The First Gospel Was Written By A Roman Who Had Never Been To Jerusalem

[NonXNonExX]

Actually, Abiyoyo wouldn't have been so ready to agree with my analysis if i had gone into any more detail. I think Peter was a preacher, though not necessarily a companion of a Rabbi named Jesus. Notice that Paul never acknowledges that Peter or anyone else actually knew Jesus in the flesh. Paul claimed he "knew" Jesus through his visions, but it's ridiculous to suggest that he wouldn't try to learn directly from the source if it were possible.

 

Peter the preacher gave a series of sermons revolving around the legend of Jesus, probably with embellishments and exaggerations to help illustrate and emphasize his points. The legendary pericopes that Peter used were most likely already seriously distorted versions of whatever may have actually happened since the points he was trying to make were more important to him than the accuracy of the narratives. He was probably a dynamic speaker and people found his message inspiring, so after he died Mark tried to write down as many of his sermons as he could remember, though not in any particular order, as Papias indicates. A later editor (probably editors) recognized that it could be improved by tacking on a birth narrative and ending, arranging the pericopes into an order that seemed to make sense and adding some simple general phrases to connect the pericopes together. There were obviously some sermons that Mark didn't entirely understand, but he wrote them down as faithfully as he could remember them, warts and all. This could explain some of the mistakes found in GMark as well as for its somewhat disjointed nature.

 

Further changes were probably made both accidentally and on purpose before the version we know today was produced, but the fact that the Greek is poor, people later decided to tack on two different endings and the story is generally poorly drawn makes me think that it hasn't changed that much since the editor or editors produced the first attempt to tie together all of Mark's writing into a coherent story.

 

Playing the devil's advocate, it's also important to remember that my whole analysis is based on a quote by a proven liar from a work that is no longer extant. My only justification is that it does seem to make some sense. In addition, there is no way to find a plausible connection between what Papias supposedly says about Matthew's supposed writings and GMathhew. If Papias is right, he can only be referring to a totally different work from GMatthew when he talks about Matthew's Aramaic writings.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I hate to take on the role of apologist here, but i know of at least one explanation for the errors that the author of GMark made. Peter used to give lectures on the Jesus he supposedly knew and Mark was his interpreter for people who didn't speak Aramaic. After Peter died, Mark got the idea to write down as much of what he could remember of Peter's preaching, adding some of his own beliefs and interpretations. Because he was relying on memory and adding some of his own philosophy and interpretations, errors and inconsistencies were inevitable. A later editor added a birth narrative, and a still later editor "fixed" the ending, but both left the basic story untouched.

 

There isn't a birth narrative in Mark. It jumps right into John the Baptist's baptisms. Or is there another version of Mark with a nativity intro that was later dropped?