, thus fulfilling the an old prophecy that the Jews would only have a king or prophet of their own until the Messiah had come. Herod who crucified Christ, Justin explains, was that last king of Judea before that Roman conquest.
Interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Is it plausible that Mark was written to oppose the authority being claimed by allegiance to the 12 apostles and that this prompted his changes to the basic story that we know from GPeter and Justin? Changes like:

1. Moving the teaching of the eucharist to "before" the death of Jesus (See * below). Compare Justin's claim that it was introduced by Jesus to the 12 after his resurrection.
It would be nice to have the quote from Justin here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Mark's audience could thus claim this rite came from Jesus himself without the embarrassment of having to rely on a post-resurrection transmission of the teaching via the 12.
Well, but it comes from the 12, in either case...

Nevertheless, Justin's version may still be earlier than the canonical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
2. Introducing a betrayer and a denier among the disciples thus abolishing the credibility of the 12.
I fully agree with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
3. Removing any privilege of a resurrection scene from the 12 and introducing the promise of this to the future time of judgment on all. The pre-post-resurrection scene granted the apostles at the transfiguration actually served the purpose of condemning the apostles for their subsequent failures.
As far as the Transfiguration goes, it may be also seen as a later addition designed to mitigate the embarrassment of the Final Judgement being delayed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Further, the idea of a Jesus who is absent and not destined to appear until the second coming is consistent with other apparent theological agendas of Mark (Kelber; C.f. also 1:32-38?).

The author of Mark also delayed the fall of Jerusalem perhaps simply because she knew her history and dates better and/or for any number of other reasons that can be discussed separately. Matthew may have attempted some sort of harmonization between the two narratives on this point by having the Jews pronounce doom on themselves in more general terms. In place of "Woe for our sins: the judgement hath drawn nigh, and the end of Jerusalem" (GPt7) he wrote "His blood be upon us and upon our children" (27:25). He also allowed for "some" disciples doubting when they saw the resurrected Jesus (28:17) and in opposition to the GPeter that dramatized the guilt of the Jews by their refusal to wash their hands he added the detail of Pilate washing his (27:24).
Yes, I can accept the idea that Mt is editing some stuff in Mk. Except that this can also be described as "Mt editing some early stuff that Mk still shares with the earlier proto-narrative".

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Mark also tried to shift more blame onto the gentiles to make the crucifixion a joint Jew-Gentile project.
Yes, I think this is quite an interesting idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Was the other story with its uncompromising blame of the Jews letting gentiles off the hook too easily? Did the theology of Mark implicate both Jews and Gentiles more equally in both blame and promises? In this sense would he have been closer to the thought of Paul and Marcion?
This is probable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
Perhaps Luke attempted something of a harmonization here by readmitting the Jewish king Herod into the trial process? (Of course such a suggestion flies in the face of the general assumption that the canonical gospels originally tried to downplay the role of Rome in the crucifixion of Jesus, but that assumption does not consider a comparison of the canonical gospels with the Gospel of Peter.)


To sum up: There was a narrative of Jesus in existence before the Gospel of Mark and that evolved into the Gospel of Peter. This original gospel narrative:

a. told of Jesus being condemned and crucified by the Jews and their king Herod in the time of Pilate,
b. spoke of the 12 disciples collectively deserting as a result (no Judas),
c. had the resurrected Jesus appearing to his disciples and instituting the eucharist and other church practices through the 12,
d. let Pilate off relatively lightly compared with the blame placed on the Jews.

The Gospel of Mark was written as a counter to this narrative:

a. it added the second trial of Jesus by Pilate,
OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
b. added the story of Judas,
OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
c. removed the resurrection appearance of Jesus to the 12 (postponed till the final judgment), thus requiring the eucharist to be delivered before Jesus' death* (as per Paul?) and consistent with a broader theological agenda of Mark (Kelber),
This needs to be researched further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
d. spread the blame more equally on Jews and gentiles (a la Paul and Marcion?).
OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
The Gospel of Mark was uncompromisingly contentious. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were more catholic and attempted to bring the two narratives together by:
Or maybe Mt and Lk simply kept some elements of the earlier proto-narrative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
a. re-introducing Herod into the judgment scenes thus increasing the trial hearings of Jesus to 3,
b. restoring the status of original apostles (resurrection appearance) by killing off just one of them (better that 1 should die for the sake of saving the whole idea of the 12),
c. restored a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples and converting the post resurrection eucharist scene into a scene of Jesus eating to prove his bodily resurrection and in place of instituting the church practices he opened their understanding to the scriptures,
d. shifting a greater share of blame back onto the Jews and letting Pilate wash his hands (contra GPeter that emphasized guilt of Herod and Jews through their failure to wash hands).

If all of this is a plausible answer to my two questions then might we not have an(other) explanation for the obscurity of the Gospel of Mark for so long and a preference for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Well, I don't really know how "obscure" Mk was... Some of it was used by Justin, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
*
The idea that the eucharist was originally introduced as happening after the death of Jesus may not seem so strange if one considers the possibility that this rite began as a feast with the departed spirits of the dead, for which there is some evidence. Observe also the "raising" miracles of Jesus that concluded with a meal, such as Peter's mother-in-law but especially Jairus' daughter, and the feeding of the 5000 following the death of John the Baptist that prefigured the death of Jesus, and so forth. Paul's claim to have received the rite from Christ himself could well be taking a swipe at those who claimed to receive it ultimately from the 12. While Mark narrates the eucharist as being given to the 12 we know we will never hear anything positive of the 12 again and the reader can claim he has learned the rite from Christ himself in the gospel.
Again, the relevant passages from Justin and GPeter should be cited in full, in order to explore this theory further.

All the best,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 10:26 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfiend
I hate to put words into other people's mouths (or posts) but IMO it's fairly obvious that andrewcriddle means that the story of the Quirinius census is no earlier than (indeed comes from) canonical Luke,
But why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markfiend
and that the story of the wise men following the star is no earlier than (indeed comes from) canonical Matthew.
But why not from the pre-canonical Matthew?

Let's wait from Andrew's own explanation...

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 10:35 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfiend
I hate to put words into other people's mouths (or posts) but IMO it's fairly obvious that andrewcriddle means that the story of the Quirinius census is no earlier than (indeed comes from) canonical Luke, and that the story of the wise men following the star is no earlier than (indeed comes from) canonical Matthew.
Yes I did mean that, thanks. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Clarifying one other point. canonical Matthew and canonical Luke as I'm using the terms here, are not necessarily textually totally identical to the archetype underlying the Western Alexandrian and Byzantine texts of those gospels.

However, they are the last stage of systematic redaction of those gospels (as distinct from subsequent scribal changes). Eg canonical Matthew as I'm using the term may or may not have had the present form of Matthew 28:19 but it certainly had an account of Judas' betrayal.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:46 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,956
Default
Sorry guys, I have a question.

"Is the OP trying to imply that the notation of Judas being a traitor was actually a product of the later writings?"
Answerer is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:47 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default
Two Points

One

IIUC the statement in Justin that could be interpreted as implying that the Eucharist is post-resurrection is
Quote:
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
from the First Apology where it comes after a description of Christian worship including the Eucharist.

However Justin does not seem to say specifically that the Eucharist was instituted after the resurrection, and he may be meaning things like Baptism and Sunday worship.

Two

To expand on my point about the birth narratives.

The Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are difficult to reconcile with each other and not really paralled elsewhere in the NT. This suggests that in their present form they are distinctive to Matthew and Luke. The story of Judas however occurs in all four gospels in roughly similar form. It is unlikely that the distinctive Birth stories in Matthew and Luke both entered the tradition before the more widely distributed story of Judas.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:36 PM   #19
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default
Dialogue with Trypho has a story about meeting a Pythagorean and going away because it was too much like hard work to study geometry etc!

I take that as evidence of being lazy about understanding, and the jump to xianity feels like a cop out.

I see no evidence that the gospels existed when Dialogue was written. There were probably odd stories, but the evidence of Dialogue is of a Christ who is vaguely defined, eucharists are heavenly.

Quote:
But when my soul was eagerly desirous to hear the peculiar and choice philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated--a man who thought much of his own wisdom. And then, when I had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said, 'What then? Are you acquainted with music, astronomy, and geometry? Do you expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that it can contemplate that which is honourable in its essence and that which is good in its essence?' Having commended many of these branches of learning, and telling me that they were necessary, he dismissed me when I confessed to him my ignorance. Accordingly I took it rather impatiently, as was to be expected when I failed in my hope, the more so because I deemed the man had some knowledge; but reflecting again on the space of time during which I would have to linger over those branches of learning, I was not able to endure longer procrastination. In my helpless condition it occurred to me to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great. ...
Quote:
There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him: which, indeed, the false prophets, who are filled with the lying unclean spirit, neither have done nor do, but venture to work certain wonderful deeds for the purpose of astonishing men, and glorify the spirits and demons of error. But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.'

CHAPTER VIII -- JUSTIN BY HIS COLLOQUY IS KINDLED WITH LOVE TO CHRIST.

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable.
He cannot make a judgement - he has not studied Pythagorus etc! He has made an emotional choice. He has chosen magic and religion over reason.

Quote:
And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets],
"our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed in remembrance of the suffering which He endured". Sorry, that can only mean Eucharist is post resurrection!

What is this about the twelve being OT prophets?

Why is there no discussion of a real person but loads of references to the OT?

It feels like the Gospels are attempts to collate all these OT connections following Justin's attempt at it. All the concordances I have seen connect everything back to the OT. Justin is working from the OT, not the Gospels!
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 12:47 PM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
Sorry guys, I have a question.

"Is the OP trying to imply that the notation of Judas being a traitor was actually a product of the later writings?"
There's no "imply" there, the OP states that outright.

Quote:
To sum up: There was a narrative of Jesus in existence before the Gospel of Mark and that evolved into the Gospel of Peter. This original gospel narrative:

. . .
b. spoke of the 12 disciples collectively deserting as a result (no Judas),
Toto is offline  
 
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.