ph2ter

I know that it is generally believed that 2 Peter is much later than Mark. But for the sake of positive skepticism I will go through the arguments one more time.

From the Kirby's site: „The author of II Peter knew the epistle of Jude, I Peter, the synoptic account of the transfiguration, the Johannine appendix wherein Christ predicts the martyrdom of Peter, and a collection of Pauline letters...“

The epistle of Jude and 1 Peter do not know Mark, so from that no one can deduce which is first, Mark or 2 Peter.

If Mark uses Paul, as you are ready to accept, then he also regards Pauline letters with the same respect as does the author of 2 Peter. (I do not think that Mark knows Paul only orally because Mark reflects Pauline theological points which are too complicated for transfer in an oral form). So from the statement that: 'indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters' - the same could apply to Mark. How can anyone say which is first judging by that argument?

But the better one is which says that 2 Peter shows „a keen interest in opposing the denial of the Christians' expectation of the parousia', which is evidenced otherwise from the end of the first century onward. Mark also shows a keen interest for the parousia, but appears that he is not aware of a denial of it. Tho whole Markan exposition about parousia (Mark 13) is told privately to the 'super-apostles':
And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?".
Mark says that 'this generation will not pass away before' the fall of the Temple and before parousia happen, contrary to 2 Peter who says:
“Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

To Mark the destruction of the Temple is equivalent to the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 14:58 : We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'). The last days of parousia are paralleled with the last days of Jesus. After the crucifixion follows the resurrection, and after the fall of the Temple follows the parousia. The time interval between destroying and reviving is three days for Jesus, but for the parousia is not specified, except maybe some indication that it is a matter of days, not years (Mark 13.20: 'And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.' Or Mark 13.24: "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.).

Knowing all that it is hard to imagine that someone has written the Gospel according to Mark in a few days or months after the fall of the Temple. 'This generation' from Mark 13:30 certainly applies to the generation which lived in the supposed time of Jesus and which saw the fall of the Temple (look also Mark 9.1: And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."). Someone could argue that the Gospel of Mark is written in the time of distress immediately after the fall of the Temple, but it is very hard to believe. Such kind of work is not possible to write in a few days.
Maybe Mark plays with the parousia in the same way as he plays with the resurrection. Jesus was crucified, but women told to no one about the empty tomb and no one saw the resurrected Jesus. In the same way the fall of the Temple happened, but the parousia was also a failure, no one after that saw Jesus coming in clouds with great power and glory. - Except in a vision or revelation.

It could be that Mark also writes after fathers have died and certainly after the Temple was destroyed. Judging by that Mark is no different from 2 Peter. I still have doubts about Mark being written before 2 Peter.

The Dagda

I'd have a lot more respect for the Gospels if they were written in the first person. As it is they are somewhat Chinese whispers, from people Titling themselves as Apostles who couldn't of been.

Solo

I think Mark knew some Paul from oral transmission. If Paul's letters were read in churches people would remember and quote from them, creating their own 'versions' of sayings, or sometimes mixing in a synonym. Not all churches would have all copies of Paul's letters but some of the Pauline lore would have likely been traded freely and travel around. For example, Paul uses a clever, catchy metaphor of the church as Christ's bride. (2 Cr 11:2), which he will give away pure. It is hard to imagine, given the context, that Mark's Jesus oblique reference to himself as bridegroom in 2:19 did not originate with the saying. But Paul did not call Jesus bridegroom (nymfios) but husband, or man (aner). However, the communities likely discovered the origin of Paul's reference, Isa 62:5, and reverted to the Septuagint word when they made use of the metaphor. This kind of switching between synonyms is quite common in oral culture. Songs and ditties often come in variant forms. Another strong metaphor that likely sprang from Paul's head was the Lord's day coming as a 'thief in the night'. It stresses the sudden, completely unexpected, stealthy, as it were, coming of the peak phenomena of the OBE. Again it would be very catchy imagery and circulate with variants. In one of them the 'thief' (kleptes) became 'a robber' (lestes) which points to the same features of the experience with the added emphasis on its overpowering, paralyzing nature. There is a parallel cryptic saying of the strong man's who first has to be bound, before his house could be plundered, 3:27 which Mark may have borrowed from the Nazarenes to wow them. At any rate, the saying was known to gThomas. The arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane looks like a free play on the sayings except in the paradoxical scenario of the spirit expiring and being overpowered by the mundane powers that be. Mark's Jesus asks : have you come out as against robber (lestes)... Again the cognitive trail to Paul's Thessalonians is strong even though he uses kleptes. (Luke also preserved 'lestes' but he also understands the connotation of the 'night struggle' of the spirit by adding 'this is your hour, and the power of darkness' )

I don't think he says it quite like that...besides I think Mark's Jesus plays headgames with his disciples deliberately mixing the external signs of the end, i.e. apocalypse and the coming of the son of man which he already indicated (in 9:1) is an internal happening made available only to the elect.

Again, as I said, this may be deliberate confusion Mark's Jesus sows in the heads of the infidel.

The quip of shortening the days is Mark's ironical pun : he deliberately couples it with the shortness of days in winter. But in reality the allusion is to the sense of time in people who have the spirit (i.e. people who today would be seen as manics). Of course, the likes of Peter and Andrew and the Zebedees, do not know that when manics are high "their days are shortened", i.e. everything moves at a great speed, you are propelled to move from place to place, and immediately this happens and that happens and immediately after that, he enters Jericho and when he leaves Jericho, there is a blind beggar who obviously knows everything about Jesus who cries out to him, is heard and rushes to Jesus throwing off his shirt....this sort narration mimicks the manic state of mind, a tendency to wander around aimlessly, a world in a feverishly chaotic state.

I think you got it Except Mark - and there I think he progressed beyond Paul - did not believe in the 'synchronous' parousia as Paul did, i.e. all will be beamed up on a sound of trumpet. Obviously, a few years and few people doing the Jesus thing, made a difference in the outlook of the brighter ones among them.

Jiri

aa5874

There is no indication that the author of gMark knew of the Pauline writers, the PAULINE revelations from Jesus or Pauline Churches.

The Gospels, that is, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn, as found in the NT show clearly that none of the Gospel writers were aware of the Pauline writers, his supposed revelations from Jesus, or his churches.

The author of AUTHOR of gMark is really unknown, but the Church claimed Paul wrote all the Epistles with his name and preached and teached all over the Roman Empire from sometime after the ascension of Jesus, circa 38 CE-65 CE or before the death of Nero.

Now, if it is assumed that the author of Matthew wrote after gMark, then it becomes obvious that the author of gMatthew shows an indication that he was aware of gMark by using almost entire chapters WORD FOR WORD from gMark or a similar source. There is NOT EVEN a single sentence in gMatthew that is unique to any of the Pauline writings.

Next, if it is assumed that the author of gLuke wrote after gMatthew and gMark, then it too becomes extremely obvious that the author of Luke shows an indication that he was aware of gMatthew, gMark or a similar source by copying almost entire chapters WORD FOR WORD, but again, there is virtually nothing in gLuke from the Pauline writers. Gluke's Jesus is not the revelation Jesus of the Pauline writers, but of gMark's Jesus who preached the gospel of the Kindom of heaven.

And as we go even later and examine the Gospel of John, there is no revelation Jesus of the Pauline writings, again this author shows no indication that he was aware of the Pauline writers.

The words of Jesus in gJohn does not emulate the revelations from Jesus from heaven to Paul on earth.

But, why would the authors of gMatthew and gLuke use almost entire chapters from gMark, an anonymous writing, when the Pauline writers were supposed to be well known by face throughout the Roman Empire and had many churches?

Because there were no such Pauline writings or Churches and revelations when the authors of gMatthew and gLuke wrote, they had to use gMark.

Why did the author of gJohn re-invent Jesus without any input from the Pauline writings?

Because there were nothing Pauline.

The biographies of the Jesuses as found in the Gospels have virtually nothing from the Pauline writer, the Super-evangelist wrote almost nothing about the biography of Jesus, but the authors of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn appear to have a lot from gMark, an anonymous writer, who may not have even left his house.


The Pauline writings are all late and after the writings of Justin Martyr.

spin

Perhaps you have another way of saying what has happened to Marcion's text as presented in Tertullian.


spin

andrewcriddle

We have other sources for Marcion's text eg Epiphanius. I don't think we are simply dependent directly or indirectly on Tertullian.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

Perhaps I do. But it would be irrelevant, since the issue is how you know, as you claim to do, that Marcion's text suffered at Tertullian's hands. Do you have Marcion's original text so as to be able to show that what we now find in Tertullian is a "ground up" and (presumably) distorted version of it?

Jeffrey

spin

This seems somewhat ingenuous to me. Was Marcion's text presented as Marcion wrote it, hmm? Of course not. What we have of Marcion's text is interspersed with Tertullian's invective. Removing that invective and you don't have a continuous text. Have I misrepresented anything??


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

I took you to imply that the text of Marcion that we do have from Tertullian has been misrepresented by Tertullian. Were you saying something different?

Still waiting to see your CV.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

Sounds like backtracking to me.