I dismiss Mark's gospel as a serious source for resurrection evidence since the only part of Mark that mentions anybody seeing the resurrected Jesus, is the "long ending" of Mark 16, which most scholars dismiss as not being original to Mark.
May I assume you agree with the majority scholarly opinion that the long-ending of Mark isn't original, so i can move on to Luke?
Not only are the scholars agreed, but the apologists agree against it too. I've read reams of apologetics books, and none of them so much as quote this disputed portion of Mark in the effort to establish the resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, it is not the best evidence, and a rule of historiography is that you use only the best evidence available. Why would you introduce a new member of your church to the biblical support for the deity of Jesus by using the New World Translation? You wouldn't. You have far better evidence to make your case (the modern translations), so you skip the debatable and poor evidence and immediately use the best and most uncontested evidence.
You should do the same in the case of Mark and his alleged testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.
But lets turn the tables. If you agree with the scholars that Mark originally ended at 16:8, now you've got the gospel that scholars say was the first one to be written, not saying anything about people seeing the resurrected Jesus.
!?
If the resurrection is a 'central' part of the 'gospel', how do you explain the earliest gospel refusing to provide resurrection testimony from human beings? Could it be that the original gospel knew nothing of human eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus?
Nah, that couldn't be the case, for if it was, that would require the later gospel testimony to humans seeing the resurrected Jesus to be just embellishment, since it is highly unlikely author Mark would not have known about such witnesses if they truly existed. You've been a Christian far too long, in your world, needing to preserve your currently chosen religion is always a sufficient motive to reject a plausible historical hypothesis, right?
Should Mark's silence on these witnesses be interpreted in light of apostle Paul's listing of witnesses in 1st Corinthians 15? Or should apostle Paul's list of witnesses in 1st Corinthians 15 be interpreted in light of Mark's failure to mention any such witnesses?
How do you know which biblical position controls the other? Do you have any reason that is more objective that the need to maintain biblical inerrancy?
Is this the part where you suddenly discover that Mark wasn't the earliest written gospel? You know, just arbitrarily take whatever scholarly position that disturbs your faith the least?
Ok, if we assume Mark wasn't the gospel composed the earliest, then his willingness to repeat much from the earlier gospel (whether Matthew or Luke, it doesn't matter which) (synoptic problem), despite the lack of "need" to repeat what was already known, argues that he would also have been willing to repeat what they said about the resurrection, raising alarm bells as to why he didn't. In short, Mark's resurrection testimony and issues of the original ending disqualify him and his gospel from the category of "best evidence" that historians typically try to confine themselves to when making their historical case for something.
May I assume you agree with the majority scholarly opinion that the long-ending of Mark isn't original, so i can move on to Luke?
Not only are the scholars agreed, but the apologists agree against it too. I've read reams of apologetics books, and none of them so much as quote this disputed portion of Mark in the effort to establish the resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, it is not the best evidence, and a rule of historiography is that you use only the best evidence available. Why would you introduce a new member of your church to the biblical support for the deity of Jesus by using the New World Translation? You wouldn't. You have far better evidence to make your case (the modern translations), so you skip the debatable and poor evidence and immediately use the best and most uncontested evidence.
You should do the same in the case of Mark and his alleged testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.
But lets turn the tables. If you agree with the scholars that Mark originally ended at 16:8, now you've got the gospel that scholars say was the first one to be written, not saying anything about people seeing the resurrected Jesus.
!?
If the resurrection is a 'central' part of the 'gospel', how do you explain the earliest gospel refusing to provide resurrection testimony from human beings? Could it be that the original gospel knew nothing of human eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus?
Nah, that couldn't be the case, for if it was, that would require the later gospel testimony to humans seeing the resurrected Jesus to be just embellishment, since it is highly unlikely author Mark would not have known about such witnesses if they truly existed. You've been a Christian far too long, in your world, needing to preserve your currently chosen religion is always a sufficient motive to reject a plausible historical hypothesis, right?
Should Mark's silence on these witnesses be interpreted in light of apostle Paul's listing of witnesses in 1st Corinthians 15? Or should apostle Paul's list of witnesses in 1st Corinthians 15 be interpreted in light of Mark's failure to mention any such witnesses?
How do you know which biblical position controls the other? Do you have any reason that is more objective that the need to maintain biblical inerrancy?
Is this the part where you suddenly discover that Mark wasn't the earliest written gospel? You know, just arbitrarily take whatever scholarly position that disturbs your faith the least?
Ok, if we assume Mark wasn't the gospel composed the earliest, then his willingness to repeat much from the earlier gospel (whether Matthew or Luke, it doesn't matter which) (synoptic problem), despite the lack of "need" to repeat what was already known, argues that he would also have been willing to repeat what they said about the resurrection, raising alarm bells as to why he didn't. In short, Mark's resurrection testimony and issues of the original ending disqualify him and his gospel from the category of "best evidence" that historians typically try to confine themselves to when making their historical case for something.
Comment