Vinnie

The contention is that Acts 13:5 proper describes John Mark as presenting a written memorandum--probably the Gospel of Mark or an early form.

I tried to summarize the arguments and not violate copyright but there is simply too much Greek for me to type and it would take hours as its not copying and pasting. I hope posting a link where I technically violate copyright, and not FreeRatio, is not against the forum rules.

I just uploaded the pdf. I will be taking it down within a day or two, however, since i have no right to host it. The point is not to distribute this but to simply assess it....and I think the short time it be up fits my fair use rights....

Its roughly 9 pages but the first can be skipped (Start at 64)...


http://www.ecwar.org/pdf/lukejohnmark.pdf

Really simply looking for those fluent in Greek to comment...

Vinnie

Vinnie

If anything, that Acts might have associated John Mark with a "written" memorandum could have served as fodder for the John Mark connection itself. There is no way to show this memorandum is the Gospel of Mark.

Also, Luke appears to critique his sources and other gospels since he is drafting up a more ordered and carefully investigated version. In addition, the huge incorporation of Mark into their Gospels probably indicated the author's were attempting to replace the gospel of Mark. So Luke ends up replacing John Mark's memorandum, though this must be considered entirely plausible as it was not "scripture" to him as it is to 1800 years or so of Christian hindsight anachronistically reading their views into the mind of the author of Acts.

The other point is that John mark, the Palestinian Jew seems to be a representative of the Jerusalem church and he hardly appears favorable to that group or the Twelve in his gospel and is writing for Gentiles. Is it possible "Mark" later had a fallout, added to and redacted his memorandum?

This is all hypothetical though since the idea that Acts associates John Mark with a written memorandum can be taken in different ways.

At any rate, what do you think of the case itself?

As an FYI, I will be removing the pdf tomorrow morning when I wake up.

Vinnie

bacht

It's funny how Acts never mentions any of the NT writings. If the epistles and gospels were written before the 60s you would think Luke would say something like "And Paul sent forth letters of instruction and edification to all the gentile churches" or something similar. The epistles of the "pillars" James, Peter and John seem not to exist. In the prologue of his own gospel he mentions the existence of other narratives but doesn't name any authors like Mark or Matthew.

Vinnie

I only know of 6 main candidates, considering Philemon is short, he could mention since I think everything else is pseudonymous, but it is a good question at least. Some have thought that Acts spurred collections of Paul's letters or sealed his authenticity and led to further creations in his name. Others find it necessary to not date Acts too late before the epistles of Paul were being collected and well known. Otherwise the incongruities of Acts and the Pauline corpus are inexplicable.

A good question with lots of different ways to take it!

I'm taking down the pdf now...

Steven Carr

If people knew that Mark was based on Peter's preaching, and Matthew was written by an eyewitness, one wonders why Luke gave the impression these were shoddy works, and it was about time somebody did a proper job.

Vinnie

Yeah, its a good point but too much is inferred about Luke's view of these other works that should not be. Especially Mark since Luke follows so much of its wording and order. Luke adds to Mark and writes more "orderly" which is not a critique of Marcan content, which he duplicates. The exact opposite could be argued under the 2DH, why would two authors individually in two different areas use this work if they didn't know it was based off of apostolic preaching?

Vinnie

spin

Don't you even feel the slightest bit queasy about a text attributed to a Mark supposedly written by someone called John "whose other name is Mark"? Not the slightestest?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
It should be obvious that the answer is because this was the only Gospel narrative "Matthew" and "Luke" were aware of. Why would a Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian use the same Gospel for a base? Because it was the only one. The prologue of "Luke" sure looks like a forgery of trying to convert Marcion's Gospel of Revelation (just like "Mark"), which apparently lacked the Prologue, to OCD's Gospel of Historical witness. The Prologue's claim of historical investigation seems to mean looking through Josephus which is the source of the Infancy Narrative, also lacking in Marcion's version.
I suspect that if you want to determine the source for "Luke" you should be looking at Marcion. Marcion had the unattributed one, just as his source "Mark" was unattributed.



Joseph

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

Steven Carr

Yes, where are all the other stories about Jesus?

Muslims have lots of hadith about Muhammad and his companions.

But if you look for oral stories about Jesus , you hit a blank.

Surely some Christian somewhere (Clement, Justin, James,Jude,Polycarp,Papias) must have heard stories about Jesus other than the ones in those short Gospels.

But there aren't any. What sort of founder vanishes apart from one work written about his life, which other people then use as a basis for their works?

Where are the hadith?

Where are the stories stemming from James, the alleged brother of Jesus?

Why does not one Christian trace a story back to this 'brother of Jesus'?

bacht

Well, there's the NT apocrypha, but I think you're looking for something else (?)