Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 03-30-2006, 09:32 AM

The possible prediction of the fall of the temple is not the only reason: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...4&#post3220814

Julian

michael wellenberg · 03-30-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Let's see . . . the parts we can check have mistakes, but we can ignore them because they concerned matters about which the author didn't care enough to verify his facts.

But we can trust him when we gets to the parts he really cared about?

How do we know that what he really cared about had anything to do with any factual history?

The point is that Mark´s erroneous geographical details seem to rule out that his source was Peter but that we cannot be certain because we just do not know Mark´s sources and how he employed them - are we to attribute the errors to them or to Mark ? Mark might even have used Peter´s reminiscences ( though I do not think he did) and did not care for being accurate in details that did not seem important for him. And are they really ?
A further point is that those errors in geography, may they stem from Mark himself or not, do not rule out a priori that Mark was a Palestinian Jew.

Michael

Yuri Kuchinsky · 03-30-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

In other words, there are no really good reasons to date Mk to any particular period.

Thank you, robto!

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

The general feeling, tho, is that 60-75AD is a good guess.

Based on nothing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

For instance, Mark likes "sandwich stories", where he begins a story (A), leaves it to tell another story(B), then returns to finish the first story(A'). One instance is Mark 11:12-22. (A) Jesus curses the fig tree, (B) Jesus overturns tables in the Temple, (A') Disciples see that the fig tree has withered. Mark has (at least) six such stories, so it seems to be a stylistic quirk of his. Mt has 3, Lk 2, in the same places where Mk has them, and none elsewhere. This makes sense if Mk was copied by Mt and Lk, who didn't care for the sandwiches and either combined A and A' into a single story, or left out one of the pieces to get rid of the sandwich. It's hard to understand on any other hypothesis.

And there are various other logical possibilities. You simply prefer one possibility to the other ones... based on nothing!

Meanwhile, I have 1000 good arguments why Mt and Lk did not copy from Mk. It's called *the Anti-Markan Agreements*.

Regards,

Yuri.

michael wellenberg · 03-30-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Let's see . . . the parts we can check have mistakes, but we can ignore them because they concerned matters about which the author didn't care enough to verify his facts.

But we can trust him when we gets to the parts he really cared about?

How do we know that what he really cared about had anything to do with any factual history?

Mark´s erroneous geography may be attributed to his source or to him (we do not know).
As Diogenes pointed out it is unlikely that his source was Peter, with which I principally agree, but this, too, is not beyond any doubt - Mark might even have used Peter´s reminiscences and just lacks geographical accuracy because it was not important for him (and is it really ?).
And if the errors be related to Mark this would not rule out that he was a Palestinian Jew (no maps in those days).

Michael

(This "doublette" is only an EDITORIAL error)

michael wellenberg · 03-30-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

2. Mark wasn't from Galilee, as already noted, so we have to allow time for Xty to spread around.

I think we may have Christianity spread around beginning with the expulsion of the "Hellenists" that is only few years after Jesus´death.

Quote:

3. The general tenor of Mk seems to imply that bad stuff was going down. This could refer to the Roman-Jewish war that culminated in the destruction of the Temple in 70. (Tho why would this be relevant for Mark if he was Gentile and living outside of Palestine? hmmm....)

Right, so does this not point to Mark´s being a Palestinian Jew rather than a Gentile (notwithstanding erroneous geography) ?
And, by the way, I believe not a prediction but a threat to the temple is meant (no supernatural abilities necessary and no date after 70).

Michael

andrewcriddle · 03-30-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

1. Early traditions (Papias, Irenaeus) say Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death, which is placed in the 60s (for what reasons? I dunno.) And we all know how reliable Papias is ...

Peter's death is placed in the 60's on the basis of reasonably good evidence that he was executed during Nero's reign as part of Nero's persecution of Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 03-30-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Peter's death is placed in the 60's on the basis of reasonably good evidence that he was executed during Nero's reign as part of Nero's persecution of Christians.

Andrew Criddle

What evidence is that?

robto · 03-31-2006, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

And there are various other logical possibilities. You simply prefer one possibility to the other ones... based on nothing!

Remember I was answering the question "Why do scholars believe....?" But I do prefer this possibility, and I'd be very interested to hear what you think is an alternative explanation. (At the risk of derailing the thread...)

Quote:

Meanwhile, I have 1000 good arguments why Mt and Lk did not copy from Mk. It's called *the Anti-Markan Agreements*.

Regards,

Yuri.

Right, that's why I said "it's controversial"

Febble · 03-31-2006, 05:32 AM

Anyone like to summarize the evidence for the authorship of John?

Doug Shaver · 03-31-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How do we know that what he really cared about had anything to do with any factual history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael wellenberg

The point is that Mark´s erroneous geographical details seem to rule out that his source was Peter but that we cannot be certain because we just do not know Mark´s sources and how he employed them

I'd say it is a near certainty that it was not Peter, but that doesn't address my question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael wellenberg

are we to attribute the errors to them [sources]or to Mark ?

Given that we really have no idea who his sources were, we have no idea how reliable his information was and therefore no idea whether any of it is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael wellenberg

A further point is that those errors in geography, may they stem from Mark himself or not, do not rule out a priori that Mark was a Palestinian Jew.

Well, we can proceed on the assumption that the conventional thinking is true except when we can prove it false, or we can proceed on the assumption that it's high time for the conventional thinking to defend itself with arguments that rely on something better than 1,800-year-old folklore-based religious traditions that very conveniently prop up certain dogmas that a lot of people say must not ever be questioned.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2006, 09:32 AM	#51
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	The possible prediction of the fall of the temple is not the only reason: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...4&#post3220814 Julian

03-31-2006, 05:32 AM	#59
Febble Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Google "Febble" if you need to find me. Posts: 6,547	Anyone like to summarize the evidence for the authorship of John?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.