whether it's politics, religion or histries.
The thing you gotta know iz,
Everything is show biz.
JW:Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:25 amI think the crucial evidence that the author of gMark presents his story, his narrative, as history writing comes right off the bat, when he inserts his story into the frame of prophecy: "As it is written in the prophet Isaiah" (Mark 1:2). His story may be one very special form of history writing, but nevertheless history writing indeed, i.e. a story relating real events.
To my knowledge there is no evidence that the prophetic predictions of Scripture were generally considered as anything other than predictions of actual, real events to come. That is, reality. And that is what history is thought to be: reality. As such, prophecy is a kind of proleptic history writing, because the real author of the prophecies was considered to be somebody who knows what is going to happen in the course of history, and that is God. Therefore, when Mark presents his story as fulfilment of prophecy he presents it as real events of the (recent) past, and that is the most basic definition of history writing.
And so everytime Jesus does something in the story where he fulfils prophecy or speaks about the fulfilment of prophecy this is evidence that we're dealing with history writing, because prophecy is history, not fiction. It makes no sense at all to write a 'fictional' or symbolic story of somebody who fulfils prophecy. Prophecy is history.
A righteous observation by itself but how does Mark 1:1-3 compare to the rest of GMark? My forthcoming and desperately needed The Skeptical Critical Commentary of "Mark" will conclude that Mark 1:1-3 is likely not original. The current article championing this view is J.K. Elliott "Mark 1:1 - 3 – A later addition to the Gospel?" NTS 46 (2000) 584 - 8 where he observes that from an Internal evidence standpoint 1:1-3 has relatively more inconsistentcies compared to the rest of GMark than the well known addition 16:9-20.
Considering all the parallels GMark" has to The Jewish Bible GMark has relatively few explicit claims of prophecy fulfillment and the few others all seem to be very ironic. The supposed prophecy fulfillment of 1:2-3 is in contrast to the rest of GMark as it looks explicit, straight-forward and not ironic. This can be a clue for addition. Addition of one contradictory thematic claim, best placed at the start or end.
In general we have evidence that all the Canonical gospels have added beginnings:
- 1) GMatthew = The Ebionites lacked chapters 1 and 2.
2) GLuke = Marcion lacked chapters 1 and 2.
3) GJohn = The original looks Gnostic.
Skeptical Textual Criticism