Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 06-05-2013, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When Peter Kirby was active here, he seemed to think that the author of Mark might very well have been named "Mark." I think that the commentary on earlychristianwritings.com reflects his thinking:

Gospel of Mark

Quote:

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

JW:
Well this reminds me of a Woody Allen moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

I happen to have Peter Kirby right here:

Quote:

Mark was a common name and even if the tradition got it right and the author of this gospel were named Mark, there's nothing else to connect the author of the gospel with the person known as "John Mark" from Acts.

According to wikipedia, the church fathers themselves didn't conflate all the Marks of the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_th...in_of_Barnabas

Best regards,
Peter Kirby

JW:
So Peter Kirby, Agnostic, does think not John Mark wrote "Mark".

Regarding the above:

"Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3)."

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO CHAPTER CVI -- CHRIST'S RESURRECTION IS FORETOLD IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE PSALM.

Quote:

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;

I believe the Greek is ambiguous as to "memoirs of Him" referring to Peter or Jesus. "Mark" is the synoptic that has the name changes but I think [understatement]The Gospel of Peter[/understatement] is also a good candidate.

Note that per Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree, The Gospel of Peter looks like a better source for Justin than "Mark":

Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative

Not to mention the explicit

Quote:

But I, Simon Peter

in the Gospel of Peter THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER

Clearly in Justin's time, The Gospel of Peter was accepted as authoritative. I suspect that The Gospel of Peter was already named and that is the reason why "Mark" could not be named "Peter". Related to this it's strange/bizarre/macabre that in the time of the most orthodox Christian we are aware of, Justin, c. 150, he accepts a Gospel (Peter) that explicitly identifies its source as Peter and would also accept a Gospel ("Mark") as having a second hand source of Peter.

For those who need points sharply explained (like Adam) it's not until Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") has eliminated The Gospel of Peter as historical based on a fictional argument that the name Peter can than be applied to another Gospel.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Adam · 06-05-2013, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I pray that Adam is reading this.

Yes, there must be a God, I am!
And I pray that you are reading my current posts in Gospel Eyewitnesses. I have noticed that my every post there lately gets 40 or more reads, but even the HJ crowd here is not celebrating my demolition of MJ.

Even though I was Roman Catholic (a convert based on Higher Criticism) when I read Raymond Brown, I never found him to have much worth saying. It was like he was always looking over his shoulder to see if anyone might be able to disprove anything he said, so he didn't really say anything that could be refuted (or confirmed).

aa5874 · 06-05-2013, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When Peter Kirby was active here, he seemed to think that the author of Mark might very well have been named "Mark." I think that the commentary on earlychristianwritings.com reflects his thinking:

Gospel of Mark

Quote:

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

JW:
Well this reminds me of a Woody Allen moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

I happen to have Peter Kirby right here:

Quote:

Mark was a common name and even if the tradition got it right and the author of this gospel were named Mark, there's nothing else to connect the author of the gospel with the person known as "John Mark" from Acts.

According to wikipedia, the church fathers themselves didn't conflate all the Marks of the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_th...in_of_Barnabas

Best regards,
Peter Kirby

JW:
So Peter Kirby, Agnostic, does think not John Mark wrote "Mark".

Regarding the above:

"Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3)."

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO CHAPTER CVI -- CHRIST'S RESURRECTION IS FORETOLD IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE PSALM.

Quote:

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;

I believe the Greek is ambiguous as to "memoirs of Him" referring to Peter or Jesus. "Mark" is the synoptic that has the name changes but I think [understatement]The Gospel of Peter[/understatement] is also a good candidate.

Note that per Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree, The Gospel of Peter looks like a better source for Justin than "Mark":

Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative

Not to mention the explicit

Quote:

But I, Simon Peter

in the Gospel of Peter THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER

Clearly in Justin's time, The Gospel of Peter was accepted as authoritative. I suspect that The Gospel of Peter was already named and that is the reason why "Mark" could not be named "Peter". Related to this it's strange/bizarre/macabre that in the time of the most orthodox Christian we are aware of, Justin, c. 150, he accepts a Gospel (Peter) that explicitly identifies its source as Peter and would also accept a Gospel ("Mark") as having a second hand source of Peter.

For those who need points sharply explained (like Adam) it's not until Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") has eliminated The Gospel of Peter as historical based on a fictional argument that the name Peter can than be applied to another Gospel.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Justin refers to the Memoirs of Jesus--not Peter.

There is no claim that Peter wrote gMark by apologetic sources.

Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

...And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder.

"He" and "Him" when capitalized refers to Jesus or God in the Entire Dialogue with Trypho.

And further, the first Apologetic source [Against Heresies] to identify gMark claimed it was written after the "departure" of Peter and Paul.

Essentially, Peter was dead before gMark was composed based on Irenaeus.

[u]Against Heresies" 3

Quote:

....Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

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

And further, in "Church History" there was a tradition that the Gospel of Peter was unknown by ancient and modern apologetics.

Church History

Quote:

2. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.

Justin did not know of a Gospel of Peter and did not make use of it.

Justin specifically mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles.

JoeWallack · 06-08-2013, 09:19 AM

JW:
Next up (or down), Daniel Wallace:

Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline

Quote:

In conclusion, there is no reason to doubt that John Mark, companion of both Peter and Paul, wrote the gospel which bears the name Mark. The MSS and patristic testimony are unanimous, and the internal evidence certainly corroborates this, even if only in subtle ways. When we examine the issue of date, we will look more carefully at some of the evidence, but for now Markan authorship, at least, is assumed.

So Wallace thinks it clear that John Mark is the author. I would classify Wallace as Conservative Christian.

Side note - Wallace's credibility has taken a hit in the last year with his announcement over a year ago that a 1st century fragment of "Mark" was discovered. The objective thing to do is immediately publicly identify to minimize lost provenance. The biased thing to do is hold onto creating real or at least perceived spin.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 06-08-2013, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I pray that Adam is reading this.

Yes, there must be a God, I am!
And I pray that you are reading my current posts in Gospel Eyewitnesses. I have noticed that my every post there lately gets 40 or more reads, but even the HJ crowd here is not celebrating my demolition of MJ.

Your response is extremely funny!! You believe in a Myth God and simultaneosly claim you have demolished his Only Begotten Son.
:banghead:

JoeWallack · 06-09-2013, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

...
Note that per Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree, The Gospel of Peter looks like a better source for Justin than "Mark":

Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative

...

Justin did not know of a Gospel of Peter and did not make use of it.

JW:
He knew of what is now called the Gospel of Peter and what was called the Gospel of Peter either in his time or shortly after and explicitly identifies itself as authored by Peter as my link demonstrates in abundance:

Quote:

8(28-30), 11(47-49)
(Herod and Jews use Pilate to cover their plot)

1(1-2)
(Herod and his judges and Jews sentenced him to crucifixion)

Herod responsible for crucifixion; pierced by Jews, synagogue of wicked, under Pilate (DT32,85,104 FA13)

Jews pierce their king (DT14,32,64,97,98,104,118, FA13)

After crucified, all acquaintances and disciples denied him and forsook him and dispersed (FA50 DT53)

Nails pierced hands and feet (DT97,104)

Always 12 disciples (no Judas) (FA 39, 50 DT 42, 53, 106)

JW:
See, I have set before you this day the Blessing and the Curse. 18,084 posts and you have never confessed you were wrong. Choose life so that your posts may continue to live in FRDB land.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 06-10-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin did not know of a Gospel of Peter and did not make use of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

He knew of what is now called the Gospel of Peter and what was called the Gospel of Peter either in his time or shortly after and explicitly identifies itself as authored by Peter as my link demonstrates in abundance:

8(28-30), 11(47-49)
(Herod and Jews use Pilate to cover their plot)

1(1-2)
(Herod and his judges and Jews sentenced him to crucifixion)

Herod responsible for crucifixion; pierced by Jews, synagogue of wicked, under Pilate (DT32,85,104 FA13)

Jews pierce their king (DT14,32,64,97,98,104,118, FA13)

After crucified, all acquaintances and disciples denied him and forsook him and dispersed (FA50 DT53)

Nails pierced hands and feet (DT97,104)

Always 12 disciples (no Judas) (FA 39, 50 DT 42, 53, 106)

Again, Justin Martyr did not mention the Gospel of Peter or used it.

In the Gospel of Peter, Herod was at the trial of Jesus and ordered for his crucifixion and Pilate begged Herod for the body of Jesus.

No such thing is in "Dialogue with Trypho" [DT] or "First Apology" [FA]

You must have read DT 32, 85, 104 and FA 13 before you posted and knew in advance that the passages makes no mention of Herod at the trial, and no mention that Herod was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus as stated in the Gospel of Peter.

Why did you post blatant erroneous claims?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

See, I have set before you this day the Blessing and the Curse. 18,084 posts and you have never confessed you were wrong. Choose life so that your posts may continue to live in FRDB land.

You set your mistakes before me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Herod responsible for crucifixion; pierced by Jews, synagogue of wicked, under Pilate (DT32,85,104 FA13

Herod is not even mentioned in DT 32, 85, 104 and FA 13.

JoeWallack · 06-15-2013, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, Justin Martyr did not mention the Gospel of Peter or used it.

In the Gospel of Peter, Herod was at the trial of Jesus and ordered for his crucifixion and Pilate begged Herod for the body of Jesus.

JW:
Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative

"Jewish synagogue sentenced him to crucifixion (DT104)"

Chapter CIV.—Circumstances of Christ’s death are predicted in this Psalm

Quote:

“And the statement, ‘Thou hast brought me into the dust of death; for many dogs have surrounded me: the assembly of the wicked have beset me round. They pierced my hands and my feet. They did tell all my bones. They did look and stare upon me. They parted my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture,’—was a prediction, as I said before, of the death to which the synagogue of the wicked would condemn Him, whom He calls both dogs and hunters, declaring that those who hunted Him were both gathered together and assiduously striving to condemn Him. And this is recorded to have happened in the memoirs of His apostles. And I have shown that, after His crucifixion, they who crucified Him parted His garments among them.

"1(1-2)
(Herod and his judges and Jews sentenced him to crucifixion)"

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER

Quote:

1. But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod, nor any one of his judges. And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commanded that the Lord be taken, saying to them, Whatever I command you to do to him, do.

This account tends to lay more responsibility on Herod and the people, while relieving Pilate somewhat of his share in the action that was taken.

2. And standing there was Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, and knowing that they were about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body. And Herod said, Brother Pilate, even if no one asked for him, we purposed to bury him, especially as the Sabbath draws on, for it is written in the law that the sun should not set upon one who has been put to death.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 06-15-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, Justin Martyr did not mention the Gospel of Peter or used it.

In the Gospel of Peter, Herod was at the trial of Jesus and ordered for his crucifixion and Pilate begged Herod for the body of Jesus.

JW:
Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative

"Jewish synagogue sentenced him to crucifixion (DT104)"

Chapter CIV.—Circumstances of Christ’s death are predicted in this Psalm

Quote:

“And the statement, ‘Thou hast brought me into the dust of death; for many dogs have surrounded me: the assembly of the wicked have beset me round. They pierced my hands and my feet. They did tell all my bones. They did look and stare upon me. They parted my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture,’—was a prediction, as I said before, of the death to which the synagogue of the wicked would condemn Him, whom He calls both dogs and hunters, declaring that those who hunted Him were both gathered together and assiduously striving to condemn Him. And this is recorded to have happened in the memoirs of His apostles. And I have shown that, after His crucifixion, they who crucified Him parted His garments among them.

"1(1-2)
(Herod and his judges and Jews sentenced him to crucifixion)"

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER

Quote:

1. But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod, nor any one of his judges. And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commanded that the Lord be taken, saying to them, Whatever I command you to do to him, do.

This account tends to lay more responsibility on Herod and the people, while relieving Pilate somewhat of his share in the action that was taken.

2. And standing there was Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, and knowing that they were about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body. And Herod said, Brother Pilate, even if no one asked for him, we purposed to bury him, especially as the Sabbath draws on, for it is written in the law that the sun should not set upon one who has been put to death.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Your statement is false that Herod was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus in DT 32, 85, 104 and FA 13.

Why won't you admit your ERROR??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Wallack

Herod responsible for crucifixion; pierced by Jews, synagogue of wicked, under Pilate (DT32,85,104 FA13

DCHindley · 06-16-2013, 08:27 PM

Jumping in with my own observations

Joe had just cited a table on Vridar's web page in support of the idea that Justin Martyr may have been aware of the Gospel of Peter rather than the Gospel of Mark. In the process he cites from Vridar's site one topic line in a table that identified four story elements that passages in the works of Justin (DT 32, 85, 104 & FA13) had in common with passages in the first 7 chapters of the Gospel of Peter:

1) Herod responsible for crucifixion,
2) Jesus pierced by Jews,
3) Jews are the synagogue of wicked, and
4) crucifixion was under Pilate.

Aa was correct to note that Justin's Dialogue with Trypho chapters 32, 85 & 104, and 1st Apology chapter 13, do not say anything at all about Herod Antipas' involvement in the determination of Jesus' fate.

The table below shows that instead of proving a substantial agreement on these four matters between Justin's Apology/Dialogue and the surviving fragments of the Gospel of Peter, Vridar seems to have conflated what the two sources said into a single set of assertions about Herod's responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion, about Jesus' trial, his humiliations and ultimate execution. In reality, of these four elements, only the crucifixion under Pilate is held in common.

If JW assumed the correctness of Vridar's overstated parallels as fact without checking them out himself, then aa's criticism is justified. Aa, for his part, had clearly done his/her homework.

	JD	GoP

Herod responsible for crucifixion.	Not Found	Chap 1(1-2)
pierced by Jews	DT Ch 32	Not found
synagogue of the wicked	DT Ch 104	Not found
Crucified under Pilate	DT Ch 85; FA Ch 13	Ch 4(10), Ch 12(52), Ch 13(56)

DCH

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.