aa5874

I NO longer accept PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS as evidence.

ALL actual DATED TEXTS of antiquity show that there was NO stories of Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century.

We have a Documented Big Black Hole for the Activities of any Jesus cult before c 70 CE.

And further, it can be logically deduced that the short-ending gMark was likely COMPOSED AFTER the autobiography of Josephus.

Only in the autobiography of Josephus it is found that THREE were Crucified and ONE survived and the person who asked for the Crucified to be taken down was JOSEPH which is found in the short-ending gMark.

Toto

Feel free to start a thread. There are scholars who have speculated about this, but it seems just a contrived theory to force Mark to say what the scholar wishes he had. From a literary point of view, there is no reason to assume that there is a lost ending.

tanya

You are correct, of course. One wants to know the actual dates of composition, and this we do not know.

Yes, we use lots of techniques to uncover the truth, the history of the various documents. But, as you implied, none of our methods are completely satisfactory.

The existence of a papyrus, dated by radioactive carbon, to within a century of the time when the plant was harvested, does not prove the date of composition. Even if we could date the ink on the parchment, that would still not confirm the date of composition.

Our only hope, really, is to uncover a hidden cache of documents, buried 1890 years ago, containing within, a copy of the Jerusalem Gazette, dated 05 August 122CE....

Even then, without a photograph of Mark, I will be skeptical....

aa5874

They will STILL have to be DATED by Paleography and/or C14 because they may be Fake. One cannot assume that all things found buried at any site was there 1890 years ago.

Sheshbazzar

Having already found their hope, and trusting in it, The Believers have no need at all of any such find.

Tommy

Mark 10:45 has Jesus saying his life will be a ransom for many (remission of sins?) and Mark 16:6 has the women being told "he is risen" (resurrection?). As you say, the connection of the death and the remission of sins is not spelt out.

So you are saying that the figure of Joseph of Arimethea was adpated from Josephus description of himself at a crucifixion? Possibly, although it might just describe a coincidentally similar scenario.

Tommy

There seems to be a discontinuity between GMark up to 16:8 and GMark 16:9 onwards.

In the shorter ending Mary Magdalane and two other women are first told by "a young man dressed in a white robe" (an angel?) that Jesus is risen and heading to Galilee and the women flee. Mark 16:9 then tells us that Jesus first unambiguously appeared to Mary Magdalane, presumably alone (as in GJohn) as she had previously been referred to in the tomb episode as part of "the women". It thus seems unlikely to be a reference to the meeting with the "young man" in the tomb, particularly as he tells the women that Jesus is going to Galilee where the women will see Him. If Jesus subsequently appeared to Mary Magdalane after she fled from the tomb but before his next appearance - corresponding to the road to Emmaus appearance in Judea on the evening of the resurrection day (GLuke) - then this contradicts the conversation in the tomb about Galilee.

This strikes me as a continuity error in the plot of the longer version of GMark and makes it more likely that the longer ending was added to marry up GMark with other sources rather than being lost from early manuscripts of GMark.

aa5874

You are NOT saying that it could ONLY be coincidental so you have NOT really affected my argument.

Plus, in any argument where indirect evidence is used it is the ABUNDANCE of evidence, the Preponderance of evidence, that is important.

Any argument can be maintained once there is EVIDENCE to support it.

No Jesus story has been found and DATED by Paleography or C14 to any time before the 1st century or before the Autobiography of Flavius Josephus.

Tommy

Doesn't have to be co-incidental, just maybe. If Joseph of Arethemea and Josephus could have interacted in a similar way then how can real influence be determined?

Yeah, yeah... However, apologists will note that church fathers were quoting the NT by the second century and some time would be needed to spread the documents - the NT also notes unusual, historical figures such as Quirinius, Caiaphus, Pilate, Archelaus etc.

aa5874

Are you saying that a person found guilty of a crime can NEVER EVER be really innocent??? It is ALWAYS possible that a guilty verdict is wrong but ONLY evidence is FIRST needed to overturn the verdict.

All I need is evidence to make an argument.

My argument is that there is NO Jesus story dated to the 1st century and that the short-ending gMark contains stories that are found ONLY in the autobiography of Josephus written at the end of the 1st century.

The Mormon Bible notes unusual figures like Jesus so can we ASSUME it was written 1830 years ago???