Jesus SportsGospel Line in the Sands-Odds that GMark post 70

[JoeWallack]

"On the longest possible time line, the survival rate of religion goes to zero" - Fright Club

The purpose of this Thread is to establish the odds that GMark (the Gospel work currently in Christian Bibles, as distinguished from the anonymous author here referred to as "Mark") was substantially written post 70.

History
Regarding the history of dating GMark we have a The Curious Case of Benjamin Button type situation where as the related available evidence ages, the dating of GMark continues to get younger. A brief summary:

• 0 - 175 = No extant mention of GMark
  
  175 - 500 = Believers claim GMark pre 70. Non-believers don't believe
  
  500 - 1,500 = Believers kill/convert Non-believers
  
  1500 = Non-believers resurrected. Skeptical regarding dating of GMark
  
  1500 - present = Believer tactics gradually change from primarily physical based to spiritually based. Skepticism increases proportionate to decrease in use of force.

We can see from the above that the primary variable regarding a conclusion as to the dating of GMark may be the extent of religious belief of the Judges. We see this over and over again in religious studies, there is often a direct relationship in general between level of religious belief and conclusion on an individual religious question. So who should the Judges be here? It's easy to say that it should not be Believers since there is a direct relationship between belief and conclusions. But you could also say that it should not be non-believers because again, there is a known relationship between non-belief and conclusions. Ahh, the Beliemma.

Fortunately there is a higher power than belief in setting odds and that higher power is money. Money can not buy love one another but it can rent an awful lot of affection. The historically most accurate prediction force known to the son of man are the odds set by Las Vegas. Here, evidence is King. Belief may be what the individual/sucker uses to conclude but the Father's House only uses evidence. Inside evidence, the best money can buy.

Likewise, odds could be established to predict the likely outcome of religious questions. Practically speaking, conversion of placing odds on religious questions similar to sporting events, would work better the sooner and more definite the question is likely answered. Fer instance, that proffered 1st century fragment of GMark, courtesy of Daniel Wallace. Odds could be established as to the when it is finally revealed:

• 1) By 6-30-14.
  
  2) By 6-6-(1)6
  
  3) By whenever Wallace says it should be revealed
  
  4) By Jesus' return
  
  5) Never

This could be a way for this Forum to raise money. Set odds and offer online betting for more easily decided religious questions like:

• 1 - When will Jesus return?
  
  2 - When will Priests be allowed to marry?
  
  3 - When will Joel Osteen have to get a real job?

This Forum could charge the standard 10% on losing bets but instead of calling it "The Juice" call it "The Jews".

The underlying question for this Thread, whether GMark is post 70, is unlikely to be conclusively answered anytime soon, if ever. However, it can still be used as an example of how odds could be initially set on a religious question and gradually adjusted based on presentation of evidence. Typically regarding such religious questions so/self called Bible scholars are quick to add "certain/most probable/probable/quite likely/likely" to their conclusion's description with little/no related statistical analysis. Ultimately, odds for everything, including religious questions, are based on statistics. To the extent there is a lack of evidence this uncertainty moves the odds for competing conclusions towards each other. To the extent evidence for one conclusion is greater than evidence for another conclusion, this moves the odds for competing conclusions away from each other. When the evidence favors one conclusion over another the odds for the competing conclusions depend on how the available evidence compares to the total potential evidence. Same as it would be for the results of any sample.

That being said, getting this party of God started, very generally, the External evidence favors GMark pre-70 while the Internal evidence favors GMark post-70. I hereby set the initial conclusion that GMark was substantially intially written...70 =

Jesus SportsGospel Line in the Sands - Opening odds that GMark written post 70 = 50%

Now, does anyone have any more detailed inside information evidence to adjust the odds?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[outhouse]

Nonsensical OP

It looks to me like drivel, instead of an honest approach to determine dating.

The work was a compilation, are you after the compilation date?


I like Peters links giving a fair comparision of the whole playing field.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

[JoeWallack]

Nonsensical OP

It looks to me like drivel, instead of an honest approach to determine dating.

The work was a compilation, are you after the compilation date?


I like Peters links giving a fair comparision of the whole playing field.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

JW:
Okay, no evidence so no change in the odds.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[ghost]

The purpose of this Thread is to establish the odds that GMark (the Gospel work currently in Christian Bibles, as distinguished from the anonymous author here referred to as "Mark") was substantially written post 70.

Near zero.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/es ... 1-357.html

[Bernard Muller]

What a weird OP!
BTW, I determined the completed Mark's gospel (but with nothing past 16:8) is very slightly post 70, most likely winter of 70-71.
Explanations here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p44.htm
Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

The purpose of this Thread is to establish the odds that GMark (the Gospel work currently in Christian Bibles, as distinguished from the anonymous author here referred to as "Mark") was substantially written post 70.

Near zero.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/es ... 1-357.html

JW:
Odds remain at 50%. Looking for evidence and not conclusions. Also need evidence here rather than evidence that is not here.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

What a weird OP!
BTW, I determined the completed Mark's gospel (but with nothing past 16:8) is very slightly post 70, most likely winter of 70-71.
Explanations here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p44.htm
Cordially, Bernard

JW:
I'm starting to feel like a Game Show host. The description of the OP has gone from "nonsensical, drivel" and not honest to "weird". Maybe I should be encouraged by that. Bernard, see my previous comment. I also encourage you to look up the English definition of "Cordially".


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[ghost]

That being said, getting this party of God started, very generally, the External evidence favors GMark pre-70 while the Internal evidence favors GMark post-70. I hereby set the initial conclusion that GMark was substantially intially written...70 =

How do you know that the thing is internal evidence, as opposed to that you are reading into it?

[Adam]

I'm camped with our beloved outhouse on this one.
Ya wanna no when Mark 16:9-20 was added, when up to 16:8 was finished redacting, when it was "finished" before that redacting, when the largest portion was written (probably the Twelve-Source, the Marcan abridgment of Dennis R. MacDonald's Q+ that was probably the "Logia"--the word itself now known to mean not just mere sayings--most likely what Irenaeus knew that the Apostle Matthew had written), when the Twelve-Source was combined with Ur-Marcus, when the Lucan Omission (=Marcan interpolation; Mark 6:51-8:21) was added, or whatever else you might mean?

[toejam]

I think somewhere in the 70s is the best bet. Mark is the most thematically consistent and least convoluted of the canonical gospels. It was clearly the spinal source used by Matthew and Luke. I don't read/speak ancient greek, but scholars who do typically say that Mark's greek is the most primitive/least sophisticated. Add to that the fact that its Christology is also the lowest of the four and and I think an early date is warranted. So yeah... I'd say 70s.