Ben C Smith

Sorry. I do not get it. Swearing that one is telling the truth does not seem like even the barest hint that a person is a figment.

You think the five books of Papias constituted a Greek novel?

The Satyricon and Chaereas and Callirhoe, mainly. Snippets and summaries of the others (like the Ephesian Tale).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That translation is so loose I was not even sure at first which line it was supposed to be translating. I gather it is this one:

...αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων....

...but not making them as an ordering together [or polished composition] of the lordly oracles....

If so, this specifically applies to Peter, not Mark. Peter was just preaching on the spot. The part that applies to Mark simply says not in order. At this point we are not told just how disordered the text was, but later the elder also says that Mark did not err in writing down some things (ενια) as he remembered them. Why some things? I think the elder may have had a list in his head of some things that Mark got out of order, and that list may have looked like this:

1. Mark placed the arrest of John before the actual ministry of Jesus; he should have made their respective ministries overlap.
2. Mark placed the temple cleansing during passion week; he should have placed it much earlier.
3. Mark placed a single journey to Jerusalem toward the end; he should have mentioned several trips back and forth throughout the ministry.
4. Mark placed the anointing of Jesus two days before his death; he should have placed it a few days earlier, and he should have remembered who the woman was.
5. Mark made the last supper a Passover meal; he should have remembered that Jesus was crucified on Passover day.

There is no a priori reason the elder could not be thinking of a random collection... except that I know of no such random collections of deeds along with words. Thomas is a seemingly random collection of words. But even the hypothetical Q, if it existed, seems nonrandom when it comes to deeds.

I admit that, if we were to discover a sufficiently ancient and seemingly random text full of both the words and the deeds of Jesus, I would be tempted to make this identification.

Even then, however, I would wonder how to take the some things. If the whole thing was jumbled, why focus on some things?

But at the moment I am not convinced that any such text existed. It just seems unnatural, when telling as much as you remember (at second hand, in this case) about a person, in text form, to tell it without some overall structure or order (death at the end, for example). I just see no reason why Mark would, in a single text, talk about the arrest, then about the baptism, then about the crucifixion, then back to the time Jesus healed a leper, and so forth.

I think that is pushing the translation a bit, but yes, I think the elder is saying that Peter preached to the occasion.

I agree. But I think the elder is simply trying to justify those certain things that Mark did not err in telling as he remembered.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

In my judgment, not necessarily. But there is hardly a better way to make me suspicious of your honesty than to make a point of assuring me that you are honest.

Amaleq13

Does that follow after identifying Mark as accompanying Peter? (I'm using Roberts-Donaldson via Kirby's website if that wasn't already apparent):

"...And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]"(emphasis mine)

So, how accurate is the translation of the portion in bold?

I explicitly stated this very thing earlier and suggested that the comment about Peter's teaching should be assumed to apply to Mark's recollections of that teaching given no other indication from the presbyter. It seems to me that, given a comment about the lack of narrative in Peter's preaching, mentioning that Mark did provide such a structure would have been natural and expected. Instead, we are only told he apparently wasn't concerned about the order of the recollections.

IMO, you are assuming without any justification that Mark's recollection of Peter's teaching would have had more narrative structure than the teaching ever apparently did. I suspect it is because you would have done so had you been Mark.

Well, that does appear to be what the presbyter is describing though not necessarily so extreme as "random".

Now we just have to wait for the goatherd to discover the cave...

I assume what Mark produced did not provide the "complete" story. I would just like to point out that makes sense if it was used as a source to write the "complete" story.

Are you calling the presbyter a liar?

It might be unnatural for you, Ben, but not everyone thinks the way you do. I've been a school psychologist for 17 years and it has become apparent to me that the way people remember things is highly individualistic. If I had been Mark, I would have started by recalling specific instances of Peter's teachings. Maybe with the last one I could remember.

"Now, where were we?"

"Oh, that's right, they were very interested in topic X so Peter told them that great parable Jesus taught." (scribble, scribble)

In keeping with the presbyter's description, I would then spend some time making sure I got the story as accurately as I could recall it before moving on to my next recollection. Perhaps that memory would link to an earlier event in a completely different location because of some odd similarity in audiences. Memories are not inherently organized in our brains. They have all sorts of weird connections and cross-references. Generally, we have to consciously impose order on them.

If I had the time, I probably would have joined you in putting the stories in order but we aren't given any reason to think Mark did so.

I don't think we have enough information to make specific assumptions about the contents and doing so makes it difficult to think of this collection as anything but a coherent narrative. Words and deeds sounds like parables and miracles to me.

Ben C Smith

I would call it a paraphrase. I gave a pretty literalistic translation in my last post, something like but not making them as an ordering together of the dominical oracles.

Yes, I see that now. Sorry.

But in this example you would be writing a book about Peter. Peter told the crowd about the parable, and so forth. But the elder tells us that Mark wrote as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. Peter here is just the cache of stories about Jesus.

I do not, from this description, expect a text that shows Peter talking to crowds. I expect a text that shows the Lord talking to crowds.

I think that the elder limiting his redemption, as it were, of this Marcan text to some things that were amiss in some way implies that the rest of the text did not suffer from the same affliction.

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, just thinking about Peter and writing down what he taught.

Me neither. Sorry for the confusion.

I understood it to mean "what he wrote is accurate but he didn't write about everything that happened".

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

spin

Joe, I think Vinnie did a drive-by.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Well, as my old Jewish boss used to tell me (and he used to tell me this a lot), now you can tell me that I was right. I think your considerable talent is better spent arguing against those who actually believe the nonsense they are spewing. I concede though that it is very difficult to distinguish between Vinnie's Parodies and LFJ.

Once again another brilliant satire demonstrating the lack of Methodology in Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship leading to Biased conclusions not supported by the related argument. It is very entertaining seeing the Christians here lap it up like Vampires.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

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.

The truth is (almost always) in the middle.