Toto

Hey Layman, isn't it time to cut out the childish insults? They're getting a bit old. You're sounding like you can't find any real arguments. I read lots of books, not always the same books you read, but I did catch your misstatement of Kummel, remember?

The issue here is not Marcan priority, but a lengthy 10 year gap that would fit your scenario.

We have seen many instances where there is a "scholarly consensus" that is based on nothing more than a best guess or hand-waving. I suspect this 10-20 year gap is similarly based on quicksand.

I have a copy of The Gospels for all Christians in front of me. It is edited by Bauckham, with articles by Michael Thompson, Loveday Alexander, Richard Burridge, Richard Bauckham, Steven Barton, and Francis Watson. It details the technology of book production and copying in the early Christian world, and argues that early Christians were in constant communication with each other - while noting, of course, that

from p. 71, "Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels" by Loveday Alexander.

Reproducing scrolls was time consuming and expensive compared to current technology, but the evidence presented in The Gospels for All Christians is that early Christians were willing to invest the time and expense in documentary production.

If you think that aMatthew had Mark’s original ending - which he felt free to rewrite, adding the earthquake, the angel, the guards at the tomb who were bribed by the leaders of the Jews, and the Great Commission - it is not clear which elements of gMatthew’s ending you think came from gMark.

Besides, you have not answered this argument very well:

-from Layman’s opening post.

You started this thread with an argument that the author of Mark must have written a resurrection appearance, because you think that Mark believed in the resurrection and there must have been a tradition of bodily resurrection among early Christians, as shown by Paul’s letters (although I believe that you would not argue that Mark had ever read Paul's letters.)

Koy raised the issue of bodily versus spiritual resurrection. It’s not an issue I want to discuss now (before I read a few more books.)

Koyaanisqatsi

I'm on the big bad atheist "ignore" list all theists who try to infiltrate our realm are given, Toto. I think Tercel hands them out at church socials.

Vorkosigan

If you open almost any introduction to the New Testament, you'll find probable dates placing Mattew and Luke 10 or more years after Mark. Surely you can find such an introduction?

Yes, that's what all the books say. But it is simply another case of unsupported ex cathedra ukases. Where is the sound reasoning for that gap?

David Ross argued that both Matthew and Luke had motives to change the story from the original ending of Mark. Matt presented Jesus as a second Moses, so fishing story is too humble an ending (though Matt 28:16-20 did have him meet his disciples in Galilee, he gave the Great Commission at a mountain), while Luke thought the Resurrection would appear in Jerusalem. And he certainly knew the story of the miraculous fish which Powell argued was the original ending of Mark, but is now the ending of John. The only question is where he got it from, the ending of John, or of Mark?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

We have a tremendous amount of primary, and valuable secondary, sources about Paul. More than for most any other Jewish figure of that time

More than for Josephus or Philo? Herod the Great and several other Herodians? I think not. And much of the info about Paul, at least that in Acts and other second century fantasies, is clearly legendary and nigh-on useless.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Actually, I was thinking of Josephus and Philo when I added "most." "Most" certainly does not mean "all." Do we have any primary evidence for Herod the Great? And I do not share your assumption that Acts was a second century fantasy. Far from it. Acts was a first century writing that had access to reliable information about Paul.

Layman

I remember that you attempted to manufacture some contradiction. Kummell backed up my assertion--the majority of scholars date Mark before 70 CE.

If we are going to visit the hall of idiot statements past though, perhaps you could finallye explain to me where the census is discussed in Matthew's gospel, or how the confrontation between Peter and Paul in Galatians was the first time they had met? I doubt you want to go there, Toto.



I do not need a 10 year gap to fit my scenario.

Really? Why? Are you committing yourself to the idea that Mark, Matthew, and Luke, wrote at around the same time? Why?

Ah, you finally got a copy. Why do you think this quote helps you? And while I think Bauckham's book makes some good points, he admits to be swimming up stream.


And as usual you've ignored additional arguments. Like the ascendency of Matthew and Luke at the expense of Mark by most churches.

Obviously they were, but this does not put a copy of the Gospel of Mark in the pocket of every travelling missionary that happened to pass through.

That Matthew and Luke had their own sources as well as used Mark is obvious. The former does not forbid the latter. Or are you now rejecting Matthewan and Lucan reliance on Mark?

The more I researched the issue the less persuasive this assumption became. On a logical level, it is certainly possible that Matthew knew Mark's ending and Luke did not. Or vice versa. Which is why I said that I now suspect Matthew may have had access to a longer ending. Luke may have as well, though, from what I have read, the case is less perusasive for him.

Sigh. It really seems you did not even read the opening post.

If it's not an issue that you want to discuss why did you waste so much of my time trying to discuss it?

Layman

Since you've admitted I was right that Paul believes in a bodily resurrection, continuity between the old and the new body, the transformation of the old into the new, I didn't have much else to argue with you about. Purported disputes between Luke and Paul over the nature of the resurrected body is certainly beyond the scope of this thread. I think you are wrong on that, but I am spending my limited time on matters more closely related to this thread.