TedM

God/man is the key. If you still don't undertstand, please don't bother further.

How about an angel, or Doherty's Christ in the 7th heaven? Both can speak, and appear human, but are not represented as humans the way Mark's Jesus is.

bacht

Yes, and so did Jonah, Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Judith...

There was a well-established tradition of 'historical fiction' among the Jews. You could argue that most of their history was at the least embellished. If Mark was a Jew it's quite reasonable to posit his use of this style.

Jesus may have been no more historical than these earlier characters, some of whom may have been real but unspectacular.

TedM

All the other early writings that showed knowledge of gMark. What historical background do you think Mark has not made plausible and how do you think he would have made it plausible if he wanted to?

What about all those who don't want to be duped and who don't even believe but still think it contains historical elements including those of a historical Jesus? Why did no one question the existence of Mark's Jesus until recent times? Was Mark a clever work in your opinion?

The expectation that the Messiah would have been in the tribe of Judah, and in the line of David, and perhaps born in Bethlehem? What expectation was there that the Messiah would have been a spirit descended from heaven in his 30th year, and where does Mark mention Jesus' 30th year?



I'm saying there could have been some traditions about Jesus' ministry and perhaps NO helpful ones about his life prior to the ministry. This could explain Mark's focus on only a very short period of time in a historical Jesus' life.

TedM

It may or may not be true of Mark. I was addressing Toto's statement that "Mark didn't want to make Jesus appear human, or historical." I disagree and strongly. Whether Jesus WAS human or historical is another issue, and my related points of interest are found in the OP. Let's try to stay focused here on the specifics..

aa5874

I understand that a God/man is a mythological or non-historical entity.

And the KEYS to understanding the God/man of gMark can be found in:

1. Mark 3.11

2. Mark 5.7

3. Mark 6.3

4. Mark 9.2

5. Mark 14.61-62

6. Mark 16.6

It makes no sense for you to claim Mark's Jesus was only human when you recognise the KEY characteristic that the author did portray Jesus as a God/man.

TedM

That's a limited understanding of the different options.

When did I claim Mark's Jesus was only human? MARK'S Jesus clearly was not only human. The REAL Jesus that Mark may have been writing about could well have been 100% human prior to all of the embellishment that influenced Mark's elevated portrayal of him. My OP is designed to try and find CLUES about an alleged REAL HUMAN Jesus within Mark's writing.

bacht

Okay, from your OP:

"Might not a reasonable explanation be that Mark was passing along traditions which included mythological development regarding an actual historical Jesus about whom not much was really known?"

If the epistles are any guide there seems to have been nothing known about the historical Jesus even among his followers. There's no hint there of any traditions to be passed on, not even quotes.

Unless Mark had written his gospel we would know nothing about Nazareth or John the Baptist or Jesus' family or Pilate's order to execute Jesus or even that Jesus lived on earth in recent times. This could all be Mark's "mythological development"

TedM

You are quoting a potential conclusion in the form of a question based on clues within Mark. I don't want to talk about the epistles here. I want to talk about Mark. Focus!

aa5874

But are we not limited by the evidence? It is the very EVIDENCE as found in gMark that shows Jesus was a GOD/MAN.

And it is YOU who want to limit the options. You are LIMITING your options when the EVIDENCE in gMark has a far wider scope on Jesus.

The resurrection of Jesus is a KEY factor in gMARK where the author demonstrate that all those who had previously LIMITED Jesus to that of a mere man were RUDELY awakened when it was proclaimed that Jesus did do as he taught.

The Markan Jesus broke the LIMITS of death as he predicted.

Mr 9:31 - Man is LIMITED by death but the author of gMark will show that death is NOT a LIMIT for Jesus.

He was really DIVINE. He did RISE.

The author of gMark has shattered your LIMITED understanding of HIS Jesus.



But, are you not implying that Mark's Jesus may have been 100% human?

But, Mark's Jesus was both God and man. You cannot LIMIT the scope of gMark by IGNORING the Divine characteristics.

And further, your notion that Jesus believers or the author of gMark KNEW Jesus was just a man who lived in Galilee for about thirty years, crucified for blasphemy and STILL worshiped him as a God contrary to the commandments of God makes very little sense and not is supported by Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus.

Jews did not even worship Emperors as Gods or their own kings such as David. It is most absurd that they would have worshiped a blasphemer and a false prophet as a Son of their God.

Toto

I guess this is the answer to "what earliest evidence?" but it doesn't answer the question. Are you claiming that the later gospel writers, who felt free to add details and change key facts are evidence that Mark was read as history? I would conclude the opposite. Matthew and Luke treat Mark as an earlier draft of a movie script, subject to revision.

A historian, or someone trying to imitate one, would start off by establishing his credentials - I, Markus son of XX, in the year whatever of the reign of some emperor, based on what I saw . . .

While written in what is called "bad Greek," Mark is an intelligent literary construction. But it is not credible history, and the only people who read it as history are trying to find a historical Jesus, for whatever purpose.

For most of its history, one could be burnt at the stake for questioning holy scripture.

You're right, only Luke pegs Jesus' age as 30, although that is not inconsistent with Mark's story.

In general, Mark's Jesus seems to dash those messianic expectations.

Or there could have been no surviving traditions, and gospel writers made up what the Spirit told them to.