It seems to me he is implying that NONE of the canonical gospels was written by the individuals they are ascribed to. I don't know that this is the case for the Gospel of Mark. It was written prior to 70 AD, when John Mark was likely still alive, and John Mark was a learned scholar, presumably of at least adequate means. Also, if he was indeed the author, unless he wrote it before he was at least 35 years old, he was alive when Jesus was, and accordingly may have been an eyewitness to the events
Greetings, friend. It is not disputed scholarship. Not one of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. You can check the text excerpt accompanying this video or for further info:
With respect to you and your research, there is no conclusive evidence that the the four canonical gospels were written by people other than those they have been ascribed to. The best evidence skeptics can offer is dating, and even this is charge is only effective with regards to John, whose author would have had to have been at least 80 years old when it was written, in order to have been an eyewitness, and even that is not impossible.
Sometime in the second century, proto-orthodox Christians claimed that the Gospels had been written by two disciples—Matthew and John—and by two companions of apostles—Mark and Luke. Scholars doubt the historicity of these traditions because 1) none of the Gospel writers claims to have been an eyewitness; 2) the disciples were likely uneducated peasants without writing skills; 3) the disciples and Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the native language of the Gospel writers seems to have been Greek.
The above excerpt is from Bart Ehrman's The New Testament -- an Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
His three main points, I don't believe are in dispute with non-theologian scholars. And I don't believe theologians can conduct scholarship, in that it's not following the scientific method to start with the answers and work backwards to find evidence to support your conclusion.
Q is fascinating. I enjoyed Burton Mack's book "The Lost Gospel." Although for this project I tried to steer clear of anything that wasn't widely accepted mainstream scholarship. And even though I believe Q to be by far the best explanation for the synoptic problem, I did not include Q in the discussion of Markan Priority.
I happen to think the evidence for Q is compelling as well.
As for Mark though, what is the primary evidence that John Mark was not the writer? It was written prior to 70 AD, when he was in all likelihood still alive, and he was a learned scholar who would certainly have had the means to write it. Where am I wrong?
I wrote most of this on the chalk board and explained the falacies of the Christian doctrines' origins in my Physics class.... didn't go over well. But absolutely hilarious none the less.
Some people take the Book of Revelations and the "Left Behind" series as being synonymous. 1st, prophecy doesn't mean fortune telling, or telling of things to come in 2 or 3,000 years, it's witnessing of things that will pass within one's lifetime. The Book of Revelation is a book about Christian Persecution just like Schindlers List is a book about the Holocaust. I'm confounded how few people, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE bother to do the research. Never expect people to behave rationally Eman. Amen.
It seems to me he is implying that NONE of the canonical gospels was written by the individuals they are ascribed to. I don't know that this is the case for the Gospel of Mark. It was written prior to 70 AD, when John Mark was likely still alive, and John Mark was a learned scholar, presumably of at least adequate means. Also, if he was indeed the author, unless he wrote it before he was at least 35 years old, he was alive when Jesus was, and accordingly may have been an eyewitness to the events
thekingmaker10 2 years ago
Greetings, friend. It is not disputed scholarship. Not one of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. You can check the text excerpt accompanying this video or for further info:
churchacrossamerica (dot) com/lesson2_studyguide.php#blackboard
(remove space in blackboard)
EmanLaerton 2 years ago
With respect to you and your research, there is no conclusive evidence that the the four canonical gospels were written by people other than those they have been ascribed to. The best evidence skeptics can offer is dating, and even this is charge is only effective with regards to John, whose author would have had to have been at least 80 years old when it was written, in order to have been an eyewitness, and even that is not impossible.
thekingmaker10 2 years ago
Sometime in the second century, proto-orthodox Christians claimed that the Gospels had been written by two disciples—Matthew and John—and by two companions of apostles—Mark and Luke. Scholars doubt the historicity of these traditions because 1) none of the Gospel writers claims to have been an eyewitness; 2) the disciples were likely uneducated peasants without writing skills; 3) the disciples and Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the native language of the Gospel writers seems to have been Greek.
MrGPW 2 years ago
The above excerpt is from Bart Ehrman's The New Testament -- an Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
His three main points, I don't believe are in dispute with non-theologian scholars. And I don't believe theologians can conduct scholarship, in that it's not following the scientific method to start with the answers and work backwards to find evidence to support your conclusion.
MrGPW 2 years ago
Just curious, as it pertains to the Gospel of Mark, are you asserting that:
a. John Mark (the companion of Paul, and later Peter) was not an eyewitness
or
b. it was written by someone other than John Mark.
By the way, I like your analysis of Markan Priority, and I am curious as to your take on the potentiality for the existence of the Q gospel.
thekingmaker10 2 years ago
b.
Q is fascinating. I enjoyed Burton Mack's book "The Lost Gospel." Although for this project I tried to steer clear of anything that wasn't widely accepted mainstream scholarship. And even though I believe Q to be by far the best explanation for the synoptic problem, I did not include Q in the discussion of Markan Priority.
EmanLaerton 2 years ago
I happen to think the evidence for Q is compelling as well.
As for Mark though, what is the primary evidence that John Mark was not the writer? It was written prior to 70 AD, when he was in all likelihood still alive, and he was a learned scholar who would certainly have had the means to write it. Where am I wrong?
thekingmaker10 2 years ago
I wrote most of this on the chalk board and explained the falacies of the Christian doctrines' origins in my Physics class.... didn't go over well. But absolutely hilarious none the less.
Jackk516 3 years ago
Some people take the Book of Revelations and the "Left Behind" series as being synonymous. 1st, prophecy doesn't mean fortune telling, or telling of things to come in 2 or 3,000 years, it's witnessing of things that will pass within one's lifetime. The Book of Revelation is a book about Christian Persecution just like Schindlers List is a book about the Holocaust. I'm confounded how few people, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE bother to do the research. Never expect people to behave rationally Eman. Amen.
BrokeMojo 4 years ago
Eman, genius, you ought to be on Television. If it weren't beneath you.
Hzqi 4 years ago 6