dog-on

Or perhaps it was the first "logical step". Whereas later steps, by other interests, attempted to reunite Christianity with YHWH, for the benefit of a history.

show_no_mercy

Thus Matthew's overzealous fulfillment of Jewish scripture - a reaction to Marcion's Christ who has no relationship to Jewish scripture.

dog-on

Why not? Would be my question.

Clivedurdle

In trying to date Mark would it help if we had a more realistic perspective on the age and venerability of Jewish scripture.

I am more and more leaning to the view that this is not old as well - it is the production of the Jewish fantasy factory - our Hollywood with different technology - in an interaction with the production of that Greek document the Septaguint, and that Judaism is in fact a Greek cult!

Of course any religion always makes itself out to be older than it is!

What happens with these assumptions in place?

aa5874

I presently think that it is likely that gMark as found today may have been written/edited/copied from gMatthew.

It will be noted that the church writers place gMark after gMatthew and I can see no advantage gained by claiming gMatthew was written before gMark.

According to church writers gMatthew was first writtebn by a disciple of Jesus called Matthew and then later gMark was written by a disciple called Mark, a disciple of Peter.

Oddly, the last words of Jesus, as found in the long ending of Mark 16.14-17, where Jesus told his disciple that they would speak in tongues is compatible with Acts of the Apostles where Peter did speak in tongues and where Jesus appeared to the disciples as "they sat at meat", implying that the passage may have been added in response to Marcion's phantom.

It would appear the last words of Jesus was not upgraded to include talking in tongues or Jesus eating with his disciples in gMatthew. So, gMark appears to have been re-worked after gMatthew.

But, what I find interesting that gives me the inclination that gMatthew preceeded gMark is the "donkey story"

In Matthew 21, according to the author, Jesus told two his disciples to bring two donkeys for him,and somehow rode the two donkeys at the same time time but the two donkey story appears to be a misinterpretation of Zechariah 9.9

In Zechariah 9.9, the King rode one single donkey.

Now, the author of Mark, [Mark 11], and the the author of Luke, did write that Jesus did ask for and rode a single donkey.

Now, it is my view that gMark's donkey story is later than gMatthew's erroneous two donkey story, that is the author of Mark corrected the error in gMatthew.

And finally, if you read gMark by itself, that is, ignore gMatthew, it should become obvious that something is missing. The Jesus story in gMark appears to be incomplete. It is not known how or when Jesus came to earth. In order to fully understand gMark's Jesus, some other source must be utilised, either that Jesus did actually exist, or some oral tradition was available.

However with gMatthew, Jesus need not exist nor is there any need for oral tradition. The gospel according to Matthew is fairly complete on its own and gMark can be used in concert with gMatthew.

So presently I would place gMatthew before gMark since gMark, in the long version, appears to have information to counter Marcion or information that is also found in Acts of the Apostles.

show_no_mercy

What about how Mark has Peter disown Jesus three times and then runs away - and that's the last we hear of Peter in Mark. However, in Matthew Jesus actually says that Peter is the "rock" of Jesus' new church and Matthew grants Peter a resurrection appearance. Funny how a disciple of Peter would fail to mention this important saying of Jesus that Peter himself would definitely remember - and also fails to mention any resurrection appearances (also funny how John would also show Jesus allowing Peter to reaffirm his love for him three times to make up for disowning him three times).

Matthew seems to be updating Mark, not the other way around.

aa5874

In gMark, there is no information that Peter ran away after denying Jesus.

Now, gMark may have been regarded as written first partly based on the flawed theory or assunption that Jesus did exist.

GMark appears to be written as though the audience or reader is already aware that Jesus did live or that there is some oral tradition of Jesus.

The author of Mark, from the very first verse, claimed he was writing about the gospel of Jesus Christ as though it was already already known Jesus Christ did exist.

GMatthew may not be dependent on the existence of Jesus or any oral tradition about Jesus. GMatthew introduces Jesus from prophecy to conception, and to post resurrection. In this case, the reader need not know anything about Jesus at all, gMatthew is a fairly complete biography.

It should be noted that the gosel of John although assumed to be written later than gMatthew, gMark, or gLuke also contains no birth narrative and does not mention the ascension of Jesus.


Just as the fundamental story of Jesus in John appears to be based on the Synoptics, I think gMark is based on gMatthew.

razlyubleno

Then you might be interested in this: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm

There's a reason why people think Mark was written first. And it has nothing to do with the idea that Jesus existed.

razly

aa5874

If you look at the conclusion by Mark Goodacre, you will notice that he wrote that some may not agree with him.

At this moment, I do not agree with Mark.

Now, if gMatthew is examined it will be noticed that only gMatthew quoted the verse or passage from the Hebrew scripture on the so-called prophecy on the conception of Jesus from Isaiah 7.14.

Matt 1:23 - This mis-interpreted passage may have been the initial concept of Jesus Christ as found in gMatthew.

It is not known how the author of gMark derived his Jesus. Maybe he got it from gMatthew, but the author of gMatthew seemed to have gotten his Jesus Christ from Isaiah 7.14 not from gMark.

And further gMatthew has a Hebrew scripture, many times misinterpreted, or a supposed fulfilled prophecy for almost all events. No other gospel writer used Hebrew scripture or so-called fulfilled prophecy more than the author of gMatthew. This author seemed to have generared his Jesus Christ story from scripture.

The conception and birth of Jesus was fulfilled prophecy as spoken by the prophets.

Now, if Jesus did not exist and gMark was the first to ever write about this character, how did the author expect his readers to know that there was a character called Jesus Christ?


Mark1.1 Now, look at Matthew 1.18 I think that the author of gMark may have been aware of Matthew 1.18


It is still my view presently that gMatthew preceeded gMark.

dog-on

I disagree. Matthew is a reaction to Mark. It "fleshes" it out...