Mark's Gospel: Anonymous Hearsay
January 19, 2012 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm by DeistPaladin.)
The following is an excerpt from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV 3rd edition), p57 NT.
So the first Gospel, on which Matthew and Luke were based, is an anonymously written account of what is thought to be the story related by Peter of what he saw and heard, at least some of which Peter wasn't a personal eye-witness to but may have heard it from others.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible goes on to say (same page)
So, we have:
To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Reliable Eye Witness Accounts!" should be made of sterner stuff.
Oops, I forgot to mention that Mark was written at least four decades after the events in question. So our list includes:
This is what passes in apologetics for a "reliable eye-witness testimony"
Quote:Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark (mentioned in Acts 12:12 and 15:37), who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter's preaching (see 1 Pet 5:13).
So the first Gospel, on which Matthew and Luke were based, is an anonymously written account of what is thought to be the story related by Peter of what he saw and heard, at least some of which Peter wasn't a personal eye-witness to but may have heard it from others.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible goes on to say (same page)
Quote:In the earliest manuscripts, Mark ends abruptly at 16:8. ...In some later manuscripts, Mark's story was "completed" with resurrection appearances of amalgamated elements from other canonical Gospels, to make it conform to their common pattern
So, we have:
- One count of dubious source (possible anonymity)
- At points three layers of hearsay upon hearsay (when Mark relates what Peter relates about the parts of the story Peter didn't witness)
- At least one significant example of alteration to the story (on the resurrection account, no less)
To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Reliable Eye Witness Accounts!" should be made of sterner stuff.
Oops, I forgot to mention that Mark was written at least four decades after the events in question. So our list includes:
- A dubious source...
- ...telling us what he heard Peter tell him (hearsay) ...
- ...about a story that included parts which Peter wasn't a witness to...
- ...compiled in an account that was later changed...
- ...from the original version composed four decades after the alleged events took place.
This is what passes in apologetics for a "reliable eye-witness testimony"
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
