aa5874

You very well know that all experts do not always agree on any matter. Even in court trials experts can give opposing opinion on the very same evidence.

Your problem is that you cannot show the ACTUAL evidence used for the dating of gMark so you just repeat over and over that experts agree when in fact all experts do not agree about the dating of gMark.

Now what is the ACTUAL evidence that gMark was written at any time BEFORE the Fall of the Temple?

I am not asking you for an expert opinion. I am asking you for written evidence from antiquity.

But, there is evidence that gMark MAY have been written VERY LATE.

Only in gMark does the author imply that Jesus was a carpenter.

[bMr 6:3 - But, in the time of Origen, supposedly sometime in the 3rd century, wrote that in no extant church was it taught Jesus was a carpenter.

"Against Celsus" 6. .

No Gospels in the time of Origen that was used in the Churches described Jesus as a carpenter is the written evidence in "Against Celsus"

And there is another problem. There were more than one version of gMark according to Origen.

"Against Celsus" 1.62.

Can you identify the version of gMark that you believe is early?


People do not generally consult Egyptologists to find out if the Pyramids exist.

They can simply go to Egypt.

Where can we go to find out about Jesus if we don't believe the experts?

The Bible says Jesus used to live in Egypt when Herod was killing all the little children.

Please ask your favorite Egyptolologist if there has ever been found a single corroborative source for the killing of the innocent as stated in the Bible.

The killing of the innocent by Herod is another piece of evidence that tends to show that the Gospels were written very late or/and well way from Judea.

Steve Weiss

Assuming that the was a big library in the ancient world at Alexandria (that's in Egypt, by the way), can anyone tell me how it was destroyed? There appear to be many theories, but which, if any, is correct?

Could you be more specific about which questions that you think that I should study at greater length? Perhaps with your expertise you can shorten my task by indicating which authorities are the ones that I should investigate further. No point in wasting time, eh?

Doug Shaver

The author of Mark believed he himself was the messiah?

stephan huller

The Alexandrian tradition preserves numerous references to this idea including Severus's First Homily on Mark where Mark's Christhood is explciitly stated. As the Alexandrian tradition is the only surviving 'Markan tradition' there is a possibility that the Copts might have preserved something old and original. Who knows. I have always believed that writers are motivated by self serving motives. Perhaps I am too cynical.

jgoodguy

I like agenda better than self serving motives. In any case we can assert that they wrote to present their point of view as advocates, not as disinterested parties.

stephan huller

But if the Copts are right and Mark was the Christ after Jesus's crucifixion and - we may infer - this is the 'gospel secret' in the Gospel of Mark. Moreover Mark's agenda in composing the gospel has to be said to be ultimately self-serving.

I'd like to meet someone who'd argue that the gospel is written by a disinterested party. The evangelist(s) were said to be possessed by the Holy Spirit. Since when is religious enthusiasm identified connected with adiaphora. The people who would claim this don't know what they are talking about.

jgoodguy

Def: Self serving serving one's own selfish interests, esp. at the expense of others.

Def: Advocate: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for

I'd stick to a position that the author was an advocate rather than intending to selfishly profit himself from the writing.

This issue of disinterest shows up in debates over the historically accuracy of the Gospels especially in relation to the Resurrection as a historical event. The lack of disinterest on the part of the authors is critical in showing that what they wrote is not history.

spin

The literature written during the cold war by the antagonistic superpowers was generally self-serving. The histories of colonies written by European colonial powers was generally self-serving. J. Edgar Hoover writing about communists was self-serving. Christians writing about Jews is usually self-serving. Southerners writing about slaves was self-serving. Men writing about women until recently was generally self-serving.

Those who participate in hegemony have the frame of mind which makes their bias seem to be the natural way of things. Their bias is not perceived as such in the expression of their power. In such a situation to point out self-serving is to indicate the status quo.

To talk about an "agenda" indicates an awareness that is not necessarily appropriate in such examples of self-serving.


spin

Doug Shaver

Nobody really knows, because the records just aren't that good.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-of-alexandria

jgoodguy

Interesting. The logical end of this is that all advocates are self serving.