Ted Hoffman

I would like to know how Layman and ex-preacher reach the conclusion that Mark makes up only less than half of his gospel. Any methodology applied?

On the question about Mark not containing supernatural claims, even if one excluded the
resurrection account, there are still lots of others casting out demons, healing lepers, raising people from the dead etc.

I have also refuted claims that Mark portrays Jesus in a negative light.

I would suggest ex-preacher starts a thread elsewhere where Layman can explain to us what his God is accountable for since every error and flaw in his holy book is blamed on mankind.
I would even pay to see that.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

ex-preacher

Luke contains nearly all of Mark, but a lot of other material as well. The prevailing opinion is that Mark was the first gospel written. Matthew and Luke used Mark, a common source (perhaps written, perhaps oral, now lost) designated as "Q", and sources that were unique to each of them.

<strong> Vork was not saying that Mark doesn't contain supernatural claims. He was trying to emphasize that the entire basis of the book was supernaturalism.[/QB][/QUOTE]

<strong> I would, except for the fact that no Christian seems to be willing or able to explain this great mystery. How much would you pay?

Ted Hoffman

expreacher
I know about the 2 source theory.
You still havent explained why you beleive that less than half of Mark was made up. And how you pick the made parts from the true/ actual parts.

How much would I pay? As much as you and Layman find necessary (You ask the question and he does the answering).
If you can do it for free (and I can see there is no strong desire to start the thread at all) the better.

Layman

Ummm. Scholars look at Mark. Then they look at Luke. They see how much of Luke is based on Mark. Then they note how much of Luke is not based on Mark.

I don't think this is a serious point of dispute.

ex-preacher

Are you pulling my leg? Either that or we have had a serious failure of communication. When I say "Mark makes up half of Luke," I mean "Mark comprises half of Luke." To my knowledge, we aren't talking about "made up" in the sense of "invented." That's a whole different subject.

Layman

ROFLOL.

Now I see the problem.

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."

Bede

Hi Toto,

Bede: I am stuck in Germany with work for six weeks with very limited internet time. Certainly I will not be able to give many in depth replies. But thank you for your reply which I address in part below. Sorry for the bad spelling and typos but this German keyboard has some weirdnesses.

The implied criticism is of Jesus' family for not understanding him. What other critical views are there? You don't see Mark talking about a person who meant well, but failed to understand Roman politics, or anything else that would diminish Jesus as an ideal man-god.

Bede: Not true. What about in the Garden of Gethsemene? Also Jesus fails to perform miricles in his home town - hardly the problem we would expect from a perfect being. That is like Eros having brewers droop. So there is criticism of Jesus both explicit and implied.

Okay - you say that Luke is an educated historian. But one of Luke's primary sources is Mark. There's something missing here.

Bede: Your comment is like saying Christopher Hill isn’t a historian because he uses common people’s diaries and sermons etc. So nothing is missing except your thinking this through. Mark is a source for Luke which he uses but does not follow slavishly.

I will try to read it. From the excerpts on the web, it appears that Bede was the only source for a lot of history (so its not clear how you can validate him.) It also appears that he records a lot of basic down-to-earth observations, sometimes with a supernatural explanation. He doesn't record virgin births, tombs opening up, etc., just a few miracle cures.

Bede: Vork misunderstood this point but you got it. However, I suggest you read about the columns of light rising to heaven, lots of healing, miraculously preserved corpses etc. Basically Bede, like the evangelists, accepts supernatural causation and miracles. Also, Bede checks out quite well where he can be cross referenced.

A dedication to an unknown, possibly mythical person shows that it is history?

Bede: No but it is a statement commiting to getting the facts right as Vork demanded. Vorks criteria were stupid though, so it does not help the Gospels much.

But Vork is not talking about the historian redacting the material. He is talking about variations in different copies of the documents.

Bede: Where we have different manuscripts we have variations. Also, none of the points I said could be extracted are affected by varient readings or any of Bart Ehrmans points. Also, I think Vork was talking about redaction.

The death reads like a dramatic play, not like a courtroom scene.

Bede: Most real court scenes read like dramatic plays. Check out MacCaulays account of the trial of the seven bishops by James II.

Are you claiming that this is serious history? It looks more like anti-Semitism written into the Bible some decades after the events are supposed to have happened, reflecting the struggles between Christians and Jews well after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified.

Bede: No Toto, it looks like explanation written by Mark who probably was not Jewish either. Steven Carr has an excellent article on the non-Jewishness of Mark. Also, you cannot claim inconvenient bits look like interpolation without cast iron reasons or it is special pleading. Otherwise we have no history.

Bede: I have produced the methodology and I gave a partial list of what we can get from it. Vorks method is to claim that what looks like a myth to him clearly is a myth, which is not much of a method. He gives examples which I have usually shown to be inappropriate (remember Roland and William Tell) but I see he has some more now. As for his list of markers of good history, it is ad hoc and assumes only the elite are relevant. Although the Gospels, especially Luke, come out of it quite well, Vorks criteria were useless anyway, so do not help the Gospels.

You, Toto, must realise that it is unacceptable to find interpolation and redaction without any evidence except your prejudices. In HJ studies very, very little of the variant readings make any difference. As for interpolation, I might as well claim that the dead saints and virgin birth etc were later additions to a completely reliable and unsuperstitous Matthew or that Luke got the census right and some later scribe hyper-corrected him and got it wrong (hyper-correction is the technical term for when a scribe corrects something already correct and thus makes it wrong. Happens a lot).

Yours

Bede