Adam

Your internet Commentary on Mark http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GM...o.html#sources
denies the usual sources for the Synoptics. I admit that only the better scholars argue for Q as a source, but chapters 6 to 8 fit into a pre-existing Ur-Marcus as a discrete journey to Tyre and Sidon and back. Nor do you account for why verbal exactitudes with Luke occur with Petrine but not with Twelve-Source materials--B. H. Streeter was right that there was a Proto-Luke before the Petrine strata was added. Most scholars recognize the Passion Narrative as a source.
I'll admit that MJ is pretty hard to square with source-criticism of Mark as above, but maybe MJ is at fault and not source-criticism.

Vorkosigan

No, they don't. Much of chaps 6-8 was added by a later editor, which is why Luke doesn't have it. Someone's hand has been busy in Mark between Chs 6 and 11.

Examples????

I don't know ANY scholars who recognize the passion narrative as a source though they wonder if there is a separate source for the passion narrative (it is actually there that the conventions of hellenistic fiction take over). There is no "Petrine" strata -- there as many strata as scholars and no methods for identifying them. The writer of Mark is Pauline through and through and detests Peter and constantly makes fun of him.

There was a Proto-Luke. We call it Mark.

The key is to focus on methodology -- how do you know what you know? So far you haven't been able to tell us, despite the massive blocs of material you write. So I'd like you to specify your critical methodology for establishing sources in Mark.

When I wrote my Commentary I was rejecting Q. I've come back around to accepting it. I'm still maintain a strong agnostic streak -- there are affinities between Q and Mark that intrigue me.

The issue isn't one or the other. We can't say whether your source criticism is meaningful for the MJ hypothesis because it has no reliable methodological support. Whereas identifying literary parallels and showing creation via paralleling is age-old in literature analysis.

Vorkosigan

Solo

Thanks, Vork.

I have convinced myself over time that Mark intentionally made Peter believe that Jesus was talking to him because Peter and the Zeb's (as psychikoi) received only the 'external view' of the transfiguration. I.e. they only saw Jesus addressing Elijah and Moses in a high state of excitement; they did not get the proclaimed appearance of the two prophets in 9:2. Moses and Elijah appeared to them but they did not see them, as per Mark's application of the rule of Isaiah in 4:12, i.e. the hina version, as Kermode called it. So they would only hear Jesus talking to himself aloud, appearing to be addressing Moses and Elijah. Hence Peter's offer to build the tabernacles for the three, and the narrator's explanation that he did not know what to answer, because they were afraid (as Jesus was εξεστη, beside himself). Matthew of course re-wrote this with the three amigos receiving the vision and reacting to the shekinah. Luke, forever the ecumenical politician, turned the scene into a horama of the three, cancelling on the one hand the nasty lampoon of Mark and on the other, the blatant Peter-mongering of Matthew. (Yes, Luke knew Matthew !)

I am not sure what you mean by Peter receiving Jesus empowerment in Ch 6. The chapter ends with Mark revealing that the disciples' hearts were hardened and they did not receive the sign of the loaves, while the people recognized Jesus right away. Mark's whole story is predicated by Peter not getting Jesus' messiahship of the cross as taught by the scriptures of Paul. He and the Zebs think of Jesus as the traditional messiah who will take over Jerusalem. When the Sanhendrin interrogator asks, "are you the messiah, the son of the blessed", he too is asking whether Jesus is a Davidic pretender. Jesus answers with a knight's move in logic, "yes, and and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven", meaning "I am the Messiah, but the melancholy version of Paul !" Mark's imagination is brilliantly anarchic and profoundly moving.

Best,
Jiri

Adam

Yes, I wound up agreeing with that:
" so I'll say Mark 14:61-64 (=Luke 22:66-71) is the original pericope."
But I still say Mark 14:55-60 is a later interpolation, as is evidenced by its absence from gLuke. You don't seem to contest that now.
My methodology is source criticism in the form of literary criticism, using the hypothesis that none of the gospels knew the final form of any of the others except Mark (almost entirely) was used by Matthew.

Adam

We're saying the same thing, I think. Lots of bad scholars try to argue that gLuke has to be dated later than gMark, stating that a complete text of Mark (including Mark 6 to 8) dates to 65 A.D. and was available to Luke, so gLuke can't be dated to the obvious conclusion of Acts in 62 A.D. Obviously I should not have said "discrete journey" when you believe it would have been mythical.
Ranging from 3 complete lines of identical text down to almost a whole line, here are verbal exactitudes (some are multiple segments with non-exact text in-between):
Mark 1:22-25; 2:19-20; 3:3-4/ 5:7, 14, 35a, 37; 9:1, 5, 31, 38-39a; 10:14-15 (3 whole lines!), 25, 29a, 33; 11:d29-30; 12:f18b-19, 23 , 38-39 (last two are both 2 whole lines); 13l2BM 4BM 7AM 278BL 15:2, 14.
ANY? or MOST?
"Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context," [1998] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
And while you're there, click the button for Pre-Markan Passion Narrative
"The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative
The following depends on the Young's Literal Translation of the passion narrative in the Gospel of Mark, verses 14:32-15:47. The color coding scheme is inspired by the Jesus Seminar. The data concerning the number of scholars favoring authenticity for each verse is taken from appendix IX of The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), v. 2, compiled by Marion L. Soards. Please refer to Soards for more detailed information. "
Then see the verse-by-verse listing.
The gMark not yet including Mark 6 to 8 etc.?
See in my Post #230 layers: I study the literature to compare with gJohn (hence first layer), with gLuke for verbal exactitudes (hence the second layer), with gLuke for non-exactitude sections (the third layer wherein gMark and gLuke had to independently translate Q-Twelve-Source), and this latter with gMatthew for exactitudes between gLuke and gMatthew (the fourth layer). What's left over is either in Matthew (fifth layer) or it's not (sixth layer).
Welcome into the light.
I acknowledge that my method would reconcile less with MJ than with conspiracy theories. But you guys here have been quite effective in quashing conspiracy theories.

fatpie42

Succinct and to the point. Love it.

Vorkosigan

Luke copies about 6000 words from Mark. What makes these Petrine? Based on what?

Vorkosigan

aa5874

Your claim about the Pauline writings and gMark is COMPLETELY erroneous.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark SHOW ZERO dependence on the Pauline epistles.

1. gMark's Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin.

2. gMark's Jesus did NOT start a new religion under the name of Christ.

3. gMark's Jesus BARRED his own disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

4.gMark's Jesus was NOT known to the Jews as Christ during his entire lifetime.

5. There was ANOTHER person PUBLICLY called CHRIST in gMark, not Jesus.

6. gMark's disciples did NOT tell anyone Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

7. The author of gMark did NOT claim that the disciples and over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

8. The author of gMark did NOT claim that he was AWARE of any Christian Scripture.

9. The details of the Jesus story in gMark is NOT from the Pauline writings.

10. There are NO word-for-word copying of any passage found only in the Pauline writings in gMark.

It is CHINESE-WHISPERS and PROPAGANDA that gMark used the Pauline writings.

The very arguments that support Markan Priority DESTROY any claim that gMark used the Pauline writings.

The author of gMatthew appears to be totally INFLUENCED by gMark when he too should have been AWARE of the Pauline writings.

No GOSPEL writer from gMark to gJohn USED the post-resurrection detail that over 500 people SAW at ONCE the resurrected Jesus.

There is NO GOOD NEWS of UNIVERSAL SALVATION through the resurrection in gMark.

The Pauline writings is the COMPLETE opposite--the resurrection is the Gospel.

Romans 10:9 - You will NOT find any such claim in gMark even by the supposed Jesus.

Mark 16.6-8[ gMark is NOT a product of the Pauline writings at all.

gMark is a product of Hebrew Scripture.

Mark 1.2--Malachi 3.1, Mark 1.3--Isaiah 40.3, Mark 1.11--Isaiah 42.1, Mark 1.44--Leviticus 13.49.

Mark 2.27--Exodus 23.12.

Mark 4.12--Isaiah 6.10

Mark 6.23--Esther 5.3

Mark 10.3--Deut.24.1-3, Mark 10.6--Genesis 1.27, Mark 10.8--Genesis 2.24, Mark 10.19--Exodus 20.13-16.

Mark 11.9--Psalms.118.26, Mark 11.17--Isaiah 56.7.

Mark 12.29--Deut. 6.4, Mark 12.31--Leviticus 19.18, Mark 12.33--1 Sam. 15.22, Mark 12.35--Psalms 110.1

Mark 13.14--Daniel 9.27, Mark 13.26--Daniel 7.13

Mark 14.7--Deut. 15.11, Mark 14.18--Psalms 41-9, Mark 14-24--Exodus 24-8, Mark 14.27--Zechariah 13.7, Mark 14 14.62--Daniel 7.13, Mark 14.64--Leviticus 24.16

Mark 15.24--Psalms 22.18, Mark 15.28--Isaiah 53.12, Mark 15.34--Psalms 22.1, Mark 15.42--Deut. 21.23.

It is EXTREMELY clear that gMark is a product of Hebrew Scripture and has ZERO to do with the Pauline writings.

NOT one single verse in gMark can be found to be copied from the Pauline writings.

Adam

Sorry for my mistypings in the above quote that I have corrected for Mark chapter 13.
No, Luke did not copy ANY words from canonical Mark nor even a Mark substantially the same as we have, as you yourself admit extensive intercalations in Mark 6 to 11. But even from this earlier text, Luke only copied what he did not already have. The Proto-Luke that Luke worked with already contained all of Q and L, and by my analysis already contained Twelve-Source as well. It contained Layers 3 and 4 of gMark only. Counter-intuitively, Luke had to copy in only the earliest layers of Mark, the Petrine Ur-Marcus Layers 1 and 2. (By definition gLuke never contains Layers 5 and 6.)
Here in Gospel Eyewitnesses, I have not been focusing on the order of composition of any of the gospels. As I have just said, the order of the writing of gLuke contrasts with gMark. In my Significance of John thread I have concentrated on gJohn only. For the Synoptics I present it best here:
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
And of course see my Post #52 in this current thread in which I argue Petrine source and link to the above article.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983&page=3
(This article did not differentiate between the third and fourth layers of Mark.)
Notice in the above links that I argue from Acts of the Apostles that the memoirs of Peter are continued at least through most of Acts chapter 12. Thus the corresponding portions of gMark are most likely from him (or from John Mark himself, as I only recognized in 2011). Only these portions of gMark needed to be copied into gLuke. Where the word "Twelve" occurs or where the work-use is too loose to be from a shared Greek text, the Q-Twelve-Source was already in gLuke.

Vorkosigan

Interpolations, not intercalations.

Luke did not copy ANY words from Mark? I think I'm bowing out of this conversation. But thanks anyway.