In a discussion on the Catholic Debate Forum I am involved in with an Atheist, the discussion of the Gospel According to St. Mark being a record of St. Peter's preaching came up.
MJ: 1 - Even under Christian and specifically Catholic assumptions, the
universal consensus of the early fathers is that Peter's earliest
preaching after Jesus died, is accurately reflected in Mark's gospel;
SW: OK, while I have not read every single one of the ECFs (Early Church Fathers), I will grant you this.
MJ: 2 - Granting that historical consensus solely for the sake of argument, reading Mark's text constitutes reading the earliest version of Peter's preaching.
SW: OK, so you grant this too - even if "only for the sake of argument."
MJ: 3 - I agree with the modern consensus of bible scholars that Mark did not write anything after 16:8;
SW:
I do not agree with this Modernist interpretation, and thus far the
only source you've cited for this is the highly questionable JBC (Jerome Bible Commentary).
MJ: 4 - I agree with the modern consensus of bible scholars that Mark is the earliest published gospel among the 4.
SW:
Not that I think it really matters - but I do not agree. I believe it
is just as tenable that Mark relied heavily on the "Q" document. AND,
regardless of speculation on "Q" or "Mark wrote first" or "Matthew got
his information from Mark" - NONE of that DISPROVES that Mark actually
wrote what Peter preached.
MJ: 5
- Under these presuppositions which are held by many Christians and
Catholics,
SW: Wait! You earlier
stated that this is "consensus" and now you're just saying "many
Christians and Catholics" (and, um, Catholics ARE Christians!). So much
for consistency.
MJ: (continuing point 5) ...and which I grant solely for the sake of argument, after
Jesus died, the earliest testimony from Peter on the gospel said nothing about anybody seeing a resurrected Jesus.
SW: And as I pointed out in the other thread - 1 Peter 1:1 ff. is clearly St. Peter stating the fact of the Resurrection.
MJ: (still continuing point 5) The earliest version of Peter's resurrection message did not have more to say beyond what is asserted between Mark 16:1-8, in which case, Mark did not mention resurrection eyewitnesses, because in the earliest version of Peter's preaching, Peter did not mention them either.
SW:
That is pure speculation on your part. Because some manuscripts do not
have the verses after verse 8 does not mean they did not exist. As
long as we're speculating here, I say that the longer version was
somehow lost or overlooked due to copyist errors - BUT - other, also
very ancient manuscripts, DO have the longer ending and while NONE of
the original autographs are known to exist today - it is plausible that
they did exist when the other manuscripts (some of which date back to
the second century) were copied.
SW: The FACT is
there are at least FOUR different endings to Mark's Gospel. Another
FACT is that none of the other three endings carry more weight than the
traditionally accepted version. For you to dogmatically state that
there is consensus (without naming your sources which state such
consensus AND without demonstrating there actually IS consensus) does
not make for a valid argument. Once you go dogmatic on us, as if there
can be no other interpretation, then you're not arguing validly
anymore. To use a Catholic example (and please don't use this as an
excuse to divert, this is JUST an example) prior to the definition of a
dogma, like the Immaculate Conception, or more applicable to this
discussion, the Canon of Sacred Scripture, faithful Catholics could -
and some did - dispute or argue against or at least for some variation
of what was later defined. Once defined, however, no faithful Catholic
can dispute or argue against the definition. We MUST accept it because
it was thusly defined. When you dogmatically stated that a) Mark didn't
write verses 9-20 of Mark 16 and/or b) that those verses do not belong
to the Gospel - then you're not arguing validly anymore.
MJ: 6
- You will no doubt insist that Mark being an accurate reflection of
Peter's preaching does not mean whatever Mark omitted was something
Peter also omitted. But when you make that argument, you are, in
effect, saying that Mark omitted things from his gospel that he knew
Peter had preached. That position squarely contradicts Papias, who said
Mark was careful to "omit nothing" from what he heard Peter
preach. And when you allege Mark may have omitted some of what Peter
preached, I can buy that generally, but that theory is not plausible,
under Catholic assumptions, if what you allege Mark chose to omit was
Peter's own recollection of himself having personally seen the
resurrected Jesus.
SW:
1) That which is "missing" from the earlier manuscripts may have been
lost. This does not mean Mark omitted those verses, but somehow a leaf
was misplaced.
SW: 2a) The difference in writing
style may be due to a copyist finding another older manuscript which
included those verses and the style of that copy varied from the style
it was added back to.
SW: 2b) Maybe Mark DID stop at
verse 8 and St. Peter himself finished the chapter. St. Peter, being a
fisherman by trade, was likely not as well versed in words as his
scribe, Mark, was. Thus that is why Mark's more descriptive language
was not used in verses 9-20.
SW: 2c) The longer ending may have been "lost" to those couple of manuscripts which do not contain verses 9-20, but were not "lost" to those who copied them in the second century - as the original autographs may still have existed at that time.
SW: 3) Your argument hinges so much upon acceptance of Papias' words - that "Mark's Gospel omitted nothing of what St. Peter preached." Now, ask yourself - which version (which ending) was Papias referring to when he said Mark omitted nothing? You can't answer that - none of us can - for all we have from Papias is what Eusebius tells us - and he doesn't tell us which manuscript Papias was referring to. So, your "dogma" is reduced to speculation on ONE possible version.
SW: 4) Another fact here is, while you keep trying to tell me what I must adhere to as a "fundie Catholic," (I prefer the term "faithful Catholic" as all faithful Catholics hold to the fundamental truth taught by the Catholic Church), you falsely represent what a faithful Catholic "must" adhere to. With regard to this subject, the only thing "defined" is the Canon of Sacred Scripture itself. Thus, I "must" accept Mark 16:9-20 as belonging to the Gospel According to Mark. What I don't "have" to be bound to is how those verses got there. I am quite free to join you in speculating just how they got there, I just can't deny that they belong.
SW: I am kind of surprised that you have not mentioned "Q" yet. Maybe you're not familiar with the "Q" arguments?
AMDG,
Scott<<<
--
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.
****
This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.
All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
this footer remains attached to the message.
To visit this group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
this footer remains attached to the message.
To visit this group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
