Diogenes the Cynic

1 Peter does not claim that "Marcus, my son" wrote a gospel, or that he wrote anything at all. The author shows no awareness of GMark, so it can't be said that he meant to imply an evangelist that he probably never heard of. All we know is that the author drops a name almost completely devoid of context (I salute you and so does my son, Marcus"). This does not represent any connection at all to GMark.

Amaleq13

Fine but that doesn't change the shift in burden reflected by the statement.

To my knowledge, there is no reliable information identifying the author or establishing a direct connection with any of the characters in his story.

Yes there is really no end to one's speculation absent reliable evidence but unsubstantiated speculation doesn't interest me very much.

Well, after years of reading on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that if there was a historical Jesus, the subsequent myths have overshadowed him beyond the reach of any existing methodologies.

I don't know where you got the idea this was something I was trying to do. Frankly, I suspect that can only be accomplished by you doing your own research. Good luck.

TedM

I just bought James, the Brother of Jesus, by Robert Eisenman, and see that he thinks Luke and Mark did exactly those things I was objecting to. I'm probably going to disappear for a while here and will in the meantime be reading the book (over 1000 pages) to see where he is coming from. I've been quite curious about James and the Nazarite movement connection for some time, so this seems a good place to start both for the background as well as some interesting ideas along the "rewriting of history" lines.. Will be back at some point down the road.

take care,

ted

Afghan

Fair enough. But you will give me for finding it slightly implausible that all Mark knew (or at least believed) about Peter was what was in Paul's letter. He must have loomed slightly larger in the popular Christian consciousness than that.

Boy, did you pick the wrong forum! :grin:

Fair enough. But that is a much weaker position than saying there never was a Jesus "of Nazareth".

Is that code for "there isn't any"?

Well I feel I have researched a little and I'm researching more here, no? I'm not an academic, my Greek is not exactly coprothermic, so the subtleties and complexities of some of it elude me. But I think I understand (at least in sketch) the arguments on both sides. But I remain genuinely bemused by the Mythicist position for the fairly naive reasons I've laid out here. Don't get me wrong, I think it raises legitimate questions about a lot of the evidence and I certainly think it raises some interesting points about Paul. But I just don't get why it is a better theory.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure where you got the impression I assume Mark only knew what was in Paul's letters. I think his rather negative depiction requires a bit more than that if only familiarity with, and apparently disdain for, people who claimed to be following Peter's teachings.

On the contrary, I've found unsubstantiated speculation to be relatively infrequent and usually short-lived.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "Jesus of Nazareth". If you mean the Jesus depicted in the Gospels, I have no problem readily denying the existence of that obviously mythological character if only because magic doesn't really exist.

Regardless, I'm happy to take a "weaker position" if it is all the evidence will rationally sustain.

Nope. It means what is says. I'm not interested in trying to convince you of a position I haven't found convincing and I have no idea why you would think I would be.

jjramsey

FWIW, Eisenman seems to think that "the original Jamesian Christianity consisted of Torah-observant and nationalistic Jews of insurrectionist bent":

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co....html#eisenman

Offhand, this seems a poor approach, since such a Christianity would hardly be distinguishable from other Jewish insurrectionist movements, and John the Baptist is not an easy fit here. Given this, I think you are probably right in your objections. Then, I'm not big on bold speculation.

TedM

I'm curious what that implies to you about what Papias says. Do you think that everything he wrote is unreliable--that nothing he says can be trusted? For example, do you think we can't rely on him as evidence for Mark having even known Peter? Or for someone named John the elder having existed? Or for there even having been a tradition circulating with regard to Judas? How far-reaching does a conclusion of unreliability go for you?

I don't plan on going back and forth with this. Just curious.

ted

Afghan

Amaleq don't! Next you'll be telling me there ain't no Sandy Claus.

My apologies. It would seem that we have been talking a little at cross purposes.

I know you weren't tilting at me here but I want another crack at this one. Papias is evidence (in a Bayesian sense) for Mark knowing Peter. So is 1 Peter. But they are not necessarily strong evidence. Or at least not strong enough to overcome the prior unlikelihood of it being the case.

But certainly, the pseudepigraphist would have been more likely to use the name Mark to create the illusion of authenticity in 1 Peter had Mark actually known Peter. Similarly, Papias would have been more likely to claim that Mark had been Peter's amanuensis if that had actually been the case. This I think is obvious and uncontroversial and is exactly how evidence is defined (again in a Bayesian sense). This is not to say it constitutes sufficient evidence to substantiate the hypothesis, particularly if you assign a low prior likelihood to it being the case.

This is what I was fumbling at earlier but was too stupid to elocute.

Amaleq13

That which can be identified as information he obtained from the various passersby he apparently enjoyed interviewing can be considered reliable on its own.

TedM

I don't understand your answer. Surely the Judas tradition was information obtained by some other person, and it wasn't reliable IYO. Why would the information from a passerby be considered reliable on its own?

ted