Except "Mark" ( Marcus ) was a Roman name. There is serious doubt that any Galilean fishermen were named "Marcus." Or "Lucius" ( Luke ) for that matter.

(November 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: [quote='John V' pid='366458' dateline='1353954763']
If Mark was actually written by the disciple Mark, I would believe more of the book. Not the supernatural parts, but the historical stuff would be coming from someone who was a first-hand witness. That would be a big improvement, credibility-wise.

First, if manuscripts said "written by Mark" or some such, would you accept it as actually written by Mark? Couldn't Ehrman or anyone else claim it a forgery?

Second, mark is traditionally considered to be second-hand from Peter, although some think Mark was an eyewitness to certain parts but not all of his gospel. Luke says staright out that it's being written as a history rather than a first-person account. Only Matthew and John are traditionally considered first-hand accounts, and Matthew borrows from Mark.

(November 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm)John V Wrote:

(November 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: [quote='John V' pid='366458' dateline='1353954763']
If Mark was actually written by the disciple Mark, I would believe more of the book. Not the supernatural parts, but the historical stuff would be coming from someone who was a first-hand witness. That would be a big improvement, credibility-wise.

First, if manuscripts said "written by Mark" or some such, would you accept it as actually written by Mark? Couldn't Ehrman or anyone else claim it a forgery?

Second, mark is traditionally considered to be second-hand from Peter, although some think Mark was an eyewitness to certain parts but not all of his gospel. Luke says staright out that it's being written as a history rather than a first-person account. Only Matthew and John are traditionally considered first-hand accounts, and Matthew borrows from Mark.

Peter? Traditional?

Traditionally Matthew, Mark and Luke are assumed to be written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Catholic scholars liked Matthew --> Mark --> Luke. Protestant scholars liked Matthew --> Luke --> Mark. Most modern Biblical scholars adhere to the two-source hypothesis with Mark and an unknown Q document serving as the source for Matthew and Luke. The hypothesis where Peter and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews were written earlier then used as sources for the Synoptic Gospels is a mid 20th century invention.

Personally I like the four-source hypothesis where Mark along with Q, L and M sources are used to create Matthew and Luke.

Quote:Peter? Traditional?

Yes, the traditional view is that Mark was a follower of Peter and wrote his gospel based on Peter's teachings. Personally I think the most likely scenario is that Mark was written first and was available to Matthew, then both Mark and matthew were available to Luke.

Quote:Yes, the traditional view is that Mark was a follower of Peter and wrote his gospel based on Peter's teachings.

Do you understand what the word "traditional" means in this context?

It means that there is no actual evidence to sustain the position.

There is a "tradition" which has grown up around a story told in Matthew (only) of three kings coming to worship "jesus" and named "Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthaza.r"

The thing is that gMatthew claims "In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,"

The writer does not call them "kings," he does not name them and he never says there were three.

This is an example of what your "tradition" means.

It means "bullshit."

(November 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm)Annik Wrote: http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/old...ripts.html

This useful chart shows us that we've only found fragments for early 2nd century documents, so they likely do not include titles in any language.

Seven new papyri have been discovered, including (for the first time) a first century fragment. They have not yet been published.

---

(November 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm)John V Wrote: I've never understood this argument. What, someone was willing to just make up the book but were too scrupulous to include a false name?

The problem with the argument is two-fold. Think about heretical Gospels - who do they choose for their titles? Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter. They mainly use prominent church figures, mostly disciples. Choosing "Mark" or "Luke" to represent your heretical work would be futile - their names would not be recognized or accepted late in the 2nd century. The only reason we know of these two figures is because they wrote the books. Furthermore Luke writes both his books to Theophilus - someone we know nothing whatsoever about (aside from the fact that he received the letters from Luke). If you were making a forgery why address them to some unknown?

---

(November 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If Mark was actually written by the disciple Mark, I would believe more of the book. Not the supernatural parts, but the historical stuff would be coming from someone who was a first-hand witness. That would be a big improvement, credibility-wise.

There was no disciple "Mark". This is why we look at it today and see it as authentic and not as a forgery like the "Gospel of Peter" which tried to use one of the disciple's names for its credibility.

I would wait for the publication and peer review, first, but unless there is a title on the fragments, my point still stands. I don't think either party can make a definitive claim on this (unless someone else has evidence I don't, in which case, please share).

(November 27, 2012 at 2:38 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Yes, the traditional view is that Mark was a follower of Peter and wrote his gospel based on Peter's teachings.

Do you understand what the word "traditional" means in this context?

In this case it means that Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) said that Mark was a follower of Peter and wrote his gospel according to what peter said. Whether you consider that evidence is up to you.

Why don't you take a wild guess?

(November 27, 2012 at 8:47 am)Daniel Wrote:

(November 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm)John V Wrote: I've never understood this argument. What, someone was willing to just make up the book but were too scrupulous to include a false name?

The problem with the argument is two-fold. Think about heretical Gospels - who do they choose for their titles? Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter. They mainly use prominent church figures, mostly disciples. Choosing "Mark" or "Luke" to represent your heretical work would be futile - their names would not be recognized or accepted late in the 2nd century. The only reason we know of these two figures is because they wrote the books. Furthermore Luke writes both his books to Theophilus - someone we know nothing whatsoever about (aside from the fact that he received the letters from Luke). If you were making a forgery why address them to some unknown?

Ehrman discusses this very point in Forged. That you have created a thread to dispute Ehrman's points, without having read them, and completely oblivious to the fact that the argument you're presenting has been dealt with by Ehrman, simply paints you as the bottom-feeding, ignorant, stupid, moronic, disingenuous Christian apologist that you are.

(Feel free to "resent" my saying so at your convenience.)

You do more to make yourself appear stupid with the words out of your own mouth than I could hope to accomplish on my own.

There are occasional Christians who come around who are decent, but the majority are like you, who come around with lying spirits in their mouths, armed with ancient arguments that have been refuted so many times that the shit stains in their undies have shit stains, and by doing so you do more to discourage faith in the godless than any non-Christian source possibly could.

Congratulations. The Lord must be proud of his little soldier.