rlogan

Hi Julian.

I see this cited a lot in supporting the AE 70 wishful thinking.

I think there are a couple of things going on. For one thing, Mark is simultaneously "validating" Jesus with HB prophecy material along with prophecies of his own - the most important being the destruction of the Temple. Just consider how important an Icon that was.


But as far as "the Son of Man" coming in power and glory - this is a bizarre feature of the faith that nothing seems to phaze.

It seems important to them to keep the current generation "on it's toes", anticipating that power and glory. It's just about here, kids.

I am of the persuasion that this is not something that Mark invented nor something that an historical Jesus said.

Rather, it is a feature that already existed in the mystery cult(s) that was mandatory for Mark to include when creating the HJ, whether it made logical sense or not.

These cults had, and continue to have, an urgent eschatology. A "gospel" that did not contain such a belief would not have been marketable to them.

Apparantly, a hundred generations can continue on with such a core belief that "tomorrow" is the day - and no amount of evidence can dissuade them.

And therefore I deduce that this is a very powerful innate kind of belief we are dealing with that a successful religion exploits, rather than something novel that Mark invented or that Jesus said.

Julian

You're wrong. I, in no way, assert that miracles are impossible. I am only stating that, since we see no miracles today, the most reasonable conclusion is that there were no miracles 2000 years ago either. Criterion of analogy. Not impossible, simply highly improbable.

I do not assume that the book is false, I consider it false because the evidence compels me to conclude it. As more evidence becomes available I will be happy to change my mind. So far the evidence strongly backs up my current beliefs.

I also do not claim to have 'proven' anything. Proof is a mathematical concept only. The evidence strongly indicate falsification. As a reasonable man, not guided by faith, I can see only one rational conclusion.

Julian

Vorkosigan

Well, I hope to have a more complete post up on this soon.

Diogenes the Cynic

I though this bit:
must have been facetious since the first point (inerrant NT) is an unsupported assertion and the 2nd point (KJV is the NT text) is a non-sequitur but if you were just summarizing Prax's own argument I guess I just read the inherent absurdity of the argument itself as facetiousness on your part.

gregor

I'm not qualified to discuss the details of virtually any of the points in this thread. But as a side note, is there a religion whose deity wrote (or inspired) a narrative that is not troubled with conflicting versions, that has a clear history of the text from inception, and that doesn't require "just so" stories to explain apparent historic, geographic, and scientific contradictions?

That's the omnipotent deity for me.

Clivedurdle

Legion

Umm, why are we arguing about Gadara when the more interesting connection is about the swine being a Roman Legion, that helps us to date Mark?

Wasn't there another similar thread to this?

Amaleq13

I have split off the digression about Josephus, Gadara, and "the country of the Gadarenes".

Diogenes the Cynic

I've split the discussion of the The Textus Receptus Vs. The Alexandrian texts.

meforevidence

More information may be found on my website called BibleHistoryEvidences
at: http://www.geocities.com/bkitc/Bible...04184376984%20
There were several articles put out on an Atheist web-site. One article was written by Mr. Frank R. Zindler. He tries to discredit the whole Bible, but put particular emphasis on the New Testament Gospels.
He states the following: “The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century.�
Mr. Zindler tries to tear apart the Gospels by stating that Matthew and Luke “plagiarize the book of Mark, only to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details�
While Mr. Zindler uses the word “plagiarize,� most scholars are impressed with the consistency of the Gospels which seem to actually confirm the fact that they are authentic. When in court, if the stories of the witnesses match, then they are usually validated as a testimony.

Matthew:
As mentioned before, it was once thought that Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem until the Magdalene Jesus Papyri were found (also known as 17P64). It is a segment of Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel, Matthew 26:23 and 31, which has been dated before A.D 66. In 1994, using a scanning laser microscope, Dr. Carsten Thiede compared this fragment with four other manuscripts and concluded that either this is an original of Matthew’s Gospel, or an immediate copy written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses were still alive. This was a big shock to the skeptics who have always maintained that Matthew was written in the second century. Technology has disproved that opinion. Incidentally, the Matthew segment corresponds to Textus Receptus, the traditional source documents.
Mr. Zindler does in fact confirm that there was a man named “Saul� or Paul. Even though Mr. Zindler considers Saul to have had a delusion or vision of the Christ, the fact that he confirms the man “Saul� or “Paul� helps to date the gospels because the book of Acts was written after the Gospels. The same scribe that wrote the book of Acts confirmed that he is the same person who wrote an earlier book (which was the book of Luke). Therefore, Luke the Physician who was a scribe for the apostle Paul is the person who wrote both books. Paul wrote other books and confirmed many of the messages written by Luke in the book of Acts.

The Book of Mark:
Mr. Zindlar writes about the Gospel of Mark and states the following: “But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits, as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened from the empty tomb. (The alleged post resurrection appearances reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's gospel.) Moreover, "Mark" being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.� At least Mr. Zindlar agrees that the book of Mark was written before the second century. The book of Mark must have been written earlier than 70 A.D. because of the fact that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed. As far as the latter verses in Mark 16, there are early writers that quote the verses that are found in other manuscripts of the book of Mark. For many centuries, there have been controversies among some Bible scholars about the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Your Bible probably has a footnote indicating that the last twelve verses of Mark are disputed or were added by some later scribe. This view comes from an excessive reliance on the Alexandrian manuscripts that were promoted by Westscott and Hort (The earliest writings of the Alexandrian manuscripts date from 325-350 A.D). There are several ways to disprove this claim. First, in A.D. 150, Iranaeus quoted the passage in his commentary, so it must have been around in the second century and before 150 A.D. Hippolatus, also in the second century, quoted it.
Furthermore, in the Syriac/Aramaic translation (the Peshitta, 250 A.D.), not all of the last part of Mark is missing. Most of it is admittedly, but the fact that fragments have been found of the Syriac version confirms that they must have existed. The following site shows the given words, phrases and verses found in the Syriac text: (blue exists, red was not found in Syriac Text)
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama.../Marqsch16.pdf


Zindlar continues: “I have claimed that the unknown author of Mark was a non-Palestinian non-disciple, which would make his story mere hearsay. What evidence do we have for this assertion? First of all, Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges. For example, in Mark 10:12, he has Jesus say that if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. As G. A. Wells, the author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus 10 puts it, Such an utterance would have been meaningless in Palestine, where only men could obtain divorce. It is a ruling for the Gentile Christian readers... which the evangelist put into Jesus' mouth in order to give it authority. This tendency to anchor later customs and institutions to Jesus' supposed lifetime played a considerable role in the building up of his biography.
Response: It is likely that Mark wrote his Gospel letter shortly after his journeys with Paul and before 70 A.D. Mark traveled to other parts of Asia as well as the Palestine area. In the Roman Provinces, Divorce was accepted by the Roman law as simply two people choosing not to live together anymore, be it the woman or the man. Mark showed that Jesus established this law as a universal law for not only the Palestinian people, but to people all over the world.


John
Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.

Luke:
Many scholars are amazed at the archeological and historical accuracy of Luke. The book of Luke is also supported by research and discovery. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (both written by Luke) have gained the respect of scholars who have investigated their numerous references to people and places in the Jewish and Roman worlds. Concerning Luke, F. F. Bruce has written, "A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even when means of testing him are not available" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p.90).
Here are some fascinating facts about Luke
The following excerpt is from the book “Examine the Evidence� by Ralph Muncaster

Sir William Ramsay (1852-1916). Sir William Ramsay was, arguably, the greatest archeologist of his day. He had rejected much of the written New Testament account and was determined to prove it false based on other writings of the day that contradicted the Bible. Ramsay believed that the books of Luke and Acts were actually written in about A.D. 150 and therefore did not bear the authenticity that a first-century document would. His archaeological journeys took him to 32 countries, 44 cities, and 9 islands. Throughout some 15 years of intensive study, he concluded that “Luke is a historian of the first rank-this author should be placed along with the greatest historians.�

Evidence that supports the Gospels:
What Critics Thought
There was no Roman Census (as indicated in Luke 2:1).
Quirinius was not governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth (as indicated in Luke 2:2).
People did not have to return to their ancestral home (as indicated in Luke 2:3).
The existence of the treasurer of the city of Corinth, Erastus (Romans 16:23), was incorrect.
Luke’s reference to Gallio as proconsul of Achaia was wrong (Acts 18:12).

What Ramsay Discovered
There was a Roman census every 14 years, beginning with Emperor Augustus.
Quirinius was governor of Syria in about 7 B.C.
People did have to return to their home city-verified by an ancient Egyptian papyrus giving directions for conducting a census.
A city pavement in Corinth bearing the inscription “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.
The Delphi inscription that reads, “As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend and proconsul of Achaia.�
Time and time again Ramsay’s search to find evidence that Luke’s writing was in error turned up evidence that it was, in fact, accurate. As a result, Sir William Ramsay eventually converted to Christianity and proclaimed Luke as “one of the greatest historians� of all time.

Most scholars (including skeptical ones) believe the book we call "1 Corinthians" was written before the Gospels. Moreover, most of the books written by Paul only confirm or validate the Gospels. An example would be: 1 Corinthians 15: 1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
Other Manuscripts Close to the First Century
http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...bleorigin.html
There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.
• 125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
• 200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
• 200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
• 225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
• 250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
• 350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
• 350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.
Early translations of the New Testament can give important insight into the underlying Greek manuscripts from which they were translated from.
• 180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D.
• 195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote treatises on theology.
• 300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the Greek into Syriac.
• 300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt. The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects.
Other manuscripts: 150 A.D.-------------Tatian's Diatesseron
200 A.D.-------------Clement's Manuscripts

Vorkosigan

Yes, this is the mainstream scholarly position. Get a copy of some mainstream introductory text, such as Ehrman's The New Testament or Schnelle's History and Theology of the new Testament Writings or Koester's History and Literature of Early Christianity, Vol. II. It is obvious from the way the Gospels were constructed that none of the writers were witnesses.

Again, this is well known among scholars. There is a close relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Together they are known as the Synoptic Gospels. The literary relationships make it clear that two of the above copied the third. At present scholars believe Mark was the first gospel written and copied by the other two. See Steve Carlson's Synoptic Problem Website.

Actually, this may be a big shock to you, but Thiede's work was decisively refuted. Peter Head, an NT text scholar, has a good article explaining why Thiede's date is wrong.

This is not true. No evidence suggests that the "Luke" who allegedly traveled with Paul wrote Acts and the Gospel attributed to him.
Then I guess Master & Commander must have been written in the early 19th century, since England still has her colonial empire and is at war with France.

Does Iranaeus cite the Longer Ending ~ 150? In what text? In any case the Longer ending is stylistically not part of Mark, and early citation simply means that the ending was added early.

Alas, no mainstream scholar accepts this view, which is held only among apologists. The mainstream view is that Mark was written by a non-witness, was written shortly before or after 70 CE, and that Mark 7 is evidence for this view.

When was the Pool of Bethesda buried?

Ramsay was writing in the late 19th century. Do you think that scholarly understanding of the history in Luke has advanced since then? Why do you think your author doesn't cite a more recent writer?

In which Gospel do the 500 witnesses appear, MeFor? Does the order of visitations that Paul describes match the one given in any Gospel? How could Jesus have appeared to the Twelve when the Gospels record that there were only Eleven disciples, Judas having killed himself?

Several problems. The papyrus contains a text that closely resembles John 18, and has been redated to around/after 150. See the footnote on this in the Schnelle book I recommended above.

Happy reading!

Vorkosigan