Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 03-05-2007, 10:19 PM

Mark has been called beads on a string or some such. Most scholars think it consists, largely of movable pericops with artificial links. This does not remove the possibility or some very ordered segments (e.g. possibly the intercalations?) or a general order or a pre-Markan PN (possibly your citation?) Most scholars would probably view Mt and Lk with a tighter order than Mark. Part of it is that it omits material as well.

I argued otherwise at one time, but Mark, also, is not anti-Petrine and anti-apostolic in my mind. This would make Jesus out to have failed in his task of choosing special apostles. I lean more towards the Gundry approach. Hidden meanings, messianic secrets, and anti-apostolic tendencies are all fun to toy with but ultimately they fail in that they move from uncertainty to certainty whereas the other side starts from certainity (Mark's portrayal of Jesus). We also kjnow from Paul's contemporary primary data that Mark is not hiding that Jesus' original followers did not believe in his resurrection or some such...

The directional grain of your argument is up hill, about an 89.9 degree hill.

Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Vinnie, even though you have Proved that Papias wrote 105 and therefore he must have been referring to "Mark", case closed, end of discussion, bring the X-Uh-Jesus Tropes home there is something else that is still bothering me. In addition to:

1) The priMary assassination in "Mark" being Peter's character rather than Jesus making it Unlikely that Peter was in any way connected to "Mark" which also explains why Orthodox C was forced to use supposed External evidence to ID "Mark" (no Internal evidence pointing to Peter or "Mark" as sources).

2) The Likelihood that Historical Witness Witnessed the Historical (Q)

Papias is indicative of a very Unstructured account. Disconnected preachings of Peter that are later partially remembered by not Peter and put together out of order. However, Canonical "Mark" is a highly Structured, Connected Narrative arranged in very Deliberate Order. In perhaps the best example of the Deliberateness of "Mark" and a celebration of the resurrection of Vorkosigan: (and note how Peter (surprise) is the Formula Negative Behaviour)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/newreply.php...eply&p=2058342

The WallGan commission going over the McJuder tape once again:

Mark 14: (KJV)
53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Wallack: Now the "Stone" version at 33 & 1/3:

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest" (Jesus taken by Force)
"And Peter followed him afar off" (Peter taken Voluntarily)

"and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." (Jesus' audience is Authority)
"and he sat with the servants" (Peter's audience is Servants)

"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." (Jesus' witnesses are False)
"they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." (Peter's witnesses are True)

"And Jesus said, I am." (Jesus defends with the Truth)
"But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak." (Peter defends with a Lie)

"Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." (Jesus' audience doesn't believe a True defense)
"And when he thought thereon, he wept" (Peter's audience believes a False defense)

Wallack:
Play back Mark 14:66 (KJV)
"And as Peter was beneath in the palace"

Play back Matthew 26:69 (KJV)
"Now Peter sat without in the palace"

Vorkosigan:
"Mark's" use of the historical present in Greek makes it clearer that the Jesus/Peter stories are intended to happen simultaneously. Just like you'd see in a split screen or a Play.

Wallack:
Agreed. Play back Mark 14:72:
"And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Note the implication that the accusers believed Peter and left him alone to cry. Play back Matthew 26:75:

"And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly."

The implication is that Peter was not believed so he had to leave before he could cry. This is more believable historically but lessens the contrast of the Jesus/Peter story. So the little changes, "Mark's" simultaneous stories and consistent contrast in the Jesus/Peter stories are more contrived literature and less plausible historically. The consistent contrast between "Mark's" Jesus and Peter is consistent with "Mark's" theme that everyone failed Jesus. Peter's purpose in "Mark" is not to show a disciple who continued the Jesus movement but on the contrary to show that even Jesus' most trusted disciple and his #1 failed him. Note that in "Mark", unlike "Matthew", this is the last we hear of Peter. The implication is that even Peter realized he had failed Jesus. Permanently. This is why the fraudulent addition of "Mark" 16:9-20 is so significant.

Vorkosigan:
Therefore, the evidence indicates that "Mark" shot JFK (Jesus F. Krist) first and Acted alone without "Matthew" (the second Gospelman theory).

Wallack:
Agreed.

Joseph

Question. An interogative statement used to test knowledge. But that's not important now.

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

Vinnie · 03-05-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Joe, I think Vinnie did a drive-by.

spin

...by responses that did not warrent much response.

It was a drove by, though assuredly, I missed some good ones. I have an actual life though (f/t school, f/t work, f/t girlfriend and family) and it restricts me from fully responding to all posts in threads, or even reading them all, especially when they start approaching 100 posts and the initial content is unstimulating...

Am I supposed to entertain an assertion's battle?

Acts makes it all up.
No it didn't.
Yes it did.
No it didn't.

Vork at least presented some interesting possibilities contra Papias but even if Acts was mostly fictinal, this would still not render daughters of Philip non-historical. A lack of evidence indicates exactly that, a lack of evidence, not non-existence. Just as a fictional acts does not render Peter non-historical or Paul or a ton of other names. Other than that, not much else. Though I do owe Amaleq a response somewhere and Criddle one on Ignatius......

Though all the comments on Judas were remedial....

Vinnie

JoeWallack · 03-06-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Mark has been called beads on a string or some such. Most scholars think it consists, largely of movable pericops with artificial links. This does not remove the possibility or some very ordered segments (e.g. possibly the intercalations?) or a general order or a pre-Markan PN (possibly your citation?) Most scholars would probably view Mt and Lk with a tighter order than Mark. Part of it is that it omits material as well.

I argued otherwise at one time, but Mark, also, is not anti-Petrine and anti-apostolic in my mind. This would make Jesus out to have failed in his task of choosing special apostles. I lean more towards the Gundry approach. Hidden meanings, messianic secrets, and anti-apostolic tendencies are all fun to toy with but ultimately they fail in that they move from uncertainty to certainty whereas the other side starts from certainity (Mark's portrayal of Jesus). We also kjnow from Paul's contemporary primary data that Mark is not hiding that Jesus' original followers did not believe in his resurrection or some such...

The directional grain of your argument is up hill, about an 89.9 degree hill.

Vinnie

JW:
I love a good gag. Congratulations. Since you agree with me though that "Mark" is largely superstitious nonsense I don't have much interest in arguing about it with you. Your General arguments above don't have much weight against the Specifics I've indicated showing that "Mark" is primarily a snuff film of Peter's Witness. And yes you are in line with mainstream Christian Bible scholarship that trys to Defend based on what's not in "Mark" and denies/discounts what's in "Mark". The difficulty is trying to consider "Mark" by itself without subsequent Orthodox Christianity, just like its original audience would have.

"Mark" has deliberately excorcised most of Q from his Narrative because he only needed to depict Jesus as Teaching in general for the plot. Specific teaching is all about Jesus. That Papias' was referring to such a deliberate work that exorcised Q is comical. It's exponentially more likely that the attribution of "Mark" is backwards. There was absolutely nothing Internal about "Mark" that was indicative of "Mark"/Peter authorship. No autograph, no Explicit identification and no good Implications. Orthodox Christianity and Irenaeus attributed this Gospel to "Mark"/Peter souly because of what Papias wrote. That Irenaeus/Eusebius did not record much else from Papias tells us that it was full of other Legends that were problems for Orthodox Christianity.

Joseph

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

Solo · 03-06-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack
The priMary assassination in "Mark" being Peter's character rather than Jesus....

This always makes me chuckle. Here Mark writes a pretty simple little gospel, straightforward, easy to grasp... and then we moderns come along and complicate things. We cannot even agree on whether Mark was trying to slander Peter (as Joe Wallack would have it) or rehabilitate Peter against slanders levelled by John (as Evan Powell would have it).

Ben.

Me too chuckle: here Mark writes a pretty simple little gospel which everyone gets except the ones J. hand-picked and taught, though...and this is really the simple and easy part..., it would have not made the slightest difference if the disciples did get it, because the Son of man had to die on Paul's Cross, Mark's paranoia being what it was, namely, total Messiah-awareness.

For the record, I don't think Mark was slandering Peter. The incident at C-P strikes me as genuine tradition, as J's calling Peter "Satan" has all the marks of a very human frustration, and makes for poor doxology. I believe Peter showed weakness in Jerusalem, and the legend of his denials (and J.s prediction of them) grew out of that before Mark put it down.

Jiri

jakejonesiv · 03-06-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Me too chuckle: here Mark writes a pretty simple little gospel which everyone gets except the ones J. hand-picked and taught, though...and this is really the simple and easy part..., it would have not made the slightest difference if the disciples did get it, because the Son of man had to die on Paul's Cross, Mark's paranoia being what it was, namely, total Messiah-awareness.

For the record, I don't think Mark was slandering Peter. The incident at C-P strikes me as genuine tradition, as J's calling Peter "Satan" has all the marks of a very human frustration, and makes for poor doxology. I believe Peter showed weakness in Jerusalem, and the legend of his denials (and J.s prediction of them) grew out of that before Mark put it down.

Jiri

It is also possible the the gospel of Mark was meant to undercut the authority of the disciples. In this strange and ambiguous gospel, the disciples are never rehabilited if it indeed ends at 16:8.

Now, we certainly know which church based its authority on apostolic succession. It was the church at Rome. So it seems likely that GMark was produced by another community that didn't like the Roman know-it-alls lording it over them. They might even had been, shhh! heretics!.

Omigod no! This is a job for Papias! here he comes to save the day!
Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith · 03-06-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Now, we certainly know which church based its authority on apostolic succession. It was the church at Rome.

And Antioch. And Jerusalem. And Alexandria. And Ephesus. And....

Ben.

Solo · 03-06-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

It is also possible the the gospel of Mark was meant to undercut the authority of the disciples. In this strange and ambiguous gospel, the disciples are never rehabilited if it indeed ends at 16:8.

Now, we certainly know which church based its authority on apostolic succession. It was the church at Rome. So it seems likely that GMark was produced by another community that didn't like the Roman know-it-alls lording it over them. They might even had been, shhh! heretics!.

Omigod no! This is a job for Papias! here he comes to save the day!
Jake Jones IV

Hi Jake,

I doubt that there was anything like a "church of Rome" (or "Alexandria", or "Ephesus", or "Antioch") in operation at the time "Mark" wrote, i.e. 66-70 CE. Mark is a Paulinist, i.e. the theology of the Cross is firmly planted in his gospel, and actually, as Gundry says, apologizes for it. Unlike Paul, who radically rejected the claims of an earthly Jesus' as "power", Mark invests the wandering prophetic figure with supernatural attributes, much as the cultic Petrine (or, the disciples',) church did. But theologically he stays with Paul who cursed the disciples in Galatians as deniers of the Cross (as a messianic attribute) and elsewhere as preachers of different Jesus and believers in a different "resurrection" (actually the one HJ preached).

That rift still exists in Mark and projects in his portrayal of the disciples.

The authority of apostolic succession and something like real harmony in the proto-orthodox church would have been ahead probably 10-20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jiri

S.C.Carlson · 03-06-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Now, we certainly know which church based its authority on apostolic succession. It was the church at Rome.

Somewhat tangential, but at the beginning of the second century Rome was claiming both Paul and Peter as its apostolic forebears (see 1 Clem). By the end of the second century, the church in Rome mostly focused on Peter and Paul became less important. What happened in between? Marcion.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 03-06-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

It is also possible the the gospel of Mark was meant to undercut the authority of the disciples. In this strange and ambiguous gospel, the disciples are never rehabilited if it indeed ends at 16:8.

Ken Olson's paper at SBL on the ending of Mark has gotten me to think about it some more. If Mark indeeed ended at 16:8 (as Ken argued), the author must be relying on some extra-textual knowledge or expectation in his audience that, yes, Jesus promises were fulfilled despite people's failures.

In particular, the audience must have expected and/or already believed that the promise of 16:7 ("tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you") was fulfilled. This promise was then fulfilled despite the failure of the women to say anything to anyone (v. 8). I think this has the effect of rehabilitating the male disciples (who meet Jesus in Galilee) at the expense of the women.

On the other hand, if Mark had originally continued past 16:8, how Mark actually ended may or may not have needed that extratextual expectation. But that's hard to tell without the original ending.

I haven't been able to figure out, however, how to understand the 16:8 ending without a critical extratextual expectation.

Stephen

Ben C Smith · 03-07-2007, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Ken Olson's paper at SBL on the ending of Mark has gotten me to think about it some more.

Have you read Lee Magness yet?

I recently read him, and there are some good points, but a lot of the ancient suspended endings he adduces seem very, very different than what we find in Mark.

Maybe I am just locked in to an old way of thinking (although I was once convinced Mark ended at 16.8), but I still have a hard time imagining that 16.8 was the intended ending of this gospel.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.