spamandham

I haven't read it, but I have read excerpts from it. I seem to recall that he found the Gospels to be so different from period biographies, that he had to invent a new category for them. The interesting aspect of that to me is not the similarities to period biographies, but the differences.

andrewcriddle

Mark wants his readers to approve of his work, this sets limit to what he can say. This is true for all writers who don't want to be simply ignored.

Mark's primary intended readership is among people who are already followers of Jesus or are at least already interested in becoming followers. (I'm not sure if you agree with this, but the alternatives, eg that Mark was primarily intended for circulation by commercial publishers among people who had never even heard of Jesus, seem extremely improbable.)

Given the above, Mark cannot gratuitously keep contradicting the ideas of Jesus already held by contemporary followers of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

This assumes that Christianity was well established prior to the writing of Mark. I guess I'm not aware of any reason to assume that.

aa5874

This is all baseless speculation. The first time that Mark is mentioned is about the end of the 2nd century by Irenaeus. The date of writing and circulation of the Gospel attributed to Mark is uncertain and so, too, is the authorship.

jules?

Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be a lot of assumptions with regards to gMark.

All that is known is that the author [he or she] wrote in Greek, was educated and had an understanding of Latin-Greek writing.

Writing a cohesive narrative rather than collecting everything like Luke or squeezing in every prophesy like Matt, Mark is informative of Jewish culture and builds up to the ending without any resurrection, just an empty tomb.

Mark is lacks either geography of Palestine or has never been there.

Mark reports none of the 'secret' sayings Jesus spoke to his disciples.

Mark either wrote pre 70 c.e. but was aware that the destruction of the temple was likely or had happened making his/her contribution post 70

I am not sure if there are any other facts that can be gleaned from the document except the earlier documents consist of Paul, maybe some other letters and perhaps gThomas.

aa5874

I think the author called Mark probably did not understand Jewish culture with regards to burial since he claimed Mary Magdalene went to anoint the dead body of Jesus on the Sunday morning about two days after his death [see Mark 16.1].

However, the author of John claimed the application of spices is done before, not after the burial according to Jewish custom [see John 19.39-40].

And these words are in gMark, "...He is risen.... This is similar to the resurrection scenes in the other Gospel.

TedM

I haven't read this. Is it referring clearly to the messiah, and is there any indication that he would have first lived a life as a man in order to save them from their sins?

I just don't see how the apocolyptic writings about the end times are relevant to the creation of a Messiah who lived on earth before those events. It seems you are bringing in a lot of irrelevant material to explain Paul and the Gospels. Those apocolypric writings certainly can be used to explain the references by Paul and the Gospels to the FUTURE expectation of Jesus' apocolyptic descent, but it does nothing to explain the life they reference.

Doesn't the fact that he references the 12 disciples and the cross show that the belief of this writer was that the Jesus who had lived and died on earth would be the one returning from the heavens for judgement?

It depends on who you ask. Christians who believed the gospels would have said that he did succeed because he was resurrected from his crucifixion. That is what broke the curse of death for everyone who believes, according to them.


The idea that the servant prophesy was used to "create" a false messiah with no evidence that such a person had actually lived is possible. The problem is in finding evidence that Paul or the gospels did that. One can reasonably conclude that they used it to embellish or fill in aspects of that life, but where is the evidence that the writings were ENTIRELY based on an interpretation of scriptures? The writers dont' say that's what they were doing, but they DO include details that seem unrelated to such scriptures (ie names of disciples, towns, govt figures, set at a specific point in history,etc..and for Paul references to his brothers, the last supper).


What exactly are you saying here? Who is "the Essene" and why would James have taken on a role as symbolic earthly messiah?


Sounds reasonable. Just not seeing much evidence to support it even though the framework is there.

One doesn't need to conclude that they bribed the officials. A number of possible explanations remain: The tomb wasn't empty. The tomb became empty later. There was no tomb. etc.. Or, the resurrection was considered spiritual initially...


Interesting, but what a disproportionate focus on the warm-up act in the early Christian literature, wouldn't you agree?

ted

spamandham

Couldn't the reverse question also be asked? Where is the evidence that the earliest tradition (presumably Mark or something close to it) was not just a story based on interpretation of scriptures?

If we remove the bogus epistles, and the portions of the 'genuine' epistles for which legitimacy is questioned, it's no longer clear to me that Paul even believed Jesus was a recent historical earthly being.

andrewcriddle

Who would you see as Mark's intended readership and why ?

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

The intended readership is problematic - because of the irony. Maybe it is aimed at several very different audiences at the same time.

Maybe it is a multi-layered document, using gnostic methods. An in joke for the senior Romans about those funny Jews and their converts with their strange oriental cults - these xianities seems popular with their god jesus. I think the earliest xianities were gnostic ones.

Remember that article in the Jerusalem Post where they found fish symbols in a prison and an inscription to the god jesus before the xians "corrected" the article?

It looks very much like a play - it may have been written as such.

Other messages may have been towards other groups - pacifying slaves for example.

The added end may be a second edition, an attempt to improve it, written with agreement of someone. What if it is a deliberate work of propaganda?


We really cannot assume anything. I think there is more evidence for the above than for the classic - which ever one is it - Jesus.