Is Markan Priority Wrong?

[Furrowed Brow]

In forming a reply to ThatGirlAgain I took a look at Markan Priority and the accepted idea that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to Mark. I am beginning to convince myself it was the author of Mark that had access to Matthew and Luke. Here is one argument I gave ThattheGirl

But lets look at the kind of thinking that leads to Markan Priority to test just how firm it really is and give you an idea of the kind of thing I am on about. Here is an argument given in favour of Markan priority I plucked from wiki

• 1/ the shortness of Mark and way it omits content that is in Matt and Luke. So Matt and Luke include stuff Mark leaves out which some argue is unlikely.
  2/ Most of Mark is found in Matthew or Luke. If mark was editing Matt and Luke he adds little.
  3/ What little Mark adds seems strange and ripe for editing out if Matt and Luke were editing Mark.

Seems logical and it supports the notion of the less elaborate Mark came first. OK as I write this I admit my ignorance and dont actually know how much of Mark is in Matt and how much is in Luke. But play along with me for a moment. What would be needed to make it plausible Mark was editing Matt and Luke? Lets assume the author of Mark has Luke and Matt in front of him. He samples some of each but not all. If Mark is using them as sources and they are largely his only source then it is guaranteed most of Mark will be found in Matt or Luke. We need no additional assumptions like Q and we get most of Mark in Matt and Luke without further effort. This scenario is logically simpler than a scenario that has to invent Q. Now go the next step. What if most of Mark is found in Matt and the most of Mark found in Luke. If that were true it would mean Mark was trying to form a synthesis of the two and note all the common elements. That is the only additional assumption you need. Moreover it has a compelling motivation. Mark was trying to find out what he could with confidence say was most likely true given his two sources. That is not much of an assumption.

Now go back to Markan priority. If Matt and Luke are editing Mark, to get most of Mark across both Matt and Luke they would have to have colluded to ensure the coverage or this is accidental, or far more likely one had access to the other. Say it is Luke that had had access to Matthew as you suggested earlier, then Luke edited Mark and Matthew, and Matthew edited Mark. If Q is on his desk as well that is another additional complication to the story. But it means for some reason Luke was less impressed with Matt or less willing to use Matt as a source as he was keen to use Mark. We have no clear motivation for this, and still the logically simplest solution is let Mark edit Matt and Luke

Question: Is Markan Priority wrong?

[Furrowed Brow]

Roman Tenth Legion (X Fretensis) were stationed in Syria around the year both 6 and 18 C.E.

Its presence in Syria in 6, however, is a certainty. Our unit, together with III Gallica, VI Ferrata, and XII Fulminata, must have taken part in the campaign led by the famous governor of Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, to Judaea in 6, which had become restless after the emperor Augustus had exiled Herod Archelaus, added his realm to the Roman empire, and organized the census so well-known from the Gospel of Luke. Ref

The tenth were in Ludea (Judea) in 66 Ref.

So we have the Tenth in Judea in both 6 and 66, both before the death of Peter. The metaphor of pigs for the tenth could have started as early as 6. The Syrian connection also places Paul in the frame. Paul was in Rome around 60. If the pigs are a metaphor for the Tenth and that is an if then the metaphor can be traced back to Judea in 6. If Mark is writing in 70-75 then the reference to the pigs would be all the more poignant and reinforcing an older tradition that traces back to then. But the story itself came though Peter, or even maybe some cross fertilisation with Paul, and reveals older strories.

In your version Mark has to invent the passage in response to the events of 67. In this version he is accessing older material that also happens to be apt.

But why would Mark want to tone down the authority of Jesus?

He doesn't. Mark to the best of his ability is simply trying to preserve what Peter taught and what he can reconcile with what Peter taught. It is more likely he used the language closer to Peter. I don't think Mark as a political or theological axe to grind in this sense he is trying to position Christianity or present it in a certain light. He is the loyal follower of Peter doing his best to be faithful to that tradition and not add anything he feels is fictitious.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Roman Tenth Legion (X Fretensis) were stationed in Syria around the year both 6 and 18 C.E.

Its presence in Syria in 6, however, is a certainty. Our unit, together with III Gallica, VI Ferrata, and XII Fulminata, must have taken part in the campaign led by the famous governor of Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, to Judaea in 6, which had become restless after the emperor Augustus had exiled Herod Archelaus, added his realm to the Roman empire, and organized the census so well-known from the Gospel of Luke. Ref

The tenth were in Ludea (Judea) in 66 Ref.

So we have the Tenth in Judea in both 6 and 66, both before the death of Peter. The metaphor of pigs for the tenth could have started as early as 6. The Syrian connection also places Paul in the frame. Paul was in Rome around 60. If the pigs are a metaphor for the Tenth and that is an if then the metaphor can be traced back to Judea in 6. If Mark is writing in 70-75 then the reference to the pigs would be all the more poignant and reinforcing an older tradition that traces back to then. But the story itself came though Peter, or even maybe some cross fertilisation with Paul, and reveals older stories.

In your version Mark has to invent the passage in response to the events of 67. In this version he is accessing older material that also happens to be apt.

According to this, the boar insignia was given to the Tenth when they were in the Balkans, before Syria and before the 6 CE insurrection. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information but the several people in the conversation appear to be knowledgeable.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 406AA2SiS8

The distaste for the Tenths insignia could very well date that far back. We might note in passing that Luke places the nativity of Jesus at the time of this census. But instead of referencing the insurrection, Luke has angels proclaiming peace, separating the Jesus movement once again from Jewish uprisings.

But the role of the Tenth Legion in suppressing the census revolt in 6 CE does not explain Marks reference to members of the Tenth being killed by falling down a steep slope just as many of the defenders of Gamala died, or why Mark specifies the number 2000, the Tenths likely contribution to the forces attacking Gamala, or why the demons into pigs story happens near Gamala. These things are explained in the posts I referenced above and the various links they contain. The clear connection is to the siege of Gamala in 67 CE. When is Peter supposed to have left Judaea? When is he supposed to have died?

But why would Mark want to tone down the authority of Jesus?

He doesn't. Mark to the best of his ability is simply trying to preserve what Peter taught and what he can reconcile with what Peter taught. It is more likely he used the language closer to Peter. I don't think Mark as a political or theological axe to grind in this sense he is trying to position Christianity or present it in a certain light. He is the loyal follower of Peter doing his best to be faithful to that tradition and not add anything he feels is fictitious.

This is actually an interesting theory. But there are just too many clear links in Mark to events that happen too late for Peter to have stories about them. If I can ever find the time I will analyze Mark 12 and 13 with respect to the siege of Jerusalem.

[Student]

If Mark was Peters interpreter you have to explain Marks ignorance [and by implication that of Peter] of Palestinian Jewish customs and practice, as well as his general ignorance of the geography of Palestine.

Well you will need to be more specific as to where you think Mark gets it wrong.

A few well documented geographical errors:

In Mark 7:31 the author describes Jesus going from Tyre 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns'. There is no hint that the author of Mark considers this to be a protracted journey. However this is similar to a journey from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome.

Mark 11:1(& Luke 19:29) has Jesus and his companions approaching Jerusalem from Jericho via Bethpage and then Bethany. Peter would know that in reality you would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage.

Mark, in the episode on the healing of the demoniac sets the incident in the region of the Gerasenes, or Gerasa. [Mark 5:1]

It is clear from this story that the author of Mark thought that Gerasa to be a town situated near the Sea of Galilee. Unfortunately Gerasa is more than 30 miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, hardly the most convenient location for drowning the pigs.

(Matthew relocates the demoniac to Gadara, which is only six miles from the lakeshore but still a fair trot for your average pig.)

Errors regarding Jewish customs:

In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus is quoted as making some pronouncements on divorce:
He [Jesus] answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Jesus last sentence implies that women had the right to divorce her husband. But according to Jewish Law a woman had no right of divorce whatsoever. In Roman law, of course, a woman had that right. The author of Mark mistakenly assumed that this was so for Jewish Law as well. Peter would surely have put him right.

Mark 14:13 says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Peter would know that a Jewish man would never do a woman's work.

Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen cloth." Peter would have known that a Jew would not have bought something on the Sabbath.

The tradition of Papias, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Jerome all state Mark was Peters interpreter., with the exception of Tertullian they all say he wrote down Peters teachings. Origen says he regarded Mark as his son. Maybe they got information wrong. But it seems a plausible start.

Papias is, of course, the only independent witness, for the other reports concerning Mark as Peters Memoirs and about the circumstances which induced Mark to write down the preaching of Peter (Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Hieronymus etc.) are all dependent upon Papias and have no independent value as evidence. [W.G. Kmmel; Introduction to the New Testament; p69]

So, no independent corroboration of Papias. Furthermore, if, as Eusebius says of Papias, he was evidently a man of exceedingly small intelligence we should be cautious about accepting his testimony uncritically.

[Furrowed Brow]

But the role of the Tenth Legion in suppressing the census revolt in 6 CE does not explain Marks reference to members of the Tenth being killed by falling down a steep slope just as many of the defenders of Gamala died, or why Mark specifies the number 2000, the Tenths likely contribution to the forces attacking Gamala,

Likely? A Legion is 6,000. If you have not got a very strong reason for saying the Tenth were 2000 in number or at least Mark would think they are 2000 in number this connecting is tenuous at best.

or why the demons into pigs story happens near Gamala.

The 6 C.E revolt was lead by Judas whose home town was Gamala Reference So we got the tenth and a revolt lead by a fellah from Gamala 6 C.E. Talk about history repeating itself. Apparently the 6 C.E rebellion is referenced in Acts 5:37

• Acts 5:37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered

If we are going to play the metaphor game could the man with bad spirits be a reference to Judas?

• Mark 5:3-5 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5

This site contains picture of Gamala Go here. Assuming it has not changed much anyone fighting a rebellion there and loses is going downhill, or maybe over the waterfall. Roman Legion kills itself at Gamala the hometown of Judah the leader of first the rebellion a man who cannot be chained but is tormented by a Legion. Heck sounds thin but that is the problem with reading hidden meanings into a text like this. The fact they are described rushing down the steep sides of the hill is about the clearest way a metaphor writer can reference Gamala, other than maybe reference the water fall. It is equally plausible if the story is meant to make a point about a massacre at Gamala that the story was already established well before 67. To go the step and say it is a reference to the later 67 rebellion and massacre is narrow focussed. Maybe you are right. But its looking thin as an argument.

When is Peter supposed to have left Judaea? When is he supposed to have died?

Around 67C.E according to Wiki who cite Origen and Tertullian as the sources. Mark probably wrote around 70-75 C.E. Both Origen and Tertullian also reference Mark as Peters interpreter by the way.

[ThatGirlAgain]

As promised.

Argument that Mark 13 refers specifically to the First Revolt and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus.

Mark 13:1-2
1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!
2 Do you see all these great buildings? replied Jesus. Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.

Josephus tells us in graphic detail how much of Jerusalem was deliberately destroyed and what was spared and what practical and propaganda reasons the Romans had for leaving what little they did. It is not surprising that Mark should omit those details.

1. NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war7.html

Mark 13:3-5
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?
5 Jesus said to them: Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, I am he, and will deceive many.

Here are two Messiah claimants associated with the First Revolt.
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts11.html
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts12.html

Mark 13:7
7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

Fighting during the First Revolt was all over Judaea and the Galilee for several years, wars and rumors of wars indeed. That this is not the end is Marks point in writing his Gospel. It has been forty years since Jesus was killed and he has not returned yet. The destruction of the Temple has reset the eschatological clock. The Son of Man will come in glory as promised, very soon now.

Mark 13:8
8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

The Jewish nation has arisen against the Roman nation. As promised in the OT the foreign kingdom will be beaten and the kingdom of God restored.

The Roman Senator and historian Cassius Dio tells us there was a major earthquake in Antioch in 68. But that hardly counts. There were always earthquakes in that part of the world.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

Again this is not yet the end but the beginning of the end.

Mark 13:9-11
9 You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

Here is some commentary on flogging by Jewish authorities. Flogging in the synagogues is an exaggeration.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 06574.html

Mark 13:12-13
12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Josephus tells us at great length of the betrayals and in-fighting that took place inside Jerusalem during the siege.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war4.html
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war5.html

Mark 13:14-17
14 When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong"let the reader understand"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

This is a very interesting passage. The abomination that causes desolation is from Daniel chapters 9, 11 and 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_Desolation

What Mark is referring to has been debated back and forth. It is usually taken to be something that happens in or to the Temple during the siege of Jerusalem. However note that Mark uses it as a sign of the bad times to come. By the siege it is too late to flee. Jerusalem is surrounded. What might Mark be referring to that comes before the siege. And why does Mark break the proscenium and speak directly to the reader about this?

How about this?

The Jews' anti-Roman feelings were seriously exacerbated during the reign of the half-crazed emperor Caligula, who in the year 39 declared himself to be a deity and ordered his statue to be set up at every temple in the Roman Empire. The Jews, alone in the empire, refused the command; they would not defile God's Temple with a statue of pagan Rome's newest deity.

Caligula threatened to destroy the Temple, so a delegation of Jews was sent to pacify him. To no avail. Caligula raged at them, "So you are the enemies of the gods, the only people who refuse to recognize my divinity." Only the emperor's sudden, violent death saved the Jews from wholesale massacre.

Caligula's action radicalized even the more moderate Jews. What assurance did they have, after all, that another Roman ruler would not arise and try to defile the Temple or destroy Judaism altogether? In addition, Caligula's sudden demise might also have been interpreted as confirming the Zealots' belief that God would fight alongside the Jews if only they would have the courage to confront Rome.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... evolt.html

We see an attempt to defile the temple by setting up a statue of a Roman Emperor claiming to be a god in the Temple as a root cause of the Revolt plus a link to the idea of the Temple getting destroyed. The Caligula event happened a fair number of years before the Revolt broke out so Mark needs to jog the readers memory a bit. Let the reader understand.

Matthew repeats this section almost word for word for his Jewish audience. Luke also does the same except that he replaces the abomination section with Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Lukes audience is gentile and would not recall this event so readily. However as already noted, once Jerusalem has been surrounded it is too late to flee.

mark 13:18-20
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now"and never to be equaled again.
20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

Having blockaded Jerusalem from being supplied for some time, Titus began the siege in earnest in May of 70 CE. The resistance was completely suppressed by the end of September. In the interim there was a great shortage of food in Jerusalem. Had the fighting continued into winter, food would have been virtually non-existent (Josephus even mentions cannibalism) and a fuel shortage would have loomed as well.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishW ... siege.html
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war6.html

[Furrowed Brow]

In Mark 7:31 the author describes Jesus going from Tyre 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns'. There is no hint that the author of Mark considers this to be a protracted journey. However this is similar to a journey from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome.

Id explain this by Mark being likely Roman. So Mark would not have known the area or understood Peters geograhical references or the implication of distances. Clearly the writer of Mark did not know the area well himself yet got his information from somewhere. Is there a reason why Peters Roman interpreter writing after Peters death should have got the geographical reference with all its nuances spot on.

Mark 11:1(& Luke 19:29) has Jesus and his companions approaching Jerusalem from Jericho via Bethpage and then Bethany. Peter would know that in reality you would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage.

Mark, in the episode on the healing of the demoniac sets the incident in the region of the Gerasenes, or Gerasa. [Mark 5:1]

I think there is an issue over whether Mark means sea or lake and so forth. But Im positing Mark as a reasonable reliable Witness of what Peter taught him as far as the general material, and as far as Peters tone and phrasing. Mark was someone who was reconciling Matt with what Peter had taught. When I say reliable witness I mean as reliable as someone with Marks skill set and knowledge of what Peter was referencing. I am not posting Peter as a fully reliable witness of events. Just because I have Peter as an eye witness that does not mean he is any more or less reliable than any eye witness. Im leaving this question open. Maybe Peter had never been to Gerasenes or Gerasa and didnt know what he was talking about either. If Mark is reasonably reliable and he has not mangled the name then that would be the implication.

It is clear from this story that the author of Mark thought that Gerasa to be a town situated near the Sea of Galilee. Unfortunately Gerasa is more than 30 miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, hardly the most convenient location for drowning the pigs.

And given as you say Matt is hardly any better this suggest this story is more myth than fact. But the point is that Mark would not know that. Hes only got Peters word and a copy of Matt.

In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus is quoted as making some pronouncements on divorce:
He [Jesus] answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Jesus last sentence implies that women had the right to divorce her husband. But according to Jewish Law a woman had no right of divorce whatsoever. In Roman law, of course, a woman had that right. The author of Mark mistakenly assumed that this was so for Jewish Law as well. Peter would surely have put him right.

How about this: Mark has been listening to Peter talk to Romans. Mark is writing in the context of Peters ministry in Rome and the kind of clarifications Peter has been offering to Romans. Whilst in Rome Peter has been tweaking his teachings for his audience.

Mark 14:13 says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Peter would know that a Jewish man would never do a woman's work.

How large was the pitcher? Maybe this was a man sized pitcher. But again I think we have to place this in the context of Peter tailoring his stories for a Roman audience.

Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen cloth." Peter would have known that a Jew would not have bought something on the Sabbath.

Unless he was highly motivated and in the mood to challenge tradition and could not wait. But again Mark is reconciling what he has heard Peter teach. If Peter has been guilty of a little wondering away from the truth Mark is not in the position to correct him.

I appreciate the point about the reliability of Pabias, but as I have already said my conjecture rationalises the statistical analysis of the text which indicate Mark followed Matthew. It seems the author of Mark needs to be ignorant of Jewish custom and Judean geography. A Roman Mark fits the bill. The author of Mark if Mark writes after Matthew also need to be motivated to reduce Matthew. Again that means he felt he was closer to a real eye witness. The point is if we assume Matthew is earlier then we end up if not with Papias Mark then someone very much like him. But my fundamental point is that what I am doing here is no worse than the kind of rationalisation that goes on in support of the Markan Priority. My ace in the hole as far as I can see is that Mark contains 94% of Matt.

Now does anyone want to take a crack at the question I asked at post 36.

[Student]

Yes the stretch to Papias Matthew is a bit of a stretch. And I am no expert in the Greek and its possible meanings.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could[wiki]

Is it possible that Papias use of the word oracles means something different to sayings. What would be the best word in Greek for Papias to use that meant something akin to the things said about him, or things attributed.

If Eusebius is correct then Papias refers to [the logia; accusative plural] , the oracles.

In the New Testament this word logion [in various forms] occurs four times.

Paul, Romans 3:2, refers to , [ta logia tou theou] the oracles of God, and in Acts 7:38 we find [logia zonta]the living oracles.

Hebrews 5:12 has - , [ta stoicheia tes arches ton logion tou theou] the first principals of the oracles of God.

1 Peter 4:11 has , , [lalei hos logia theou] speaking as it were the oracles of God

These all point to a meaning sayings of rather than sayings about. [as do all uses of logion in the Septuagint] So on balance Papias reference appears to be to a sayings gospel, perhaps like Thomas, rather than a narrative gospel such as Matthew.

This would be confirmed by the Greeks use of the word logia of the "oracles" or brief sayings from Delphi.

Matthew is certainly not a sayings gospel and the general consensus is that it was not composed in Hebrew [or Aramaic for that matter], so Papias reference is unlikely to be to the extant gospel of Matthew.

Had Papias definitely intended to refer to a narrative account, about what Jesus did and said, rather than simply Jesus' sayings, he might have used - [praxeis tou kuriou] acts of the lord

[ThatGirlAgain]

But the role of the Tenth Legion in suppressing the census revolt in 6 CE does not explain Marks reference to members of the Tenth being killed by falling down a steep slope just as many of the defenders of Gamala died, or why Mark specifies the number 2000, the Tenths likely contribution to the forces attacking Gamala,

Likely? A Legion is 6,000. If you have not got a very strong reason for saying the Tenth were 2000 in number or at least Mark would think they are 2000 in number this connecting is tenuous at best.

Did you read the previous posts I linked?

Here is the one about the 2000 number.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=24

Components of three legions, including from the Tenth, attacked Gamala in 67 CE. The main body of the Tenth did not move out of Caesarea until 68 CE. It was only part of the Tenth that was involved at Gamala. What part? Pieces of three legions numbering about 2000 men apiece would add up to a legion, the unit size normally commanded by an imperator. The connection to the Tenth is obvious. If he meant the entire legion why would Mark say only 2000?

And you still have not addressed the bit about falling down a steep slope to their deaths, just like happened to the defenders at Gamala in 67 CE and would serve as a sweet revenge fantasy against the Tenth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=23

or why the demons into pigs story happens near Gamala.

The 6 C.E revolt was lead by Judas whose home town was Gamala Reference So we got the tenth and a revolt lead by a fellah from Gamala 6 C.E. Talk about history repeating itself. Apparently the 6 C.E rebellion is referenced in Acts 5:37

• Acts 5:37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered

If we are going to play the metaphor game could the man with bad spirits be a reference to Judas?

• Mark 5:3-5 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5

This site contains picture of Gamala Go here. Assuming it has not changed much anyone fighting a rebellion there and loses is going downhill, or maybe over the waterfall. Roman Legion kills itself at Gamala the hometown of Judah the leader of first the rebellion a man who cannot be chained but is tormented by a Legion. Heck sounds thin but that is the problem with reading hidden meanings into a text like this. The fact they are described rushing down the steep sides of the hill is about the clearest way a metaphor writer can reference Gamala, other than maybe reference the water fall. It is equally plausible if the story is meant to make a point about a massacre at Gamala that the story was already established well before 67. To go the step and say it is a reference to the later 67 rebellion and massacre is narrow focussed. Maybe you are right. But its looking thin as an argument.

2000 men as the Tenths contribution to the siege of Gamala in 67 CE. The steep slope massacre happening in Gamala in 67 CE. These are recent events Marks audience in the 70-75 CE time range would pick up on. Something that may or may not have happened more than a lifetime before would be lost on them. Mark 5 remains tightly focused on 67 CE.

Oh, one more thing. [/Columbo imitation] Gamala was a heavily Jewish area as evidenced by it being a hotbed of Zealot uprisings against the Romans. The east bank of the Sea of Galilee was heavily gentile, hence the herd of pigs. They fell into the lake as Mark tells us, not into a waterfall.

[Student]

In Mark 7:31 the author describes Jesus going from Tyre 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns'. There is no hint that the author of Mark considers this to be a protracted journey. However this is similar to a journey from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome.

Id explain this by Mark being likely Roman. So Mark would not have known the area or understood Peters geograhical references or the implication of distances. Clearly the writer of Mark did not know the area well himself yet got his information from somewhere. Is there a reason why Peters Roman interpreter writing after Peters death should have got the geographical reference with all its nuances spot on.

A much simpler explanation is that the author of Mark did not have reference to an eye witness.

Mark 11:1(& Luke 19:29) has Jesus and his companions approaching Jerusalem from Jericho via Bethpage and then Bethany. Peter would know that in reality you would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage.

Mark, in the episode on the healing of the demoniac sets the incident in the region of the Gerasenes, or Gerasa. [Mark 5:1]

I think there is an issue over whether Mark means sea or lake and so forth. But Im positing Mark as a reasonable reliable Witness of what Peter taught him as far as the general material, and as far as Peters tone and phrasing. Mark was someone who was reconciling Matt with what Peter had taught. When I say reliable witness I mean as reliable as someone with Marks skill set and knowledge of what Peter was referencing. I am not posting Peter as a fully reliable witness of events. Just because I have Peter as an eye witness that does not mean he is any more or less reliable than any eye witness. Im leaving this question open. Maybe Peter had never been to Gerasenes or Gerasa and didnt know what he was talking about either. If Mark is reasonably reliable and he has not mangled the name then that would be the implication.

So now your Peter is not a fully reliable witness. Perhaps your Peter wasnt a witness at all if he wasnt on the boat with Jesus. I wonder what other events your Peter didnt witness?

It is clear from this story that the author of Mark thought that Gerasa to be a town situated near the Sea of Galilee. Unfortunately Gerasa is more than 30 miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, hardly the most convenient location for drowning the pigs.

And given as you say Matt is hardly any better this suggest this story is more myth than fact. But the point is that Mark would not know that. Hes only got Peters word and a copy of Matt.

If as you say, Peter wasnt a witness to this event, why does Mark include it in his account. Why does Mark modify what Matthew says, and makes the geographical error even worse?

In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus is quoted as making some pronouncements on divorce:
He [Jesus] answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Jesus last sentence implies that women had the right to divorce her husband. But according to Jewish Law a woman had no right of divorce whatsoever. In Roman law, of course, a woman had that right. The author of Mark mistakenly assumed that this was so for Jewish Law as well. Peter would surely have put him right.

How about this: Mark has been listening to Peter talk to Romans. Mark is writing in the context of Peters ministry in Rome and the kind of clarifications Peter has been offering to Romans. Whilst in Rome Peter has been tweaking his teachings for his audience.

How about a much simpler explanation; Mark was not acquainted with Peter or anyone else familiar with Palestine.

Mark 14:13 says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Peter would know that a Jewish man would never do a woman's work.

How large was the pitcher? Maybe this was a man sized pitcher. But again I think we have to place this in the context of Peter tailoring his stories for a Roman audience.

So your Peter fabricated the truth. Perhaps your Peter hadnt been to Palestine either!

Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen cloth." Peter would have known that a Jew would not have bought something on the Sabbath.

Unless he was highly motivated and in the mood to challenge tradition and could not wait. But again Mark is reconciling what he has heard Peter teach. If Peter has been guilty of a little wondering away from the truth Mark is not in the position to correct him.

So, in every instance where I have raised questions regarding the veracity of Marks knowledge of Palestine and Jewish customs [guided as you claimed by the eye witness Peter] your answer is that either Peter wasnt there or he fabricated the truth. Wouldnt it be simpler to admit that Mark was not Peters interpreter. Put simply Papias got it wrong.

I appreciate the point about the reliability of Pabias, but as I have already said my conjecture rationalises the statistical analysis of the text which indicate Mark followed Matthew. It seems the author of Mark needs to be ignorant of Jewish custom and Judean geography. A Roman Mark fits the bill. The author of Mark if Mark writes after Matthew also need to be motivated to reduce Matthew. Again that means he felt he was closer to a real eye witness. The point is if we assume Matthew is earlier then we end up if not with Papias Mark then someone very much like him. But my fundamental point is that what I am doing here is no worse than the kind of rationalisation that goes on in support of the Markan Priority. My ace in the hole as far as I can see is that Mark contains 94% of Matt.

If that is your ace in the hole then your whole argument is holed below the water line!

Now does anyone want to take a crack at the question I asked at post 36.

I will answer your point in due course but in the mean time you might want to come up with a rational explanation of why, if Mark copied Matthew, he would choose to omit everything concerning Jesus birth, the birth of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lords prayer, and all the resurrection narratives. Surely your Peter must have witnessed at least some of these events? If he didn't witness the actual events he certainly could have made something up, after all, according to your version of events, he was pretty adept at doing that.

[Furrowed Brow]

Argument that Mark 13 refers specifically to the First Revolt and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus.

Heres a funny thing. In the heart of London next to the Thames you will find the Tower of London. It is built from stone and so far stood for several hundred years with absolutely no hint it will fall down or be knocked down. Im going to make a prediction. At some point I shall not define Not one stone there will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down. I guarantee you this prediction will come true. Not saying when though.

So what Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. These are violent times, buildings are no so well built, and Rome is ruthless. Rome already destroyed Carthage 146 BC and plenty of other folk who stood in her way. It was the sort of thing Rome did. Heck he might must have been generalising in a very nonspecific way like just like next few verse that follow. Mark 13:5-8 theyve been true just about every century ever since.

Here are two Messiah claimants associated with the First Revolt.
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts11.html
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts12.html

Okay you need to rethink what you are trying to do. You are taken some very nonspecific claims attributed to Jesus and trying to write in the details, and then give Mark the credit for referencing these possibilities. Just look at how non specific Jesus claims are. Here is a list of messiah claimants How did Mark know about Montanus in in 135-177? If he is not referring to him then why might he be referring to the two you offer as an example. Because their dates work out I guess. What about Simon Magus. What Jesus said could apply to the whole list. If so it makes the claim the reference applies to a specific siege pretty darn meaningless. This is a clear example of trying to rationalise Mark as responding to the Jewish Revolt when what is said is just open to interpretation.

The problem here is getting unnerved by seeing this as some kind of meaningful prophecy on Jesus part and in retreat from that thought look for ways to get the prediction in after the event. So what if the temple was destroyed by Rome 40 years or so later. It really is meaningless much like trying to discern the meaning of a metaphor is a meaningless exercise.

Step outside your theory of Mark for a moment. Go back to the sectiona in Mark 13 you have just quoted and pick out one hard specific prediction with a date and location and name attached. You are seeing Mark referencing events I am seeing you fit some data to very non specific generic statements and truisms. Sure we can make sense of Mark this way, I am not saying this is not just as good a way to rationalise Mark as any other, except it makes it all a meaningless exercise. I kind of prefer the idea these sayimngs are really being attributed to Jesus. Maybe he even said them. It is really not problematic a prophet would come out with such banalities. They tend to do that.