Mark's Gospel: Anonymous Hearsay

[DeistPaladin]

The following is an excerpt from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV 3rd edition), p57 NT.

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)

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:

1. One count of dubious source (possible anonymity)
   
2. At points three layers of hearsay upon hearsay (when Mark relates what Peter relates about the parts of the story Peter didn't witness)
   
3. 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:

1. A dubious source...
   
2. ...telling us what he heard Peter tell him (hearsay) ...
   
3. ...about a story that included parts which Peter wasn't a witness to...
   
4. ...compiled in an account that was later changed...
   
5. ...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"

[Minimalist]

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,

Even that tale presupposes that "peter" was any more real than the rest of the horseshit.

As I recall, Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker about his father. Doesn't make it true.

[Godscreated]

The following is an excerpt from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV 3rd edition), p57 NT.

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)

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:

1. One count of dubious source (possible anonymity)
   
2. At points three layers of hearsay upon hearsay (when Mark relates what Peter relates about the parts of the story Peter didn't witness)
   
3. 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:

1. A dubious source...
   
2. ...telling us what he heard Peter tell him (hearsay) ...
   
3. ...about a story that included parts which Peter wasn't a witness to...
   
4. ...compiled in an account that was later changed...
   
5. ...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"

None of what you have stated can be proven, none of it. By the way, how is it that two books could have been based off of a book that is said to have been written centuries after they were.

[Minimalist]

Whereas what you blabber about endlessly is "proven"..........how?




( You seem to forget that we have two ancient bibles which DO NOT HAVE the additions to gMark's so-called "gospel." Even to a moron like you, G-C, that should be pretty heady evidence.)