Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote:How much writing do we possess from Aramaic Galilean villages between 1 CE and 50 CE ?????????

How do we know any originated from Galilean villages or via the Aramaic language??

Anything in Aramaic might just be be translated or transliterated from elsewhere.

I asked you a question.

Stay in context and answer. Oh! wait! due to desperation you cannot.


We have no writing from Galilee at all during that period.

outhouse wrote:Q. How much writing do we possess from Aramaic Galilean villages between 1 CE and 50 CE ?????????

outhouse wrote:A. We have no writing from Galilee at all during that period.

Cheers.

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote:

MrMacSon wrote: "could have also existed"

Laugh all you want, it was a compilation put together roughly 70 CE from pre-exiting sources. Some written and oral traditions.

Mere bare, unverified assertion.

Sorry you disagree with all education and knowledge on the topic, in favor of your own opinion.

My statement follows credible sources. Using weasel words like "unverified" will not help your position.

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote:Q. How much writing do we possess from Aramaic Galilean villages between 1 CE and 50 CE ?????????

outhouse wrote:A. We have no writing from Galilee at all during that period.

Cheers.

That is why you cannot use contemporary sources as a credible argument, they exist for no one.


Yet I can use later Hellenistic sources, because that is where the traditions developed. My argument of no one making claims against his historicity, has credibility and is used by scholars.


Yours is not. It is weak methodology based on desperation.

outhouse wrote:My statement follows credible sources. Using weasel words like "unverified" will not help your position.

Yet you never provide references or citations to said sources.

And, such sources provide unverified assertions, too.

Unverified is not a weasel-word. It is an apt adjective reflecting fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

The author used a variety of sources

and collections of sayings

outhouse wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
The author used a variety of sources and collections of sayings

Composition

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[5] A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 CE) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.[6] The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[7] The author used a variety of sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas, and probably not the Q source).[8]

Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms

• "The book was [allegedly] written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution" but it could have been written anytime after then; during or after later Jewish-Roman conflicts.

Also, note

• "The author used a variety of sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35) and collections of sayings"

.

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
The author used a variety of sources and collections of sayings

Composition

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[5] A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 CE) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.[6] The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[7] The author used a variety of sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas, and probably not the Q source).[8]

Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms

• "The book was [allegedly] written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution" but it could have been written anytime after then, or during or after later Jewish-Roman conflicts.

Also, note

• "The author used a variety of sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35) and collections of saying"

.

You changed to the original quote.

but it could have been written anytime after then, or during or after later Jewish-Roman conflicts.

That is YOUR unsubstantiated rhetoric

outhouse wrote: You changed to the original quote.

legitimately & honestly, by putting 'allegedly' in [] and by including the full original.

outhouse wrote:

but it could have been written anytime after then, or during or after later Jewish-Roman conflicts.

That is YOUR unsubstantiated rhetoric

it is a proposition; a reasonable one given the texts were almost certainly redacted many times over a couple of centuries or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_gospel_traditions

Modern scholars have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:
1.The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.
2.In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down[by whom?] in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate
3.In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus
4.In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1]

Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources