mountainman

Be careful duvduv, this is an overworn topic. It is physically impossible that the NT canon was fabricated in the 4th century, because Big Lies always get exposed by clever reporters and persistent news crews, and no Big Lie has ever been exposed. Nobody questioned Jesus's existence in the 1st century or the 2nd century or the 3rd century. We have it on good authority.

mountainman

Political stories are invented every day.

aa5874

Well, if most Scholars think that gMark was written between 65-75 CE then we EXPECT them to have a LOT of evidence from antiquity to support them.

Astonishingly, Scholars have ZERO credible evidence from antiquity to support their claim.

Most Scholars have merely PRESUMED gMark was written 65-75 CE because there has been NO Dated Manuscript of gMark in the 1st century. None-Zero-Nil.

On the other hand, there is evidence that gMark was written AFTER 94 CE.

The story of the Three Crucified in gMark where One Survived is found in the Life of Flavius Josephus.

And, also the claim that a character called Joseph asked for the body of the crucified Jesus gMark is also the SAME NAME of Josephus who asked that the Crucified be taken down from their crosses in the "Life of Flavius Josephus".

The Life of Flavius Josephus was written AFTER 94 CE.

Scholars are WRONG to Presume the time of composition of gMark WITHOUT a shred of credible evidence.

gurugeorge

In the recent Richard Carrier podcast, he postulates that the transition from celestial to earthly Jesus was obtained as part of a general trend to euhemerization in Hellenistic thought at the time. Someone would come along and make up earthbound stories about what was previously a purely celestial (or as we would say, visionary/mystical) deity.

GMark is self-describedly an allegory, it says something on the face, but means something else for the initiate (hylic and pneumatic interpretations). GMark talks about a Messiah claimant doing a bunch of stuff at a certain time in history, including working miracles. That's the earthbound story; but the allegory is actually about the celestial being inhabiting the human being Jesus (and indeed all of us) - about certain kinds of practice principles, much like Asian texts. It's a teaching text and a philosophical text to ponder.

But then eventually, over time, the allegorical "Jesus" of the Gospels, the Stoic-biographical euhemerized representative of the principles handed down to the prophets of this cult by their celestial Jesus in trances, eventually gets "sold" as a historical person.

(There are political advantages to being able to say that your teacher's teacher actually knew the cult deity personally while He did His thing on earth.)

So at a certain slice in time you'd have a whole range of opinons about the "Jesus" entity. Some would stick to the older, Gnostic view of him as an Archangel who communicates in visions, others would enjoy the rich teaching and allegory, and others would take it perfectly literally, as something that historically happened. A whole range of opinions, vieing for dominance.

aa5874

We have the short-ending gMark and we can go through it chapter by chapter, verse by verse and word by word and it would be clearly seen that it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Pauline claims of Universal Salvation by the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

The Markan Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted.

The Markan Jesus did NOT want any outsiders to know he was Christ.

The Markan Jesus deliberately spoke in PARABLES to confuse the outsiders.

The Markan Jesus did NOT teach his disciples that he would DIE for their Sins.

The short-ending gMark story is merely about the REJECTION of Jesus, the Son of God, by his OWN people including his supposed OWN disciples.

We have the short-ending gMark and we can see that it has NOTHING whatsoever to with the Pauline letters.

The short-ending gMark story appear to have been written BEFORE there was any Jesus cult or any other Jesus story.

Duvduv

If there was no Jesus cult then who did the Jesus of the short-ended GMark represent? What was he? What did the story represent to the followers? Was it a sect revolving entirely around this little book?!

Duvduv

I am not sure I understand what you mean. If the book identified with Irenaeus was not written in the 2nd century, and if the Justin Apology also did not appear in the 2nd century, then what is left of the 2nd century to anchor the NT texts?!

Logical

What's a good, neutral, book on Christianity in the first two or three centuries?

aa5874

There is no evidence that the short-ending gMark is an historical account so there would have been NO Jesus and No followers.

The short-ending gMark story is about the Rejection of the Son of God by the Jews and that the Same Son of God is COMING back for the Elect.

It is the Belief in the short-ending gMark story itself that INITIATED the Jesus cult.

We can see the changes in the Long-Ending gMark and ALL the other books of the Canon, including the Pauline letters.

Joseph Smith FIRST wrote the Mormon Bible BEFORE there were Mormons. It was Belief in the Mormon Bible that INITIATED Mormonism.

There was the short-ending gMark BEFORE there was a Jesus cult.

Sheshbazzar

I seriously doubt that a neutral book could be written.
There is too much contradictory evidence, and too many contradictory claims.
One might possibly present them all, but unless one also refrained from any comparing, weighing, and offering opinions on the credibility of each of these various competing versions, claims, and their actual historicity, neutrality would fly out the window.
Best one can do is familiarize oneself with the available material and then draw ones own conclusions as to its credibility, historical accuracy, or validity.

Or as old the song goes; "You got to walk that lonesome valley, You've got to walk it by yourself, For nobody else can walk it for you, You got to walk it by yourself."
Simply accepting and believing opinions that someone else spoon-feeds you won't cut it. 'Walk it by yourself', Become an expert on your own knowledge and conclusions.