ph2ter

I would guess that Mark used Paul for his construction of Jesus, and Peter for his construction of the apostle who does not understand and who is not to say a fool, but a narrow minded man

A man in Christ was caught up to the third heaven, to paradise, and heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.
The 'super-apostle' heard the voice from heaven, from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” when he was with the other super-apostles and Jesus on the sacred mountain. That super-apostle told to everyone what he had heard, but the apostle not inferior to him and who was actually nothing didn't dare to tell us what he had heard.
He said: Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say. To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

So, Paul chose to suffer like Christ with a thorn in his flesh, contrary to Peter who chose to boast.

I would say that Mark knew 2 Corinthians and 2 Peter.

aa5874

There is no evidence at all that the author of gMark used the Pauline writings for his construction of Jesus.

Virtually all the markers or elements that the author used the Pauline writings are MISSING.

The author of gMark appear to have used Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source. The author of gMark used what appears to be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and other books to fabricated his Jesus.

The biography of Jesus as found in gMark is not at all from the Pauline writings. The Pauline writers wrote virtually nothing about the physical characteristics or events with respect to Jesus.

The chronology of events with Jesus is not all in the Pauline writings.

The author of Mark appears not to know that Paul and over 500 people saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

The Pauline writer appeared to be not even interested in the life of Jesus on earth when after his conversion, he went to Arabia, instead of Jerusalem to see the Apostles before him.

The Pauline writer wrote about his revelations from Jesus yet these so-called revelations contradict the teachings of gMark's Jesus.

The Jesus in gMark preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God only to the Jews and in parables, yet the very same Jesus revealed to Paul to preach to the Gentiles and that the Laws of the God of Moses were obsolete when Jesus rose from the dead.

The Jesus in gMark did not ever teach his disciples that the LAWS OF MOSES would become obsolete when he was resurrected, nor did gMARK'S JESUS teach his disciples that he would die for the sins of the world.

The crucifixion and death of gMark's Jesus signified DESTRUCTION of Jerualem and the Temple, the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Pauline Jesus signified SALVATION for all mankind.

It appears that it was the Pauline writers that may have used information found in gMark or a similar source, perhaps the Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelations by John.

ph2ter

You are like a broken record.
I think that my arguments are too subtle for you.

Notice the sentence from 2. Corinthians 12:4:
which is placed after Paul described the vision and revelation of paradise, and compare that with Mark 9:9:
which is placed after Mark described the Transfiguration event.
It is obvious that the vision or revelation which Paul described in 2 Corinthians 12 is equivalent to the Transfiguration scene in Mark and also equivalent to 2 Peter 1:16:
Mark build the Transfiguration scene using 2 Corinthians and 2 Peter adding also his theme of Moses and Elijah from the OT.

In 2 Corinthians Paul is clearly speaking about revelation or vision. I don't know how someone knowing that can argue that Mark is before 2 Corinthians. It is not possible. I understand that some have doubts about 2 Peter being before Mark, but in that case also the overall situation argues for 2 Peter as a source for Mark.

In Mark you can find also other allusions to 2 Corinthians 12. Look for example 12:8:
When Jesus was in Gethsemane he also took Peter and James and John (as in the Transfiguration scene ) and three times prayed that, if it were possible, Father removes the cup from him.

These are really subtle allusions not appropriate for your robust machine which tries to destroy everything which could not fit into your pet theory.

aa5874

Well, if you repeat the same fallacy over and over, I must show you everytime that what you write does not in any way support the information supplied in the NT or Church writings.


And, your argument is not subtle, it is blatantly in error.

2 Corinthians 12 cannot be shown to conclusively deal with Mark 9.9. Paul was not present with Peter, James, John, Jesus, or the resurrected Moses and Elijah on the mountain.

And further, the ambiguity of the 4th verse of 1 Corinthians 12 makes it virtually impossible to show any connection with Mark 9.9. The Pauline writer appears confused.

Paul, or the man, (in the body or out of the body), God knows, was in paradise, Peter, James, John, Jesus, and the resurrected Moses and Elijah were on a mountain.

Mark 9.2-4
The author of gMark shows no confusion.

So, if it was obvious why did the Pauline writer appear confused? Surely Paul must know the difference between a mountain and paradise.

Paul does not know what he is talking about, but the author of gMARK is precise.


How could the author of gMark even use 2 Peter, when 2 Peter is likely to have been written well after gMark?

It is actually the reverse. The information in 2 Peter may have been derived from gMark or a similar source.

The entire 2 Corinthians have nothing conclusive about Jesus, James, John, Peter, and the resurrected Moses and Elijah together on a mountain.

And again, the biography of Jesus as found in gMark cannot be found anywhere in the Pauline writings.

The events surrounding Jesus in gMark, his miracles and where he preached are not in any Pauline writings.

There is not a single passage that can be directly identified in gMark as coming from the Pauline writings where as passages in gMark can be directly identified to be from Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint, or some similar source.

IT is far more likely that gMark's transfiguration scene was an invention using Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint, or some similar source.

But, you are not even sure what Paul is speaking about. Is it a revelation or is it a vision?

It must be possible that the transfiguration story of gMark is not from the Pauline writings since there are other writings which contain information about the "Lord on a mountain". The book called Isaiah, or Hebrew Scripture in general, is filled with passages containing events on "mountains with the Lord". And the author of gMark appears to be familiar with Hebrew Scripture.

Ezekiel 11. 23 Ex 20:18 - Isa 40:9 - The evidence is very clearly, IT IS POSSIBLE that the transfiguration story in gMark was fabricated from Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source.


You are using all ambiguous passages in 2 Corinthians 12 to claim some direct connection between gMark and the Pauline writings. The connections cannot be made.

However, the author of gMark appears to show that he was fully aware of information found in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and other Hebrew Scripture.

The author of gMark claimed Jesus fulfilled PROPHECY found in Hebrew Scripture.

Are you implying that you do not have a PET theory about the dating of gMark and the Pauline writings?

You are propagating "blaring illusions" as "subtle allusions".

Your PET theory is without basis. Your PET theory is based on ambiguities or illusions where the writer himself appears confused.

ph2ter

Although I know that discussion with you is pointless, I will respond nonetheless.
Actually, thinking that Paul is after Mark is a blatant error and in that you are going against the majority. If you are maybe a fan of Dutch Radicals I do not need your assistance to be acquainted with their theories about Paul.
I don't understand your need to react to every post which is against your conviction. The whole forum is overloaded with your reactions which are nothing more but never-ending repetitions of the same thing.

But the whole argument is about Paul being a model for Mark's Jesus. For example look Galatians 1:15-16 where Paul says: "But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me".
This is very close to Mark's baptismal proclamation-revelation: "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
In Mark's Transfiguration scene Paul is also metaphorically present on the mountain with Peter, James and John as Jesus.
In 2. Corinthians 11-12 Paul challenges the super-apostles, in which he alludes to James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars as we know from Galatians.

Mark also shows confusion because Peter wants to make three booths which is totally confused reaction.
I argue that 2 Peter and 2 Corinthians speak about the visions. Mark conflated those two visions into one in his Transfiguration scene.
2 Peter says that the voice came from the Majestic Glory, from heaven, when they were on the sacred mountain. Sacred mountain is euphemism for the place where someone can meet God which is equivalent to heaven.

How do you know that 2 Peter is written after Mark?

And how then you can claim that Paul is written after Mark?
If he is written after Mark then he would surely mention something about the miracles or preaching of Jesus or where he lived.
Paul has very little information about Jesus, and Mark has many. What is more likely, Paul knowing Mark or Mark knowing Paul?

Mark also used the OT. I do not deny that.
Actually I enumerated the OT sources before in this post.

Look at 2 Corinthians 12:1 "I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."
It is both.

Everyone on this forum has some pet theory, but other posters usually have no need to react to every post which is against their conviction.

Solo

Ok, good, could be. I think Mark would be ceding too much ground be allowing Peter to walk with Jesus, if he wasn't but anyhow, look what Mark does with this Pauline teaching:

Mk 8:33-34 .... "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

"Calling the multitude" is an allegorical address of Paul's church.

I think Mark knew most of the genuine Paulines, if prehaps not always by the letter then by what was circulated and reproduced of Paul orally.

As for 2 Peter, with the hilarious oath on the Transfig. witness, it is generally believed to be much later than Mark. Check e.g. the references on Peter Kirby's site .

Jiri

avi

I am not disputing your claim, but I would like to ask whether or not the text of P46 corresponds with those of Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus--both of which write "Peter", i.e. the "interpolation" must have occurred prior to the early fourth century, not really the time frame we associate with "orthodox interpolation", right? (Pre-Eusebius)

P46, as I understand it, was written in the mid second century, hence, perhaps a century or more, before the two aforementioned codices.

If in fact, P46 has the same text as the two codices, what should we then conclude, regarding this purported episode of interpolation?

In other words, with something like the long ending of Mark, or the Pericope in John, I understand that one describes those passages to "interpolation", because extant copies authored in the 4th-5th centuries do not share a common text, when compared with more recently authored documents copied centuries after creation of those two codices.

But, in the case of "Peter" appearing in Galatians 2: 7-8, I don't find any example of text which omits Peter's name, or employs "Cephas", or any other name, therefore, I do not understand why one should consider this a case of "interpolation", rather than possible carelessness by the original author(s).

Can you illustrate what you mean by "earmarks" for these two lines of text, that lead you to suspect possible interpolation....?

avi

show_no_mercy

FWIW, Gal 2:7-8 isn't in the reconstructed version of Marcion's Galatians.

avi

Thank you. I appreciate this suggestion.

As I understand it, Marcion himself altered some text, deleting references to Judaism, maybe that is not accurate....

Further, unless I have missed this boat, too, none of Marcion's writings, or copies of his books, exist at present. As I understand it, we know of Marcion, mainly because he sought to minimize the contradictions between the four gospels, selecting Luke and only Luke among them. Further, I think he accepted only some of Paul's letters, regarding others as counterfeit....In other words, I would be reluctant to assume that Galatians 2:7-8 represent "orthodox interpolation" based upon xyz from "Marcion"....

In conclusion, I am not sure that I would rely on anything attributed to Marcion, unless some new, authentic document emerged....

Thanks again for the suggestion, much appreciated...
avi

gurugeorge

Suggestion: the other option is that the hints and traces of Pauline stuff in Mark (which I've seen a few writers remark on) are due to a commonality of teaching - i.e. to the Jerusalem church's being proto-Gnostic just as Paul was (the only difference being Paul took it further and was more Gentile-oriented). Mark is then also a (later, post-Diaspora) proto-Gnostic, and his lineage is distantly derived from the original Jerusalem line (although it has forgotten or covered over its true origins, and propounds the notion that its apostolic ancestors, specifically Peter, knew Jesus personally). There are some similar ideas, but no actual derivation.