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

[Bernard Muller]

The first person to read, edit, correct and publish the gospel of Mark was Mark.

Mental flatliner, how do you know that? Where does it say that anywhere for the first time? Only in the 2nd century in my books, through Papias, Irenaeus & Clement of Alexandria. Do you claim these threesome were eyewitnesses on how the gospel originated?

The next would have been those in the local church who got the first copy hot off the scroll press.
After that would have been those for whom copies were made.

Do you have evidence for that?

You can't have a copy of the gospel of Mark and pretend that it just popped in out of thin air.

Right, but that does not mean the gospel was written by Mark or any eyewitness.

People were still alive who could contradict any statement in the gospel.

Not if eyewitnesses were away, or dead. And if there was early criticism (and other than verbal), do you think Christians would have kept and reproduce copies of them?

Cordially, Bernard

Even if Mark and Peter were not the original authors/sponsors of the gospel, you can't pretend that the oldest surviving copy of a document is the original and move on without analysis. All documents are subject to provenance study, and in the explanation above, this was not done. There was an unspoken assumption that nothing older exists, and this is ridiculous from all angles.

Oh, now you have doubts about Mark and Peter involvement in the gospel!
And what do you suggest next? That the (later) copies we have now are not representative of the earlier texts? That what we have is bunk, but the original is all truth?

Cordially, Bernard

[Mental flatliner]

The first person to read, edit, correct and publish the gospel of Mark was Mark.

Mental flatliner, how do you know that? Where does it say that anywhere for the first time? Only in the 2nd century in my books, through Papias, Irenaeus & Clement of Alexandria. Do you claim these threesome were eyewitnesses on how the gospel originated?

The next would have been those in the local church who got the first copy hot off the scroll press.
After that would have been those for whom copies were made.

Do you have evidence for that?

You can't have a copy of the gospel of Mark and pretend that it just popped in out of thin air.

Right, but that does not mean the gospel was written by Mark or any eyewitness.

People were still alive who could contradict any statement in the gospel.

Not if eyewitnesses were away, or dead. And if there was early criticism (and other than verbal), do you think Christians would have kept and reproduce copies of them?

Cordially, Bernard

Even if Mark and Peter were not the original authors/sponsors of the gospel, you can't pretend that the oldest surviving copy of a document is the original and move on without analysis. All documents are subject to provenance study, and in the explanation above, this was not done. There was an unspoken assumption that nothing older exists, and this is ridiculous from all angles.

Oh, now you have doubts about Mark and Peter involvement in the gospel!
And what do you suggest next? That the (later) copies we have now are not representative of the earlier texts? That what we have is bunk, but the original is all truth?

Cordially, Bernard

All of my statements above are self-evident from the content of the gospel and the writings of other Christians about them in later decades.
(In the 1st century, the publishing of books was not the same as the 20th century. They were hand-written for limited and specific audiences and if copied, they were hand-copied, which in itself implies proof-reading, editing, verification and confirmation.)

Common sense is a legitimate analysis tool.

[Bernard Muller]

All of my statements above are self-evident from the content of the gospel and the writings of other Christians about them in later decades.

Mental flatliner, this is not true and you avoided answering my specific questions.

(In the 1st century, the publishing of books was not the same as the 20th century. They were hand-written for limited and specific audiences and if copied, they were hand-copied, which in itself implies proof-reading, editing, verification and confirmation.)

Where is your evidence about "proof-reading, editing, verification and confirmation" of ancient copies? Actually, the oldest copies we know about show many differences between each others. For example, some copies of Mark's gospel have nothing after 16:8, others have narration of a resurrected Jesus in bodily form. See here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_va ... _Testament.
How do you explain that? How does that fit with your claim "They were hand-written for limited and specific audiences and if copied, they were hand-copied, which in itself implies proof-reading, editing, verification and confirmation."?

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

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?

JW:
The most commonly sited Internal evidence that GMark is post 70 is:

Mark 13:1-3

1 And as he went forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Teacher, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!

2 And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

JW:
I think everyone would agree here that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the Temple. Since the supernatural type of prediction is not a possibility in this unholy Forum, some other explanation is needed. The two main choices are:

• 1) "Mark" (author) guessed that the Temple would be destroyed.
  
  2) "Mark" knew that the Temple was destroyed.

Both choices are possible. Comparing the two though, in general, the source for a historically accurate statement is more likely to be knowledge than guessing. Specifically here, something written predicting the destruction of the Temple before the Temple was destroyed would otherwise be unknown (Josephus does have a great related anecdote with parallels so good to GMark that it's enough to make you turn Jew, but written after the Temple was destroyed). Since the impossible is not possible a skillful writer can make a much better story after the fact rather than before. As they say ghost, "The historical truth hurts." What is described in GMark is not possible. The authorship of GMark was.

As the destruction of the Temple is commonly dated to 70 CE and we now have solid Internal evidence of a major anachronism, as "John" Stewart would say Boom! = The odds have just gone to 51%.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[ghost]

I think everyone would agree here that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the Temple.

How is it known that this is the Jewish second temple?

[andrewcriddle]

JW:
The most commonly sited Internal evidence that GMark is post 70 is:

Mark 13:1-3

1 And as he went forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Teacher, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!

2 And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

JW:
I think everyone would agree here that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the Temple.

My blog post Does Mark Prophesy Temple Destruction may possibly be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Advocates of pre 70 have been unable to articulate quality evidence here so let me show by example what I'm looking for.

I think Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") is the best potential witness for pre 70 here:

Irenaeus of Lyons Book III.

• First, a nota benefit = It's important to rightly divide between Irenaeus' conclusions versus his evidence.
  
  Second = Conclusions and evidence need to be filtered through a witness' credibility. Credibility has a greater effect on the value of someone's conclusions than it does on their evidence.

But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood. For the love of God, being rich and ungrudging, confers upon the suppliant more than he can ask from it. Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me."

I-Ly (Irenaeus of Lyons) gives us context and scope here. Regarding written witness relatively early the direction of I-Ly's argument is that "Scripture" requires it. He goes on to present evidence for pre 70 but the Skeptic has to wonder if his argument is primarily conclusion based = There is early written evidence properly transmitted because a believer in Scripture is required to think there is. This is a reason all by itself to doubt that I-Ly's evidence proves pre 70 or even contributes that much to its conclusion.

Apologists will try to straw man this observation and than ironically convert themselves into straw men:

• 1) [straw man]Skeptics claim that Irenaeus has no evidential value because of his credibility issue[/straw man]
  
  2) [self-created straw-man]Because Irenaeus does have evidential value his credibility issue can be ignored[/self-created straw-man]

As is often the case in these matters the truth lies in between. I-Ly has evidential value but he also has a credibility issue.

Next = what exactly does I-Ly say to support pre 70?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I think everyone would agree here that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the Temple.

My blog post Does Mark Prophesy Temple Destruction may possibly be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

I also doubt it, but for some other reasons. From your blog I 've seen that Eliav prefer a more “natural” explanation. But it seems to me there are several problems at the narrative level.

I think the first problem is the time factor. Would it not be more natural if the conversation had taken place at a different time? On one of the previous days? Upon the arrival at the temple?

The second problem seems to be the use of "ἴδε" (Mark 13:1 "Teacher , behold ...") and "Βλέπεις" (Mark 13:2 "See you ..."). You've commented on your blog that "the passage seems to imply that Jesus and the disciple are both viewing the same buildings." Because of the blindness of the disciples and the way Mark puts this point into the light one can also suspect that the disciples and Jesus did not talk about the same object.

The third problem seems to be the question of the disciple. Does it not seem unnatural that the disciple talks about stones and buildings? Especially when using the pronoun "ποταποὶ" (of what kind, of what manner)?

I have no explanation for these problems. But I doubt a little bit that a convincing explanation can circumvent these narrative problems.

[Ulan]

I'm not sure it even matters whether the temple by itself or the city, including the temple, are meant here. It's more about the sum of mentions in Mark's gospel that makes the destruction theme so convincing, if you think of the Parable of the Tenants or the more veiled hints in "Jesus Curses a Fig Tree and Clears the Temple Courts". Each by itself may be easily explained away, but taken together, it sure sounds like coming doom.

[ghost]

I have no explanation for these problems. But I doubt a little bit that a convincing explanation can circumvent these narrative problems.

An alternative explanation is on p 306 of this PDF…

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/wj ... ar1999.pdf