Toto

And I would have given the same response if you had questioned me about what I wrote (I think you have the wrong post number.)

Your post here is a bit overly brief. It would help if you spelled out exactly what you are contending. Do you claim that there must be some historical vallue to Mark? What is the basis for this?

Juststeve

Toto:

No, I meant what you wrote in #263 "How does this help? Mark could have been a work of intentional fiction, understood as such, but later misinterpreted as history".

As to what I think about Mark, I think it is a source from antiquity that talks about Jesus. I think it should be taken seriously as a source and not discarded simply because some of the claims in Mark are fanciful. Each claim should be judged on its own merit. For example I have no problem with the claim that a guy named Jesus went to John The Baptist for baptism when he was about 30. I have no problem with the claim that the Romans crucified him. That happened to a lot of Jews in those days. There are other claims that I reject on what I think are sound grounds, because the are naturally impossible, because they have obvious apologetic intent , because they smack of theology, but not just because they appear in a Christian document.

I also accept the consensus of serious mainstream scholars that Mark was in final form sometime around 70 of the common era which I suppose is too late to be anything like a contemporaneous account and much too early to suit at least 1 hereabouts who says the Gospels are second century fiction. That’s not you, I respond to you.

Steve

EarlDoherty

This is a completely invalid analogy, and an amazingly naive statement in itself. Are you telling me that if you were an historian researching Alexander the Great (or any other ancient figure), or even an historical novelist, that you would not survey all the primary sources on Alexander in order to try to arrive at the most reliable conclusions about him? Would you not compare the data in one source with that in other sources? Would you use only one source in isolation and rely on the information contained in it?

If you found that the various sources for your subject presented wildly differing pictures, would you be inclined to pick one (perhaps the most popular) and just go with that? You wouldn't be much of an historian if you did.

The mythicist point is, virtually everything that is presented in the Gospels is found nowhere else in the early record. Virtually everything that is presented in the Gospels is founded in scripture, not in anything that can be identified as history remembered. Doug Shaver gave us a pearl a couple of days ago: nothing that could be considered remotely reliable or factual about an HJ in the Gospels would have produced the colossal deification we see in the early epistles. What would all this lead a dispassionate researcher to come up with as a likely explanation?

Earl Doherty

Toto

This was a response to the idea that the mere existence of Mark is some sort of evidence in favor of the events that it recounts. You still have not explained why the gospel of Mark should count as evidence of the events that it recounts.

Why exactly?

Still no positive reason to accept Mark as history.

eta: I think it would help your understanding if you actually read what those mainstream scholars say instead of what Christian apologists claim that they say.

show_no_mercy

The way that [anonymous] historical documents are dated in fields other than NT scholarship is that they usually give the earliest possible date and the latest possible date.

The earliest possible date for Mark would be him referencing something historical (like the destruction of the Temple; Mark 13). This happened in 70 CE. The latest possible date for Mark is when some other writer who is not anonymous and we can place firmly in a historical epoch seems to be aware of Mark. This last part is ambiguous. NT scholars that I've read never seem to mention that second part of historiography and only rely on "the earliest date possible" so that they can say Mark was written "in 70" or some other language like that.

Things like these are why we question their methodology.

A "heretical" Christian oddly named Markion is the first Christian to put together a canon of specifically Christian literature c. 140 CE. His canon included 10 of Paul's epistles and one gospel narrative that has similarities with our current Luke. At this point I'm not saying whether Markion's gospel was the basis for Luke or vice versa (you'll probably just appeal to authority on that anyway). I just say that because most solutions to the Synoptic Problem have Luke using Mark, so this means that Mark must have been in circulation before Markion's canon.

So we have a span of 70 years where we have possible date ranges for the composition of Mark's gospel. But this is unacceptable for many Christians, so NT scholars just defer to their terminus post quem as though that completes the story.

aa5874

Your claim is ERRONEOUS.

Inerrantists do NOT need to interpret Biblical documents together.

Inerrantists generally interpret Biblical documents in ISOLATION to avoid obvious contradictions.

Once a person believes that each and any book of the Bible is without error then there is REALLY no need to interpret the Bible together.

And that is exactly why inerrantists interpret the BIBLE in ISOLATION. They must ISOLATE the Pauline writings from the Gospels and then claim that each book of the Bible is without error.

Once Biblical documents are analysed as a whole it would become EXTREMELY clear that there are MASSIVE errors and contradictions all over.

Your claim is ERRONEOUS.

HJers, just like inerrantists, cannot look at the WHOLE picture.

But, unlike inerrantists who claim the Jesus story is completely TRUE, HJers claim Jesus did exist even though each gospel is fundamentally false.

HJers have DISCARDED their sources, the NT, due to MASSIVE embellishments and apparent legendary fables about Jesus and have invented their own Jesus.


Exactly, Exactly, Exactly!!!! Check out another NEWS network.

Check them all out.

It is FAR BETTER to use MULTIPLE NEWS networks than one single especially when you know in ADVANCE that your favorite NEWS network may be filled with rot.

gMark may be filled with rot. Check it out.

Again, another MASSIVE erroneous and illogical claim.

Please, Please, Please!!!! Explain by what means you can PROPERLY evaluate any New Testament document SEPARATELY?

And AFTER you have SEPARATELY evaluated the NEW Testament document, in a VACUUM I suppose, would you NOT then RE-EVALUATE the very same document with other NT documents??

You are just not making much sense.

Solo

Well, I don't think the span is that long. I have just had this discussion on Jesus Mysteries and I believe the realistic terminus post quem for Mark would be about 90-100 CE. My conclusion is based on Mark's representing Jesus as promising (in 13:27) the SOM "will send angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth". In 13:30 Jesus affirms "truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things have taken place".

Now, irrespective whether Mark was composing an allegory, reported on real events, or kept mixing up the two to keep his audience amused or mystified, the Olivet discourse ties the salvation timeline of the crucifixion, placed in cca 30 CE (under Tiberius) to the expiry of Jesus' own generation, which would - of necessity ! - be still in the future as of Mark's writing. The reason I think this timeline is forced is that I cannot fathom a situation in which Mark would have sat down and composed an allegory set historically, in which Jesus made false prophesies. If his report was historical, and Mark wrote later than the 60-70 year cutoff (assume 'this generation' to mean believers in his own time), then he himself considered Jesus an impostor, which I am sure is an option worth contemplating if one insists on selling a conspiracy theory.

Best,
Jiri

show_no_mercy

I think Mark is talking to whomever he is writing to in chapter 13 because he has Jesus say "let the reader understand". Mark himself is the apocalyptic prophet, not Jesus.

Solo

Maybe if you read what I wrote again you will see that that makes no difference to my argument.
:huh:

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is my theory that it was the original anonymous author of the Jesus story who was apocalyptic.

It would seem that after the Fall of the Temple it was believed that the END of the present heaven and earth was coming shortly based on Hebrew Scripture.

So, far I am accepting that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and Revelation are the earliest text about Jesus Christ as found in the writings of Justin Martyr since the writings of Irenaeus about the Canon has been deduced to be completely erroneous in chronology, dating, authorship and contents.

It has NOT been deduced that Justin was in error when he claimed to be aware of Revelation and that the Memoirs of the Apostles was read in the churches on Sundays up to the middle of the 2nd century.