Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 10-03-2008, 07:27 PM

JW:
Who does Bad Bible scholarship say wrote "Mark":

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html#anon

Quote:

In light of these considerations -- which offer nothing radical or new -- we may now ask these general questions:

1. If the Gospels are anonymous, why is there no other surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This suggests that they received their titles early; for if they had not, there would have been a great deal of speculation as to who had written them - "a variation of titles would have inevitably risen," as had happened with the apocryphal gospels. [Thie.EvJ, 15]; see also [Heng.Mark, 82] It is rather harder to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them -- and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree!

I always associate bad Bible scholarship with JP Holding and always imagine Dan Akroyd dressed in a tuxedo, sitting in an old English chair and dryly saying, "That was really bad Bible scholarship."

JPH writes/plagiarizes that testimony as to authorship is unanimous. But has he dipped his lightmust paper into the wrong solution? Christianity has traditionally asserted that "Mark" was the author of "Mark". But was he/she/them/it? And what if there is testimony as to different "Marks" who wrote "Mark"? Shouldn't that count as different testimony even if he/she/them/it all happen to have the same name?

When we look objectively at different traditions regarding the author of "Mark" it would appear that orthodox Christianity first decided that the author was named "Mark" and than tried to determine who "Mark" was. The Tale wagging the Dogma.

Let's see how many different "Marks" we can find.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 10-04-2008, 06:54 AM

JW:
Warp speed to exponentially better Bible scholarship than JPH to look for evidence as to authorship of "Mark":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

Quote:

Authorship
The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin of Barnabas.[8], who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea:

This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.[9]

Irenaeus concurred with this tradition,[10] as did Origen of Alexandria,[11] Tertullian,[12] and others. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter's speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had said.[11] Following this tradition, scholars have generally thought that this gospel was written at Rome. Among recent alternate suggestions are Syria, Alexandria, or more broadly any area within the Roman Empire. In any case, many scholars do not accept the Papias citation as a reliable representation of the Gospel's history, pointing out that there is no distinctive Petrine tradition in Mark.[13]

JW:
How many different "Marks" can we find? LXX Marks the spot. The earliest External witness to a "Mark" here is Papias whose related writings appear to have ended up where ever the hell Jesus has been for the last two thousand years. As we saw in Carrier on Ignatian Vexation Papias probably wrote this after 116.

On to the next External witness to Papias, Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), who wrote, ahem, late 2nd century. Wiki gives a date of 180. Extant Irenaeus says:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Quote:

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm

Quote:

5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative:

So we have now identified one "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

There are very good reasons to believe that Irenaeus did not identify the author of "Mark" here:

1) References to Papias and External evidence for "Mark" provide no evidence that Papias was aware of Canonical "Mark". If Papias was not aware of "Mark" than there was no evidence in Papias for Irenaeus to properly determine who wrote "Mark".

2) The primary objective of "Mark" was to discredit Peter as witness to Jesus so Peter was not a source for "Mark".

At this point though the discussion will be limited here to identifying different "Mark's" as further consideration of the plausibility of a specific "Mark" will distract from the original purpose of this Thread which is identifying different "Marks".

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 10-05-2008, 08:21 AM

JW:
Previously:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Now on to Second "Mark":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

Quote:

5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.

JW:
Well this looks like a different "Mark" because:

1) This "Mark" was not Peter's interpreter.

2) This "Mark" wrote while Peter was still alive.

So:

Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 10-06-2008, 07:13 AM

JW:
Previously:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown

Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

Now on to Third "Mark":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

Quote:

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'

JW:
Well this looks like a different "Mark" because:

1) This "Mark" wrote per Peter's instructions.

So:

Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 10-07-2008, 05:49 AM

JW:
Previously:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown

Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Now on to Fourth "Mark":

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

Quote:

St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx).

JW:
Well this looks like a different "Mark" because:

1) Second Jerome asserts that Peter was the author of "Mark" and "Mark" was merely the scribe who wrote it down. Now Christianities' witness as to the author of "Mark" is unanimous that it is either Peter or "Mark".

So:

Fourth "Mark"

Source: Jerome

Date: c. 400

Author: Peter

Description of "Mark": Scribe

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Lucis · 10-07-2008, 06:48 AM

the Mark of the beast wrote it.

vid · 10-07-2008, 09:35 AM

I don't think you can say these are "different Marks". I see just people writing about it making up details freely, maybe hearsay, maybe just "details don't matter that much", but the core tradition appears same in all cases, to me.

JoeWallack · 10-08-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

I don't think you can say these are "different Marks". I see just people writing about it making up details freely, maybe hearsay, maybe just "details don't matter that much", but the core tradition appears same in all cases, to me.

JW:
The primary question of this Thread is a broader question than which "Mark" wrote "Mark", it's who wrote "Mark". We've already seen at least two different authors no matter what criteria you use to define "different authors", "Mark" and Peter.

If you define "different authors" by intent of the witness than I think the intent of all above who identify a "Mark" is that they intended the same "Mark". If you define "different authors" by the words of the witness though than I think we do have different "Marks". The same "Mark" could not first have written before and after Peter's death.

Subsequent supposed orthodox Christian witness as to authorship of "Mark" does all seem to start with Papias who supposedly wrote sometime after 116:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel

Quote:

Now on to the next Evil & Wicked Early Church Writing, Papias, which ECW dates c. 125.

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

Quote:

[Eusebius claiming to quote Papias]
15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.

JW:
We have the following reasons to think the above is not referring to Canonical "Mark":

1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

Thus we have it on good Authority that c. 125 Papias has never heard of Canonical "Mark", Eusebius was not aware of evidence of this time for Canonical "Mark" and that what Papias was describing:

1) Crediting Peter as Source.

2) Emphasis on Teachings/Sayings

3) No mention of Passion

is exactly what "Mark" was Reacting to. Therefore Papias is not only Witness that "Mark" did not exist at the time but is Motivation to create "Mark".

JW:
Orthodox Christian testimony as to authorship of "Mark" all seems to accept Papias as a starting point. That Papias refers to Canonical "Mark" and that "Mark" is defined based on his supposed relationship to Peter. As demonstrated above though and even confessed to us by Christian Bible scholarship, Papias was not referring to Canonical "Mark". Therefore, most, in not all, subsequent Christian testimony has started and stayed with the wrong basic assumptions. The primary conclusion from this Thread than is not so much to demonstrate that orthodox Christianity can not demonstrate historical witness behind "Mark" but to indict orthodox Christianity for bad scholarship on the subject.

We will see that OCD (orthodox Christian Dogma) starts with the conclusion that Peter is behind "Mark" and each subsequent author than interprets previous authors to get closer to Peter as opposed to using historical witness. The chain may have gone like this:

1) "Mark" interpreted what Peter taught in terms of theology and not language.

2) "Mark" interpreted what Peter taught in terms of language.

3) "Mark" was a follower and interpreted what Peter taught in terms of language.

4) "Mark" wrote "Mark" based on what Peter taught.

5) Peter was neutral as to what "Mark" wrote.

6) Peter approved what "Mark" wrote.

7) Peter narrated and "Mark" scribed.

Getting back to the original purpose of the Thread we still have more "Mark's" to consider. I have Faith that the average person and even the average Skeptic has no idea just how much variation there is regarding witness testimony as to the authorship of "Mark".

Joseph

JoeWallack · 10-09-2008, 10:58 AM

JW:
Previously:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown

Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Fourth "Mark"

Source: Jerome

Date: c. 400

Author: Peter

Description of "Mark": Scribe

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Now on to Fifth "Mark":

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

Quote:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm

On the End of the World

Hippolytus

49
...
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.

15. Luke the evangelist.

These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered15 by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me."15 But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel15 on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.

JW:
Well this looks like a different "Mark" because this one was a Disciple of Jesus. Compare to Papias:

Quote:

‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s.

Epiphanius appears to use Hippolytus here as a source in the Necronomicon (Panarion):

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
There is a little known Early Christian Book, eH P's (Epiphanius) Lovingly crafted, Panarion, which is a collection of Ancient, Mysterious and Secret Christian rites preserved by Dark and Secluded Eldritch Church Elders. The Book is said to describe Magical chants and Incantations from time immemorial given to the first Christians by those beyond our Dimensions of Time and Space. In Order to help keep this Book secret Christianity has never made it freely available in English and the price to purchase it (in addition to your Immortal soul) is greater than barrels of oil.

This Thread will be Dedicated primarily to Revealing the Dark Secrets of the Panarion. As a warm up we will start with other extant and freely available writings of Epiphanius. Epiphanius lived in the 4th century and was a severe critic of fellow Christians. As the anonymous speaker said at the town hall meeting in Tuna, Texas, Epiphanius welcomed all orthodox Christians. As long as there were the right type of orthodox. And so, without further Adamieu, I present Epiphanius, Da Bishop of Salamis. Enjoy!:

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 53

It was Paul who found St. Luke, one of the seventy-two who had been scattered, brought him to repentance, and <made him> his own follower, both a co-worker in the Gospel and an apostle.

JW:
By implication, if it was Paul who corrected "Luke", than it was Peter who corrected "Mark". What's interesting here is "correction" of the two Gospels Marcion would have been familiar with, "Mark" and "Luke".

So:

Fifth "Mark"

Source: Hippolytus

Date: c. 202

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Jesus

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Theophage · 10-09-2008, 09:40 PM

This is very interesting, thank you for this, Joe.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2008, 06:48 AM	#6
Lucis Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 666	the Mark of the beast wrote it.

10-07-2008, 09:35 AM	#7
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	I don't think you can say these are "different Marks". I see just people writing about it making up details freely, maybe hearsay, maybe just "details don't matter that much", but the core tradition appears same in all cases, to me.

10-09-2008, 09:40 PM	#10
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	This is very interesting, thank you for this, Joe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.