Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    Hi Maurice; I accept Papias that bilingual Greek/Aramaic Mark became a companion of Peter/Kefa after becoming disillusioned with Paul and became an interpreter
    Message 1 of 56 , May 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Maurice;

      I accept Papias that bilingual Greek/Aramaic Mark became a companion of
      Peter/Kefa after becoming disillusioned with Paul and became an interpreter
      for the Aramaic speaking Peter for Greek speaking audiences,

      In 44 CE Paul of Tarsus and Yahosef Bar Naba (Barnabas) brought famine
      relief to Jerusalem and returned to Antioch taking Yohanan Marcus (Mark), a
      nephew of Barnabas, with them. One of the stops in this journey was Perga,
      capital city of Pamphilia, on the southwest coast of what is now Turkey. In
      Perga Mark and Paul had a serious falling out, the reason for which is not
      recorded. Mark returns to Jerusalem and become Peter's companion,
      interpreter and translator as the Aramaic speaking Peter travels and speaks
      to Greek speaking audiences. The earliest written reference to this is
      Papias:

      "And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of
      Peter, [ερμηνευτης Πετρου] wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many
      things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For
      he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who
      would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering
      together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written
      certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave
      out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them."

      I think the bilingual Aramaic-Greek author of Mark was indeed the
      John/Yohanan Mark mentioned in Acts. The lexical and syntactic underlying
      Aramaic convinces me of an early 1st century origin. My position, which is
      unique, is that Mark took down notes in Aramaic when he traveled with Peter
      and interpreted Peter's Aramaic speeches to Greek for the Greek speaking
      audiences town after town. I think there were two "notebooks," one of
      "Jesus saids..." and one of "Jesus dids..."

      At what time Mark used his Aramaic notes to compose the first edition of his
      gospel is difficult to determine. I tend to follow Casey in part. On the
      basis of the Aramaic content, Casey poses in "Aramaic Sources of Mark's
      Gospel" P. 259 that it was before 40 CE. I differ from Casey in that I
      think Mark composed his Greek gospel after the death of Peter (64-69 CE) but
      he wrote the Aramaic notes that he used as a source between 46 CE and
      60 CE. If Thomas is Mark's sayings notebook it was written prior to the
      composition of the Gospel and prior to James' death.

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX

      --------------------------------------------------
      From: "Maurice" <cobby@...>
      Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 8:06 PM
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas

      > Hello Jack ...
      >
      > I find your note on the above subject to be especially interesting because
      > it departs from the usually acccepted convention in academic circles
      > (particularly in the case of Thomas)of building arguments largely (or
      > often "solely") on the backs and whims of other researchers who sometimes
      > make claims which are not always provable.
      >
      > Having said that, I have to come back to your comment that (contrary to
      > popular academia) you point out that "Most on these forums that know me
      > are aware that I do not believe Mark USED Thomas but that Mark WROTE
      > Thomas .... " (Wow !)
      >
      > As an armchair detective looking at the evidence I seem to be missing
      > something here. Because Mark 13:2 refers to the destruction of the temple
      > at Jerusalem in 70 CE, he would have had to write his Gospel later than
      > that date.(70 CE) Having said that, if, as you also suggest, Mark also
      > wrote the GoT (including logion 12 wherein he tells the disciples to " ...
      > go to James the righteous for council and leadership after Jesus' death)
      > he is the in the akward position of telling the disciples to go consult "a
      > dead" James the Just for their needs, since we know from
      > Josephus/Hegesippus that James the Just died "shortly after the death of
      > Festus … i.e. around 62 C.E. (see Acts also, - trial of Paul by Caesar).
      > Hmmmm !
      >
      > As a result, the date of record for logion 12 must thus necessarily be
      > prior to 62 C.E. (when James was alive) and Mark (the presumed author of
      > the GoT according to your theory) would have had to know that fact if /
      > when he supposedly wrote Thomas .... Indeed, if logion 12 had been written
      > later than 62 C.E., Mark (its recorder) would have had to write something
      > like "He told them that they were to go to James the Just" (past tense) as
      > opposed to "He said to them you are to go (present tense) to James the
      > Just" as the GoT factually records.
      >
      > Can you expand a bit on how you arrive at your conclusion that Mark wrote
      > the GoT in light of logion 12 which would be nonsensical for Mark to write
      > ???
      >
      > Maurice Cormier
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
      > Interlinear translation: http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • ronmccann1@shaw.ca
      Hi Jack, Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact
      Message 56 of 56 , May 7, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jack,
         
        Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon.
         
        Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact that, as a historian, you picked up two historical references to two very, very early Chritian documents in Papias (The Matthean Logia and Mark's Notes) and have proposed that one was our Book of Q and the other the Gospel of Thomas.
        Quite an original idea, and well worth exploring.
        It's been been both interesting and stimulating trying to test out your intriguing proposal.
        Thanks.
         
        When you get back to this, I have a question.- Since the Matthean Logia is said to have been written down in Aramaic (actually, Papais calls it "Hebrew".) wouldn't back translating the Q parallel sayings in Thomas not also yield the sort of results you've found in the Markan sayings?
         
        Best Regards,
         
        Ron McCann
        Sasakatoon, Canada         PS Couldn't find a listing for a Kilmon in the phone book. Does yourr son go by a different name or like many of the younger set,  does he use only a cellphone?
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.