Johnny Skeptic

And, how far removed from eyewitness accounts were Mark's sources, second, hand, third hand, fourth hand, fifth hand etc.?

andrewcriddle

IF the Apostle Peter was one of Mark's sources then his information was first hand.

If we reject this then we are left with speculation. However, on the traditional dating of Mark's Gospel, it would not have been difficult for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

IMHO, Mark is not based on eyewitnesses of historical events at all but written as mystery-romance of his Paulinist experiences of the risen Lord. The experience of the Spirit and its end in passion was projected by Mark into fictional happenings but likely also into real events that had currency in the rival Petrine traditions.

Jiri

Johnny Skeptic

What, if any evidence suggests to you that Mark used Peter as a source?

What evidence suggests to you that Peter actually believed he had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead?

If by "Jesus' ministry," you are referring to the historical Jesus issue, I assume for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed. The issue that I am interested in the most is how many people believed that they had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus rose from the dead, and made some appearances, how can we be reasonably certain how many people he appeared to?

Paul's vision is not credible evidence.

The author of the book of John claims to be an eyewitness, but the majority of Bible scholars do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that the author was the disciple John. In addition, John was written much too late to be of any value to Christians.

Regarding Peter, consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

Where did Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen get their information from?

Why isn't it reasonably possible that the author(s) of 1st and 2nd Peter are unknown, and that the author did not believe that he had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead? In other words, why isn't it reasonably possible that 1st and 2nd Peter are religious propaganda, otherwise stated, apologetic fiction?

Other than Paul, the author of John, and the author(s) of 1st and 2nd Peter, who else claims to have seen Jesus after he had risen from the dead?

aa5874

It is very unlikely that the author of Mark used any Pauline writings since there is not a single word-for-word passage in gMark that is found in the Pauline writings.

It is extremely CLEAR that the author of Mark used HEBREW scripture, the Septuagint, or sources that contained Hebrew scripture or the Septuagint.

The Markan Jesus story can be found in the following passages of Hebrew scripture.

1. John the Baptist as a messenger in gMark can be found in Malachi 3.1 and Isaiah 40.3.

2. The words of God after the baptism of Jesus in gMark can be found in Isaiah 42.1.

3.The plucking of corn by the disciples in gMark can be found in Deuteronomy 23.25.

4. The use of parables by Jesus to the Jews so that they could NOT understand in gMark can be found in Isaiah 6.10.

5. The request to grant the daughter of Herodias even half of the kingdom in gMark can be found in Esther 5.3.

6. The feeding of the people in gMark may have been based on 2 Kings 4.42.

7. The words of the people in the triumphant entry into Jerusalem by Jesus in gMark can be found in Psalms 118.6.

8. The prediction of Jesus about the "abomination of desolation" in gMark can be found in Daniel 9.27 and 11.31.

9. The prediction that the "son of man shall come in the clouds" in gMark can be found in Daniel 7.13.

10. The betrayal of Jesus in gMark can be found in Psalms 41.9.

11. The penalty of death for blasphemy in gMark can be found in Leviticus 24.16.

12. The crucifixion scene can be found in Psalms 22

13. Even the name "JESUS" in gMark can be found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and JOSHUA.

The JESUS story in gMark did NOT need any eyewitnesses or Pauline writings at all .

Minimalist

What, if any, evidence suggests that there was a "Peter" to be a source?

Johnny Skeptic

Of course, that is why I said "Why isn't it reasonably possible that the
author of 1st and 2nd Peter is unknown, and that the author did not believe that he had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead? In other words, why isn't it reasonably possible that 1st and 2nd Peter are religious propaganda, otherwise stated, apologetic fiction?"

DCHindley

Johnny,

The source itself (the gospel of Mark) doesn't say. The gospel of Matthew doesn't say either. Luke readily admits he referred to earlier accounts in order to construct an orderly account that he believed was the most accurate. The author of John implies that he relied on at least one eyewitness.

The earliest reference to Mark as Peter's interpreter is in Papias [as relayed by Eusebius]:

And the elder [John] would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, [ερμηνευτης Πετρου] wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them. (http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...lexandria.html)

Then Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3 1:2

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. (also ch 10:5)

Then Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis Book 7

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.[τον Πετρου ερμηνεα]. (http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...lexandria.html)

Then there is Tertullian Against Marcion Book 4 5:1

... that [Gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was.

Then Eusebius' Chronicle for 3rd year of the 205th Olympiad = 43 CE (per Jeromes translation of it in Jerome's own Chronicle)

Mark the evangelist, Peter's interpreter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria. (http://rbedrosian.com/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm)

DCH

David Hillman

Well since Mark's sources were his own creative imagination, the old testament, the letters of Paul, the usual Greek epics and novels, and various other fictions, they got their information from other fictions and their own imagination.

aa5874

There is nothing in gMark that can be said to be most likely from any Pauline letters.

The author of gMark wrote about the activities of JESUS while he was supposedly ON EARTH.

The authors of the Pauline Epistles wrote about the REVELATIONS from JESUS while he was supposedly IN HEAVEN.

The JESUS story in gMark ENDS at the Resurrection.

The revelations from JESUS to the Pauline writers BEGIN after the Resurrection.