hatsoff

If he didn't write them--and I agree he probably did not--then how can you argue Mark is anti-Petrine?

Actually I was thinking of Ignatius, who wrote around 110 and whose name is strikingly similar to Irenaeus--hence my mistake. I have since corrected the posts.

Well, that seems like fairly strong evidence.

This is the only passage I can find where Papias mentions Mark:
I fail to see how this description contrasts with Mark's Gospel.

That only means the source is earlier--which makes a stronger case.

Yup, I was thinking of Clement of Rome. I've since corrected the posts.

Ben C Smith

In Mark 1.18 Peter shows an immediate and unquestioning obedience to Jesus. In Mark 8.29 he demonstrates his faith that Jesus is the messiah (yes, it is followed by a Petrine stumble, but the negative does not erase the positive; it balances the positive). Mark 10.28-30 highlights the faith of the twelve, with Peter as their spokesperson in verse 28, and dedicates some of the most glowing dominical words in the entire gospel to them. In Mark 14.29 Peter exhibits good intentions. In Mark 14.72 he breaks down in remorse after his failure to make good on those intentions. In Mark 16.7 Jesus promises, IMHO, that Peter (and the rest) will be restored, foreshadowing a Marcan ending that I currently think has been lost.

There are, of course, a good many negative passages, as well; hence my view that Mark has balanced Petrine bad and Petrine good.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Really? Papias also passes on an "oral tradition" that Judas (bloated from guilt IIRC) was squished by a chariot. While he is likely the original source of two of the 2nd century author attributions, it is difficult to see how he could be considered reliable.

How is Mark's story not in order? Even the Catholic Study Bible cautions against assuming too much "Petrine influence".





PS Please accept my belated welcome! I'm glad to see a member of IIDB who hails from the hometown of my all-time favorite band, The Pimps (formerly The Goodyear Pimps). If you're interested, they're playing at LT's on January 27th.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm sorry, I fail to follow the logic here. Peter is portrayed as a major failure, therefore the author must have been his buddy?
Mark portrays Peter as someone who never understood Jesus' teachings, who never knew he was the Messiah, who abandoned him after his arrest, who never knew about the resurrection and who was never redeemed. That's pretty anti-Petrine, dude.
It sure isn't.
Actually, most of the narrative material was sourced from the Hebrew Bible. There is nothing in Mark which has any anecdotal charateristics. The narratives are literary constructions, not transcribed memoirs, not "notes." Galilean fishermen do not speak in Greek chiasms nor in the complex weave of OT allusions crafted by Mark.

In addition to this, we have Mark's blaring geographical mistakes which indicate that he never set foot in Palestine, his blatantly fictional trial and passion, and the fact that the author never so much as hints that he ever met an apostle and that he clearly doen't like them.

GMark is an anonymous, makes no claim to first hand knowledge of any of its events or characters and shows shows ignorance of the geography, customs and laws where the story is set. The tradition that the author was Peter's scribe stems from an interpretation of a single 2nd century attestation by Papias who says he heard from another guy (who was not an apostle) that a guy named Mark wrote down Peter's memoirs. The assumption that Canonical Mark is that book grew from there, but that assumption is completely baseless and contraindicated by the evidence (and much the same can be said of the assumption that Papias' description of Matthew's logia is Canonical Matthew).
The appearances to the apostles were unimportant?
It also says that women didn't tell him about empty tomb.

As to Mark's "resurrection." He ends with an empty tomb (a fiction in itself) and implies that Jesus will "appear" in Galilee, but it's not clear at all that Mark means anything like the physical resurrection that would later be innovated by Matthew. Anyway, the point is that according to Mark, Peter and the apostles never knew about the resurrection.
Justin Martyr never said a word about a secretary named Mark and both he and Irenaeus knew Papias.

There is no reliably independent corroboration for Papias' claim, and no real reason to believe that Papias was talking about Canonical Mark anyway. The "external" evidence is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the internal evidence all contradicts the tradition.

I'm not saying anything particularly radical or fringey here. Mainstream NT scholarship has long ago concluded that all four authorship traditions of the Canonical Gospels are spurious.

Julian

Please note that I have started a new thread on this here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=150208

I would be grateful for some further comments.

Julian

hatsoff

Well, it seems I've been mistaken about a few things. I'm glad to have learned a bit more about Mark, especially with regard to his alleged connection to Peter. However, I still have a few contensions.

Not "must," but it does strengthen Papias' claim.

from chapter 8:
Unless the original Greek has been mistranslated, Peter did indeed accept Jesus as the Messiah.

from chapter 14:
Yes, Peter made a mistake, but he realized it immediately, expressing regret. I wouldn't say that's anti-Petrine.

from chapter 16:
You see that although it doesn't actually depict Peter's meeting with Jesus, Mark does foretell the event. He even singles Peter out by name, apart from the other Apostles.

I'm not sure what you mean by "never redeemed."

I'm not sure why you'd think that. Mark ends with both Marys and another gal being instructed to tell Peter about the Resurrection, and that Jesus will see them soon.

Papias' claim is not verified, you're right, but that doesn't automatically mean it wasn't true. It's very basic information which makes perfect sense and is corroborated by internal evidence, however weak. Also, it doesn't matter if Papias' was talking about Mark's Gospel or some other work; either way, he still claims a close affiliation between Mark and Peter.

I agree that it is entirely possible Mark was not Peter's affiliate, or even the author of the second Gospel. However, all evidence points to him as both.

Diogenes the Cynic

How so?
Yes, I was talking about after the resurrection, but you're right. Mark does say that Peter called Jesus "Christ" before he abandoned him.
The "mistake" itself is an anti-Petrine invention. The fact that Mark says Peter was sorry doesn't change the fact that Mark wants to paint him as a deserter.
He also says that the women never told the apostles about the empty tomb. Mark doesn't fortell any appearances, he told his readers that the women ignored the instructions.
I mean in a literary sense. Peter is not given any sort of "happy ending." He simply flees in disgrace and that's it.

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. (Mk. 16:8)

This is the very last line of Mark's gospel. The women ran away and said nothing to anyone. The End. Mark is not presaging any appearances, he's saying they never happened. He's explaining to his audience why they've never heard about the resurrection before...because the apostles were unworthy...but WE are allowed to know the secret (The Messianic secret is another strong theme in Mark).
1. The author of Mark is unknown. Anyone who wants to assign a specific author to the Gospel has the burden to prove it. No one else has the burden to disprove it.

2. The evidence of Papias is exceedingly weak in that it is (at very best) third hand testimony, the description he offers does not match Canonical Mark¹ and it is not independently corroborated. In addition to this, the author of GMark evinces no personal familiarity with any of the characters, places or events he describes, makes factual errors about the culture, laws and geography where his story is set, his narratives can clearly be demonstrated carefully crafted literary constructs which lean heavily on the Hebrew Bible and makes no claim to have received any of his knowledge first hand.
The evidence really doesn't point to any such thing, but I will leave you with the point that it is theoretically possible that a historical Simon Peter dictated his memoir to a scribe named Mark and that Papias was accurate in his description of what happened. However, this memoir, if it existed, is decidedly not Canonical Mark.


¹Papias says that Mark wrote down verbatim everything that Peter said in no particular order. GMark is not a transcription of oral transmission but an extraordinarily sophisticated literary construction and it is exquisitely "ordered." Ask Vork about Mark's chiastic structures. I'm talking about far more than just chronology here.

countjulian

Hey man, did you pick up that tidbit from me? I remember I kept hammering Orthodox Freethinker with it when he kept trying to pull that peshitta BS.

hatsoff

If Mark was taught by Peter, we would expect him to play a prominent role in the Gospel. He does, and it therefore strengthens Papias' claim.

I wouldn't say Peter "abandoned" Jesus. He merely lied to save his own hide. In the context of the Gospel, it seems like a lesson-learned sort of story.

Hmm. I never noticed that before (probably because I always read it with the tacked-on ending). Perhaps it was merely an imprecise comment, meant to convey only that they told no one *else*. If not, that the women failed to transmit the news doesn't mean Jesus didn't meet them in Galilee as promised. Apparently, Jesus had already told the disciples he'd meet them there: "'There you will see him, just as he told you'" (16:7).

The final verses mention Peter in a positive light, as his Apostleship is confirmed.

I'm not saying Mark's authorship is proven and undeniable, but only that he's by far the most likely candidate. Until I'm shown sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'd go as far as to say Mark *probably* wrote that Gospel.

But it is also the only clue attesting to the Gospel's authorship; and it makes perfect sense, considering its content.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is this Hebrew Bible you mentioned?

Papias said: "It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ." That doesn't mean it was crudely written or poorly structured.

Amaleq13

No, I've been using it for years. The faithful keep ignoring it, though.