jakejonesiv

Agreed. If the archives come back up, I posted extensively about reader response criticism, primarily Fowler.

Vinnie

It was a knee-Jerk response because you accused me of trying to retain any but of Papias I could without considering why I actually do that. I listed my four reasons. You may disagree with them but your caricature of my position has been demonstrated. That Papias may or may not refer to Matthew has nothing to do with an "error" to me. If Papias know the gospel and still wrote what he did I would simple be confused. Since everyone after him took it to mean Matthew maybe he did as well. Though he probably references another work.


Didn't you say up above Mar does not reflect eyewitness preaching? Contradiction.


It is amazing how dismissive you are of the notion that the text was attributed to Mark and not directly to Peter if it was made up whole cloth. You seem to underappreciate this fact in your haste to discredit church tradition.

Which would again make the ascription to Mark curious.

Right now that is a point to argue, not a point to argue from. Neither you in this thread, me or Ted Weeden has demonstrated this. Yes I had a long article where I sided with Weeden once on my site which listed every reference I could find. Mark is most likely not anti-apostolic.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Tolbert's Sowing the Gospel is really good (pg 223-230) though, admittedly, Mark must be trumping his community over that of the disciples....but their ultimate failure is not necessarily spelled out in Mark. Mark might be dismissive of them though. The two verses implying appearances to them, the possibility of a lost ending, the fact that Mark has material means someone had to tell it, and some apostles probably were martyred by the time Mark wrote so they went from fleeing to carrying their cross... there is a bunch to consider, and the fact that Jesus specially chose them and so on....

They do serve as foils though. That can't be denied. Mark doesn't like attempts at power, glory or money....though if Mark is ultimately dismissing the apostles, it is strong evidence for historicity of the twelve.

Vinnie

bacht

Yes, the second son theme is prominent throughout the OT, the eldest being "passed over"

Mark's treatment of the Jewish disciples seems to support Paul's anger in Galatians against the Judaizers like James and the hapless Peter (which Luke tones down in Acts)

spin

Everything is overdetermined, Vinnie.

I did say "apparent error". And you seem to be doing a cover up. Your conjecture of referring to another book is possible.

You've lost the thread, Vinnie.

Just so that you understand, I'm accusing you of rushing to judgment. I haven't actually judged the issue. I have merely stated function positions which are different from yours.

I'm not really sure how to interpret the information. I floated a scenario that the time underlying the Papias data may be later by several decades and related to the development of the apostolic tradition approach to non-standard positions such as Marcion's. I don't know if it is correct, but it does explain to me the belittling of other texts and the support for oral traditions derived from the apostles.

You've alluded to the ordinary nature of the name of Mark before. Why do you find the ascription curious?

Do you mean here the point that Mark "makes the apostles including Peter out to be just plain dumb"? How many examples do I need to argue it? Hey guys stay awake while I pray. Zzzzzzzzzzz. They didn't understand what he was saying but were afraid to ask. (9:32) The disciples had forgotten to bring bread. "Do you not understand this parable (you schmucks)? Then how will you understand all the parables?"

There is a distinction between apostles being shown as dumb and the writer as anti-apostolic.


spin

Vinnie

Because the first record we have is Mark, interpreter of Peter. To claim that the tradition was invented like this, rather than going directly to Peter is troubling. It adds weight to name "Mark". It may have been Papias himself who connected it to 1 Peter....

The disciples serve as foils, read 221-230:

http://books.google.com/books?id=28s...age&q=&f=false [*]

Vinnie

[*] mod note: the reference is to Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective By Mary Ann Tolbert (or via: amazon.co.uk)

spin

What about the Basilides tradition which calls Glaucias an interpreter of Peter? You've already noted than Mark is such a common name, whereas Glaucias is far less so. Doesn't that suggest that Glaucias is a more probable candidate for interpreter of Peter?

There never has been any doubt about this. It just undermines the notion of Mark being an interpreter of Peter, as it underlines authorial intervention to shape them as foils. What else is authorial intervention in Mark?


spin

rlogan

I like starting with this. Agreed.


Allegedly goes to the source. To God on earth.

I realize you want to try fleshing out a line of reasoning instead of arguing a positional hobby horse. Try as I might to pose how a cluster of disciples from a nascent church could bring us a set of traditions that are recorded in the gospels - it is just impossible to construct it in that way logically in my mind.

jakejonesv added some very good material. Try to imagine Peter or James or whomever telling their prospects about their first-hand accounts of Jesus' teachings in the forms we have them.

We are alleging an evangelical movement, with people getting up before others and winning over their confidence about everlasting life with stories that make stooges out of themselves.

If you are weaving a story about a Christ who came and went, slipping through our fingers, then you need both dumb Jews and dumb disciples. All of these mutually exclusive things going on. Most famous man on earth, but shhhh... don't tell anyone.

Disciples inherit this "mystery", this new powerful doctrine, but it is lost to us by these bungling disciples until the gospel writer shares this history with us. Mark has the "long ago and far away" style of writing, uncovering a secret ancient mystery as opposed to a "big bang" origins.


There is tragedy and irony in this story with Jesus' suffering. Foretold in scripture, which must be fulfilled to bring the Kindgom of God to hand. But God's chosen people could not see it. It is a mystery you see. The awesome power of the miracles prove the veracity of the doctrine, along with the world record attendance wherever he went. But oh, it's been lost to us...

With the power of God in his hands Jesus must still die and leave no trace.

With a real cluster of disciples we are definitely going to have different vignettes since not all disciples will be present at every event. I would expect some disciples to have had longer tenure than others.

In the end Jesus has no defenders amongst the disciples. Jesus allegedly brought thousands to his casual walks by the sea. But they could not organize a protest of two at his incarceration, trial, and punishment.

Nobody stood up because see, it's a mystery. He slips through unnoticed. Mark ends at 16:8. The closest to Jesus, at the tomb after his crucifixion - they tell no-one.

I would not be surprised to see in a real ministry arguments like "I've been with him since the day he was baptized" authority vs. the johnny-come-latelys. Total speculation. But I just don't see different disciples giving accounts of Jesus.

sugarhitman

People grow in knowledge spin. Just because the disciples couldn't figure out everything Jesus was trying to say thru parables....does in no way mean they were "dullards" or dummies. If everyone were born educated.....we wouldn't need a system that passes knowledge to the next generation now wouldn't we? The point? everyone needs to be taught...including our outstanding all-knowing peers like...wellll....you. :wave:

spin

Eek, s'hitman is driving by. And as usual doesn't understand what's going on. Has he got a license? The subject is about how the disciples themseves were supposed to have transmitted the story, though the gospels don't indicate such a transmission.


spin