The Historical Jesus II

[JaysonR]

Just on these gMark questions: Do you give any credence to the Church tradition that the Author pieced it together from the sermons of Peter?

Do these questions suggest that the Greek was written by someone translating directly from Aramaic?

IIRC correctly it was Clement who was supposed to have handed down that bit of Church history, do you think it is at all likely to be true?

It is quite challenging to ascertain directly this matter of the sayings because the section of the Gospel of Peter we have picks up at the trial and we have nothing previous to work with.
It could be quite possible for Peter to have influenced Mark in regards to sayings, but I have no means to verify that easily.

In using what we have, what I can ascertain is that Peter's narrative of the trial and death scenes are not relatives with Mark, but instead bear strong relation with those found in Matthew; for it is in Matthew and Peter that we find Pilate washing his hands, and in Matthew and Peter that we find the Jewish Priests worrying over 3rd day resurrection rumors and prophesies and pleading to Pilate for security around the tomb in rather specific details.

So if the sayings section of Peter is relative of Mark, again - which I cannot verify, then such a missing section differs in its relation to Mark than that of the surviving section from the trial to the angelic messenger; thereafter the text we have is incomplete and missing in the middle of an epilogue of the disciples in Galilee.

It is common to hear that Peter has a short ending like Mark, but this is somewhat misleading as it is more appropriate to state that what we have in the tomb scene of Mary's visit is brief in similar fashion to Mark's version, but the following epilogue scene of Peter is not part of Mark and it cuts off before we are able to discern much more about it - aside from that it is unique in beginning with daily details of the disciples actions following these events.

What Peter does share in the tomb scene with Mark is the manner of describing the messenger; both refer to this figure as a young man rather than a messenger, yet unlike Mark, Peter's account of the individual's clothing is more akin to Matthew's description of being blinding light of some form rather than simply a white robe.

It is challenging, then, to outright rule out some relation between Mark and Peter, but what I could propose is that if Mark is related to Peter; it is likely in competition and not in coherence.

One interesting note of Peter, the section we have, is that it lacks Jesus' name entirely, but instead cites him by title only.

There is some consideration that could be worked about in regards to the labelled Apocalypse of Peter, which has been suggested to be Fragment II of the Fragment I of the Gospel of Peter, but doing so must recognize two completely different versions in the Koine and the Ethiopic iterations.


So in summation, I would say that it appears that there is some relationship between the texts (of what we have left), but that there is more relationship between Peter and Matthew than Peter and Mark, and that if there is a shared relationship between Mark and Peter it is likely proximity and contest than sympathy and tradition.

 

[Brainache]

It is quite challenging to ascertain directly this matter of the sayings because the section of the Gospel of Peter we have picks up at the trial and we have nothing previous to work with.
It could be quite possible for Peter to have influenced Mark in regards to sayings, but I have no means to verify that easily.
{snipped for space}
...

OK. I wasn't referring to the "Gospel of Peter", but the actual person who is supposed to have preached in Rome and had a following there who were rivals of Paul and his following, but I guess I'm just repeating old Church tradition as if it was actual History.

I assumed that "The Gospel Of Peter" is a pseudepigraphical work from the second or third century written to reinforce some faction or other in the early Church.

I was asking if gMark was possibly a greek record of what the Aramaic speaking "Apostle Peter" taught, as Church tradition says it is and if Clement (?) can be trusted on this. Would Clement be in a position to know this?

Is it even likely that the words we have attributed to Clement concerning the composition of the Gospels were even from him in the first place?

 

[JaysonR]

I have no way to verify that any text is an account from the thoughts and words of any figure presented within them; I would need something verified as absolutely certainly from "Peter" to be able to compare if Mark was from "Peter" - we don't have that.

 

[Brainache]

I have no way to verify that any text is an account from the thoughts and words of any figure presented within them; I would need something verified as absolutely certainly from "Peter" to be able to compare if Mark was from "Peter" - we don't have that.

OK. I guess we have to be content with what we have, unless something spectacular turns up in the future.

I was mainly asking because of what you were saying about Hebrew forms of expression in the Greek text of gMark. I wanted to know if it was consistent with the idea of a translator directly translating Hebrew sermons (or whatever) into Greek text.

Also: how difficult, or unusual (or not) it might have been for a Greco-Roman to just mimic the Hebrew forms of speech to make it sound more "Authentically Jewish".

I guess I'll just have to invent that time machine if I want a definite answer for these sorts of questions...

 

[JaysonR]

No, it is not consistent with someone copying Hebrew sermons into Greek.
It is more like someone versed in Japanese and the poetic nuances of traditional Haiku writing in English but taking the care to preserve the Haiku format and poetics as it would appear in Japanese, but instead rendering it in English - thereby causing the English to appear awkward, uniformly poor in grammar and non-poetic.

It is like sticking Tommy Lee Jones in Chris Farley's clothes and role.
On the surface we have a very strange thing, but when we reverse the layer, we see a very different character forced into the text.

As to mimicking; incredible would be the term I would use to describe the idea of a Roman writing Mark.
The Latin used is sparse, the Greek is poor for Greek, the employment of Aramaic is considerably not applicable to Roman audiences or writers, and Hebraic poetic writing is far too complicated and pedantic for most to attempt to mock (I can't actually think of a case where a non-Hebrew wrote Hebraic religious poetry actually; that doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere, but I've never seen it mentioned or heard of it).

All together, it is unlikely by a hand that is not familiar with the region and culture.
This is actually a fairly advanced work with a considerable amount of skill placed into the forming of it.

To my knowledge, there is only one place where I know all of these things coalesced and that is the region around Antioch - all of these languages existed in familiarity there, and the religious markup of the land was mixed (somewhat like Galilee's mixture of temples) as well as academic.

Short of Antioch, the only other place where something of this caliber would be possible would be in Alexandria by someone of like kind as those from Antioch's boundaries.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks for that Jayson.

More food for thought.

 

[pakeha]

Seconded.

[ . . . ]
I was asking if gMark was possibly a greek record of what the Aramaic speaking "Apostle Peter" taught, as Church tradition says it is and if Clement (?) can be trusted on this. Would Clement be in a position to know this?

Is it even likely that the words we have attributed to Clement concerning the composition of the Gospels were even from him in the first place?

Not if you follow the Dutch Radicals' analysis
http://www.radikalkritik.de/Clem_eng.pdf

I don't know who's arguing Clement's letters are authentic these days; even wiki seems a bit stand-offish on the epistles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

 

[Brainache]

Seconded.




Not if you follow the Dutch Radicals' analysis
http://www.radikalkritik.de/Clem_eng.pdf

I don't know who's arguing Clement's letters are authentic these days; even wiki seems a bit stand-offish on the epistles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

I tend to think that those Dutch were a bit too radical. They also hadn't seen the DSS, which I think are very useful for anyone trying to understand the mindset of Jewish fanatics in the first century, whether or not you buy into Eisenman's hypothesis.

I'm not relying on Clement being authentic, but I am assuming that it contains some very early traditions, none of which are crucial either way.

 

[eight bits]

On the Mark-Peter thing, just my two cents worth.

Although modern apologists and counterapologists have a shared interest in describing Mark as a "biography of Jesus," even casual examination reveals that Mark is the story of Jesus' relationship with his chief antecedent (Dunker John) and with his chief successors, the disciples and especially the trio Simon Peter, James and John (by an amazing coincidence the only three specific names associated with the James Gang in the surviving letters of Paul).

Mark does not say why it was written, and does not name its sources, if any. On the other hand, because Peter, James and John are among its main characters, the novella is almost inevitably written "from their perspective." It is very easy, then, plausibly to impute "sourcehood" to any one of the three men.

Apparently, there is arguable internal evidence that "Mark" himself may have been active in Rome (I make no cliams either way about that), and the Alexandrian Church has an interest in pimping Mark's authority. So win-win - the Roman church gets its apostolic founder, and the Alexandrians get an evangelist founder, too. A deal was done; I doubt we shall ever know what the facts actually were.

 

[dejudge]

In Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" pages 181-182 it is claimed the Canonised Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

This means that virtually all Apologetic writings which attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are historically bogus.

The Canonised Gospels are in fact APOCRYPHA.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appear to be INVENTED pre 70 CE authors in attempt to secure PRIMACY to the Roman Church.

The Canonised Gospels appear to be MODIFIED versions of the Jesus story which were BACKDATED using Fake pre 70 CE authors under the guise they were followers of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth , his relatives or were acquainted with them since the time of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero.

There are Multiple writings concerning so-called Heretics and it is easily noticed that there are stories about the Son of an UNKNOWN God attributed to Cerinthus.

Now, the STORY of Cerinthus appears to be similar to the Gospel attributed to the FAKE author called Mark.


Irenaeus' Against Heresies 1.

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all.

He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.

Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles.

But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

The same story of Cerinthus is found in "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.


Refutation of All Heresies

Cerinthus, however, himself having been trained in Egypt, determined that the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain angelic power. And this power was far separated and distant from that sovereignty which is above the entire circle of existence, and it knows not the God (that is) above all things.

And he says that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind.

And Cerinthus maintains that, after Jesus' baptism, Christ came down in the form of a dove upon Him from the sovereignty that is above the whole circle of existence, and that then He proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and to work miracles.

And he asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from Jesus, but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.

The earliest Canonised version of the Jesus story attributed to the FAKE author called Mark appears to be a MODIFIED version of the Gospel of Cerinthus.

But, that is NOT all.

CERINTHUS wrote the APOCALYPSE of John.

Examine "Church History" 3 attributed to Eusebius.

1. We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted above, in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man:

2. “But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures.

And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.”

It is also claimed that the Apocalypse of John was NOT written by anyone in the Church.


Church History 7.25

1. Afterward he speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John.

Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent.

2. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity.

And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name.

3. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one....

In gMark, Jesus preached the Gospel of CERINTHUS.

Sinaiticus gMark

14 But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,15 that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: Repent and believe in the gospel.

The evidence adds up.

The stories of Jesus called Gospels in the Canon are MODIFIED versions of stories of the so-called Heretics and attributed to FAKE pre 70 CE characters.

The Doctrines of the so-called HERETICS PRE-DATE the teachings in all the books of the ENTIRE NT Canon.

The Canonised Jesus character and story are no earlier than the 2nd century.

 

[pakeha]

I tend to think that those Dutch were a bit too radical. They also hadn't seen the DSS, which I think are very useful for anyone trying to understand the mindset of Jewish fanatics in the first century, whether or not you buy into Eisenman's hypothesis.

I'm not relying on Clement being authentic, but I am assuming that it contains some very early traditions, none of which are crucial either way.

That's a very good point you make about the DRs.
It's why history is only as reliable as the latest excavation.

On the Mark-Peter thing, just my two cents worth.

Although modern apologists and counterapologists have a shared interest in describing Mark as a "biography of Jesus," even casual examination reveals that Mark is the story of Jesus' relationship with his chief antecedent (Dunker John) and with his chief successors, the disciples and especially the trio Simon Peter, James and John (by an amazing coincidence the only three specific names associated with the James Gang in the surviving letters of Paul).

Mark does not say why it was written, and does not name its sources, if any. On the other hand, because Peter, James and John are among its main characters, the novella is almost inevitably written "from their perspective." It is very easy, then, plausibly to impute "sourcehood" to any one of the three men.

Apparently, there is arguable internal evidence that "Mark" himself may have been active in Rome (I make no cliams either way about that), and the Alexandrian Church has an interest in pimping Mark's authority. So win-win - the Roman church gets its apostolic founder, and the Alexandrians get an evangelist founder, too. A deal was done; I doubt we shall ever know what the facts actually were.

I've had a long and complicated day, one which included having a half dozen sharp-shooters on the roof of the building where I work, but even so I find what you wrote most intriguing.
It's time to dedicate some reading time to the Peter-Mark literary relation.

 

[JaysonR]

I have some comments regarding the subject, which I will post later on.

 

[JaysonR]

OK...

Firstly, Mark no where in the text actually includes the name, "Mark".
Not as a title, not as a listed name within the text.

Instead, the text was so named early on as a credit of the author by early apologists.

If we do away with the traditional convention of naming it "Mark" (which at this point is purely for conventional reference), and look at the content to derive a name, we would quite more properly call this a Gospel of Peter; not Mark.

The protagonist of this version is quite openly Peter.
Some have pointed out that at the same time Peter falters heavily a number of times so it is either A) puzzling that the favored character of the story is allowed to falters so much, B) that this indicates clearly that Peter was not the intended protagonist, and/or C) that this validates the historicity of the account since there is (in this claim) no reason for including falters of a favored individual.

However, there is a rather cultural reason for Peter's falters that still permits the story to hold Peter as the favored and praised character of this text: Hebraic heroism.

David, Solomon, Samson, Abraham, Moses, Adam - the list continues; none of the heroes of the Hebrew texts are without an account of climactic failure - usually a moment which entirely cripples the figure, and is foreshadowed through warned prophecy.

In the Hebraic tradition of story telling, an individual is not capable of being a hero if they are not capable of grand folly; the survival through folly is one of the more greatly admired traits in a hero in this tradition than the near perfection and flawless capacity of a hero as we would think of many today (though that is changing as well, thankfully).

We understand that this text reverses out into Hebraic prose wonderfully well, so it follows rather naturally that if this amount of care was done to preserve a Hebraic tradition, then preservation of another narrative tradition is not uncanny to find.

As to Rome; of course the Roman Orthodoxy claims "Mark" was written in Rome. They also claim that it was written by Mark from Peter in Rome while Peter founded his papacy.
In this way, Mark is a secretary of Peter and the reason for the Peter-centric form of "Mark" is explained away by the biographic relationship formed by tradition.


There is, however, nothing in the text which truly aids the position of Rome and instead quite to the opposite, several constructs within which cause Rome composition to be a rather ungainly proposition.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

...one which included having a half dozen sharp-shooters on the roof of the building where I work...

Don't you just hate it when that happens? (Glad that you made it home. Really.)


Jayson

I imagine we can agree that Mark is just the name of the work, placed upon it for identification purposes. Perhaps we might also agree that "Mark" is a convenient term for us to designate the author of the work, especially for the typing challenged like me. "The presumed author of the work conventionally titled Mark" is, I think, a bit much to tap out every time we want to metnion the fellow.

You and I seem to be in general agreement that the work is written from the perspective of Rocky and the Thunder Boys. I do not share the view that it is so obviously the perspective of Rocky especially and not also of the Thunder Boys, however. I am mindful, BTW, of the tradition that John, son of Zebedee, will turn out to be the "last man standing." If so, then he may have been the only eyewitness of Jesus alive at the time of Mark's composition. That in itself may have influenced the author to include his perspective.

In the Hebraic tradition of story telling, an individual is not capable of being a hero if they are not capable of grand folly; ...

An interesting observation, but I see no evidence of Jewish authorship. That human heroes have fatal flaws (or even John's Jesus, fairly read, IMO) is an older device than Christianity and easily seen in Gentile works. One might add that metanoia is the essential message of the Dunker John-Jesus tradition. One can hardly repent, except that one has something to repent of. (This point is also made by modern apologists; I am just speaking in a literary sense, however).

I think the perceived Petrine hyperemphasis of Mark reflects later readers' choices, rather than any importance conferred on Peter by this author. The root source of storied Roman provenance is the Alexandrian explanation of how it came by its Mark, and that while the author is indisputably literate in Greek and a great storyteller, his technical command of Greek is shaky. That's what I make of what I have been told. As I said in my post, I have no particular claim to make on this issue.

In closing, the ritual importance of Rome is independent of Peter. The bishop of Rome would plausibly have primacy among bishops because his see has symbolic primacy in Imperial thought. The divisive question concerns supremacy, and that power-claim needs all the help that it can get. It is interesting that the Orthodox do not dispute Peter's authotirty ("on this rock" Matthew 16:18) nor his residence in Rome ("Babylon" in a probably spurous but canonical epistle attributed to him). What they dispute is that Peter's authority is heritable.

There is no reason to suppose that Mark, the author, had any Petrine axe to grind. Cervantes needed to do nothing extra to make Sancho Panza a prominent and memorable character. Characters like that need only "be themselves" and they will stand out. As well crafted as the triple-denial is, Peter is only giving a voice to what each and every male disciple did, from Judas on down.

 

[dejudge]

If we do away with the traditional convention of naming it "Mark" (which at this point is purely for conventional reference), and look at the content to derive a name, we would quite more properly call this a Gospel of Peter; not Mark.


The protagonist of this version is quite openly Peter.

Your claim is without supporting evidence and very low on logic. You have NO known established writings of Peter.

You also show a lack of knowledge of the Gospel of Peter.

The Gospel of Peter contains stories found in gMark, gMatthew, gLuke , and gJohn.

1. The washing of hands at the trial is found in gMatthew.

2. The involvement of Herod at the trial is found in gLuke.

3. The breaking of the legs of the malefactors but NOT those of Jesus is found in gJohn.


4. No post resurrection visit by Jesus is found in gMark.


The Gospel of Peter may be a version of the Diatessaron or the Memoirs of the Apostles since they also contain stories of Jesus found in the four Canonised Gospels.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

Indeed we agree on much, including the convention of the name for Mark.
That was only pointed out for critical thinking, not to suggest that we here must call it by another name.
It was only so to point out that if we were to consider the text's name by content, we would be compelled to call it some form of Peter, or at the least (as you note) Peter, James and John.

As to the Hebraic form; in itself considering Peter's praise and folly to indicate Hebraic tradition would indeed be a poor idea - this is why it was a following thought and not a leading premise (this consideration was following the thought that if we understand Mark to have Hebraic form preserved within it already, then a Hebraic traditional hero is not an odd application to expect in Peter).

As to the consideration of Mark as Hebraic, I am not capable of translating the entirety of Mark from Koine Greek into Hebrew so I cannot verify that accomplishment first-hand (not quickly enough for a post; at least, and I have not yet chosen to do so by hand [maybe one day]).

I have cited work of that form previously for others to look into and that suffices enough for that purpose, but what I can note as to why such conclusions find some sympathy of consideration with me is based on some concepts which I am capable of discerning first hand and am aware of.

For example (these are just examples mind you; there are many like considerations):
The coordination of clauses in Mark are of the Hebraic form and of no kin to Greek. A simple example is "kai" (conjunction, such as "and"). In Mark, as is done in Hebrew literature, every section is joined by a conjunction rather than creating subordinate clauses as Greek favors.
An example of this extreme use in Mark is Mark 10:33-34 (a running string of "and, and, and, and, and").
As far as I'm aware of actually, the only place where a proper Greek-like subordinate clause is employed is around Mark 5:25.

Another example is the adamant employment of prepositions before nouns in what is in Greek or English a redundant fashion; the easiest example is in Mark 3:7-8 (the redundancy is preserved in the RSV, but if you look at something like the NIV it will be removed for the sake of English grammar).
This redundancy exists in the Koine Greek and while terrible in Greek grammatical structure, it is perfectly formed in the Hebraic grammatical fashion.

Repeating pronouns in Greek is not entirely wrong, but it isn't what we find in Greek literature. On the other hand, it is exactly proper and favored in Hebraic texts. An example of what to look for of this kind is Mark 7:25 ... this one (to my knowledge) doesn't end up preserved in the English translations, but it is extant in the Greek itself.

ἀλλ' εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, ἐλθοῦσα προσέπεσεν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ

Yet/but immediately having heard, a woman about the area who had a little/young daughter of hers (with a) spirit (of) unclean, had come fallen down near the foot there.

The "of hers" is a genitive pronoun belonging to the woman, not the daughter.
I added the parenthetical to help the way it reads in English in the absence of proper Greek grammatical form. It should be noted that the way this is presented grammatically is not uncommon in the Hebraic grammatical fashion; for concepts expressed such as "little daughter of hers spirit unclean" where the attribute of the "spirit unclean" typically in the Hebrew are understood in their possession by their relative position and lack explicit conjugations or additives to express concepts such as "with a".

To be clear, in Hebraic form, every time we would mention this daughter, we would mention her as 'the daughter of hers' in the tangent of this woman's tale; an unnecessary practice in Greek.

It is common in the Hebrew to claim possession in this way, such as to say, "John, who had an ox of his." which is not odd due to an ox not having an inherent ownership, but we would equally say the same when stating "John, who had a son of his in hand."

This could be a practice culturally worth value for families in the Hebrew culture carried a long history of being of several parental combination potentials, and a given parent may have a daughter or son with them, but it could easily be possible that such was not directly their own.
Ownership of this form, of all things, was rather pedantically of importance in the Hebraic culture - we don't really see this in Greek literature as a concern of any form.

These are just a few examples, and then there's the parallelisms which are said to express themselves vividly when the text is reversed out from Greek to Hebrew in non-contextual translation (which I mentioned previously).


These are some of the reasons that the concept of Mark having intentionally wrote its Greek in Hebraic format finds sympathy in my mind.
I do not agree that this indicates that the text was originally in Hebrew, or Aramaic, but it does suggest strong consideration that the Greek was crafted specifically to preserve Hebraic tonality and form - not Greek.

 

[dejudge]

For example (these are just examples mind you; there are many like considerations):
The coordination of clauses in Mark are of the Hebraic form and of no kin to Greek. A simple example is "kai" (conjunction, such as "and"). In Mark, as is done in Hebrew literature, every section is joined by a conjunction rather than creating subordinate clauses as Greek favors.
An example of this extreme use in Mark is Mark 10:33-34 (a running string of "and, and, and, and, and").
As far as I'm aware of actually, the only place where a proper Greek-like subordinate clause is employed is around Mark 5:25.

gMark is a product of the Septuagint which is a Greek version of Hebrew Scripture..

The author of gMark refers to books of the prophets found in the Septuagint.

The Jesus character in gMark supposedly fulfilled the words of the Lord in the Septuagint.

The author of gMark emulated the Sepuagint where there are many thousands of verses starting with "Kai".

For example, the book of Genesis alone in the Septaugint has hundreds of verses beginning with the conjunction "kai". [hundreds of "and"]

Examine 7 verses of Genesis 1

1:1 εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην

1:2 η δε γη ην αορατος και ακατασκευαστος και σκοτος επανω της αβυσσου και πνευμα θεου επεφερετο επανω του υδατος

1:3 και ειπεν ο θεος γενηθητω φως και εγενετο φως

1:4 και ειδεν ο θεος το φως οτι καλον και διεχωρισεν ο θεος ανα μεσον του φωτος και ανα μεσον του σκοτους

1:5 και εκαλεσεν ο θεος το φως ημεραν και το σκοτος εκαλεσεν νυκτα και εγενετο εσπερα και εγενετο πρωι ημερα μια

1:6 και ειπεν ο θεος γενηθητω στερεωμα εν μεσω του υδατος και εστω διαχωριζον ανα μεσον υδατος και υδατος και εγενετο ουτως

1:7 και εποιησεν ο θεος το στερεωμα και διεχωρισεν ο θεος ανα μεσον του υδατος ο ην υποκατω του στερεωματος και ανα μεσον του υδατος του επανω του στερεωματος

The profuse use of the conjunction "kai" in gMark is another piece of evidence that the author relied on the Septuagint not only to invent his Jesus but also to give his story an Hebraic tone.

 

[pakeha]

pakehaDon't you just hate it when that happens? (Glad that you made it home. Really

No one outside of our security department knew the GEOs had been deployed on the rooftop til 6 superbly fit men in military kit left the building around 4 in the afternoon carrying oddly proportioned briefcases. Apparently they'd been up there since the small hours of the morning.
All this brouhaha was because our building's within the security perimeter of the Palacio de Oriente and the recent Coronation acts involved some fairly impressive hijinks.

Since most of my colleagues look like disgruntled fanatics of some stripe or another, we were subject to extra checks and so forth upon trying to enter the building. Some of us, me included, has to be vouched for by our head of security even after presenting our credentials.

I'll bet you had no idea such a potentially dangerous person posted here!


Anyway, back to Mark.
I'm following the discussion with interest and my only useful input can be to offer a link to a current discussion over at the BC&H forum on the subject of Mark and his sources
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=605&sid=f589745e0e4028f11b6cc69cd819ac03

Enjoy.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Yes, security people do seem to think differently than many of the rest of us.

Thank you for that link; I'm checking it out.

Jayson

We seem to be in broad near-agreement about the big issues. On the narrower point:

I appreciate your amplification of the Hebrew hypothesis, but the problem remians that the source text is primitive Koine, poorly constructed and shakily written - and yet, the work of a great storyteller.

Hebrew, a ritual language on life support even then, seems an odd choice for an original popular composition. There is no evidence of any large Jewish constituency for Jesus ca 70, when this work seems to have been written, and reaching that audience in Hebrew is a dicey strategy.

I think it is far more probable that we have an educated native speaker of a then-living language taking his shot in the lingua franca of the time, Koine. I would be unsurprised to find that Jewish speech in the lingua franca, especially declamatory speech in synagogues, had "Hebrew" flourishes.

Mark is a great writer, and it is within the scope of craftwork to pick up on such flourishes. At the very least, I think, we would need to eliminate the possibility of imitation of the Septuagiint's "tone" and that degree of resemblance to Hebrew before discarding the craftwork alternative hypothesis.

 

[JaysonR]

We're in very much agreement.
I am not proposing a Hebrew wrote Mark, just to be clear, as if a Hebrew wrote a religious text it would be in Hebrew - the sacred script of Law - and not in a mash of three languages.

The point about the Hebraic tonality is to show that this text would be utterly confusing to Rome, or at the least, its articulation would be mostly missed.

Assigning either Antiich or Alexandria by some agency of Antioch region is not to say, Hebrew.
It is, instead, to say this text has to be generated through a culture fascinated with the intricacies of philosophical and, specifically, ontological textual production in complicated nesting for unraveling as some interest of pride or value.

There are few regions where the combination of components found in Mark would be of value; Rome just does not list high for this.
Luke is a candidate ripe for Roman and Athenian demographic, for example.

Also, again, the Greek may be poor in Mark, but it's not poor like John - as in, uneducated.
It is poor intentionally for a designed purpose.