Toto

Mayne "haven't definitely rejected it as a forgery" would be a better description.

There was a long thread on this a while back, in Nomad's time, which attacked the acceptance of Secret Mark.

Morton Smith and the Forged Secret Gospel of Mark

It looks like Nomad's and others registrations did not come through the conversion, and there are other formatting problems.

Haran

The following quotes are from Eusebius' History of the Church, quoting others on the Mark/Peter relationship. The timelines for the authors of the quotations are from Peter's website:

Haran

Cool. I don't suppose you'd be able to find the thread where I (Ish) presented information about the possible forgery to "Rodahi" (aka "Penatis")?

NOGO

Mark 14
34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."


Jesus knew he was going to die ... so because of that ... he was overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death ???

If this is not fiction what qualifies?

Toto

I searched the archives for "secret mark". The posters' names seem to have dropped off most of the threads, making things hard to follow. I think it is the second one of these:

Secret mark photos

Morton Smith once again

Vinnie

True, but in order to use that as evidence you would have to demonstrate that material in Acts as being correct. No easy task.

Historically, there appears to be no line of transmission if we accepted the Gospel details at face value. The study of the historical Jesus ends with his death as well so even if Acts were true, it would not constitute historical evidence, IMO.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Dear Vinnie,

Thank you for your informed comments on the subject of the authorship of GMark. I appreciate the fact that you are neither naive nor cavalier in respect to the tradition.

This subject brings to mind an episode in freshman year at Servite High School. We were instructed in our English Composition class to pick a subject and then to pose as many subtopics and questions that could be put to that subject. As my subject I chose the Gospel of Mark, and one of my questions was, "Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?" When the righteous Mr. Eccleston reviewed my questions on the chalkboard, he exclaimed, "Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? It was Mark!" On the other hand, there are certainly some who will be inclined to disbelieve any idea that could be turned in favor of Christian traditions. This is the kind of kneejerk reaction that has to be avoided, and thankfully we seem to have avoided it.

You have advanced a few arguments regarding the Papias story that, if not necessarily showing the story to be false, tend to undercut its credibility. These arguments are:

1. There are no independent witnesses to the Peter connection for the Gospel of Mark. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria are dependent on Papias.

2. The material of Mark does not reflect direct contact with eyewitness preaching. Form criticism shows that the Gospel of Mark consists of movable pericopes.

3. The case of Flora shows that Gnostics attempted to trace their doctrines back to apostles and followers of apostles. The tradition on GMark cannot be trusted because a similar claim of apostolic authority would have to be made in order for the book to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Please let me know if I have left out or misstated any of your arguments.

In the friendly spirit of truth-seeking, please allow me to offer critique of these arguments.

1. I am a little puzzled by your statement that "Justin's 'Memoirs of Peter' seems to be dependent on Papias' statement." I haven't seen any support for this. Justin nowhere mentions Papias, so where does this perception of dependence come from? A salient point that Papias makes is that the Gospel of Mark came from Peter only by way of an intermediary, his companion Mark, who hadn't heard Jesus. Justin says in the First Apology, "the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them." Justin mentions in the Dialogue with Trypho, "the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them." The reference to GMark comes in chapter 106 of the Dialogue with Trypho, a reference to the name change of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, which is found in the memoirs of Peter (I have not found an instance in Justin in which the memoirs are under the possession of Christ, although that is a grammatical possibility in the English translation). The upshot of this is that, while Justin doesn't leave out the possibility that a disciple of an apostle was the author, Justin prefers to think of the gospels as being the work of the apostles. This leaves in doubt the claim that Justin is relying on the account of Papias, who emphasizes that GMark is not the work of an apostle who heard Jesus.

For Irenaeus, it is clear that Irenaeus knew of the work of Papias and may have simply relied on the statement in the Exegesis of the Oracles of the Lord by Papias. For Clement of Alexandria, the case is once again unclear. Despite quoting a multitude of authors in eight books of "Miscellanies," Clement of Alexandria nowhere mentions the name of Papias. This doesn't prove that he hadn't read Papias, but it becomes more difficult to sustain an assertion that everyone who recorded a GMark authorship tradition depended on the work of Papias.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that no later authors provide corroboration to the story mentioned by Papias. This would not be the only time that a single witness preserves a historical factoid. While the presence of additional witnesses would make the testimony more reliable, a deficiency in our records should not be used as evidence that what is recorded is false. The reliability of the witness would have to stand on its own, without corroboration or disconfirmation from independent sources.

2. Before I discuss the second point, I will quote the words of Papias as preserved by Eusebius again. This is in the translation of Daniel J. Theron:

"And this the Presbyter used to say: Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings; consequently, Mark, writing some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing--not to omit anything of the things he had heard or to falsify anything in them."

In short, according to the elder of Papias, Mark is second hand. High quality second hand, perhaps, but still not the written work of an apostle that one would have wished for. Also, Mark is not in order. This is because Mark had strung together chreia, useful things that a preacher such as Peter would tell his audiences as they needed. The basic idea of form criticism, that the Gospel of Mark consisted of units that were strung together by the writer after transmission in oral teaching, finds ancient expression in this quote. Finally, the last sentence is suggestive in what it does not say. The Gospel of Mark does not omit or falsify the preaching of Peter, according to this tradition, but the Gospel of Mark certainly may add to the Petrine material.

In my experience with story telling, there is no good way to tell from its style whether it is second hand or third hand or further removed. If you are aware of a technique to determine how many times a story has been retold since its originator, I would be quite interested in hearing it.

3. I agree that there was some pressure to "authenticate" doctrines and texts by giving them apostolic authority. One of the books that succumbs to this pressure is the Gospel of Matthew, which is assigned to the apostle Matthew, who is mentioned in place of Levi in the "First Gospel." What is interesting in this case is that the tradition about Gospel of Mark resists the tendency to claim apostolic authorship as found in the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of James, and other documents. As you point out, the alleged author of the Gospel of Mark is not an eyewitness and not an apostle. This is surprising to some modern fundamentalists who assume that the Four Gospels must have all been written by people who knew Jesus. If the intent of the tradition's originators was to lend authority to the text, why wasn't the Gospel of Mark assigned to an apostle in the same way as the Gospel of Matthew? One elegant answer is that the tradition was grounded in knowledge of who the author was, preventing a false attribution to an apostle. This argument certainly is not a complete failure.

That's all for now.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Peter, thank your for your reply. I've been a little busy lately but I'll try to get up a response within a day or so.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I'll try to advance a few more either Sunday night or Monday sometime. I'm still a little busy.

Yes. I would take that a little further. Several other Christians seemed to have no interest in Gospel authorship from what we can tell of their surviving thoughts. Its hard to combine literary silence with an accurate transmission of authorship.

Yes, but more than that. Some of the material probably reflects ideal situations for the early church.

I wouldn't word it like that so as to have a canonical bias. But it seems several people were arguing over whose written works and whose traditions went back to the time of the apostles. This means we cannot naively accept one. On a historical level this creates problems:

If Paul says he met Peter in a surviving letter we would probably believe him I think unless evidence to the contrary came up. It would be a contemporary-primary eyewitness source datum that would seemingly warrant a deal of presumption. Of course, even these are sometimes disputed (e.g. some of Josephus' references to himself). But in this case where this issue was disputing from different sides I am not sure why Papias should get any sort of presumption. With that being said what are the positive reasons why I should accept the Papias reference? Is it multiply attested? Is Mark's gospel compatible with it?


I don't see how your bifurcation is valid. Whether Peter wrote his own account or whether Mark wrote Peter's account (e.g. Papias), whats the difference? The authority is the same either way.

I was relying on Keoster for the claim that Justin knew Papias. Papias or the presbyter tradition. Either way multiple attestation seems to be ruled out.

[1] See the footnote if you have the work.

Where is the CofA reference? I am not familiar with this one. But this is a late second century work and will have difficulty combining "carefully transmitted information about authorship" with a literary silence at any rate but I would be interested in seeing it.

Of course, serious reconstruction is usually not based upon a single witness unless that witness is authenticated. Some scholars general trust that Jesus was a carpenter even though the only evidence occurs in one passage in the NT. But this seemed more incindental there.

Sure a single witness could preserve truth but what evidence can you give me that I should trust Papias here? Papias also relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day and that a man swallowed deadly poison and lived. Of course, neither of these, again, warrant cavalier dismissal of Papais. They only caution us against a naive reliance on Papias' evidence.

Possibly not but it still carries that pivotal apostolic authority so I do not see this distinction as being valid.

The question that this will boil down to is what is from Peter and what is from Mark and other sources?

Where does it say Mark may certainly add to it? You seemed to have read that in. Sure Mark had to pice the material together into a narrative but is this the same as Mark may add to it? Of course when I ask that it is under the assumption of all the things I think Mark probably added that do not come from Peter and I'll list them on Sunday/Modany.

I'll point out a bunch of stuff from Mark in a later post on Sunday or Monday sometime. For instance, does the historical datum where the historical Jesus is said to have declared all food clean come from Mark of Peter?

This seems to be what I was asking for. positive reasons on why we should accept Papias' reference.I'm out of time. I'll put forward two possible reasons Sunday/Monday.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Better late than never

First I want to re-ask a question: What does it mean to say that Mark was the interpreter of Peter? Was he translating what Peter said or what? Or does "interpreter" mean he "rephraseed" Peter's preaching? In a footnote in his Intro NT Brown seemed to lean towards the former (p. 160 n. 84).

Basic facts: Papias' reference dates from 100-150. Fixing a precise date seems hard. Mark was in existence for 30 to 80 years before Papias wrote what he did. If the tradition about the elder is correct it goes back earlier and we see that this tradition was shaped within several decades of the composition of Mark's Gospel.

Mark's Gospel never claims to be the Memoirs of Peter. Neither Matthew nor Luke make an explicit connection and Luke does not use Mark nearly as extensively as Matthew and changes many things. But both did use the book writing from different areas within one to three decades so this needs to be explained.

But I wonder if Luke 1:1-4 applies to Mark. Luke certainly has a different theological spin in parts so maybe there is an implicit correction of Gmark in certain spots in Luke's Intro.

Mark follows the practice of anonymous composition.

Here is something by Sanders and Davies:

1. That can easily be modified. Maybe knowledge at the time would not allow a Gospel to be attributed to Peter and Mark was the best way to get closest to him?

2. Mark was a common name. Maybe an unknown Christian wrote GMark and his name was amalgamated with John Mark??? This “elegant solution” could help explain the internal issues (e.g. geography errors etc).

3. As Brown notes in his Intro to the NT: Maybe Peter was an “archetypal figure identified with Jerusalem apostolic tradition and with a preaching that combined Jesus' Teaching, deeds, and passion.”

As Brown noted in a footnote 85 on p. 160: “Several passages in Paul indicate that historically Peter was known as a preacher and perhaps a font of tradition about Jesus (a combination of I Cor 15:3,5,11; one interpretation of Gal 1.18). Later Acts personifies Peter as the preacher of the Jerusalem community. The ecumencial book PNT contends that after his lifetime Peter became an idealized figure for certain functions in the church. II Pet 1:13-19 embodies the picture of Peter as the preserver of the apostolic memory.”

As Brown further noted (pp. 160-161): “Papias could, then, be reporting in a dramatized and simplified way that in his writing about Jesus, Mark reorganized and rephrased a content derived from a standard type of preaching that was considered apostolic. That could explain two frequently held positions about Gospel relationships: first, that the Marcan Gospel was so acceptable within a decade as to be known and approved as a guide by Matthew and Luke writing in different areas; second, that John could be independent of mark and still have similarities to it in outline and some contents. Many would dismiss entirely the Papias tradition; but the possibilities just raised could do some justice to the fact that ancient traditions often have elements of truth in garbled form.”

4. Papias or the Elder were mistaken.

5. John Mark actually authored the Gospel.

Sure, there are several “elegant answers”. How do we decide which one is correct? This argument is a complete failure in that it does not seem to demonstrate what it attempts to do so: John Mark wrote GMark. There are several "elegant" answers.

Points where GMark seemingly does not reflect eyewitness reminiscing:

1. This is new area to me but Brown writes that in some places the accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus seem secondary to accounts in Q or other Gospels. Sure Peter’s preaching would not be “secondary”?

2. As mentioned earlier, Mark has Jesus declare all foods clean. Is this a memoir of Peter?

As Raymond Brown notes (Intro to the NT. p 137) "The hard-fought struggle over kosher food attested in Acts and Paul would be difficult to explain if Jesus had settled the issue from the beginning."

Paula Fredriksen relays similar thoughts to Brown's above in Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews (p.108) "we must take into account the controversy in Antioch, years after this supposed encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees, when Peter, the men sent from James, and Paul disputed about mixed Gentile-Jewish meals taken in community (Gal 2:11-13). If Jesus during his mission had already nullified the laws of kashrut, this argument never could have happened."

Critical scholars recognize this as the voice of Mark rather than
the voice of Jesus. Mark's gloss stylistically intrudes upon this
passage. Here is Fredriksen on the gloss: (p.108) "Its the equivalent of a film actors stepping out of character and narrative action and speaking directly into the camera, addressing the viewing audience . . . The addition makes Mark's point, not his main character's.

Mark dismisses the concerns of Jesus' opponents—Shabbat, food, tithing, Temple offering, purity—as the "traditions of men." To these he opposes what Jesus ostensibly propounds as "the commandments of God" (7:8). The strong rhetoric masks the fact that these laws are biblical and, as such, the common concern of all religious Jesus: It is God in the Torah, not the Pharisees in their interpretations of it, who commanded these observances . . .”

3. If you accept the accuracy of Kloner’s article in BAR, was the rolling stone a memoir of Peter?

4. John Mark (the alleged author under discussion) was (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who had early become a Christian. This seems hard to reconcile with Mark’s several Palestinian geography errors. I can cite the verses if necessary. Of course, it may be maintained that a native of the land could make such errors but that seems like a stretch to me.

5. The Gospel allegedly written by John Mark the (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem does not look like a translation from Aramaic.

6. The Gospel allegedly written by John Mark the (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem seems to be based upon traditions received in Greek. (Hengel might dispute this on the basis of the high number of Aramaic words)

7. Mark is writing for an audience seemingly outside of Palestine given that he needs to explain certain Jewish customs/practices. I can cite the verses if necessary. But Mark the (presumably Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem seemingly gets them wrong. In Mark 7:3-4 its said that all Jews practiced hand-washing. E.P. Sanders and others do not think this was the practice of all Jews. See Sanders HFJ p. 219 see 332 and notes.

8. This is not conclusive in itself but I’ll add it to the list. Mark makes a scriptural blunder: Mark in 2:25-26. Compare that with Luke 6:4 and Matthew 12:3 who correct the error. See NJBC p. 604 and NIV study Note

9. See the author of GMark add new commandment: Mark 10:19. Then see Matthew and Luke drop Mark’s addition: Matt 16:18 and Luke 18:20 See NJBC 616

10. Is Mark’s portrayal of the disciples and the Messianic secret a “memoir” of Peter?

11. Mark may have garbled tradition based upon a scripture citation and come up with a confused reason on why Jesus spoke in parables: to confuse. Matthew corrects this error. Of course this could be related to the messianic secret in Mark so I won’t push it.

12. Mark 2:23-27 23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." 27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

As one with knowledge of form criticism will easily notice: Why is it that only Jesus’ disciples are accused of plucking grain? It is strange that they and not Jesus and them are accused. The disciples represent the early church. These saying which defend the non-observance of the Sabbath “may have been said by the historical Jesus, but perhaps in another context. The event as it is told in the synoptics is ‘an ideal scene’ created by the church so as to give the saying the context which was subsequently appropriate. “ (Sanders and Davies SSG pp 125). Peter could “possibly” be responsible for this material but this type of material in Mark tends to push me away from eyewitness reminiscing.

To quote Paula Fredriksen on Mark and Jesus’ controversy traditions:

The memoirs of Peter? I think not.

12. Mark 5:35-43. Is that eyewitness reminiscing of Peter? At best it can be claimed that this is historical and it was thought that the girl was dead and was raised.

13. The feeding of the five-thousand with a few loaves. The eye-witness reminiscing of Peter? The feeding of the 4,000

14. The wording of the prayer at Gethsemane. The eyewitness reminiscing or preaching of Peter or Christian creation based upon the tradition of Jesus praying over his fate some point before his death (the stance of Brown in the Death of the Messiah)?

Etc etc. I don't have time to go on and read through Mark or my sources and point out other examples at the moment. These are the ones I remembered.

So, what exactly comes from Peter and what comes from Mark? Remember, Papias says Mark wrote carefully what Peter said not being careful not to omit. He did not write in order and Papais may have been okay with Mark adding to Peter but I guess we have to ask how much is Mark allowed to add and how much has to be accurate? The cases I brought up seem to go well beyond this. In all practicality, they render the link to Peter moot.

Taken as a whole, this material and my earlier points which posited other “elegant solutions” to the Papias question point me in one direction: This Gospel written around 70 AD was written by an unknown Christian.

Are there any other evidences for a direct link to Peter?

Peter's prominence in GMark fails miserably. Peter's prominence was simply factual in the early church. Ergo, Mark's content does not even come close to necessitating and sort of direct contact with Peter.

Vinnie
Vinnie