Solo

I take it you are still refering to 3:21. Mark's source is Paul (1 Cor 1:18-31). The perceived madness or demon possession of Jesus (btw, one needs to read the whole pericope 3:20-30) is defeated rhetorically on the basis of Paul's view that : ' the foolishness of God is wiser than men (25) ...and ...God has chosen what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not (28)'. Mark punctuates Paul's teaching and boldly outlaws the badmouthing of the Spirit.

So, far from Jesus perceived madness being embarrassing to Mark (as it is later to Matt and Luke who feign presenting actual events and go deeper into disguising the allegories), it is a "counter-cultural badge of honour".

If all this seems improbable look again at verse 3:20, the immediate reason why 'those close to Jesus' wanted to remove him from the public view. The verse does not make sense, does it ? Why should the crowd's lessened capacity to feed themselves, be a cause of blaming Jesus and accusing of him being out of his mind ?

Welcome to Mark's mysteries !

Good luck going at Mark with a buzz saw !

Jiri

Solo

See Werner Kelber : Mark's Story of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) for an interesting view of the duplication of the feedings.

The surprise of the disciples, if you are referring to 8:4, is generally considered a segue into the discourse in 8:14-21.

Jiri

gurugeorge

Ever since I read about the idea of "Stoic exemplary biography", I've always thought that might have been the model. (This from the point of view that "Mark" probably thought there was a historical divine-inspired man, but his only info was fragmentary urban myths about the character, so he made up his own biography.)

aa5874

Once it has been deduced that there was no Gospel called Mark and that the Gospels were originally anonymous then it may be extremely difficult to try to find out how and when a Gospel was called gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn were written.

But, we have a source of antiquity that clearly confirms that the Gospels were indeed anonymous or that there was no known or accepted specific authors.

This writer is Justin Martyr.

All other writers of the Church who have attempted to attribute authorship to the Gospels were wrong or not consistent with the present accepted view that the Gospels were NOT written by characters called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius were all wrong.

Justin Martyr was right. And not, only right, but consistently right. Never once in all his writings did he ever make mention of any characters called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John who wrote any Gospels.

Justin Martyr maintained at all times that he was aware of Gospels called the "Memoirs of the Apostles."

Now, once Justin has corroborated the anonymous nature of the Gospels, as has been deduced today, and perhaps he alone, then it must considered that Justin's writings do reflect the true chronology of the Gospels.

Based on Justin then, it is not whether gMark was first or not, it is that the information found in the Memoirs of the Apostles on the Jesus story predated the information found in the Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

It is irrelevant whether gMark was written before or after gMatthew when all the Gospels to which authors were attributed were after the anonymous gospels called "Memoirs of the Apostles".

We have evidence or reason to suggest that the Jesus story in the Memoirs, and also found in gMark, predated the Pauline writings. Faith is no longer required.

avi

I am grateful to you, for writing this analysis. Well done.

In my opinion, Justin Martyr's contribution, i.e. his acknowledgement of the existence of Memoirs of the apostles, could also be a 2nd, third, or fourth century fabrication (like Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Marcion, et al). Or, alternatively, Justin Martyr's writings could be genuine.

Either way, real or fictitious interpolation, the fact that Justin Martyr does not mention gMark and other new testament texts, does not prove the non-existence of those documents, any more than Paul's failure to identify intimate details of Jesus' birth proves that Jesus was never born.

Perhaps Justin Martyr does not include reference to many Greek stories, plays, poetry, and folklore. That fact, if correct, would not serve to confirm the nonexistence of those particular compositions of Greek literature.

It is also possible, though, perhaps highly improbable for most forum members, that none of the books of the new testament, as we know it today, existed during Justin Martyr's lifetime.

Certainly, your point, in my view, is well taken, that Paul follows rather than precedes Mark. I am in agreement with you on that point, however, I do think that for me, lacking the knowledge which you have so competently demonstrated, of the intimate details of the contents of the books themselves, this supposition that Paul follows Mark is more based upon faith in my case, than it is for you or most other members of the forum.

avi

hatsoff

Well, the two doublets (the miraculous feedings and the stillings of the tempests) of which I am aware do indeed constitute evidence of written sources. I'm not sure I can agree that the Judas elements constitute such evidence, though.

Very little is "clear" in New Testament scholarship. I think it's a good bet that Mark used written sources, but it's also quite possible he didn't.

What theology is that? And how do you know he wasn't butchering those sources?

I agree that the issues are complex and, at least in many important respects, unknowable. But that doesn't mean we get to throw up our hands and abandon our efforts. It's okay to paint an imperfect picture of Christian origins, as long as that picture is somewhat accurate. That's my goal, anyway---and the JMH is a step in the wrong direction if I want to achieve it.

Scholars are very much aware of this. However, Q is important precisely because we can identify it.

aa5874

So, how do you determine if any word in any writing of antiquity by any writer, known or unknown, has not been altered?

If you cannot show that Justin's writings were altered then suggesting that they may have is just futile.

Not even the courts deal with absolute proof. It is not required that a theory be developed which proves anything beyond all doubt.

It is only necessary to show that there is data to support the theory.

There is virtually no credible data to support the theory that the Pauline writings predate gMark.

It must be obvious that IF you are right that you are right and IF you are wrong that you are wrong.

I am interested in the data that supports the IF.

The writings of Justin Martyr MUST be read and EXAMINED to see whether or not he would have mentioned the names of the authors of the Gospel once he knew that was the case.

Justin Martyr was a meticulous writer and almost always named his sources. He consistently repeated the names of the writings of the prophets and even number of the chapter where the passage was found in Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

The writings of Justin are so meticulous that he confirms or demonstrate that the numbering the books of Psalms were different in the 2nd century.

Anything may be possible, but let's deal with the data.

We have data and it is consistent with the theory that the Pauline writings are all after the Synoptics.

But these are your own words.

There is data, there are reasons to support the theory that the Pauline writings followed the information found in the Synoptics.

Doug Shaver

Do you think Dan Brown knew he was writing fiction?

Rich Oliver

I'm sure he believed that much of his story was fiction, but he may well believe in some version of the "Jesus Blood line" theory. I'm speculating here, but publicising the JBL may even have been a motivation for creating the novel, as well as wanting to make a shed load of money of course.

Rich Oliver

So do you accept that (the author of) Mark used sources, written or otherwise, because the theory I'm challenging is that Mark was the first person to give Jesus an Earthly biography.