Amaleq13

The two you asked certainly are.

Your posts make it obvious what you have not read.

aa5874

You really seem to think questions are silly and irrelevant.

Your statement is obviously false and illogical.

I really don't know what you have read to make such illogical statements.

What is your position with regards to gMark? When was it written based on the external evidence?

I think gMatthew was written before gMark.

What have you read?

Amaleq13

And you seem to be posting in a deliberately obtuse manner. The two questions you asked were quite clearly silly and irrelevant. Generalizing that observation to all questions is just idiotic.

And your posts related to that opinion are clearly underinformed when it comes to the synoptic problem. You apparently didn't even bother to read the linked article given your replies. Either that or you didn't understand it.

Try Kloppenborg.

aa5874

Did you try Eusebius, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Alexander of Rome, Hyppolytus, Clement of Alexander,Theophilus of Antioch, Chrysostom, Origen, Rufinus, Aristides, Philo, Josephus, Jerome, the gospel according to Matthew, the gospel according to Mark, and gLuke?

Do you know if Kloppenborg tried some of those authors mentioned to form his opinion about the Synoptic problem?

But those may be silly questions to you.

Amaleq13

Read him and find out for yourself.

Slightly less silly than the other two but I suppose that still counts as improvement.

aa5874

My position is that gMatthew appears to be written before gMark.

And I had to read for myself Eusebius, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Alexander of Rome, Hyppolytus, Clement of Alexandria,Theophilus of Antioch, Chrysostom, Origen, Rufinus, Aristides, Philo, Josephus, Jerome, the gospel according to Matthew, the gospel according to Mark, and gLuke.

You really do think questions are silly and irrelevant!

JoeWallack

JW:
I've previously mentioned that my next assignment for Dr. Carrier (after he has obtained for me Rush Limbaugh's copy of The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows) will be an analysis of the ending of "Mark", External and Internal. Related to this will be an examination of the Forged 16:9-20.

Speaking (ill) of 16:9-20, I believe this is also evidence for a late dating of "Mark". The related issue is how long could the original "Mark", ending at 16:8, with the potential witnesses to Jesus' supposed resurrection saying nothing to anyone, have gone before the inevitable urge to forge resurrection witness? Not long I think considering the importance of resurrection witness to OCD. Origen, c. 200, may be the first to clearly refer to The Long Ending. But the earliest reference to some changed ending may go back to Justin, c. 155. As usual, the OCD implication is that Marcion is the first identified user of a long ending. If Marcion is using a Forged ending c. 135, how long could "Mark" have gone without having the ending changed? Since 70?, 65 years? Probably not. A shorter time gap is much easier to believe.

On the other hand, Spin has convinced me that Paul's alleged claim of historical witness to Jesus' resurrection is forged so I accept that presumably PC (Pauline Christianity) did not assert historical witness in the 1st century. But, if you think this assertion is original to Paul than it's really difficult to justify a long time lag between original "Mark" and Forged Ending.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

Now, if the writer Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed, was crucified, was raised from the dead and that there would be no salvation without the resurrection, it is consistent for the writer to also claim people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

There is really no need for some other writer to forge the eyewitness report of the resurrection by the writer Paul, when the events of entire letter itself may be totally non-historical.