Amaleq13

Nope. Given the assumption I've mentioned, all that is required is familiarity with the same information about the most prominent figures in the origins of the movement.

ETA: I just realized that I already said this as well. Please read my goddamn posts before responding to them, Ted!

How about you read and respond to the explanation I've already offered for this "problem" rather than continuing to repeat yourself as though I haven't?

As I've already said, it is only a problem for anyone who assumes that Paul's "Brother of the Lord" is a literal reference to siblingship. I don't but you do, hence, your problem not mine. I think it is pretty obvious that he depicts Pillar James as Inner Disciple James and the brother of John. If Brother James is deliberate, I can only assume it is a joke on the Pillar since he is clearly depicted as rejecting Jesus as insane.

This is not complicated, Ted, but it sure would help if you actually read my responses in full.

Let's not drag Acts into this until you have fully wrapped your brain around what I've suggested for Mark and Paul. Suffice it to say that the mess you describe is what is to be expected whenever someone tries to rewrite fiction as though it was history.

Amaleq13

If he was reliable, he would reduce the noise considerably since we would have a direct connection. I thought this was obvious but I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post.

What sort of evidence do you imagine might answer that question?

What evidence are you using to estimate the population? Are you also taking into consideration the other factors (especially geographic distance) I earlier indicated are obviously relevant?

Between you and Ted, I'm starting to wonder if my posts are only visible on my computer.

What do we know about Mark's author aside from what Papias claimed about him?

Yes there is a simpler account: It was an unsubstantiated rumor from second- or third-hand sources that was passed on because people liked the idea of it. Just as folks tend to continue to do to this very day.

TedM

Ok, if we assume that Peter is as Paul depicts, there is a reasonable basis for someone to portray him in a fictional story as the Top Dog. There is also a reasonable basis for him to have been portrayed in a real story as the Top Dog. So there is no other REQUIREMENT that would result in his being portrayed as Top Dog. However, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that the fact that he was portrayed as Top Dog increases the likelihood that Peter himself was a source. Whether that increases it from 5% to 20% or only 3% to 4% is subject to debate. But since a source is more likely to include himself than others in any biographical account of someone he knows, this fact is a factor when all we have is the end result and speculation as to who wrote it. That's all I'm saying.


We don't know how Mark interpreted the phrase, but the very fact that you have to conclude "coincidence" takes into account the idea that it is less likely than random chance. So, it is a factor.

That's a lot of assumptions. Why in the world would "Mark" make James the brother of John? You already mentioned that you don't know why he gave Peter a brother named Andrew. Why make them brothers at all? It isn't obvious at all that he dipicts "Pillar" James as anything since we have no reason to believe that Pillar James was the brother of Pillar John, expecially when Paul says he was the brother of Jesus!

I'm sorry if you don't think I'm reading your responses in full. I am.


If someone were trying to rewrite history, they probably wouldn't do it as cleverly as "Luke" did or as stupidly as Mark did. That was my point. I'm not sure what a better reasonable alternative would be other than the historical interpretation.
ted

Afghan

Um... perhaps you should try reading my posts too... :grin:

Well I'd work with what we've got. An outside estimate shouldn't be hard to come up with.

I'm not sure distance is that important. What matters is what access Mark had to information. Assuming that Mark wrote in Rome - someone had to come to Rome from Jerusalem and it probably wasn't Paul in the first instance. Even if it wasn't Peter - who according to "orthodox tradition" died in Rome - it was likely someone who knew Peter. And Mark (if he wrote in Rome) was likely to know someone who knew the first Roman missionary even if he didn't know them himselves.

So I'd say chances are that if Mark wrote in Rome, chances are he knew someone who knew Peter and even if he didn't, he almost certainly knew someone who knew someone who knew Peter. Fair?

Exactly.

Not that such exuberance on my part indicates that I think this is a clincher. I don't. But I'd ask you to consider that "orthodox tradition" represents a relatively clear and parsimonious account of Church history. Granted it may not be accurate but that is true of any account. But you're not proposing anything that better accounts for all the evidence.

Okay. I'm not convinced it's simpler and it certainly doesn't tell us anything about Mark.

TedM

Mark was associated closely with Peter in 1 Peter 5:13 , considered written before 110AD. This may be an authentic letter, but even if it isn't it takes the tradition of a Peter-Mark connection back to before the quote from Papias.

Diogenes the Cynic

I Peter is not authentic but even if it was, it would establish nothing but that Peter knew someone named Marcus- a common Roman name, and more importantly, still not a name which we have any reason to connect to the anonymous Gospel to which the name is attributed..

Amaleq13

I read it but I had no idea what you were talking about with the time travel stuff or that the subsequent phrase was independent of what preceded it.

What do you think we've got?

Sure. That's pretty much what I've already said but I do not see how such a Seven-Degrees-Of-Kevin-Bacon game is helpful. It certainly doesn't suggest that Papias is a reliable source.

And I would ask you to consider the possibility that it was created to convey precisely that impression, in direct opposition to "heretics" but it simply fails to hold up under critical examination. The trail goes cold earlier than Papias and we are left with multiple hints of trails leading off in many directions.

Afghan

But if it wasn't authentic a good case could be made that it does evidence that their was an earlier acceptance of a Peter-Mark connection somewhat earlier than Polycarp. It's odd... if it isn't pseudepigraphic, Mark could be anyone but if it is it's reasonably likely that the pseudepigraphist meant to imply the evangelist.

No. It hasn't got anything to do with Papias. I'm trying to establish an outside estimate if we discount Papias.

With due respect, it holds up perfectly well under critical examination (or so far, at least). You certainly haven't presented a case that Mark couldn't have known Peter - only that the claim that he did is questionable. After 1,930 years or so that doesn't come as a huge surprise.

Yes I agree that there are other explanations that can account for some, maybe even a lot, of the evidence. But one can always find such explanations.

Amaleq13

Well I do discount Papias and I have no idea how one might contrive such an estimate with an anonymous author writing in an unknown location for an unknown audience. You certainly haven't suggested what evidence you intend to rely upon for it.

What are you talking about? We've critically examined Papias and he failed to hold up. Are you holding out with a reason to think he is reliable despite what we've already seen? He is the link from the 2nd to the 1st century and he is broken. That is the opposite of holding up.

I don't understand how can continue to be confused about where the burden logically belongs. It belongs with the affirmative claim that Mark's author did know Peter. I don't have to argue for a contrary position if the affirmative claim cannot be supported and, so far, it has not.

Since I have no good reason to think that Mark knew Peter, my "work" is finished unless and until new evidence is presented. Got any?

Afghan

But I haven't claimed that. I said he might have done or he might have known someone who did and that he almost certainly knew et cetera...

Well if your work consists of observing that we don't have a lot of evidence that clinches it for Historicism then I agree. But it's a real jump from there to ergo Mythicism. You have yet to suggest a single piece of evidence that is better explained within a Mythicist framework than a Historicist one.