Solo

Hi folks,
I have posted a lengthy essay on the gospel of Mark on my website. I am arguing that the earliest gospel is a self-conscious allegory of Paul's gospel which uses 'recursive' idiom. I sent it to Bob Price who said he found the paper 'fascinating' and urges me to publish it. Does anyone know where I could send it ? Much obliged.

http://ecs1.blogspot.ca/2012/11/do-y...s-parable.html


Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Send it to David Brakke at Indiana

tanya

Thanks, Jiri, well written, and quite interesting.

I appreciate that this was an undertaking of considerable effort.

My comment is based on much less thought, than your excellent travail.

We have previously engaged in some exchange of ideas, nothing new, here, today, I still reject your idea that Paul preceded Mark.

But, I have a different line of thought, that I wished to share with you, regarding this parable of the sower.

One observes that neither Paul, nor John, comment on this parable, only Thomas and the three synoptics. Secondly, to my eye, there is a distinction, maybe not a very reasonable conclusion, but I observe a modest discrepancy between Mark's version, and those of Matthew and Luke.

Mark boldly proclaims that Satan takes away the Word, from human consciousness.

Matthew and Luke both employ Diabolos, not Satan, but Matthew repudiates Mark, whereas Luke supports Mark's version.

Thus, Matthew asserts that the devil plants weeds, which can choke out the good thoughts, whereas, Luke, in harmony with Mark, claims ominously, that the devil can pluck out the WORD, from the hearts and minds of the innocent.

In short, Mark and Luke both posit a supernatural power (Satan himself, in Mark, and some sort of unnamed devil in Luke) capable of overturning THE WORD, i.e. with the power to REMOVE the WORD from the consciousness of the folks, whereas, Matthew gives ordinary farmers more choice, allowing them to KEEP the WORD, but obliged to attend to the vicious weeds engulfing their hearts.

I have no idea why John fails to discuss this parable, given its undoubted importance within the early church, nor can I comprehend why you imagine that this parable somehow demonstrates the primacy of Paul's letters to the Corinthians (2) 4:4-6, a document which emphasizes the glory of Jesus, stating nothing about any competing forces, or devils, or Satan, or weeds.... What is there about this or any other epistle, that leads you to conclude that Paul's epistles preceded Mark's elaboration of the parable of the sower?

Do you find that John, too, preceded Mark, Matthew and Luke since he, like Paul, ignores this parable? Perhaps you view the failure of Paul, to comment on the parable, as evidence that Paul was written before Mark. I do not share this opinion, but such a concept would be at least consistent with the data available.....

Solo

Thanks, Stephan !

Solo

Hi Tanya and thanks.

The idea that Paul preceded Mark is not my own. Noone in today's academia TMK takes seriously the view of the patristic church that Paul knew the gospels. So, my understanding of the dating of the texts and their sequencing would be pretty standard fare.


And that's what one would expect. Paul precedes Mark and John does not record any parables by Jesus.

I am not sure what significance, if any, this has. I observe that Mark's text does not use 'diabolos'.

It could be that John's Christ is manifested in the Word and this clashes with the idea of parabolic, ie. indirect, discourse. This of course does not prevent John's Jesus to play tricks on Nicodemus.

It's a whole bunch of things, tanya, and they are duly listed in the essay (in the section 'Paul's Connection to Mark'). The most striking is Mark's Jesus' awareness of Paul's theological concepts and exhortations : e.g. Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"-- being returned in Mk 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Or you have Paul's composite maxim of Gal 6:14 ...far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world and 1 Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me as I am of Christ being returned by Mark in 8:34 : If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.… . So what people need to decide is the probability of Jesus being so deeply steeped in his role of a Pauline self-sacrificing Messiah (who already came !!!) against the probability that he, Jesus of the gospel, was reciting a brilliantly conceived script designed by committed Paulinists.


For the record, I do not make any conclusions of a literary dependency based on Paul's silence. But of course I am happy that Paul was not commenting on the sower, ....except perhaps by refering to himself as the one who 'planted' at Corinth.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

First of all Paul claimed he was a Persecutor so he should have known the Jesus story and should have been able to Identify those who preached and taught the stories of Jesus.

The very blog shows that the idea that Paul preceded Mark or that Paul is the source for gMark is problematic.

It is most remarkably that even though it is admitted that Pauline priority or the primary source for gMark has a "debit side of the ledger" that the known flawed argument is still pursued.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Faith.

The Pauline writer claimed he WASTED the Church of God.

Who were the teachers and preachers of the Church of God when Paul was a Persecutor??

WAS it the author of gMark??

Who preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected when Paul was a Persecutor??

Was it the author of Mark???

Somebody preached Christ crucified and resurrected BEFORE Paul if he was a persecutor and wasted the Church of God.

[Galatians 1.13The Jesus story was known and preached before Paul and the Pauline letters contain virtually NOTHING about the Life and teachings of the Markan Jesus.

Once Paul was a Persecutor of the Faith then the authors of the Jesus stories could have been some of those whom Paul persecuted.

The very Pauline letters and the NT itself show that Paul was NOT the source for the Jesus story in the Gospels.

Over 500 PEOPLE knew the Jesus story where it was claimed Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the third day.

Over 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul. See 1 Cor.15.

The Pauline writer was the LAST to see the Revealed Resurrected Jesus and NEVER claimed he saw a real human Jesus.

stephan huller

David Brakke edits the Journal of Early Christian Studies.

stephan huller

Jiri he's actually a nice guy.