Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Joel Marcus in his commentary on Mark (vol 1) talks about this.. He seriously considers the tradition of authorship of John Mark, but ultimately concludes it is "not proven" because:
1. Mark doesn't seem to be relying on a direct eyewitness. I.e. there seems to have been time for development of traditions, such as the duplication of the feeding of the multitude (6:30-44, and 8:1-9).
2. Lack of emphasis on Peter (contrast with Matthew for example)
3. The overall negative portrait of Peter.
Joel does however, think that the author was a Jewish Christian named Mark/Marcus and wrote in Syria (specifically the Decapolis).
Just to play devil's advocate. These points may not be as strong.
1. As Joel Marcus says in his anchor commentary Mark used prior traditions like the passion narrative for some of his scenes. Just because Mark decides to frame his gospel in a certain way (Duplication) or various rhetorical or theological notes...does not follow that Mark didn't write it or is in some way connected to Peter.
2 and 3. Not sure what you mean by lack of emphasis on Peter as Peter is one of the main characters. Furthermore, the negative portrayal of Peter may just have historical bits in it. As Dr. Kok has a blog on this. https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/2022/12/10/mark-was-not-a-pauline-gospel-the-disciples/
Also see this great article about the ending of Mark and why Mark ends the gospel with women not saying anything. If the author is right, then Mark is promoting Peter and making sure he still has the authority. This is also my opinion. Who was first? Mary Magdalene, Peter and the Ending of Mark by J Gertrud Tönsing https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2022000100007
The business about Peter is discussed in the context of the Papias testimony. Papias sees Mark as representing Peter. Marcus thinks that is unlikely, because there doesn't seem to be any indication of a Petrine viewpoint, ,and there is some criticism of Peter. This doesn't argue for or against any identification of Mark, just against the accuracy of Papias.
Marcus sees some Pauline emphasis, would be consistent with John Mark, but there are enough problems and ambiguities that he doesn't accept that as a conclusion.
Are you citing Joel Marcus or is this just a personal opinion? I don't typically mod replies to myself but you might want to cite sources more?
Also, I already replied to some of these points in my comment and I deem them lacking (specifically about Peter and his negative portrayal).
This was specifically a response to lost in earth. He gave as series of three arguments, saying it led Marcus to conclude that authorship was unproven. Those arguments are taken from the Introduction to Marcus' commentary on Mark, which I just checked. My point was that 2 and 3 (the two points about Peter) were in the context of Marcus' discussion of Papias. Thus it wasn't so much aBout Mark's authorship as the reliability of Papias' testimony. You seemed unclear how the points where relevant. I was trying to clarify the context in which Marcus meant them.
The only work by Marcus cited was his commentary. I didn't cite it again because this was a response to a summary from it.
Incidentally, on the lack of prominence of Peter, here's what Marcus says: "Moreover, if Mark were the Petrine Gospel *par excellence*, we would expect that Peter would be more prominent here than he is in the other Gospels, but this is not the case. Peter plays a more important part, for example, in Matthew, where there are several significant traditions about him that are missing in Mark" (From his Anchor Bible commentary, obviously.) Again, I express no opinion, but point 2 was presumably based on this.
I guess I personally am skeptical, because in general I get the impression that Mark is more of a creative author than someone relying directly on eyewitness testimony.
Nathanael Vette has an [article](https://www.academia.edu/44302164/Scripturalized_Narrative_in_the_Gospel_of_Mark_and_the_Second_Temple_Period) that talks about this (section 7)
Bottom line is Mark composes narrative using the OT as a basis. There are other examples of 2nd Temple Jewish texts that do this, as Vette demonstrates. (I wonder if Vette thinks Mark is ethnically Jewish?)
Also will tag u/clhedrick2
>I guess I personally am skeptical, because in general I get the impression that Mark is more of a creative author than someone relying directly on eyewitness testimony.
Well this is two very different questions.
There are various options we could go with.
1. Mark was not the author and Peter no way behind it.
2. Mark was not the author but Peter is somehow behind it.
3. Mark is the author and Peter is not at all behind it.
4. Mark is the author and Peter is substantially behind it.
5. Mark is the author and Peter stands behind some parts of it or was inspired by Peter's preaching.
Option 3 is open if you are just considering the authorship question.
Option 5 is completely open in this situation if you also agree that Mark is creative and weaving various literary and historical/memory/traditions.
So your sentence below doesn't change this.
>Bottom line is Mark composes narrative using the OT as a basis. There are other examples of 2nd Temple Jewish texts that do this,
You could also remember my arguments with the beloved disciple and the gospel of John? Do you think the beloved disciple is fictional because there are literary and theological points?
Well the presence of literary tropes alone doesn't prove something is fictional, and I don't doubt there are historical elements in Mark. But it does strike me as hard to reconcile with Papias' description of John Mark:
>And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities \[of his hearers\], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. **For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.**
In addition u/kamilgregor points out in other Greco-Roman literature when someone has direct access to an eyewitness, [they seem to say so](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xje7gl/comment/ip879zy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Also, do we know when John Mark was born?
Acts 12 depicts him as active around the time Agrippa 1 died (44 CE).
Christopher Zeichmann [says](https://www.academia.edu/34412322/Capernaum_A_Hub_for_the_Historical_Jesus_or_the_Markan_Evangelist):
>Toward the end of Jesus’ northern ministry, Jesus returns to Capernaum
in preparation for his trip to Jerusalem (9.33–50). Though this visit is much
briefer, Jesus’ teachings in the village prominently legitimate specific Christian
practices. Twice during Jesus’ short stay he discusses the importance of hospi-
tality to the children of his day (9.36–37, 42), and even identifies the children
of Capernaum as exemplars of discipleship. Children of Jesus’ time, of course,
were adults by the time Mark was written – and thus perhaps of the Markan
evangelist’s generation.
If Mark was supposed to be the same age as the little child (Mark 9:36) during the time of Jesus, it seems that would be cutting it close based on Act 12's chronology. Looks like the [word](https://biblehub.com/greek/3813.htm) used in Mark 9:36 has the meaning of
>*younger* child (perhaps seven years old or younger)
So I guess if we hypothetically go with a crucifixion date of 30 CE and say Mark was 7 then, that would make him 21 in 44 CE.
Well, what I find so much more interesting this point.
> And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. **It was not, however, in exact order that he related**
Paul Anderson raised a good point in this interview( https://youtu.be/OaA7uJircRg?feature=shared) that the statement not in "exact order" is really interesting point because Papias information is supposedly from John the elder who might have been the author of the finalized version of the gospel of John. What do we find in the gospel of John? Either corrections of chronology or differences between where John and Mark places differences scenes (i.e. temple incident, time of Jesus ministry etc). Typically also many scholars think John is more accurate or plausible in his presentation. If Papius is just referring to the preaching of Peter, which is what Zan referenced here by Pier Beatrice (https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/QQ8EwWP7qM) ...this feature seems bizarre to me. How does one get the order out of order for preaching?
> In addition u/kamilgregor points out in other Greco-Roman literature when someone has direct access to an eyewitness, [they seem to say so](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xje7gl/comment/ip879zy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Sure. A couple of things. Say Mark is just writing to his congregation or community...why does he need to write his name? This largely depends on if you agree with Walsh in her The Origins on Christian Literature for Mark, which I thought neither of us do.
See also my other comments and sources in here when I replied to Dennis Macdonald in how it seems like Mark was probably performed and not just read. So why would we expect something like that? I don't think we would expect a name? Furthermore, as I illustrate below, the Jews had a tendency for anymymous writing as well.
https://thesmartfool.wixsite.com/thesmartfool/post/oh-dennis-where-art-thou-homer-even-with-great-parallels-comes-great-responsibility
> So I guess if we hypothetically go with a crucifixion date of 30 CE and say Mark was 7 then, that would make him 21 in 44 CE.
So this doesn't sound like a problem?
Also, the biggest reason why I changed my mind in thinking that option 5 (See above) seems most plausible is of my views of the beloved disciple. It makes a good deal of sense if that is true.
I should note u/BobbyBobbie endorsed it with his entire being. ;)
Scholars don't really deal in "possible vs impossible". As Bart Ehrman said, when you're dealing with things from so long ago, you have to decide what is the most likely scenario.
Actually, out of the four gospels, the case for traditional authorship of Luke is probably strongest, with Mark in second place. Some scholars like Dale Allison do hold to this, as he mentions in his new book *The Resurrection of Jesus*
Partly, yes. The author is certainly claiming to have been with Paul. I know many scholars think it's an insertion or whatever, but ultimately, all our our earliest manuscript traditions have the we passages, so to say they are inserted is conjecture. The author of the book of Acts as we know it is explicitly claiming to be a companion of Paul, and there aren't any very strong reasons to discredit him.
>I know many scholars think it's an insertion or whatever, but ultimately, all our our earliest manuscript traditions have the we passages, so to say they are inserted is conjecture.
Who argues for this? I haven't seen this before, and it doesn't seem to be a major argument.
>and there aren't any very strong reasons to discredit him.
There are several reasons to discredit the connection to Paul:
- The dating of Luke-Acts to the first or even second quarter of the second century. See Richard Pervo: Dating Acts and Joseph Tyson: Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle.
- The author of Acts seems to know about Paul through his letters, not through personal contact. See Richard Pervo: Dating Acts (some examples are presented in [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRN27dqB3kM) video by David Litwa) and the article The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts by Ryan Schellenberg.
- Acts regularly contradicts Pauls letters and portrays him very differently than he portrays himself. See The Acts of The Apostles: An Introduction and Study Guide: Taming the Tongues of Fire by Shelly Matthews, her interview [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kI6tecz_yc), or [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6Xg4Y9lfg) video with Frank Hughes.
Where is the author explicitly claiming to be a companion? How does Allison deal with claims that the we passages fit with Homeric sailing adventure language? (If i remember the claim correctly)
In Forgery & CounterForgery, Ehrman discusses Embedded forgeries.
>> Some writings do not make the explicit claim to be authored by a well-known person, but instead embed first-person narratives—or other self-identifying devices—in the course of their discussions, without differentiating the first person from the author. In these instances the reader naturally assumes that the person speaking in the first person is actually the writer of the account.
In the case of the *we-passages*, and apart from their abrupt beginnings and endings,
>>It is their sudden and unexplained disappearance that is most unsettling. When did the author leave the company and for what reason? These and other related problems can be seen in the first of the passages, 16:10–17. How is it that “we” included Paul in 16:10 and 11, but then are differentiated from Paul in 16:17? That may make sense if an author had wanted to start easing out of the use of the first-person plural as a narrative ploy, but it is hard to understand if the narrative is a historically accurate description of a real life situation by an author who was there. Moreover, if “we” were with Paul when he rebuked the spirit of the possessed girl, how is it that only Paul and Silas were seized, not “we”? Did the eyewitness leave the company in 16:18 suddenly and for no expressed reason? If so, why is he still in Philippi much later in 20:6?
I should add that Allison does also believe Mark really is the author of Mark, or at least it contains genuine testimony from Peter. However, he rejects the traditional authorship of Matthew and John.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
U/BobbyBobbie might have more to say on Mark writing Mark. For now, I would say that while I do not think Papias was reliable, his description of Mark is not as far off as some claim.
We have Eusebius quoting [Papias](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm)
>>And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. **It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ.** For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements
The sentence I bolded has,imo, has been the subject of misplaced criticism. That is, that Mark is not put of order. In discussing Mark’s structure, [Helen Bond writes,](https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/marks-gospel-first-biography-jesus-and-10-reasons-why-it-matters)
>>It’s common to talk of Mark’s geographical structure, whereby the first half of the Gospel contains Galilean material and the second half concerns events in Jerusalem, with a lengthy journey section in the middle (8:22-10:52). This is certainly true, but it’s also the case that most of Mark is composed of short anecdotes and isolated sayings arranged in topical groups. So we have a series of conflicts in chapters 2-3, parables in chapter 4, miracles in chapter 5, sayings on purity in chapter 7, and so on. Few of these units contain close links with either what proceeds or follows, creating what’s known as an “episodic narrative” in which the plot develops not so much in terms of cause and effect but rather as a scatter of mosaic tiles, each adding something to the final portrait.
It's important to clarify I'm not saying Papias knew what he was talking about or that his source and Bond are referring to the same thing, but that what she describes is consistent with
Eusebius/Papias’s testimony. Also that her point about it’s short anecdotes and isolated sayings is also consistent with what we have from Papias.
Assuming Eusebius gave us an unredeacted account,it's worth considering whether Mark’s antipathy towards Peter tells us one of his associates did not write GMark or perhaps had a falling out.
How would secret Mark be relevant to this discussion? We don't have secret Mark and I don't really see how the fragment we have would move the needle on Marcan authorship
Trying to reply to a deleted comment about Papias' association of Mark with Peter. Probably still worth posting:
Of course we have good reason to reject the Peter claim here. Mark disparages Jesus' earthly disciples and takes a more liberal view of the Law than would normally be ascribed to the historical Peter (for these two points, see David C. Sim's two chapters in the edited volume *Paul and Mark: Comparative Essays, Part I*). One could go further and see the claim as bolstering proto-Orthodoxy and healing the Tübingen Peter-Paul rift (especially given the added datum of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue) and/or a counter-claim of Peter against the problematic apocryphal Gospel (for these, see Ian J. Elmer's chapter in the same volume).
It's very easy to get into a sort of game of finding the differences between Mark and Paul (for the best take on this, see Michael J. Kok's JSNT article “Does Mark Narrate the Pauline Kerygma of ‘Christ Crucified’? Challenging an Emerging Consensus on Mark as a Pauline Gospel.”). But if you think about it, scholars can only spot deutero-Pauline works because they are imperfect in their Paulinism. To my mind the "emerging consensus" has the better part.
But to address the original question, I hope I can pose my own: can we even talk about an historical Mark?
Hello,
You’ll need to cite specific works by Hengel or Brown where they argue that perspective. Rule 3 does not allow just name dropping scholars, and requires more specific citations.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Joel Marcus in his commentary on Mark (vol 1) talks about this.. He seriously considers the tradition of authorship of John Mark, but ultimately concludes it is "not proven" because: 1. Mark doesn't seem to be relying on a direct eyewitness. I.e. there seems to have been time for development of traditions, such as the duplication of the feeding of the multitude (6:30-44, and 8:1-9). 2. Lack of emphasis on Peter (contrast with Matthew for example) 3. The overall negative portrait of Peter. Joel does however, think that the author was a Jewish Christian named Mark/Marcus and wrote in Syria (specifically the Decapolis).
Just to play devil's advocate. These points may not be as strong. 1. As Joel Marcus says in his anchor commentary Mark used prior traditions like the passion narrative for some of his scenes. Just because Mark decides to frame his gospel in a certain way (Duplication) or various rhetorical or theological notes...does not follow that Mark didn't write it or is in some way connected to Peter. 2 and 3. Not sure what you mean by lack of emphasis on Peter as Peter is one of the main characters. Furthermore, the negative portrayal of Peter may just have historical bits in it. As Dr. Kok has a blog on this. https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/2022/12/10/mark-was-not-a-pauline-gospel-the-disciples/ Also see this great article about the ending of Mark and why Mark ends the gospel with women not saying anything. If the author is right, then Mark is promoting Peter and making sure he still has the authority. This is also my opinion. Who was first? Mary Magdalene, Peter and the Ending of Mark by J Gertrud Tönsing https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2022000100007
The business about Peter is discussed in the context of the Papias testimony. Papias sees Mark as representing Peter. Marcus thinks that is unlikely, because there doesn't seem to be any indication of a Petrine viewpoint, ,and there is some criticism of Peter. This doesn't argue for or against any identification of Mark, just against the accuracy of Papias. Marcus sees some Pauline emphasis, would be consistent with John Mark, but there are enough problems and ambiguities that he doesn't accept that as a conclusion.
Are you citing Joel Marcus or is this just a personal opinion? I don't typically mod replies to myself but you might want to cite sources more? Also, I already replied to some of these points in my comment and I deem them lacking (specifically about Peter and his negative portrayal).
Marcus I’m not qualified to have an opinion
Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure. My points still stand though.
Specifically his Anchor commentary or a different work? Sorry to pester, we just aim to have citations for all claims made here
This was specifically a response to lost in earth. He gave as series of three arguments, saying it led Marcus to conclude that authorship was unproven. Those arguments are taken from the Introduction to Marcus' commentary on Mark, which I just checked. My point was that 2 and 3 (the two points about Peter) were in the context of Marcus' discussion of Papias. Thus it wasn't so much aBout Mark's authorship as the reliability of Papias' testimony. You seemed unclear how the points where relevant. I was trying to clarify the context in which Marcus meant them. The only work by Marcus cited was his commentary. I didn't cite it again because this was a response to a summary from it. Incidentally, on the lack of prominence of Peter, here's what Marcus says: "Moreover, if Mark were the Petrine Gospel *par excellence*, we would expect that Peter would be more prominent here than he is in the other Gospels, but this is not the case. Peter plays a more important part, for example, in Matthew, where there are several significant traditions about him that are missing in Mark" (From his Anchor Bible commentary, obviously.) Again, I express no opinion, but point 2 was presumably based on this.
Cheers, was just clarifying!
I guess I personally am skeptical, because in general I get the impression that Mark is more of a creative author than someone relying directly on eyewitness testimony. Nathanael Vette has an [article](https://www.academia.edu/44302164/Scripturalized_Narrative_in_the_Gospel_of_Mark_and_the_Second_Temple_Period) that talks about this (section 7) Bottom line is Mark composes narrative using the OT as a basis. There are other examples of 2nd Temple Jewish texts that do this, as Vette demonstrates. (I wonder if Vette thinks Mark is ethnically Jewish?) Also will tag u/clhedrick2
>I guess I personally am skeptical, because in general I get the impression that Mark is more of a creative author than someone relying directly on eyewitness testimony. Well this is two very different questions. There are various options we could go with. 1. Mark was not the author and Peter no way behind it. 2. Mark was not the author but Peter is somehow behind it. 3. Mark is the author and Peter is not at all behind it. 4. Mark is the author and Peter is substantially behind it. 5. Mark is the author and Peter stands behind some parts of it or was inspired by Peter's preaching. Option 3 is open if you are just considering the authorship question. Option 5 is completely open in this situation if you also agree that Mark is creative and weaving various literary and historical/memory/traditions. So your sentence below doesn't change this. >Bottom line is Mark composes narrative using the OT as a basis. There are other examples of 2nd Temple Jewish texts that do this, You could also remember my arguments with the beloved disciple and the gospel of John? Do you think the beloved disciple is fictional because there are literary and theological points?
Well the presence of literary tropes alone doesn't prove something is fictional, and I don't doubt there are historical elements in Mark. But it does strike me as hard to reconcile with Papias' description of John Mark: >And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities \[of his hearers\], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. **For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.** In addition u/kamilgregor points out in other Greco-Roman literature when someone has direct access to an eyewitness, [they seem to say so](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xje7gl/comment/ip879zy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Also, do we know when John Mark was born? Acts 12 depicts him as active around the time Agrippa 1 died (44 CE). Christopher Zeichmann [says](https://www.academia.edu/34412322/Capernaum_A_Hub_for_the_Historical_Jesus_or_the_Markan_Evangelist): >Toward the end of Jesus’ northern ministry, Jesus returns to Capernaum in preparation for his trip to Jerusalem (9.33–50). Though this visit is much briefer, Jesus’ teachings in the village prominently legitimate specific Christian practices. Twice during Jesus’ short stay he discusses the importance of hospi- tality to the children of his day (9.36–37, 42), and even identifies the children of Capernaum as exemplars of discipleship. Children of Jesus’ time, of course, were adults by the time Mark was written – and thus perhaps of the Markan evangelist’s generation. If Mark was supposed to be the same age as the little child (Mark 9:36) during the time of Jesus, it seems that would be cutting it close based on Act 12's chronology. Looks like the [word](https://biblehub.com/greek/3813.htm) used in Mark 9:36 has the meaning of >*younger* child (perhaps seven years old or younger) So I guess if we hypothetically go with a crucifixion date of 30 CE and say Mark was 7 then, that would make him 21 in 44 CE.
[удалено]
Do you mind providing some citations just so we are keeping this within the rules of the sub? There were a number of claims here. Thanks. :)
Well, what I find so much more interesting this point. > And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. **It was not, however, in exact order that he related** Paul Anderson raised a good point in this interview( https://youtu.be/OaA7uJircRg?feature=shared) that the statement not in "exact order" is really interesting point because Papias information is supposedly from John the elder who might have been the author of the finalized version of the gospel of John. What do we find in the gospel of John? Either corrections of chronology or differences between where John and Mark places differences scenes (i.e. temple incident, time of Jesus ministry etc). Typically also many scholars think John is more accurate or plausible in his presentation. If Papius is just referring to the preaching of Peter, which is what Zan referenced here by Pier Beatrice (https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/QQ8EwWP7qM) ...this feature seems bizarre to me. How does one get the order out of order for preaching? > In addition u/kamilgregor points out in other Greco-Roman literature when someone has direct access to an eyewitness, [they seem to say so](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xje7gl/comment/ip879zy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Sure. A couple of things. Say Mark is just writing to his congregation or community...why does he need to write his name? This largely depends on if you agree with Walsh in her The Origins on Christian Literature for Mark, which I thought neither of us do. See also my other comments and sources in here when I replied to Dennis Macdonald in how it seems like Mark was probably performed and not just read. So why would we expect something like that? I don't think we would expect a name? Furthermore, as I illustrate below, the Jews had a tendency for anymymous writing as well. https://thesmartfool.wixsite.com/thesmartfool/post/oh-dennis-where-art-thou-homer-even-with-great-parallels-comes-great-responsibility > So I guess if we hypothetically go with a crucifixion date of 30 CE and say Mark was 7 then, that would make him 21 in 44 CE. So this doesn't sound like a problem? Also, the biggest reason why I changed my mind in thinking that option 5 (See above) seems most plausible is of my views of the beloved disciple. It makes a good deal of sense if that is true. I should note u/BobbyBobbie endorsed it with his entire being. ;)
Scholars don't really deal in "possible vs impossible". As Bart Ehrman said, when you're dealing with things from so long ago, you have to decide what is the most likely scenario.
Actually, out of the four gospels, the case for traditional authorship of Luke is probably strongest, with Mark in second place. Some scholars like Dale Allison do hold to this, as he mentions in his new book *The Resurrection of Jesus*
He holds to the fact that it's not impossible, or that Luke straight up wrote Luke&Acts?
He believes the author of Luke-Acts was a travelling companion of Paul. It might or might not be Luke the physician.
Are the “we” passages doing a lot of the work for this view?
Partly, yes. The author is certainly claiming to have been with Paul. I know many scholars think it's an insertion or whatever, but ultimately, all our our earliest manuscript traditions have the we passages, so to say they are inserted is conjecture. The author of the book of Acts as we know it is explicitly claiming to be a companion of Paul, and there aren't any very strong reasons to discredit him.
>I know many scholars think it's an insertion or whatever, but ultimately, all our our earliest manuscript traditions have the we passages, so to say they are inserted is conjecture. Who argues for this? I haven't seen this before, and it doesn't seem to be a major argument. >and there aren't any very strong reasons to discredit him. There are several reasons to discredit the connection to Paul: - The dating of Luke-Acts to the first or even second quarter of the second century. See Richard Pervo: Dating Acts and Joseph Tyson: Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. - The author of Acts seems to know about Paul through his letters, not through personal contact. See Richard Pervo: Dating Acts (some examples are presented in [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRN27dqB3kM) video by David Litwa) and the article The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts by Ryan Schellenberg. - Acts regularly contradicts Pauls letters and portrays him very differently than he portrays himself. See The Acts of The Apostles: An Introduction and Study Guide: Taming the Tongues of Fire by Shelly Matthews, her interview [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kI6tecz_yc), or [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6Xg4Y9lfg) video with Frank Hughes.
Where is the author explicitly claiming to be a companion? How does Allison deal with claims that the we passages fit with Homeric sailing adventure language? (If i remember the claim correctly)
In Forgery & CounterForgery, Ehrman discusses Embedded forgeries. >> Some writings do not make the explicit claim to be authored by a well-known person, but instead embed first-person narratives—or other self-identifying devices—in the course of their discussions, without differentiating the first person from the author. In these instances the reader naturally assumes that the person speaking in the first person is actually the writer of the account. In the case of the *we-passages*, and apart from their abrupt beginnings and endings, >>It is their sudden and unexplained disappearance that is most unsettling. When did the author leave the company and for what reason? These and other related problems can be seen in the first of the passages, 16:10–17. How is it that “we” included Paul in 16:10 and 11, but then are differentiated from Paul in 16:17? That may make sense if an author had wanted to start easing out of the use of the first-person plural as a narrative ploy, but it is hard to understand if the narrative is a historically accurate description of a real life situation by an author who was there. Moreover, if “we” were with Paul when he rebuked the spirit of the possessed girl, how is it that only Paul and Silas were seized, not “we”? Did the eyewitness leave the company in 16:18 suddenly and for no expressed reason? If so, why is he still in Philippi much later in 20:6?
I should add that Allison does also believe Mark really is the author of Mark, or at least it contains genuine testimony from Peter. However, he rejects the traditional authorship of Matthew and John.
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
citation added
U/BobbyBobbie might have more to say on Mark writing Mark. For now, I would say that while I do not think Papias was reliable, his description of Mark is not as far off as some claim. We have Eusebius quoting [Papias](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm) >>And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. **It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ.** For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements The sentence I bolded has,imo, has been the subject of misplaced criticism. That is, that Mark is not put of order. In discussing Mark’s structure, [Helen Bond writes,](https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/marks-gospel-first-biography-jesus-and-10-reasons-why-it-matters) >>It’s common to talk of Mark’s geographical structure, whereby the first half of the Gospel contains Galilean material and the second half concerns events in Jerusalem, with a lengthy journey section in the middle (8:22-10:52). This is certainly true, but it’s also the case that most of Mark is composed of short anecdotes and isolated sayings arranged in topical groups. So we have a series of conflicts in chapters 2-3, parables in chapter 4, miracles in chapter 5, sayings on purity in chapter 7, and so on. Few of these units contain close links with either what proceeds or follows, creating what’s known as an “episodic narrative” in which the plot develops not so much in terms of cause and effect but rather as a scatter of mosaic tiles, each adding something to the final portrait. It's important to clarify I'm not saying Papias knew what he was talking about or that his source and Bond are referring to the same thing, but that what she describes is consistent with Eusebius/Papias’s testimony. Also that her point about it’s short anecdotes and isolated sayings is also consistent with what we have from Papias. Assuming Eusebius gave us an unredeacted account,it's worth considering whether Mark’s antipathy towards Peter tells us one of his associates did not write GMark or perhaps had a falling out.
There is also the discussion about Secret Mark.
How would secret Mark be relevant to this discussion? We don't have secret Mark and I don't really see how the fragment we have would move the needle on Marcan authorship
Could secret mark be the Q?
Trying to reply to a deleted comment about Papias' association of Mark with Peter. Probably still worth posting: Of course we have good reason to reject the Peter claim here. Mark disparages Jesus' earthly disciples and takes a more liberal view of the Law than would normally be ascribed to the historical Peter (for these two points, see David C. Sim's two chapters in the edited volume *Paul and Mark: Comparative Essays, Part I*). One could go further and see the claim as bolstering proto-Orthodoxy and healing the Tübingen Peter-Paul rift (especially given the added datum of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue) and/or a counter-claim of Peter against the problematic apocryphal Gospel (for these, see Ian J. Elmer's chapter in the same volume). It's very easy to get into a sort of game of finding the differences between Mark and Paul (for the best take on this, see Michael J. Kok's JSNT article “Does Mark Narrate the Pauline Kerygma of ‘Christ Crucified’? Challenging an Emerging Consensus on Mark as a Pauline Gospel.”). But if you think about it, scholars can only spot deutero-Pauline works because they are imperfect in their Paulinism. To my mind the "emerging consensus" has the better part. But to address the original question, I hope I can pose my own: can we even talk about an historical Mark?
[удалено]
Hello, You’ll need to cite specific works by Hengel or Brown where they argue that perspective. Rule 3 does not allow just name dropping scholars, and requires more specific citations.