Diogenes the Cynic

Here's another tranlation:

A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God (Jehovah). Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha: Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously--i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." (Rashi explains that the name Jose was selected because it contains four letters, as does the proper name of the Lord.) When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: I heard exactly the same as he told. And so also says the third witness.

The Mishnah says a person is not guilty unless he verbalized the Tetragrammaton. Then it illustrates a trial. Then the Boraitha says, "One is not guilty unless he blesses (i.e., curses) the Holy Name by the Holy Name (as illustrated in the Mishna)"

It is the Boraitha which goes further and says a person isn't gulity unless he curses the name by the name. It infers this from the Mishnah but it's not explicit in the Mishnah.

I don't see how this could possible help your cae anyway. You are hard pressed to show that Jesus said the name even once. I don't see any way at all that you could argue he cursed the nameby the name.
No. Sayings have no genre. They're only sayings. Mark's sayings don't even have to be authentic to HJ. It really doesn't matter where he got them from. The only thing that matters is that he didn't invent them himself.
I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

Julian

Yes, it is anti-Petrine, but more importantly, it is anti-apostolic. Mark doesn't just lash out against Peter but the disciples as a whole. Mark had no love for the apostolic, or proto-orthodox, church. Sure, he could still be a branch of the Pauline tree, but I suspect that we must break with tradition even more.

Julian

JoeWallack

JW:
I think you're on the Right track Ben as far as considering the Author's Likely Audience as the Key to understanding this Pericope. On the other hand it's Unlikely that a Historical Jesus said this in 1st century Israel.

Diogenes and Rick are arguing about whether "Mark" was Jewish but, as a majority of Christianity would take this story as Historical, the Most important thing for the Bible scholar here is to explain why it's Not.

Let's take a Look at the whole offending Pericope:

Mark 10 (NIV)
1 "Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

JW:
Movement and Location are very Important Settings for Fictional works. Here Jesus is on The Way to Jerusalem. For you Ben:

"Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them."

Again, Jesus is portrayed as a Great Teacher but the Narrative can't give any Detail Teaching. The detail is primarily Reserved for Information about Jesus and Reactions to Jesus. Thus the Account is presented not for the Purpose of Historical Narrative but for Instruction to the Author's Audience. A knowledgeable first century Israeli Jew would have known that a woman could not obtain a Divorce. So this was written for a non-Israeli audience. But the author could still have known the correct rules on Divorce in Israel at the time.

As always we need to keep in mind that "Mark" is on an overall basis, mostly a Story of the Impossible which means it's a Fictional Works. Therefore, the Individual Pericopes are Likely to be Fictional also (even if they lack Impossible claims). Combining this General observation with the specific observation that "Mark's" Jesus says things about Divorce that a historical Jesus would not have makes it Likely that the Author did not Intend a Historical conversation here and the Author instead had a Figurative Point in mind (same as Jesus washing his hands of The Jews washing their hands).

In the Jewish Bible God and Israel are often described as Married (especially Jeremiah) and "Jerusalem" is commonly a Sinonym for Israel. The Theme is generally that God will not Divorce Israel and Israel can not Divorce God. A favorite related theme of The Prophets is that Israel has been "unfaithful" by Lusting after other gods. In my opinion then, the Original theme of the Pericope was the same. "Mark's" Jesus is saying that the Husband (God) cannot Divorce the Wife (Israel) and Verse-Vice, Israel cannot Divorce God. To make this Figurative point he has to have his Jesus display Ignorance of The Law of the land but it's not much of a problem because his Audience is not of the Land. Note that after these Types of Pericopes Jesus arrives in...Jerusalem.

My own opinion is that "Mark" was a Hellenized Diaspora Jew writing for the Diaspora Jews of his community. He considered himself Jewish and his message was to The Jews. "The Jews" Failed Jesus but only "The Jews" of Jesus' time. "Mark's" Gospel was the Original which called to a later Generation of The Jews. "Luke" saw that "Mark's" Gospel to The Jews was a Failure, just like the Original Jesus Movement and made it a Gospel to The Not Jews. As they say, "The rest is Not History."



Joseph

WOMAN, n.
An animal usually living in the vicinity of Man, and having a
rudimentary susceptibility to domestication. It is credited by
many of the elder zoologists with a certain vestigial docility
acquired in a former state of seclusion, but naturalists of the
postsusananthony period, having no knowledge of the seclusion,
deny the virtue and declare that such as creation's dawn beheld,
it roareth now. The species is the most widely distributed of all
beasts of prey, infesting all habitable parts of the globe, from
Greeland's spicy mountains to India's moral strand. The popular
name (wolfman) is incorrect, for the creature is of the cat kind.
The woman is lithe and graceful in its movement, especially the
American variety (felis pugnans), is omnivorous and can be
taught not to talk.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

hatsoff

I'm not sure how you could say Mark is anti-Petrine. It seems very much in line with Peter's Epistles. Justin Martyr testified that Mark was a disciple of Peter about 80 years after Mark's Gospel was written. Irenaeus confirmed it a bit later. Clement of Alexandria may have confirmed the connection yet again. That's not proof, I'll grant you, but it's pretty strong evidence.

Are they? I've seen no evidence for that.

Maybe. It seems like the evidence that Mark was a Gentile is even weaker, though.

hatsoff

If anything, Peter's major role in Mark is evidence of a close affiliation between the two. Simply because Mark narrates one of Peter's more glaring mistakes does not mean it is anti-Petrine.

Mark is not Peter's memior. It is a Gospel from which much or most of the material was sourced from Peter's notes. Clement of Alexandria may have written in the late second century: "As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed." In other words, Mark left out material he considered irrelevant or distracting, which makes any obvious omissions less suspicious. Finally, Mark does not omit the Resurrection, but merely Jesus' subsequent appearances.

Indeed, the ending of Mark mentions Peter by name:
Justin Martyr confirmed the connection in c. 160 CE, which is still relatively early, and Irenaeus a bit later. Between the internal and external evidence, it is very safe to say that Mark was the author of his Gospel, and that he used Peter as a primary source.

Ben C Smith

I think you are confusing Clement of Rome (century I) with Clement of Alexandria (late century II, early century III). Clement of Rome wrote nothing in particular about the gospel of Mark, Peter, or Petrine notes or memoirs.

The 1958 Mar Saba document certainly looks like a forgery to me. I recommend S. C. Carlson, The Gospel Hoax.

110 is relatively early, but Irenaeus wrote in circa 185. You are probably thinking of Papias with regard to 110, but that date is conjectural even for him. I have an incomplete list of our evidence for gospel origins on my website, in case you are interested (unaccented Greek, English translations supplied for most passages).

I agree with you, BTW, that Mark is not totally against Peter. Both Mark and Matthew present a rather balanced portrait of the prince of apostles.

Ben.

Julian

I am curious, what passages in Mark do you consider showing Peter (or the apostles) in a positive light?

Julian

S.C.Carlson

Three quick points:

1. The Clement referred in Morton Smith's 1958 text is not the first century Clement of Rome, but Clement of Alexandria, the author of the Stromateis, who died c. 215.

2. Irenaeus wrote in the 170s not c. 110. (Perhaps you mean Papias?)

3. For a more recent assessment of the authenticity of Morton Smith's 1958 text, see my book, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark.

Stephen

hatsoff

I was thinking of Ignatius, sorry--begins and ends with the same letters, you know. And, yes, I see now it is Clement of Alexandria.

Boy, don't I look silly!

Diogenes the Cynic

The Epistles of Peter are pseudoepigraphical works. Peter didn't write them. How late do you think Mark's Gospel was written? Irenaeus made this claim in Against Heresies which dates from between 175-185 CE. If my arithmetic is correct, that's more than a hundred years after most scholars currently date it. You're probably thinking of Papias, which is where Irenaeus got it. Papias made his claim sometime in the early 2nd century (c. 130 CE). He claims he heard it from John the Presbyter (not to be confused with the apostle) and everybody else got it from Papias. Whatever Papias was talking about, it wasn't Canonical Mark. It doesn't match Papias' description, and it's hardly very sound evidence anyway.
Justin Martyr does not mention anything about "Mark." He makes an allusion to the Gospel as a memoir of Peter but he got that from Papias.
Clement was not even born until around 150 CE. He did his writing in the late 2nd century and died in the 3rd.