spamandham

I guess I don't know what it is that you think a critical analysis of history tells us. Before you answer though, can we agree that if the methods employed are valid, then the vast majority of scholars should arrive at the exact same position via the usage of those methods? (every field has crackpots and cranks, so 'vast majority' is all we can ever expect).

jakejonesiv

But if Markan prioritity is true, should not the attempt be made to understand Mark without the varnish and overlay of the later evangelists and tradition? I will submit to you that when we read GMark without preconception, a quite different story appears that bears similarity to a Greek tragedy, perhaps even a play composed for public performance.

Jake

rlogan

Exactly.

With emphasis on later. It is entirely appropriate to view Mark alongside the actual history, eg writings such as Jewish Wars and History of the Jews and what not.

And what we get from that is confirmation of the above and not confirmation of a history. I would add "mystery" in there as one of the descriptive terms for the original Mark.