Mark and the aphorisms (was: Mark's biggest sayings block (Mt 19:28))
- It would take too long to reply in detail to Bruce's lengthy posting, so
here are a few selected comments.
- - -
BRUCE: But the earliness of Markan material, especially where Mt/Lk have
parallels, is the logical first presumption, and in no place where such
parallels exist can it convincingly be shown that Mark is later.
RON: Read the detailed comments of any Q scholar, and you will see that
where 'Q' overlaps with Mark in the aphorisms, the Double Tradition of
Matthew and Luke is invariably judged to represent an earlier form of the
- - -
RON: For instance, if one or both made use of an even earlier written source
BRUCE: Which there is no a priori reason to assume.
Ron: Oh but there is. For Papias wrote about such a document. "Matthew made
an orderly arrangement of the logia .....", as quoted by Eusebius.
- - -
BRUCE: The Twelve myth .....
RON: Paul had little time for the twelve, but he did acknowledge their
existence (1 Cor 15:5), and so did the logia (saying C21 in the web page
- - -
BRUCE: No. The myth of Jerusalem is propounded by Matthew, and echoed by a
somewhat chastened Luke, in (among other things) the claim that Jesus's
appearances to his disciples, the key proof of the Resurrection, occurred in
Jerusalem. But Mark makes it obvious that the Appearance of Jesus took place
RON: It's not at all obvious in the original version minus 14:28 and 16:7.
BRUCE: ..... it is surely interesting that the thrust of
that teaching is overwhelmingly non-Resurrection. ..... So what the
Apostles produced, or conformed to, insofar as the Apostolic literature is
worth anything as evidence, is likely to be an early form of Christianity,
the thing whose basic teachings were propounded before the death of Jesus.
RON: Indeed, and if you examine my reconstruction of the logia on the web
page below, you will not find any mention of the resurrection, nor of
anything that would not have been palatable to James the brother of Jesus.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Jeff Peterson wrote:
> ..... while Paul doesn't mention signsJeff,
> and wonders performed by Jesus, he does regard signs and wonders as marking
> apostles of the risen Christ (Rom 15:1819; 2 Cor 12:12).
Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders,
though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which is
Paul's strongest statement on the subject, that the context is his desperate
desire to present himself as a true apostle. Also he was somewhat agitated
(2 Cor 12:11).
But unfortunately none of the four claims to deeds of power (your two plus 1
Thess 1:5 and 1 Cor 2:4) are accompanied by details. Consequently we can't
be sure what Paul meant, and there is at least the possibility that he was
referring to the drama of mass conversions which this persuasive missionary
no doubt initiated.
> It wouldn't be a great leap to suppose that Paul had heard reports fromBut this is nothing more than a supposition, and its perceived likelihood
> Cephas, James, et al. of signs and wonders performed by Christ .....
depends on whether or not we consider (on other grounds) that Jesus was a
So I still maintain that our only independent witness to Jesus as a miracle
worker is the gospel of Mark.