tanya

Thank you Jiri.
I like your response, it is both thoughtful, and provocative.

Iskander has offered some interesting counter to your argument from a reliable source--thanks, good job as always....

Jiri, I am confused. I don't quite follow how you relate "parables" to "gospel". When you suggest that there was only one gospel, good news from Paul, at the time of Mark, I must confess to a sort of skepticism.

I understand, maybe completely in error, that Mark had access to other written texts, for example, the works described by Justin Martyr: Memoirs of the Apostles, no longer extant, and maybe Tatian's Diatessaron, which is thought to be a gospel harmony, but, why could it not instead have served as a template from which the other gospels were derived?

I also understand, again perhaps in error, that ALL of these authors in the first two centuries were very much aware of the contents of LXX, and when they wrote about "parables", I think they were referring to the old testament, here is Mark 1:2 γεγραπται εν { τοις προφηταις ♦ τω(ι) Ησαια(ι) τω(ι) προφητη(ι)
"Prophets", here, clearly relates not to Paul, but to one of the ancient Hebrew texts. I don't claim to be anything other than one of the "uninitiated", and yes, I err here by interpreting everything written in Mark, not as mystery, or allegory, or gnostic this or that, but just as a simple narrative.

Why do you assert that Paul was known to Mark? I believe, based on (the possibly forged) 1 Corinthians 15:3, that κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς refers explicitly to Mark, though, of course, the same arguments, as above, could be applied here, as well.

Can you identify, please, some passage from Mark that explicitly refers to Paul's epistles, in confirmation that Mark knew of Paul's epistles?

Thanks again, for a spirited, energetic reply above. Very well written.

archibald

After the crowds had gone he was alone with his disciples. If I say I want to be alone with my family, I mean just me, with my family, no outsiders. As a figure of speech, "alone together" may possibly be an oxymoron in strict grammatical terms, but only one of a large number of similar examples, such as "act natural," "random order," "original copy," "found missing," "old news," "awful good," "definite possibility," "terribly pleased," "real phony," "small crowd," and "clearly misunderstood".



Surely no need to Wrede anything more than that into it?

Bingo the Clown-O

I noticed that too.

Bingo the Clown-O

... unless the reader reads Isaiah 6:9-10.

The hear but not understand/ see but not perceive motif comes from Isaiah 6:9-10.

That is the recursive secret.

No ‘Paul’ is necessary.

archibald

So.....no 'pall' of smoke obscuring our understanding. Smoke and mirrors. Smoke obscures. Mirrors 'reflect upon' the truth. Or is it ,'no Paul necessary' as a pun on 'noble is necessary'. Knock knock. Who's there? Isobel. Isobel who? Isobel necessary on a bicycle? A bicycle made for two, alone, yet together. Nice layering. Like it. Keep up the 'good work'.

Solo

First, there is no need to apologize for skepticism here. This board is for people who are not afraid to think for themselves, and explore new - even seemingly wacky - ideas about the biblical texts. Optimally, the worst that can happen is that your ideas and mine and everybody else's will be found not as bright as we, the authors, would like to think. Certainly not a great damage in the great scheme of things.

As for Mark's sources, I believe that this is the first narrative gospel, and do not find anything in it that points to a written text on which Mark relies. There were most likely oral traditions which Mark addresses, and perhaps a start-up version of the sayings gospel of Thomas but I am led to believe that Mark was composing rather than simply transmitting traditions. The other gospel narratives followed Mark, and were later harmonized. It would be hard to argue that a gospel harmony like the Diatessaron (literally, "made of four") was a literary model to Mark.

Parables in the NT are allegorical stories, often alluding to some material in the OT which is fulfilled by the coming and teaching of Jesus. So, yes, to that extent you are right. However, some students of Mark sense that his gospel has a close echo to Paul's writings, which Mark apparently also includes in the scriptures and refers to in a number of ways:

1) overtly, in trivial pronouncements of Jesus, e.g. "Abba father", "the first among you must be slave of all", "faith moving mountains", "be at peace among yourselves", "no sign shall be given", "watch !", "do not defraud !"

2) in transparent parabolic elaborations of Paul: e.g. "render unto Ceasar" informed by Rom 13:7, "Get behind me Satan !" by Gal 1:7 and 2:11, Jesus' profession of "carpenter" (hello maryhelena !) by Paul's 1 Cr 3:10 (According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder (αρχιτεκτων) I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it), the debate among the disciples around the missing loaf in the boat, the last supper and the missing 'body' in the tomb inspired by 1 Cr 10:16-17 : "The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. "

3) large design elements for the passion supplied by Paul's 1 Cor 1:18-31, as discussed, Mark's pretense of simpleton style, the two-tier "trial" of Jesus : before Sanhendrin as "offense to the Jews"; before Pilate as "folly to the Gentiles", the anguished cry from the cross as "the weakness of God is stronger than men", and "no flesh may glory in his presence".

4) and finally, Mark's overlap with Paul's theology of the cross and his lines of attack in the Galatians.


I beg to differ: Mark is made look simple but certainly is not. I recommend George Aichele's article on Mark posted on Crosscurrents.

You may want to look at my list of Paulinisms in Mark here.


I thank you, tanya.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Your assertion is absurd. The Jesus of gLuke can ONLY be Symbolic or allegorical.

Please REVIEW the nature of Jesus in gLuke 1.

Jesus was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost and ACTED like a Ghost.

The ENTIRE Jesus story in gLuke can ONLY be Symbolic or fiction.

Solo

I take it that we are often not impressed with each other, archibald.

In order to make an intelligent observation about what I say, you would need to be able to distinguish between the semantics of two statements:

1) When he was alone with his disciples they asked him about the parables.

and

2) And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables.

Then you need to ask yourself two questions : 1) given that both constructs were clearly available to Mark, why did he choose the obscure one over the plain one. 2) Is what I say when precious me wants to be alone with my family in any way adressing question number one ?

Best,
Jiri

archibald

I think the first option may be the original.

tanya

Thank you Jiri. Outstanding effort!!!

Well done.

I am impressed.

I have two comments, both, I acknowledge, an indication of someone encountering this material head on, from the perspective of a naive reader, "newbie" in IT parlance.

First: I wish your chart embraced a THIRD column, representing LXX. I am quite sure, despite my absolute ignorance of it, that LXX would contain many of the same phrases, words, issues, which you have framed in your current, two column chart.

#16 seems to me to represent a potential illustration of that possibility (Mark 8:12, juxtaposed to Paul 1 Corinthians 1:22.)

Second: I would benefit from learning why you believe, (because, after reading through your entire, thorough list, I still have not found the answer to my question) that Mark copied Paul, rather than the other way around.

Consider, for example, your #36:
Abba is father, how is one to conclude therefore, that Mark copied Paul, or for that matter, that Paul copied Mark? This just seems like part of the story. He is supposed to be the son of God, so he calls out to his father, YHWH, ignoring his poor mother, situated below him. Very peculiar.
Even more peculiar, to me, is the notion that an omnipotent deity could feel pain, or consider that his father had abandoned him. If he were truly omniscient, there would have been no question about this supposed "betrayal", by the father.

If Mark had written, instead, "As noted in Romans 8:15...", but absent any reference to a particular epistle of Paul, I am obliged to relay to you, Jiri, that I continue to remain skeptical, until someone can show me the wound. Where's the entry point into Paul? I don't find a reference. Yes, I see some overlap in text (but not much, in your several examples.) I am still unsure who wrote first, and still unsure who derived his text from which source.

What I find in Paul, but not, so far as I am aware (therefore, probably wrong), is this reference (1 Corinthians 15:3) to kata tas graphas in Mark, referring to some written text, other than the Hebrew old testament. How do we know that? We know kata tas graphas refers to a newer text, because of Paul's explicit reference to the Hebrew old testament by modification of graphas, with the adjective sacred, and mention, in the same sentence, of prophets.

So Paul, but not Mark, refers to a text newer than LXX. Now, is that newer text, Mark? That I have no evidence for, but your list would suggest that it may be Mark, unless both authors used some other reference, about which we have no firm idea.