Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Not the non sequitur part.

You really need to learn basic logic.

Why is it that it is inevitable that every child will choose to sin? Why is it that no human has, is, or will ever, be sinless?

[Gary]

Why is it that it is inevitable that every child will choose to sin? Why is it that no human has, is, or will ever, be sinless?

Nick seems afraid of this question. Is there any other Christian---who believes in inherited, original sin for every human being ever born---that would be brave enough to answer this question? (that excludes you, Tabster).

[psstein]

Stein,

I would still like to hear why you believe that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.

Gary, I answered your question here:

Why do I think John Mark wrote Mark? First, embarrassment, John Mark left a mission with Paul and went home. On a later mission, Paul said "leave him at home," because he felt John Mark wasn't a good candidate. Second, John Mark is an incredibly minor character. He appears a handful of times throughout Acts and is mentioned nowhere else. It seems very odd that the early Christians would ascribe authorship to a very minor, troubled character, especially when they could've chosen someone like Peter or James (of Zebedee). Thirdly, John Mark and Mark are often portrayed as the same person.

I would add to my quote that nobody else is identified as Mark except for John Mark.

As I said with Luke, it's a bit more complex. The "we" passages in Acts and the (again) attribution of Luke to a very minor character, as well as the portrayal of Paul, seems to indicate a companion (or admirer, at least) of Paul.

[psstein]

Gary: I however think that Licona, and Nick, and Stein, and my former pastor, along with many other (moderate) conservative Christians are all doing the smart thing...if one wants to hold onto this ancient tale as historical fact and maintain some level of social respectability: Stick a knife in inerrancy. This is absolutely necessary to keep this ancient tale from collapsing into the graveyard of ancient myths, right along with the Greek and Roman gods. No educated person can stand up in a prestigious university or scientific enterprise and claim that a god created the universe in six literal days, that there was a world wide flood, or that the Christian holy book is inerrant in all its assertions of fact. You would be laughed out the door, and your career ruined. Therefore these very bright, very intelligent people have invented the most complex of philosophy-ladened excuses for why it is perfectly acceptable to read the rest of their holy book nonliterally...but maintain their belief that a dead body was reanimated by an ancient middle-eastern god two thousand years ago.

I think Nick is an inerrantist, and I'm an inerrantist in the Catholic sense (which is admittedly different from the usual sense). As I've pointed out several times, the Hebrew does not require six literal days, or a worldwide flood. It is equally compatible with the assertion that the Earth is billions of years old and a local flood, which seems to have a strong memory in ANE culture.

[psstein]

This is an Enlightenment idea that really needs to be junked. You'd really enjoy the Cult of Reason.

Reason and science are perfectly compatible with religious faith; no historian of science holds the conflict model anymore.

[Gary]

Gary, I answered your question here:



I would add to my quote that nobody else is identified as Mark except for John Mark.

As I said with Luke, it's a bit more complex. The "we" passages in Acts and the (again) attribution of Luke to a very minor character, as well as the portrayal of Paul, seems to indicate a companion (or admirer, at least) of Paul.

I think that this is a very fascinating subject for this reason: I personally believe that the entire Gospel/Resurrection story hinges on the Gospel of Mark. Why? Because most scholars believe that Matthew, Luke, and probably even John used Mark as a boiler plate story for their own stories. Therefore if there is very good evidence that the author of Mark was John Mark, and it is true that he received his information directly from the apostle Peter, that would be pretty good evidence for the events in the life of Jesus, although it would still not be eyewitness testimony. We would have to assume that John Mark remembered Peter's teachings correctly since we know that the Gospel was not written until circa 70 AD and Peter, if tradition is correct, had been dead for a number of years by then.

So the accuracy of a sizable percentage of the four Gospels is dependent on:

1. The Gospel of Mark being written by an eyewitness, or, an associate of an eyewitness, accurately retelling the eyewitness testimony of that eyewitness.

We have no evidence that John Mark was an eyewitness, so the best we can hope for is that he wrote down accurate second hand information.

2. But why do we think that John Mark wrote ANY gospel? As far as I know, the only evidence we have is a vague statement by Papias that someone told him that someone had told them that John Mark had written a gospel, writing down the preachings of Peter. Then, we have Irenaeus in the late second century stating that John Mark wrote the gospel we now call the Gospel of Mark.

But Papias never quoted from this alleged book of John Mark, therefore, how do we know that the Gospel of Mark we have today is the same gospel that John Mark allegedly wrote? It is quite possible that John Mark wrote a gospel but it may have well been lost. There were dozens if not hundreds of gospels floating around the Roman Empire in the second century, maybe Ireneus just picked what we today call The Gospel of Mark using other criteria, not naming John Mark as the author for historical accuracy, but for theological or even (intra-church) political reasons? We just don't know. But you have to admit that it is possible that Irenaeus chose John Mark as the author of one of the four books named by Ireanaeus as "The Gospels" simply because he believed Papias claim that John Mark had written a book, and therefore this would add authority to choosing John Mark as the author of a previously known anonymous book. No previous church father reads a passage from the Gospel of Mark and refers to its authorship.

Isn't (John) Mark the patron saint of Egypt? When did this status develop? If John Mark was the patron saint of such an important country by the time of Irenaeus in the late second century, this added to Papias' above comments about John Mark writing a gospel may have been all the evidence Irenaeus needed to assign John Mark's authorship to a previously anonymous work.

Do you have any other evidence for John Mark's authorship of this gospel. If you can recommend a couple of scholarly books on this subject I am very likely to read at least a couple of them.

[Gary]

I think Nick is an inerrantist, and I'm an inerrantist in the Catholic sense (which is admittedly different from the usual sense). As I've pointed out several times, the Hebrew does not require six literal days, or a worldwide flood. It is equally compatible with the assertion that the Earth is billions of years old and a local flood, which seems to have a strong memory in ANE culture.

Nick is an inerrantist?? How does that square with his claim that he is not a fundamentalist??

[Gary]

This is an Enlightenment idea that really needs to be junked. You'd really enjoy the Cult of Reason.

Reason and science are perfectly compatible with religious faith; no historian of science holds the conflict model anymore.

I see no problem with faith as long as it does not contradict science and reason. For instance: If an educated scientist or other professional says, "I believe in a Creator God." My answer would be, "Ok, I have no problem with your position." This statement is not a contradiction to science and reason.

If the same person says, "I believe that Jesus is God, that he came to earth in the form of a man, that his human body died, and after his body died, his spirit returned to heaven where he reigns as God."

My response would be, "In your belief system, are there any negative consequences for me or any other human being for not believing as you do about Jesus?"

If his answer is no, I would again not have any problem with his belief system as it does not conflict with science and reason. The "spirit world" is outside the realm of science and reason.

However, if he said: "Jesus of Nazareth is God, he came to earth to be a human sacrifice on a tree to pay the penalty for your evil deeds and for the evil deed of your ancient ancestors' forbidden-fruit eating. He died and three days later was resurrected/reanimated by his father, Yahweh, and we have eyewitness testimony to prove it. Therefore based on his resurrection, he has proven that he is the Creator God, and if you do not believe in him, worship him, and obey him as your Lord and Slave Master, he is going to punish you for all eternity in his torture chamber called Hell, in some manner that I and my fellow believers cannot agree upon...but it will be unpleasant and eternal.

Pray and ask Jesus to be your Lord and Slave Master right now because if you don't and you get run over by a Mack truck two seconds from now you will spend eternity in....discomfort of some kind."

My response would be: "You are a superstitious, ignorant fool."

[psstein]

I think that this is a very fascinating subject for this reason: I personally believe that the entire Gospel/Resurrection story hinges on the Gospel of Mark. Why? Because most scholars believe that Matthew, Luke, and probably even John used Mark as a boiler plate story for their own stories. Therefore if there is very good evidence that the author of Mark was John Mark, and it is true that he received his information directly from the apostle Peter, that would be pretty good evidence for the events in the life of Jesus, although it would still not be eyewitness testimony. We would have to assume that John Mark remembered Peter's teachings correctly since we know that the Gospel was not written until circa 70 AD and Peter, if tradition is correct, had been dead for a number of years by then.

No, most scholars believe John is independent. There are some who believe John was aware of Mark's work, but did not use it in the composition of his gospel. Peter died somewhere between 64-67, so the range of dates most scholars will give Mark is 65-75. Maurice Casey and James Crossley both argue for a far earlier date (40), but let's go with what the huge majority of scholars say. There's also an interesting question of Mark's structure, but that discussion can get very complicated very quickly (whole books have been written about it).

So the accuracy of a sizable percentage of the four Gospels is dependent on:

1. The Gospel of Mark being written by an eyewitness, or, an associate of an eyewitness, accurately retelling the eyewitness testimony of that eyewitness.

We have no evidence that John Mark was an eyewitness, so the best we can hope for is that he wrote down accurate second hand information.

2. But why do we think that John Mark wrote ANY gospel? As far as I know, the only evidence we have is a vague statement by Papias that someone told him that someone had told them that John Mark had written a gospel, writing down the preachings of Peter. Then, we have Irenaeus in the late second century stating that John Mark wrote the gospel we now call the Gospel of Mark.

To answer your questions in order:
1. No, not at all. There's clear evidence of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community. The eyewitnesses are still present and (likely) preaching in the communities. The oral tradition is finally codified in Mark, likely because the eyewitnesses have begun to die off and the community as a whole wants to preserve it.

2. The statement from Papias is related to him from someone we believe to be John the Elder, an eyewitness and the possible author of John.

But Papias never quoted from this alleged book of John Mark, therefore, how do we know that the Gospel of Mark we have today is the same gospel that John Mark allegedly wrote? It is quite possible that John Mark wrote a gospel but it may have well been lost. There were dozens if not hundreds of gospels floating around the Roman Empire in the second century, maybe Ireneus just picked what we today call The Gospel of Mark using other criteria, not naming John Mark as the author for historical accuracy, but for theological or even (intra-church) political reasons? We just don't know. But you have to admit that it is possible that Irenaeus chose John Mark as the author of one of the four books named by Ireanaeus as "The Gospels" simply because he believed Papias claim that John Mark had written a book, and therefore this would add authority to choosing John Mark as the author of a previously known anonymous book. No previous church father reads a passage from the Gospel of Mark and refers to its authorship.

This almost borders on conspiracy. The four gospels were in fairly wide circulation among Christian communities, which is why Hengel suggests that they were named from the beginning. We don't really have much from the Church Fathers before Irenaeus, but we do know that at least three of the gospels were in circulation by 96, based on the First Epistle of Clement. It seems very likely that Mark is the same Mark that was circulating then. Irenaeus may have chosen Mark for political reasons, but you have to keep in mind that even people who thought Irenaeus (and Papias) idiots, like Eusebius, saw no reason to doubt Markan authorship.

Do you have any other evidence for John Mark's authorship of this gospel. If you can recommend a couple of scholarly books on this subject I am very likely to read at least a couple of them.

There are parts of Mark that are in Aramaic, what scholars will call Aramaicisms. Mark's Greek is very Semitic, as well.

Maurice Casey's The Aramaic Roots of Mark is a good discussion of the Aramaic, but it's prohibitively expensive. It's free online, you just have to look around a bit.

The books you should read are as follows: Studies in the Gospel of Mark, edited by Martin Hengel, and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Studies goes through a lot of the questions and topics about Mark. It's pretty well done. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is an argument for the importance of eyewitness tradition in the Gospels, and Bauckham spends a significant amount of time discussing Mark. The book has some problems, but Bauckham does make an interesting case. Neither one of these books is over $25.00 on Amazon, and you can always get a cheaper used copy.

[psstein]

Nick is an inerrantist?? How does that square with his claim that he is not a fundamentalist??

You can hold to inerrancy and hold to non-fundamentalist views of the text. Mike Licona is an inerrantist, but as most people here know, he got in trouble for suggesting that Matthew 27:51-53 is apocalyptic imagery.

[Gary]

No, most scholars believe John is independent. There are some who believe John was aware of Mark's work, but did not use it in the composition of his gospel. Peter died somewhere between 64-67, so the range of dates most scholars will give Mark is 65-75. Maurice Casey and James Crossley both argue for a far earlier date (40), but let's go with what the huge majority of scholars say. There's also an interesting question of Mark's structure, but that discussion can get very complicated very quickly (whole books have been written about it).



To answer your questions in order:
1. No, not at all. There's clear evidence of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community. The eyewitnesses are still present and (likely) preaching in the communities. The oral tradition is finally codified in Mark, likely because the eyewitnesses have begun to die off and the community as a whole wants to preserve it.

2. The statement from Papias is related to him from someone we believe to be John the Elder, an eyewitness and the possible author of John.



This almost borders on conspiracy. The four gospels were in fairly wide circulation among Christian communities, which is why Hengel suggests that they were named from the beginning. We don't really have much from the Church Fathers before Irenaeus, but we do know that at least three of the gospels were in circulation by 96, based on the First Epistle of Clement. It seems very likely that Mark is the same Mark that was circulating then. Irenaeus may have chosen Mark for political reasons, but you have to keep in mind that even people who thought Irenaeus (and Papias) idiots, like Eusebius, saw no reason to doubt Markan authorship.



There are parts of Mark that are in Aramaic, what scholars will call Aramaicisms. Mark's Greek is very Semitic, as well.

Maurice Casey's The Aramaic Roots of Mark is a good discussion of the Aramaic, but it's prohibitively expensive. It's free online, you just have to look around a bit.

The books you should read are as follows: Studies in the Gospel of Mark, edited by Martin Hengel, and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Studies goes through a lot of the questions and topics about Mark. It's pretty well done. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is an argument for the importance of eyewitness tradition in the Gospels, and Bauckham spends a significant amount of time discussing Mark. The book has some problems, but Bauckham does make an interesting case. Neither one of these books is over $25.00 on Amazon, and you can always get a cheaper used copy.

I am going to look into buying and reading the books that you mention. Does anyone else believe that there is a better book by a scholar regarding the authorship of Mark other than the books listed by Stein?

I'd like to discuss this statement: "There's clear evidence of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community. The eyewitnesses are still present and (likely) preaching in the communities. The oral tradition is finally codified in Mark, likely because the eyewitnesses have begun to die off and the community as a whole wants to preserve it."

First, would you outline the evidence that there is "clear evidence" of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community? It is not as if there was only ONE eyewitness account of the post-resurrection appearances. If the Bible is accurate, there would have been 500+ eyewitness accounts.

[Gary]

No, most scholars believe John is independent. There are some who believe John was aware of Mark's work, but did not use it in the composition of his gospel. Peter died somewhere between 64-67, so the range of dates most scholars will give Mark is 65-75. Maurice Casey and James Crossley both argue for a far earlier date (40), but let's go with what the huge majority of scholars say. There's also an interesting question of Mark's structure, but that discussion can get very complicated very quickly (whole books have been written about it).



To answer your questions in order:
1. No, not at all. There's clear evidence of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community. The eyewitnesses are still present and (likely) preaching in the communities. The oral tradition is finally codified in Mark, likely because the eyewitnesses have begun to die off and the community as a whole wants to preserve it.

2. The statement from Papias is related to him from someone we believe to be John the Elder, an eyewitness and the possible author of John.



This almost borders on conspiracy. The four gospels were in fairly wide circulation among Christian communities, which is why Hengel suggests that they were named from the beginning. We don't really have much from the Church Fathers before Irenaeus, but we do know that at least three of the gospels were in circulation by 96, based on the First Epistle of Clement. It seems very likely that Mark is the same Mark that was circulating then. Irenaeus may have chosen Mark for political reasons, but you have to keep in mind that even people who thought Irenaeus (and Papias) idiots, like Eusebius, saw no reason to doubt Markan authorship.



There are parts of Mark that are in Aramaic, what scholars will call Aramaicisms. Mark's Greek is very Semitic, as well.

Maurice Casey's The Aramaic Roots of Mark is a good discussion of the Aramaic, but it's prohibitively expensive. It's free online, you just have to look around a bit.

The books you should read are as follows: Studies in the Gospel of Mark, edited by Martin Hengel, and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Studies goes through a lot of the questions and topics about Mark. It's pretty well done. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is an argument for the importance of eyewitness tradition in the Gospels, and Bauckham spends a significant amount of time discussing Mark. The book has some problems, but Bauckham does make an interesting case. Neither one of these books is over $25.00 on Amazon, and you can always get a cheaper used copy.

http://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-the-go...#comment-34230

[One Bad Pig]

Nick seems afraid of this question. Is there any other Christian---who believes in inherited, original sin for every human being ever born---that would be brave enough to answer this question? (that excludes you, Tabster).

Why is it that you think if one of your questions isn't answered within an hour that it's because someone is afraid and/or incapable of doing so? People don't drop everything to read your posts the instant they're created.

I don't believe in inherited sin, which excludes me from answering. Sorry.

[Gary]

Why is it that you think if one of your questions isn't answered within an hour that it's because someone is afraid and/or incapable of doing so? People don't drop everything to read your posts the instant they're created.

I don't believe in inherited sin, which excludes me from answering. Sorry.

So you believe that a child can choose to remain sinless for life?

[Gary]

Breaking News!

Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Republican candidate for President of the United States, just announced today in a news conference that Jesus had led him to suspend his campaign for President.

I'm sure Jesus had seen Perry's plummeting poll numbers when he whispered this suggestion into Perry's ear.

(Good grief)