Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Drich]

It is, like Q, one of the earliest historical sources on the historical Jesus, with, of course, Matthew & Luke copying from Mark, adding their own source material (along with that of Q), and with the Gospel of John being a largely unhistorical narrative of Jesus (such as the Thursday crucifixion); but, if Mark himself embellished his source material, how can historians hope to reconstruct the historical Jesus?

citation please

[The Grand Nudger]

Two source hypothesis

[Jehanne]

It is, like Q, one of the earliest historical sources on the historical Jesus, with, of course, Matthew & Luke copying from Mark, adding their own source material (along with that of Q), and with the Gospel of John being a largely unhistorical narrative of Jesus (such as the Thursday crucifixion); but, if Mark himself embellished his source material, how can historians hope to reconstruct the historical Jesus?

citation please

Early Christian Writings

[Drich]

Two source hypothesis

and what of the 
The Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis
[i]The Griesbach-Farmer Hypothesis[/i]
[i]or the more likly[/i]
[i][i]The Augustinian-Butler Hypothesis?[/i][/i]

[The Grand Nudger]

What about them?  You asked for sources, you got what you asked for.

[Drich]

citation please

Early Christian Writings

http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html this only concludes that mark is the popular 1st author of the NT, and what worse the evidence is based on everything but content and the times line provided in scripture it self. Because if you read what is in the bible, the bible itself point to luke as being the primary author as he showed up within 10 years of Christ death, was sent for the express purpose of recording everything he could about Christ and sent it back to his master theophilus. who commissioned the work. this would have happened 40 to 50 ad.marks works are some times cited as early as 70 ad. we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times and luke we know to be the author of acts which end abruptly in late 50 AD.. by the time luke took upon the writing of the acts of the apostles his work in the book of luke had to be done because at the time of acts he was no longer in the service of theophilus but in the service of the apostle paul. Meaning all of the first person tesimony luke records in the book of acts happen in real time sometime before Paul's final journey to rome decades before mark put pen to page.

If any of you ever bother to read the bible, the time lines sort themselves out clearly. but you let other people tll you what is in the bible and you figure they are right because the interwebs says so.

How about read the bible yourelf and discuss what you have read, just like i did above!

[The Grand Nudger]

Gee, a christian doesn't actually like the consensus of scholars after all.  How unexpected.

[Drich]

What about them?  You asked for sources, you got what you asked for.

those other theories stack evidence against your posted theory. two of which are far more plausible. it seems you just cherry picked the most atheistic frendly theory and posted it with out any through to the biblical content you are pretending to discuss.

---

Gee, a christian doesn't actually like the consensus of scholars after all.  How unexpected.

retard, there are 4 different theories these same scholars compiled/recognise. not just the one you posted that is why I gave you the other three. there are 4 possible innerations on how the gospels where compiled one not having favor on the other three. the compilation based on popular vote puts markian authorship first, most agree content says otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have to repeat the line "the consensus of scholars" in these convos, so it's not all that worrisome to me.  If you don't actually agree with the consensus of scholars, then I suppose we can just remind you of that everytime you repeat the mantra, right?

I don't know what to tell you, as far as the historicity of christ is concerned, all of the potential historical jesus are "atheistic".

None of them posit, real godman, really true..because then the "history" game would be up, huh? Similarly, none of them certify the sectarian claims to timelines and composition..because, here again the "history" game would be up. Regardless of whichever historical jesus was the real jesus, if any, the composition of the thing you think is a magic book just doesn't have the past that your faith demands it must.

[popeyespappy]

Two Source



Farrer



Three Source



Q+



Wilke



Four Source



Griesbach



Augustinian



Jerusalem school



Proto Gospel

---

Independent