Ben C Smith

Well, of course you are welcome to read whatever you want between the lines. Mark could have meant that it was really Simon who was crucified when he said that Jesus cried out from the cross and breathed his last. Mark could have meant a lot of things.

Those are the two lines that I would pick out, too.

But you seem to be saying that they could be either docetic or non-docetic; therefore they were docetic.

Yes! Or something very much like it.

Not at all. How are Peter and Peter-inspiring-Mark opposites? Irenaeus does not just forget about Peter, let us remember.

There are two cakes. I am eating the cake that says Mark composed the text. I am not touching the cake that mentions only Peter. But it is easy to see why such a cake was baked.

I honestly cannot figure out what you think is so fancy about Justin choosing to highlight Peter over Mark.

Xenophon wrote the memoirs of Socrates, yet they were still called the memoirs of Socrates in antiquity (dictorum atque factorum Socratis commentarii, memoirs of the words and deeds of Socrates, or just απομνημονευματα Σωκρατους). So what is so strange about Justin calling the second gospel the memoirs of Peter?

Maybe. And maybe that gospel had the Boanerges detail in it. And maybe that gospel was docetic, but Justin did not notice. Maybe.

Justin is not recounting the gospels in full. He is excerpting them for his apologetic purposes.

First of all, does Justin really have to know the gospel of Peter in order to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus? Second, is not the phrase synagogue of the wicked a quote of Psalm 22.17 LXX? If Psalm 22 is the inspiration for this line, of what use is the gospel of Peter to us?

Recall also that the gospel of Peter has Pilate and Herod passing judgment on Jesus together, in the same place (1.1-2), whereas Justin, like Luke, says that Pilate sent (επεμψε) Jesus to Herod (Dialogue 103; refer to Luke 23.7, ανεπεμψεν).

(The gospel of Peter uses this word, too, but only after the two have already appeared together, and it is not Jesus who is sent; of course, perhaps in the missing part of the text Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, but then we have to get Pilate and Herod together somehow anyway.)

Ben.

Gamera

I just can't help noting, in agreeing with you Ben, that somebody left the cake out in the rain.

jakejonesiv

The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts (or via: amazon.co.uk), Robert M. Price, 2006.

Irenaeus had his predecessor, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, linking Mark to Peter this way in about 130 AD/CE. However, ascribing statements to Papias as functioned as a convenient hadith--licenses to make this or that item authoritative as needed--as in Islam where the claim of access to left-over Koranic verses or ancient oral traditions was a way of circumventing scripture. ... For more see Page xiv.

We may also note the clear Marcionite tendency of the gospel [of Mark], with its unremittingly scathing portrayal of the disciples of Jesus as utter failures to carry out the Christian legacy. Indeed, it is not unlikely the subsequent choice of the ascription "Mark" reflects the name of Marcion, the early-to-mid century champion of Paulinism. Papias, as quoted, or perhaps fabricated, by Irenaeus and Eusebius, makes the gospel the record of the oral preaching of Simon Peter at Rome. Mark ... decided to preserve what he could of his master Peter's teaching... But as Dennis E. Nineham and others have shown, whatever the Gospel of Mark is, it is certainly not a collection of eyewitness table talk. As Stephen Hermann Huller (Against Polycarp) has suggested, there may have been confusion between Simon Peter and his arch rival Simon Magus ... For more see page 70.

Irenaues' list of the four canonical gospels in 180 CE gives an upper limit. But if, as some has suggested, Irenaeus' Against Heresies was pseudepigraphical, like the various pseudo-Justin and pseudo-Tertullian writings, then the sky is the limit. As Walter Schmithals has suggested, the gospels appear to be all but non-existent for about 200 years. They are nowhere quoted or cited verbatim till very late in the second century. Page 115.

For the similarities between Papais and "Luke" see page 493.

If you are weary of being treated like a mushroom and fed the traditional and approved "cake" of recapitulating and harmonizing the tales of the New Testament and Church Fathers at face value, Buy this book.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Are you saying this, or is Price?

In any case, where does Irenaeus have his predecessor Papias linking Mark to Peter?

Now Mark is Marcionite? I thought you said it was probably Basilidean.

What makes this name game not unlikely?

Not one of our extant fragments of Papias openly says that Mark was written in Rome. Irenaeus himself says this, but he does not attribute it to Papias.

Fragments of Against Heresies were discovered at Oxyrhynchus. They date to late century II or early century III.

If they are quoted or cited in full late in the second century, then that makes 200 years only if you are dating them to about 1 AD.

Hey, I agree with you that there are similarities between Papias and Luke! Good deal.

Well, this is quite a pitch for the book. But about the obvious inaccuracies (Irenaeus attributing the Mark story to Papias, the 200 years)... are they in the book, too?

Ben.

rlogan

Quite the straw man, and it is pretty ironic to be masquerading as the "critical" one.

Not one person here has ever argued "there is a geography booboo, therefore Mark did not write it".

There are numerous mistakes not just in geography, but also cultural traditions, not to mention the linguistic evidence, that point to an author speaking to a Greek audience and writing outside Palistine.

These mistakes aren't trivial, and must also be taken in the context of the basic stupidity of the stories themselves. For example, placing two thousand pigs thirty miles from the sea before they "ran down a hill" into it. Matthew corrected the geographical error, but the story itself is still a ridiculous legend, not something an eyewitness would record. What we have is an author taking an obvious myth and attempting to place it in reality but making a thirty-mile error in so doing.

The correct characterization of the argument against "Mark" writing this piece is in the recognition of pervasive errors in geography, in incorrect citations of Jewish culture, along with the linguistic evidence, all taking place in the context of mythical doings in the first place.

Now since you've claimed that you make just this sort of "boo-boo", perhaps you can point us to one of your writings that contains the size and scope of these kinds of errors.

aa5874

But wasn't the gospel of Luke the product of unknown butchers? It may argued that the Gospel of Luke is the spoils of 'Q', Mark and Matthew.

Vorkosigan

From Fragments of Papias at CCEL:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-43.htm
"Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip."

Papias met the fictional characters invented by Luke, the daughters of Philip.

Hello! The point is that the character Papias is a literary invention that took place in an era when Acts was accepted history. It could well be that the Mark Papias refers to is ours. Or another. Who cares? Whoever it is, he was invented long after both Mark and Acts had been written, and thus, can't be used to date either.

This debate is now over. Unless you want to believe that Papias somehow met fictional characters.

Michael

Ben C Smith

Why are you saying that the daughters of Philip were fictional?

Ben.

Vorkosigan

You've got to be kidding me, Ben. Acts is absolutely filled with fictional conventions -- it's a piece of Greek fiction. In Acts 21 where they meet the fictional Philip and his fictional daughters there's a nice bit of literary parallelism, where the four virgin daughters of Philip are made to parallel the four men Paul offers for purification and proof of observance of the law. That sort of parallelism is literary in nature.

Other conventions present there in Acts 21 are:

--the hero enters the temple and portentous events happen there.
-- the local potentate intervenes
-- the hero receives magic word to proceed/not proceed with a course of action (twice, in fact)
-- the hero is followed by crowds
--the hero is an innocent who goes knowingly and willingly to his own fate (death)
-- the hero is tried before the local potentate (later on in Acts)
-- the hero journeys across land and sea

Acts is pretty standard fiction fare. Have you read any of the Greek romances?

Michael

rlogan

Well, at this point we fall back on the "historical daughters of Philip" in keeping with the tradition of making people disprove the existence of something not even attested to in the fables themselves.