Can the Gospels stand scrutiny?

quote:

---

As with the other comment, i already discussed that on the Paul of Tarsus thread.

---

This is probably a better thread in which to continue the discussion of Mark.
Message 86
Message 88
Message 91
Message 93Can the book of Mark withstand scrutiny? Remember you set the standard.Is the author of Mark actually John Mark within the NT and/or consort/interpreter of Peter?All you have shown is second hand information and tradition. None of which truly identifies Peter's interpreter Mark as John Mark or the author of the current Gospel According to Mark.Where is the evidence worthy of a judge and jury?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Ok
First of all, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter refers to John Mark, the same Mark described Acts 12:12, 12:25, 13:13, 15:36-41, Colossians 4:10, 1 Timothy 4:11, as a son. This is not referring to John Mark as an actual son, but a relationship such as one. So it is obvious that John Mark has a close tie with Peter.
In the other sources which i already reviewed, they say a man named Mark wrote a gospel of Jesus Christ from the teachings of Peter.
Another thing is that the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, say the gospel 'According to Mark' (KATA MARKON).
Coincidence? Hardly, since for a gospel about Jesus Christ to be widely accepted by the early church, it is probable to believe that it comes from a reliable source, and I find that John Mark, who had a close connection to Peter and held christian meetings at his residence, is the best possible candidate that we can have considering the evidence to date.

quote:

---

First of all, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter refers to John Mark, the same Mark described Acts 12:12, 12:25, 13:13, 15:36-41, Colossians 4:10, 1 Timothy 4:11, as a son. This is not referring to John Mark as an actual son, but a relationship such as one. So it is obvious that John Mark has a close tie with Peter.

---

Show evidence that Peter is not refering to his own son.
Show evidence that the authors of Acts, 1 Peter, Colossians, and 1 Timothy are referring to the same person.
If you show evidence that they are referring to the same person, then show evidence that their Mark is the author of the Book of Mark as we know it today.Saying it doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

In the other sources which i already reviewed, they say a man named Mark wrote a gospel of Jesus Christ from the teachings of Peter.

---

And you have been shown that those sources are hearsay. Hearsay Rule: a witness must testify of his own knowledge, not on the basis of what has come to him indirectly from others.

quote:

---

Another thing is that the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, say the gospel 'According to Mark' (KATA MARKON).

---

That is not evidence that the author was named Mark, let alone any specific Mark.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Acts 12:12 'John, also called Mark'
Acts 12:25 'John, also called Mark'
Acts 13:13 'John' Since no other John went on the missionary journey with them it would have to have been 'John, also called Mark'.
Acts 15:36-41 'John, also called Mark', 'Mark'
Colossians 4:10 'Mark, cousin of Barnabas'
It is hard to tell that the Mark in 2 Timothy 4:11 is actually John Mark but there is one clue. Paul says 'he is helpful to me in my ministry.' Since Paul went on his first missionary journey with John Mark (Acts 12, 13) and since he was in jail with John Mark when writing Colossians (4:10) also Philemon (1:24), then Paul would have known that John Mark was helpful, and since no other Mark was described in any of his missionary journies, it's safe to say that John Mark was the one which Paul spoke of in 2 Timothy 4:11.
When Paul wrote Colossians he was in the Roman jail, and it says Mark was with him. In 2 Timothy, Paul was in a Roman prisonment, in chains, and he asks for Timothy and Mark to go see him. It is a good guess as to say that Timothy and Mark both went there, this gives alot of evidence to the fact the Mark could have been in Rome. When Peter writes 1 Peter, he is in Rome, saying that his 'son' Mark sends his greetings. Coincidence again? Hardly.Clements of Alexandria, Papias, and Origen are not indirect sources and therefore is not hearsay.And finally, how is that not substancial evidence that the authors name was Mark?PS. Please read info given (ei. Biblical texts) before making a statement. I had to give you useless information the Acts qoutes as well as Colossians that you could have got yourself if you read them. Thank you.

quote:

---

PS. Please read info given (ei. Biblical texts) before making a statement. I had to give you useless information the Acts qoutes as well as Colossians that you could have got yourself if you read them.

---

You are presenting your case, show the connection clearly.I didn't ask you to show me where it said Mark. You are bringing comments in from different authors. I asked you to:1. Show evidence that Peter is not referring to his own son.
2. Show evidence that the authors of Acts, 1 Peter, Colossians, and 2 Timothy are referring to the same person.
3. If you show evidence that they are referring to the same person, then show evidence that their Mark is the author of the Book of Mark as we know it today.You could have made a clearer case for the references to Mark in Acts, Colossians, and Philemon as referring to the same person. Now take a stab at #3.2 Timothy isn't considered to be Pauline and 1 Peter isn't considered to be written by Peter. So their authors are unknown.

quote:

---

Clements of Alexandria, Papias, and Origen are not indirect sources and therefore is not hearsay.

---

Early Christian TextsPapias is repeating what the presbyter said. Papias did not talk to Mark the interpreter. So the information is second hand.Origen wrote a commentary about 240AD. Obviously didn't talk to Mark either.Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) sites tradition. Again not someone who talked to Mark.None of these men are direct witnesses.

quote:

---

And finally, how is that not substancial evidence that the authors name was Mark?

---

Authors don't necessarily use their real names.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Well, you have a suspect but do you have enough evidence to take the case to court? And once there to win it? Sounds like all you have is a suspicion founded on hearsay.I don't by the way think a court of law either civil or crimminal is a good place to decide historical issues.lfen

quote:

---

I don't by the way think a court of law either civil or crimminal is a good place to decide historical issues.

---

I was hoping that namesdan would notice that his own criteria hurt his case.Are there any set guidelines for discerning historical issues such as the Gospel authorship?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Are you asking about this forum? Or Bibical scholarship at the university level? Or? I'd think Brian would have good input on this.lfen

quote:

---

Are you asking about this forum? Or Bibical scholarship at the university level?

---

I guess for my own curiosity, I would like to know what criteria Biblical Scholars do follow to determine authorship of manuscripts.Anything I've read concerning the authorship of the gospels whether for or against, have stated that the bottom line is that the authors are unknown.Where do scholars go from there? Brian?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Brian,I know you stated repeatedly that you aren't interested in the NT but perhaps you could point us in the direction of scholarly determination of the authorship of the various books in the bible.purpledawn,I liked this book on the OT:Who wrote the Bible? Author: Friedman, Richard Elliott.
Publisher, Date: [San Francisco] : HarperSanFrancisco, [1997], c1987.
ISBN: 0060630353 - Description: 299 p. : ill., maps ; 21 cm.The Yahoo Group: JesusMysterieshas wide ranging discussions of the materials in the first 4 centuries of Christianity. They go into a lot more detail than I've seen here or actually care to follow but it's free and you could take a look at it. It's very activity but well moderated so folks posters rarely get out of hand.lfen

Hi, PD, one criterion that should apply to the validity of the Gospel books is provenance, or chain of posession. Just as you wouldn`t buy a valuable antique without verifying its authenticity and history, I guess we shouldn`t accept ancient text without knowing most of the details of its journey through history. And on that score, the Gospels fall down. Supposedly written by eye-witnesses or friends of eye-witnesses, they disappear into the woodwork for an extended period till the Church decides to set a canon. While the writings of Church Fathers are offered as a guarantee of purity, on consulting the writings, we find only passing reference to passages, and no confirmation that the Gospel texts were read in their entirety. Or even existed as a body. Calling on the 'providential preservation' as the defenders of the KJV do, is just mere hand-waving and no indication of provenance. If God 'inspired' the writing of His Bible, don`t you think He might have ensured its intact passage through three millenia. If the early Christian church set such high store by the Gospels, surely a plan for their preservation would include strategic copies placed for future believers. Instead, we are reduced to suchlike as the Bodmer Papyrus, the Rylands Fragment, etc. to validate a corpus, and that mainly by paleography, a dodgy science at best. Too many gaps in the provenance of the Gospels, too many alternate versions to choose from, too much evidence suppressed of other Christian groups that might have been closer to the truth. No sale, thanks.

quote:

---

I guess we shouldn`t accept ancient text without knowing most of the details of its journey through history.

---

I would agree.

quote:

---

If God 'inspired' the writing of His Bible, don`t you think He might have ensured its intact passage through three millenia.

---

One would think so.I found this web site concerning The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. In this table we see the quotes supposedly used by the Church Fathers.But look at the fist quote from Mark supposedly by Polycarp. That's it!Now when I look at what is supposedly the letter of Polycarp that this was lifted from I find: IMO not really a quote from Mark.Looks like the same snippet scenerio they use for prophecy.Not helping their case IMO.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Sorry about the delay.I found that the best forum for discussing these issues is this one.Most of the posters there are very well versed in biblical studies, New and Old Testaments. This particular forum is well worth a look through.The site has interviews with well know scholars, lots of links to top quality sites, and online essays.I'd recommend a look there, the Old Testament forum is very good, and they don't put up with all the unsupported BS that we have here from some posters.Having said that, I just noticed a certain Ray Martinez is posting there!Brian.