DCHindley

What kind of interpretative strategy is that? Narrative clues certainly do help determine who wrote a document, or when, or even where. Think of the kind of propaganda put out by the Soviet Union during the cold war. It was almost always anonymous, had a propensity to rewrite history or use keywords common to particular factions within Soviet government, factions which changed over time and differed at times within the geography of the Soviet Union.

CIA analysts spent entire careers sorting out the internal politics of the SU on the basis of these clues, comparing details of documents or broadcasts with other historical documents/information. If they can do it, so can we.

Saying we cannot interpret the authorship and date and content of a document without already knowing who the author was, when he wrote and what he believed, seems a little bit circular, yes?

DCH

dog-on

What do you mean by "interpret the authorship"?

DCHindley

Separating the true author from the attributed author. Just because a letter says it was written by Paul, or Seneca, or Plato, does not mean that those people actually wrote it. Some, even many, might be correctly attributed to a specific author, but others may not, either in error or by the writer assuming an illustrius name to get his (usually inferior) ideas a reading.

DCH

dog-on

Ah, got ya.

Thanks.

JoeWallack

"God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!"


JW:
I feel like Major Hocksteder here, "Vat is dis Thread doing here?!". We've had better Threads go immediately to "Elsewhere" or that special room of the snob Fraternity in Animal House where they put the unacceptable candidates.

JW:
Yes, let's use Christian standards from 2,000 years ago. I have faith that you also do not wash your hands before meals and when you get sick, instead of going to a Jewish doctor, you pray.

That's the whole point of Standards. They don't change depending on the conclusion you want. Ignoring modern standards is not your solution. It is your problem. Without them you can not tell how far away you are from good evidence for conclusions. The criterion of Age is really a problem here for any conclusion. The only reason your conclusion of "John Mark" is even possible is because Age is making any conclusion uncertain. You need to overcome age with the other criteria. Suppose today's News reports that Michelle Bachman said something crazy yesterday. What type of witness do you need to confirm that? Hmmm, okay, bad example. Suppose Adam's wife Eve died and Adam wants to collect the life insurance. But there is no body or any physical evidence. The only current witness is Adam, the beneficiary. What type of evidence would the insurance company look for?

If you want to conclude that "Mark" is based on eyewitness testimony you have to:

1) Ignore that it consists primarily of the Impossible. You believe that the Impossible is Possible so your credibility is impeached but continuing, even if you accept that the Impossible is Possible, you still have to accept that it is [understatement]extremely unlikely[/understatement]. So you still have an observation against witness testimony that is exponentially stronger than anything you have presented supposedly supporting witness testimony. You ignore this observation because you claim the Impossible is Possible. As spin would say, "That's naughty" and it's pure Apologetics, defend against superior evidence against your conclusion by dismissing it as not proven.

2) Moving into your fantasy world that it's possible "Mark" is based on eyewitness testimony (for the sake of argument), you have to identify the witness that says "John Mark" is the witness and evaluate that testimony.

3) Evaluate John Mark's credentials. What is his provenance? I have a Legendary Thread asking the question:

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter

4) Evaluate "Mark" for evidence of witness testimony. As I previously mentioned, no help for your here. "Mark" discredits Peter as a witness. This is why you are slumming through for evidence of Markan authorship (symptomatic of your lack of evidence) in "John". "John" similarly goes against you anyway. It is a reaction against "Mark":

Telling Your Source He Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About. John as Denial of Mark

My Literary Criticism evidence is exponentially better than yours for my conclusion that "Mark" is probably not based on eyewitnesses. I accept though that it's possible that John Mark was a source for "Mark" because the External evidence is too weak to conclude/eliminate any specific author.

The idea that Peter's primary preaching message was that he witnessed a resurrected Jesus and that he is behind the original Gospel showing that he did not witness or ever believe in a resurrected Jesus is nonsense. You and Christianity need to come to grips with this. You have come to the right place but in an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, it's for the wrong reason.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Horatio Parker

Can a person escape or transcend the circle of life as a non-Xtian? IOW achieve nirvana?

Nathan Poe

And in cases where the author is unknown, we can usually get some info based on their writing style.

Adam

I covered this at the very start of my four articles in Noesis:
' The four Gospels and Acts can be shown by simple common sense to be very
early in date. Putting aside a priori theology that Christ is God on the one hand, or on the other hand historical method that proceeds as if supernatural events cannot happen, let’s see what the texts themselves show.
The proper starting point is the Gospel of Luke and its continuation, The Acts of the Apostles. In the second half of the latter, the author at times slips into “we” (or “us” or “our”) sayings that indicate he was with Paul of Tarsus during the latter’s missionary journeys. These three passages are Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18, and 27:1-28:16. At the conclusion of these, Paul is still alive and in Rome, which can be dated by reference to Paul’s epistles in the New Testament to be about 64 A.D. The most sensible date for the Gospel of Luke and its complementary Acts is thus 64 A.D. The author (presumably Luke) could have written this much later in his life, but it would by common sense analysis still be early.
The Lucan author employed sources, as he himself tells us in Luke 1:1-4.
These would necessarily have been earlier. At least one source bears some connection to the apostle Peter, whose name appears frequently in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of Acts. The mention in Acts 15:7-11 occurs in the context of Acts chapters 13 to 28 that focus on Paul, so the source connected with Peter seems to end at Acts 12:19. The death of King Herod Agrippa I (12:23) sets the date at 44 A.D. This likely sets the date of the writing of the source and also establishes the likely author, as this is when Peter “went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark.” Church tradition also supports this logic, that Peter’s scribe was Mark, and critical scholarship calls this source “Ur-Marcus.” '
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#CommonWhen I realized decades ago that I could establish the sources of the gospels were written very early, I knew that many would turn to contradicting them as lies instead of accumulated misunderstandings and legends. It still remains a matter of faith rather than proof. Nor can I overcome the faith of those who are certain they know what is impossible.

Guest46854

Ain't it conveinient there's always a fly on the wall to eyewitness biblical conversations?

Just like all fictionional movies and novels, comics, etc...
Cool.

Adam

The "disciple who was known to the high priest" of John 18:15-16 has been misunderstood by tradition to be the Beloved Disciple, likewise John the Apostle, modern critics deny this. The gospels seem to intentionally leave the authors anonymous, including the sources (until some later editor may insert the names), so who would this disciple/writer be? Comparison with Acts 12:12 shows this most likely person is John Mark. As his mother Mary is still mentioned as the owner of the house, this indicates that Mark was young at the time of the Passion Narrative. He could easily have been at every crucial event in it without attracting attention.You claim that gMark was written to discredit Peter and the other disciples, but the exposure of Peter's frailties is better understood as a repentent Christian's testimony of past failings before becoming fully Christian. Your contrasting opinion does not pass muster as a proof that Peter could have had nothing to de with gMark. Even less would it indicate that an earlier source (the Passion Narrative) written by John Mark could not have presented Peter in an unflattering light.
GJohn developed in parallel to the Synoptics. All attempts have failed to prove John used any finished Synoptic gospel. The Passion Narrative is the source they have in common.
Thanks for the links to your posts. One shows many obviously varying testimonies about an identical Mark, not proving your point at all. The other acknowledges up front that you assume as true about Mark some things no one knows to be true.
You apparently assume that Peter did not know about the Resurrection of Jesus because Mark 16:8 concludes that book without anyone yet seeing the risen Jesus. So you are admitting Peter stands behind gMark? So Peter can't be behind Mark or he surely is?