(November 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: [quote='John V' pid='366458' dateline='1353954763']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?
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.
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.
