Jon Curry

William Lane Craig often appeals to Mark's "Source Material" in justifying claims he makes during debates. He says that this Markan source material contains the story of the crucifixion and the story of the women discovering the empty tomb. Does anybody know what this source material is and what is contained within it? How does Craig justify his knowledge of what this supposed source material contained? Craig also claims that this source material is providing independent material. Does anybody know anything about this?

Toto

No such source has been discovered. It is just assumed that Mark did not write creative fiction, so he must have had some sources, whether oral testimony or other written sources.

A number of NT scholars hypothesize that there was a "Passion Narrative" that preceded Mark. You can read more about it on Peter Kirby's site.

Minimalist

Physicists have theorized the tachyon even though they've never seen or measured one.

Likewise, the Q(uelle) ('source' in German) gospel has been theorized to explain where "Mark" suddenly came from with no more evidence than tachyons.

Frankly, I hold out more hope for science finding the tachyon.

Toto

Nitpick: Q is the hypothetical source for Luke and Matthew, not Mark. There are other hypothetical sources, sometimes labeled L and M.

If you multiply the hypothetical sources, you can then claim multiple attestation for the hypothetical events in the gospels.

I agree that there is more hope for the tachyon. You might view these hypothetical sources as the phlogiston of NT studies.

Ben C Smith

Many do make that assumption, but quite a few do not. The book by Theissen on the gospel sources in general, The Gospels in Context (or via: amazon.co.uk), is excellent (relevant sources behind Mark include an apocalyptic discourse, an exorcism or two, and a passion narrative), as are some of the other books that hypothesize a passion narrative behind the latter half of Mark. Such books are not assuming; they are arguing from internal evidence.

Ben.

Minimalist

LOL.


I love obscure references like that!

Malachi151

I believe that I've put together a pretty solid case to prove that there is no Markan source material, that the Markan narrative is completely fabricated by the author himself, based on the letters of Paul and the "Old Testament", neither of which were used by the author as "source material", but more as inspirational material.

Case made here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Loomis

Yes. IMHO your arguments are very convincing. I think you need a lesson in HTML, but the information you present – and the way you present it, makes your site one of the best on the Internet. :notworthy:

I’ve complemented you on this before – and I’d just like to thank you again.

Thanks. :wave:

Malachi151

Hey what's wrong with the HTML?

Minimalist

Thanks for posting that, Malachi. It's going to take a while to go through but from a cursory scan it looks like fascinating stuff.