aa5874

The theory that gMark was not the first Gospel is supported by the writings of Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr's writings show that up to the middle of the 2nd century there was NO tradition of an author named Mark who specifically wrote a Gospel.

This is the EVIDENCE from Justin Martyr.
"First Apology" LXVII
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html


Justin Martyr did not give any named authors for the Memoirs but he did give the names of the writings of the prophets.

It is clear that Justin was NOT aware of any tradition of any Gospel writer called MARK up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Toto

This just shows that the gospels known to Justin were anonymous. The gospel now attributed to Mark might have existed, known only as a memoire.

The argument that gMark was the first gospel is based on internal literary analysis.

aa5874

But, you must know that it has been found that the Gospel according to Mark as found canonised is not early. You must know that there are more than one version of gMark.

Now, please say exactly what internal literary evidence show that any version of gMark was before the "Memoirs of the Apostle" as found in the writings of Justin Martyr?

You may be confusing "opinion" and actual "evidence".

Cesc

Dont forget also, Rich Oliver, to look closely at the stories of Elijah and Elisha in OT.

Doug Shaver

Yeah, maybe he does. That is possible. Is it also possible, do you think, that he doesn't believe a word of it? Is it possible that he thought he had an opportunity to make some big bucks writing a story that, in his own opinion, was a total crock?

JoeWallack

JW:
We have quality general evidence that "Mark" contains large amounts of fiction:

1) Significant component of the impossible.

2) Likely sources used fictionally = The Jewish Bible, Paul & Josephus

3) Theological subject matter

4) Contrived style and structure, especially irony.

The fab four above are not offset by parallels between "Mark" and any likely known historical witness. Therefore, the default position for any individual story in "Mark" is that it is fiction.

The general reasons above for fiction combined with lack of any external control for likely historical stories make it impossible to conclude that any story is likely historical. All you can do is evaluate the likelihood of fiction.

The legendary Vorkosigan has already done this for us:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

Mark 6:30-44	2 Kings 4:38-44
a desert with no food available	a place with a famine
people who recognize Jesus come from all over	Elisha is meeting the prophets
two kinds of food inadequate (loaves and fish)	two kinds of food inadequate (loaves and grain)
disciples protest food is not enough	protests food is not enough
Jesus insists over objections of disciples	Elisha insists over objections of his servant
Jesus blesses the food	Elisha relates the word of the lord
And they all ate and had 12 baskets of leftovers	they ate and had some left over,
feeds 100	feeds 5000

Here we can clearly see the excellent parallels between "Mark" and the Jewish Bible. Especially telling is the same sequence. For a story that starts out with a default position of being fiction we move to a high likelihood of fiction because:

1) The point of the story is the impossible

2) The lesson of the story looks figurative

3) "Mark" has a general theme of comparing to Elijah/Elisha

4) Many of "Mark's" Jesus Ministry stories have the same quality parallels to Elijah/Elisa

Rich Oliver, you have really picked a bad example for supposed non fiction. You need to look at Vorkosigan's site. The Vorkmeister has switched the numbers above but he is only legendary and not divine (yet)


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Clivedurdle

Is Kings based on Homer?

JoeWallack

JW:
Can't we have lobster and cracked crab?

Paul tells us clearly that God revealed Jesus to him in The Jewish Bible. So this is where "Mark" looks for Jesus' history. Understand dear Reader. The Fathers confess to us that Homer would have been standard reading for an educated person of the time. So both are likely sources for "Mark". Due to the theology though. The Jewish Bible is probably an exponentially more used source for "Mark" while use of Homer is probably more indirect in general.



Joseph

Clivedurdle

Kings contain a huge amount of fiction - about Solomon for example.

I'm just wondering if we are looking at Mark as fiction based on Kings as fiction based on Homer as truth?

Turtles all the way down!

Is Judaism really a separate creation or is it also syncretic on Greek, Persian and Egyptian ideas?

Alexandria was probably the most important city of the Greek Empire. The main aim of the Library of Alexandria was riffs and cover versions of Homer and the Septaguint was written there.

There was a belief that Homer needed tidying up because its morals were iffy..., but I understand that as a revisionist attitude. The argument between Plato and Socrates again about idealism and realism.

Hollywood Middle East?

Kings as a Jewish cover version of Homer?

aa5874

And the author of Mark looks in the Jewish Bible and finds a Jesus that contradicts the Pauline Jesus!

The Markan Jesus came primarily to warn the Jews about the "abomination of desolation" and his Second coming.

Let the reader understand that the Pauline Jesus revealed nothing about the "abomination of desolation".

Daniel 11:31 -
Mark 13:14 - Let the reader understand that the Markan Jesus knew nothing about the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus WARNED neither Jew nor Gentile about the abomination of desolation.