jakejonesiv

The disciples are supposed to be witnesses and messangers of Jesus' message. But they are in the dark about many key things, and are seemingly incapable of understanding other things even after explanation and illustration.

It is interesting to list some of the characters in Mark's gospel who know more that the disciples.
These include:

The person(s) unknown to the diciples who provided the colt.
The unnamed woman who annointed Jesus for his death.
The man carrying the water jar, and the ones who furnished the large upper room ready for the passover.
The young man who fled naked.
Alexander and Rufus, obviously known to the readers, else they would not have been mentioned.
Joseph of Arimethea, a secret disciple.
The young man in the tomb.

The diciples are Jesus's outward followers, but they are carnal. They are surrounded by those who know far more than they do. Isn't this precisely how Gnostics operated, forming an secret inner circle of pnuematics who were privy to esoteric secrets unknown to carnal/hylic and psychic Christians?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

show_no_mercy

Don't forget that demons also know more than the disciples.

jakejonesiv

Quite so, as well as the readers of the gospel, Mark 13:14.

spin

This needs to be understood better, Joe. Papias is enunciating his adherence to the notion of apostolic tradition. He goes to the oral sources who were direct witnesses (or at least indirect by only one report). This notion of apostolic tradition was one aimed at excluding the Marcions and Valentinuses. They didn't have access to apostolic traditions, so their reports were of no value.

At the same time it admits to the existence of books that were in some way relevant, but they were already around with the spread of the oral tradition of the apostles (at least in Papias's presentation). Both Marcion and Valentinus were responsible for books that had good circulation and it was those figures against which the apostolic tradition argument was aimed.


spin

Vinnie

I am not convinced Papias mentions our Matthew (50/50) and am about 85% convinced he mentions Mark. I am inclined to think that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark but was amalgamated with John Mark. This allows for the fact that ancient traditions often have a core element of truth in garbled form. Just as Irenaeus connection of Polycarp with John might stem from his confusing of the apostle John with elder John. I do not opt for sheer, unmitigated creation unless the evidence suggests it. I will say that second century sources, where they can be tested, demonstrate themselves to be inaccurate in regards to the order and date of composition of the gospels. Internal data suggest they got the authors wrong as well but on the basis of the first two alone we should distrust their "gospel information". They simply quoted these older texts and did not know where they came from. But this does not apply to Papias, he does not state the order of the gospels and his only testable claim is that Mark wrote Mark. So we cannot find him guilty on Mark because of a later silence on the four gospels and faulty information in Irenaeus, A Clement, Muratorian Fragment, etc. Papias claim is earlier and not conencted to such material We should not throw out the Papian baby with the Irenaean bath-water. I have no theological a priori necessitating for or against traditional authorship with Mark. I find the evidence for this one gospel to be inconclusive right now and the evidence is certainly strongly against Matthew and John and Luke I have not assessed as much as I should to personally comment.

Many scholars do not interpret the disciples idiocy in the same way as those offered up above. The sobering reminder throughout is that Jesus chose them and initiated them in Mark and their ultimately failure after his death is hardly a point that can be assumed from the text...

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

If the text of Mark ends at 16:8 (with the disciples unrehabiltated), it can hardly be assumed that the author intends that the disciples subsequently understood Jesus completely or correctly. Several early sects would say they did not.

Try not to read Mark through the lens of the other Evangelists or Church Writers. Over and over, Matthew and Luke subtlely changed Mark's message to make it less disturbing.

Best,
Jake

Vinnie

I never said it did, but that is a big IF and two, the former interpretation might be consistent with more of the text than the later. I think they both are off the mark (pun intended) and we may need to instead look at reader-response criticism.

Vinnie

spin

Yeah, but you don't throw out the bathwater. It's "pretty obvious" that Matthew is not a collection of Hebrew sayings, but a purposeful improvement on Mark.

The fact that Mark doesn't reflect the recollections of Peter is subtler than the fact that Matthew used Mark as his main source and simply cannot reflect the Papias claim.

Well, what do you know, an apologetic compromise! We'll keep as much of the Papias stuff as we can stomach.

I follow the notion of tradition development. Unmitigated creation wouldn't come into it, except maybe on the microscale. Accretion might give the idea more clearly.

I don't know. I'm not exactly inspired with possibly half-right.

The claim is earlier, but the reality is still untested. I can see the possibility that the material actually reflects a later period in which the doctrine of apostolic tradition had started to operate.

That's fair enough from your point of view. The indications for Matthew and Mark seem to contain more that can draw analysis.

But how can you use that datum?


spin

Vinnie

Yes, but what you and other objectors seem to miss is that all those after Papias seem to have taken his comments to refer to Matthew. If they can interpret his statement as referring to Matthew, it is at least possible he missed the error us modern critics are dwelling on as well and meant Matthew by his comments. It is obvious what Matthew is but it is not obvious what Papias meant or whether he would interpret his statement the same way Irenaeus and company did.

You should think before you offer knew-jerk responses.

First I date Papias earlier than you and it is obvious to me he is relaying an older tradition. The ascription to Mark is the earliest one in all of early Christian gospels in my opinion. Doesn't make it true but it certainly has a better chance than any other work.

Second, the ascription to Mark and not to Peter or to John or to Thomas or "insert other actual eyewitness Apostle here" still has to be dealt with.

Third, while church tradition is sometimes 1) simply incorrect and also at times 2) deliberately incorrect I also find much of it to be 3) plausible and corroborated by other sources. In addition to this, I think there are often truths embedded in garbled form in many erronious traditions. Then again, it is not my goal merely to upset the status quo and usurp Christian belief.

Fourth, Mark was an extremely common name in antiquity.

If anything needs apologizing, its the hyperskepticism that clouds good judgment.

Most all ancient sources have errors. If you require inerrant documents become a Christian. As I noted, Papias cannot be lumped in with these later authors. He makes none of the mistakes that they did as far as we know. His only testable tradition is Mark to Peter.

The same way you use the negative examples.

Vinnie

spin

How does that help the apparent error?

None offered.

There is no way to test the veracity of the data. We now know that there were a bunch of names, a few of which didn't reflect the texts we know and I don't know why you're so easy to believe the Mark interpreter of Peter story. We also note that there were other texts in circulation in the Papias material suggesting that we weren't at the beginning of the gospel writing process with the Mark and Matthew comments.

It's an admission that the apostolic tradition didn't provide texts at all. Hey, why didn't the apostles write any texts? Umm, well, we wuz illitrit?

Though unconfirmable.

And I have posed the question frequently how do you recognize the speck of truth in each riddle?

A Roman name as well.

There's always a middle course, Vinnie. People have difficulty seeing anything other than the ends of the pole. You at one end the Jesus myther at the other. You don't have to take sides (ends). Have you answered the question of whether King Arthur was a real person? Can you answer it? It's not unnatural to be in a situation in which you can't resolve issues. Why do you have to make a commitment when you simply don't know? There are just too many things that we don't know about the past. Are you another of those who can't admit that they don't have sufficient information?

You've seen that it doesn't relate to the gospel of Mark which makes the apostles including Peter out to be just plain dumb. It's like a photo album with Peter showing the pictures: this is me shoing how stupid I was about ealking on water; this is me forgetting the warning of a few hours ago that I would deny Jesus three times. That isn't a realistic scenario. Neither is the Papias version of Mark.

It doesn't help you at all. It's just rhetoric hinting at the knowledge of Jesus regarding the disciples -- at least according to Mark.


spin