Uncovering the Markan Allegory II

[FallentoReason]

If Mark writes that Jesus lived, preached, died and resurrected and Jesus didn't exist then Mark is a liar.

Mark has no resurrection accounts. Verses 9-20 aren't original!!!!!

Yes, Mark wrote certain things about his 'life', which he got from other sources. How is it a lie? I can see what he did and apparently so can you, but why do you label him as a liar? Did you know his intentions for doing this or something? If he wanted to deceive then maybe we can call him a liar because acts of deceit usually rely on lies.

If you think a realistic allegory (to the point of being mistaken for truth) is a common style in 1st century Israel, give me an example of another.

What makes you think Mark was from Israel? The fact that he uses the epistles suggests he was Greek. This makes perfect sense, given the mind of the typical Hellenized Jew.

Philo Judaeus of Alexandria is a great example of the Jewish Greek mind at work. He wrote works which interpret Genesis as allegory:

---

I. (1) "And the heaven and the earth and all their world was Completed."{1}{#ge 2:1.} Having previously related the creation of the mind and of sense, Moses now proceeds to describe the perfection which was brought about by them both. And he says that neither the indivisible mind nor the particular sensations received perfection, but only ideas, one the idea of the mind, the other of sensation. And, speaking symbolically, he calls the mind heaven, since the natures which can only be comprehended by the intellect are in heaven. And sensation he calls earth, because it is sensation which has obtained a corporeal and some what earthy constitution. The ornaments of the mind are all the incorporeal things, which are perceptible only by the intellect. Those of sensation are the corporeal things, and everything in short which is perceptible by the external senses.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html

---

Now, were his thoughts mistaken for truth? Well, yes! His theological contribution foreshadows the nature of Christ himself. This I will not debate on here because it's a different topic altogether.

Mark's earliest partial copy is dated after Paul's earliest partial copy. Both are dated before these copies. Most of Paul's epistles have a ceiling of 51-59AD while Mark's Gospel has a ceiling of 70AD. That does not mean Mark was written after. To put this in perspective, the earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date to the 900s AD. Yet scholars have no problem alleging they were written during the man's lifetime. In short, date of earliest copy ≠ date written.

I don't have the slightest clue where you're getting your information from. That is definitely NOT how the dates have come to be because the earliest New Testament fragment is of John at the moment:

Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scrip...ripts.html

I will continue to go by scholarship on the dates of the NT documents, which says Paul's epistles came before any of the Gospels.

As for Caesar, some of these copies were originally written by contemporary authors, which undoubtedly means the copies were from Caesar's time.

You have information on other cults of the time? I'm interested. Which do you believe had no human catalyst? Did they get very far?

Yes, I have some information, courtesy of modern archaeology. The ones I'm familiar with is Mithraism. They didn't get far, because like other mystery cults, they didn't write anything down. Their knowledge was available only to the members. Lucky for you, most Jews were Hellenistic, which meant they could apply these new 'philosophies' onto the already existing religion of Judaism. This pretty much meant half the work was already done and all that was done was spawn the other half i.e. NT. If it weren't for Alexander the Great spreading Greek culture everywhere then I doubt Christianity could have happened. Maybe we would only still have observant Jews.

Of the Gospel writers, Mark writes most like the Roman chronicling style. Give me an example of a Jewish 1st century allegory close to this style. Show me people wrote fiction that looked like fact, even going to the extent of 'fulfilling' Jewish prophecies. Then explain why the author would put himself in danger in mocking Judaism and how he could not possibly consider one Jew would take his work seriously.

Sorry, I'm not sure what the 'chronicling style' is. You might have to explain it to me.

I do not know of any other allegory that 'fulfills' Jewish prophecy. What I can tell you is that Mark didn't need to consider Jews not taking him seriously. Philo is proof of that i.e. it was ok to see the OT as anything but literal. That's the Greek mind for you, very philosophical.

You showed a similarity in theme. Every book has concepts that come up now and again, developed a little differently each time. If what Jesus said is important, you can bet it will be introduced in the OT and elaborated in Paul's following commentaries. Your three examples are universal truths. The fact Paul writes of them is a testament to what they are.

I showed 3 near-enough explicit examples. We're not talking here of both authors voicing the same idea independently. There's sufficient reason to see that Mark copied Paul.

I don't believe they are quotes to begin with. They are truths. Paul has read and heard a lot about Jesus so it's only natural their material should be fall in line.

Paul could not have read about Jesus because no Gospel was written yet! Neither did he hear about Jesus:

Galatians 1:12
For I did not receive it [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul wasn't aware of any of Jesus' teachings, but instead through the spirit got his information apparently. This is made clear because Paul doesn't give credit to Jesus in these examples!

Divine inspiration carries out God's plan for his message to mankind, how He wants the Bible to turn out. It does not need a prophecy. We were talking about similarities, not prophecies. I'm not convinced the fig tree similarity was anything more than incidental, but other similarities might have a purpose and are divinely inspired to make sure their point gets across. One such similarity is Satan being compared to a serpent.

You can believe it's divinely inspired all you want, but the evidence says otherwise.