Ulan wrote:A statement I didn't make. Now you are mixing things up. I was not talking about the setting of the story, but when and in which situation it was written, and that was a situation when pretty much all potential witnesses were dead. Which completely evaporates your grand "witness" statement.
Your missing the point.
The point is these possible witnesses managed to remember Pilate and Caiaphas and the temple in detail, there no reason why they would not remember the star of the show on a Passover.
You are talking about the women, right? Otherwise, gMark itself seems to discredit any witnesses. At least none of the disciples were present. The scenes with the Sanhedrin and Pilates don't have any witnesses by default, they are obvious story inventions.
outhouse wrote:Witnesses were still alive with Paul...
Witnesses for what? What is there in Paul's writing that is in need of witnesses? He is talking about his visions. The only "witnesses" he mentions seem to be other people who had similar visions. Which makes sense in an environment, where the typical meeting of the faithful seemed to involve getting in trance and producing either glossolalia or let Christ "speak" through the faithful. Which, by the way, produces another problem, as, according to Paul, Christ was still talking to his faithful and adding to his teachings in the 60's, which makes finding anything historical in that mess even more futile.
outhouse wrote:Witnesses were still alive as parts of what would be Mark existed.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on which parts Mark invented. The scenes with Pilate and the Sanhedrin are obvious, as this happened behind closed doors. Where do you draw the line?
outhouse wrote:Had anyone denounced it, those traditions would still be alive in oral traditions and there would have been people attesting to the opposite. Just the way we see with Paul. Paul was hated and loved and there were many traditions against him.
Well, it's obvious that Mark must have been accused of lying, which is why you have additions in gMatthew to counteract this opposition.
No, the witness part of your reasoning is very weak. If I were you, I'd stick to the "why Pilate" question. That's a much harder nut to crack for any mythicism hypothesis.