If Mark knows Paul but Paul knows nothing of Jesus' life...

[Charles Wilson]

Hello everyone --

I do not know if there is a Thread on this Site that has discussed this - there are probably many - but in reading Turton's Blog on Mark ( http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html ), I came across a section that has some serious implications:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark10.html#10X : "Did the Gospel of Mark know the Pauline Corpus?"

Recently, there was discussion concerning how much, if any, of "Jesus' Life" in the Gospels was referenced in the Paulines and the answer was, "Not Much". Turton's analysis brings up the question:

'If the Paulines have little knowledge of "Jesus' Life" but, for example, Markan Chiasms carry a suspicious use of Pauline language, one reasonable conclusion would be that the Gospels were constructed AFTER the Paulines and a fictitious character had a life built around the Salvific Sacrifice painted in the Paulines."

"Jesus" raises Jairus' Daughter and this and other specific miracles are not mentioned in the Paulines? A "Man with a Withered Hand" finds no mention?

If we look into the [datable] surviving Jewish Literature and we find Priestly Settlements and other language describing day-to-day living, yet find no mention of a city of "Tiberius" might we conclude that Tiberius was founded AFTER this Jewish Literature was composed?

We have covered similar themes before ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=grafted+empty+tomb ). If the Empty Tomb Motif is manufactured and then grafted into the Gospels and the Empty Tomb is incorporated into the Markan Chiastic Structure, the Empty Tomb necessarily preceeds the Construction of Mark.

Therefore, the Paulines were separate and prior to Mark and we should conclude that the Gospels were constructed around the Paulines - which had no knowledge of a "Jesus".

CW

[Bernard Muller]

1) His name is Jesus (Ro 5:15 "the one man Jesus Christ", 2 Cor 8:9, etc).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3)).
3) He was a minister/servant to (only) Jews (Ro 15:8).
4) He was of no reputation and humble (Php 2:7-8).
5) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
6) The crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews: see here: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html
7) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
8) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
9) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
10) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).

Notes:

a) After the crucifixion, Paul concentrated on "Christ (=king of the Jews) crucified": 1 Cor 2:2
b) Also Paul wrote Jesus was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and becoming of a woman (Gal 4:4).
c) Paul said Jesus was "determined/marked out to be the Son of God ... by the resurrection from the dead" (Ro 1:4) meaning Jesus did not provide any indication he was the Son of God prior to his alleged resurrection.
d) See also: Were the earliest Christians of Corinth told about Jesus in a worldly manner? (Yes, according to a basic analysis of 2 Corinthians 5:16b): http://historical-jesus.info/20.html

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

That's essentially what my book, Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed proposes... (That the first Gospel was written by someone who used the Pauline letters as the basis for the creation of their narrative, and that essentially the life of Jesus is based on the life of Paul).

I still think this is the case, but the whole situation is vastly more complex than what I laid out in Deciphering the Gospels. The book I'm working on now delves into all of the complexity, plus adds in a lot of relevant history regarding Greek and Roman prophecy. And of course its taking me forever to finish because it covers a lot of ground and gets into so much complexity. But really the way I see it now, the origins and development of Judaism are the essential key to understanding the origins of the Jesus story and where the Pauline letters came from.

[Charles Wilson]

Galatians 3: 1 (RSV):

[1] O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

Bernard Muller --

As usual, the Text takes us across the river on the razor's edge of what is possible vs. what was Real.
Again, from Turton's Study of Mark and his Sensibilities:

"Was Mark meant to be Performed?" ( http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark09.html#9X )

"For more than a century scholars have noticed how the structuring of the Passion Narrative (arrest, trial, and death of Jesus) resembles a play. Livio Stecchini and Jan Sammer have even proposed a reconstruction of the Passion Narrative as Nazarenus: Seneca's Lost Play. While there is no evidence to link the Passion to Seneca, their reconstruction does offer many possibilities for thinking about how Mark is constructed.

In her study of Mark 4:11-12, Mary Ann Beavis (1989, p128-9) proposed that the Gospel of Mark is patterned after a model of Greek tragedy that became standardized in Hellenistic times. This five act pattern is clear in the tragedies of Seneca, but may also be found in the most complete surviving Hellenistic tragedy, the Exagoge of Exekiel. Her reconstruction of Mark follows the basic program of prologue, episode, and chorus, laid out by Aristotle in his Poetics. In her reconstruction, the writer of Mark varied this model by substituting teaching sections for the chorus. John Dart (2003, p158-171), also reconstructs Mark as a five act presentation with a prologue and a conclusion.

"Seeing the Gospel of Mark as a performed text may also explain some other aspects of the story. For example, the writer's vague geography and lack of geographical description and detail may reflect the expectation that those items would be presented visually. All the writer had to do was give some general idea of the location of incidents: a synagogue, a lonely place, the other side, in the house, and so on. The set crew would do the rest. Further, none of Jesus' miracles represent actions that would have been physically difficult or materially complicated and expensive to portray on stage. Jesus doesn't fly, move mountains, cast lightning, or transform one object into another. Instead, the blind see, the lame walk, demons leave their hosts, and a fig tree wilts. Clearly, the Gospel of Mark could easily be staged by a non-professional cast and crew on short notice, with a minimum of sets and equipment..."
***
The first - argumentative - response is that the listed correlates are "Mere Predicates" and not "Necessary Attributes":

"1) His name is Jesus (Ro 5:15 "the one man Jesus Christ", 2 Cor 8:9, etc)...."

His name could have been "Melvin". In this sense, each of the "Facts' could have been something else. Does this invalidate the criticism? No.
From the fact that there are listed correlates it does not follow that the Order of Construction is different from "Paulines --> Mark". It is entrirely plausible that the Gospels were written - constructed - after the Paulines to "Flesh Out" the Metaphysics of a newly created savior-god. After all, there are abridged versions of Moby Dick that have been published with all of the whaling ship detail edited out so that the greater story could be told.

I see the list as "Predicates", accidental assignments for effect. You see the list as "Attributes", necessary overlaps of a unified story. S' OK.
***
RGP --

Look at 1 Corinthians 1: 10 - 17 (RSV):

[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I have this from Tacitus, when Mucianus takes Power ahead of Vespasian:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire. The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins..."

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus..." thus represents the death of Stephen Martyr. Replace "Stoned" with "Opening his veins". "Priscus" becomes "Crispus" and "Gaius" becomes "Caius". "The Household of Stephanas" represents the Piso Family and the word "Baptism" takes on an entirely different meaning.

At least one fragment can therefore be traced to the Interregnum before the ascension of the Flavians, as found in Tacitus.

You're correct:

"It's very complicated..."

Best to both of you,

CW

[lsayre]

If Mark heard things that were adrift, and Paul heard things that were adrift, then neither need to have been aware of the other. Even if some of what was adrift was originated by one or the other of these.

[rgprice]

@lsayre There is extensive evidence of literary dependency of Mark on Paul.

[lsayre]

@lsayre There is extensive evidence of literary dependency of Mark on Paul.

I know and respect that this is your position, a well as the position of many others (often with an apologetic motive to unify and consolidate the early history of the faith), but sorry, I'm not buying it. There is likely no unified progression from a Paul to a Mark (or visa-versa). But there is likely need to unify and thereby achieve the appearance of such a progression.

It may well be that the effectively plagiarized works (writings, perhaps originally extensive, but later perceived, after redaction and appreciable culling, as a series of letters) of someone whom we have come to know as Paul were originally writings about something highly to even completely other than what came to later be known as Christianity. I.E., that Paul was Christianized when it became expedient to do so for catholicizing (lower case 'c') purposes. And such catholicizing may well have been state sponsored.