Roland

Many of you are probably aware of some of these arguments for the existence of a passion narrative prior to the writing of Mark's gospel.

But just how plausible is this line of reasoning?

1). Certain telltale details left in Mark's account that seem to imply that the crucifixion took place on the preparation day before Passover as shown in John and not on Passover itself as seen in the Synoptics.

2). The failure to mention the high priest's name might imply a pre-37 writing date because the name would be common knowledge to anyone reading it at the time.

3). Certain key characters - the man who cuts off the soldier's ear, the man who flees into the dark when Jesus is arrested - are kept anonymous, perhaps because they might still be living and revealing their names might expose them to danger.

There are other arguments as well at the following site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html

Peter Kirby

Hmm. Isolating a source for a document from a single document strikes me as a general problem, to which a general method or general considerations might be adduced, and which in general is a vexing one. Ruling out a source, being even more problematic. A healthy agnosticism strikes me as the best way to go into the subject--"the nature and extent of the pre-existing written sources, if any, is unknown."

Just a small prolegomena to the examination and cross-examination of the particular arguments for a pre-Markan source (which I agree, should be mounted if we are to accept the existence of one).

andrewcriddle

IF the passion narrative in John is (at least in its origins) independent of the Synoptics then this would provide evidence for a pre-Markan passion narrative.

IF the passion narrative in John is largely dependent on the Synoptics then the case becomes much weaker.

Andrew Criddle

spin

How would you explain the different construction methods used in Mark, considering the basic length of the passion which starts with the approach to Jerusalem in Mk 14 and goes to the end of the book? Doesn't Mark effectively end with the little apocalypse and its admonition to be watchful in 13:34, 35 & 37? (The verb here, grhgorew, translates the important verb $MR, which is a synonym for NCR, the source for Nazareth, and related to NCR = "branch". There is a whole branch of later Hebrew literature regarding the "watchers", the Enochic books.)

Mk 13 reads as a parting admonition of what was to come, the difficulties to be suffered, and what a believer had to do.

I have long thought that the gospel of Mark originally ended with chapter 13 and that the passion, a once oral tradition, came along later, was edited and appended. Where in the rest of Mark do you find the oral trait of the list of three? (How many people waited in Gethsemane for Jesus? How many times did Jesus pray and return to them to find them sleeping? From whom was the crowd with Judas at the betrayal? How many times did the high priest speak in the sanhedrin? How many times did Peter deny Jesus? How many questions did Pilate ask the crowd? And many more.)

So, I'd advocate not a pre-Marcan passion, but a separate tradition later added to Mark.


spin

schilling.klaus

Mark's gospel is a late, degenerate fraudulent forgery, after Justin Martyr, without any justified claim to originality.
This has already been proven by W.Cassels.
It's even idiotic to see Mark's gospel as the first gospel of the Synoptic-type, either, as figured by J.M. Robertson and Herb Cutner.
Absolute Markan Priorists are devoid of any understanding of the history of Christianity.


Klaus Schilling

Chili

How can there be a forgery when the entire gospel story describes the transformation of the human mind and not much else.

I hold that the 4 gospels were written to make this clear in that they complement each other to make this insight known to the casual reader who is curious about these things because they are happening to him. This same mindset is present in Joseph who was the undergoer of this event . . . and that is what made him worthy to be our patron saint of the family (I think they call him).

spin

<edit> You can't hope to communicate meaningfully using such camp terminology. <edit>You may have something to say, but your language makes you seem like a raucous lunatic that we hear all too frequently haranguing people on some street corner. "[F]orgery" is simply the wrong word. "[F]raudulent" is another word that you'd be pushing shit up a hill to justify. And "degenerate" is a value laden pap word of no value at all. Please clean up your act. You give the impression that there actually may be something behind all the belching and farting, but you will not communicate it with your poor expression.

And do you honestly think you're going to reach people with such a silly presentation of your assertion?


spin

Malachi151

I argue very strongly against a pre-Mark narrative of any kind, including the passion narrative.

I think that my arguments on this matter are completely rock solid as well.

My argument is based on a complete analysis of Mark and how Mark was written.

My argument is that the entire Gospel of Mark was written by a single person, who "fabricated" (and I use that in the best sense of the word) the entire narrative and that you can see the same patterns in the narrative formation and in the underlying themes from the beginning to the end of the work.

Basically everything that you mentioned, aside from the first item, is addressed in my article on Mark:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

The Passion narrative shows the exact same type of literary allusion and use of scriptural references that we find all throughout the Gospel of Mark starting with Mark 1 and existing in every single chapter of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is a single cohesive narrative that uses a consistent pattern of literary allusion, scriptural references, and themes throughout, with each of the scenes building on a singular premise, which indicates that the entire narrative was the brainchild of one person who created this narrative from scratch using a singular style of literary allusion.

There was no "pre-Mark" Passion narrative, and the narrative in the Gospel of John is dependent upon the Markan narrative.

schilling.klaus

no, only those are full of fecalia who believe in authentic Paulines, first-century canonical gospels, absolute Markan priority, a pre-70 Jerusalem community, and similar delusions.

Klaus Schilling

spin

This is merely more of the same unsupported stuff accompanied with empty rhetoric. You were supposed to take note of more than the first sentence. The other part was there for a reason.


spin