The Gospel of Mark

paradox3 said:

And how do we know that the extra material was not part of the oral tradition of the day?

Click to expand...

I imagine textual analysis plays into it. Drawing from a written source is more likely to generate very similar versions whereas if it was oral, retellings tend to vary in wording and such so unless they both heard from the same person at the same time, there should be more variation between them if it was a shared oral tradition. OTOH, they were writing so soon after the events, I doubt there was much time for major variations to develop. All hypothetical based on what i know of oral and written traditions. I'm sure there's a book or two on the subject.

'Q' is from 'Quelle', the German word for 'source' As Mendalla notes, it was hypothetical. It it was a written source, no extant copies have been found yet, if indeed any still exist. If it was shared oral tradition, about all we can do at this point is guesswork. Possibly some very fine, accurate guesswork; but we can never know for sure. The non-canonical Gospel of Thomas also shows a few signs of having been influenced by Q as well.

I didn't realize Quelle meant source in German. I was thinking of "which" in French. As in "quelle heure est-il?"

Go bilingual, "Quelle quelle?" meaning "Which source?"

paradox3 ---your quote ------It seems to be well accepted that Matthew and Luke both had the gospel of Mark at hand and used it in their own writings. This makes sense, I would say.


unsafe says ---Now here you go -----You have ask us to give you the information on where we get our info and you post this with no info where you get this Idea ----This is what Seeler was doing in her thread -----discrediting the scripture by saying that they were coping each other and never giving where she got her information from so one could check out the source -------


here is another of your statements ------We also know that Matthew and Luke have material in common that does not appear in Mark. The hypothetical document Q is considered to be the source of the extra stories. Some commentators talk about Q as though it is a proven fact and not a hypothesis. I have even read that it originated in Germany. How would we know this?


unsafe says ---who are these commentators ?????????----can you provide the sources please that you speak of so we can have a look at them -------


Your Quote ------ And how do we know that the extra material was not part of the oral tradition of the day?


unsafe says -----If one believes scripture then one believes what the scripture says through Faith ------

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (AMP)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; 17 so that the ]man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.


unsafe says ------God's word says it is truth -----who are we to say it isn't -------the Bible itself claims to be the Inerrant Word of God ------

unsafe Posting here where I get this from ----

Does the Bible Claim to Be God's Inerrant Word?

In dealing with the subject of Bible difficulties, and so-called contradictions in Scripture, we must first address the general question of the nature of the Bible. What type of book does the Bible claim to be? Our first task, therefore, is to look at what the Bible says about itself.

God's Inerrant Word

As we examine the pages of Scripture we find that it claims to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God - it is correct in everything that it records.

This being the case, Christians believe there will ultimately be no contradictions between what Scripture says and between the known facts of history, science, and theology.

Claims Of Scripture

The idea that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is the claim of Scripture itself - it is not something the church has invented. This can be clearly seen as one examines both the Old and New Testament.

Old Testament

The Old Testament itself claims to be God's Word. The writings were acknowledged as the commandments of the Lord. Moses told the children of Israel:

That you may fear the Lord your God to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you (Deuteronomy 6:2).

These commandments were to be put in the Ark of the Covenant. The Lord said to Moses:

And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets . . . and you shall put them in the ark (Deuteronomy 10:2).

Considered Inspired By All

The Old Testament was completed four hundred years before the time of Christ. First century writer Flavius Josephus listed the specific books that the Jews, at that time, considered to be inspired by God.

We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of humanity down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

The twenty-two books that Josephus mentions are the same as our thirty-nine Old Testament books - they are just divided differently. Josephus also summed up the Jewish attitude toward the Scripture.

And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid., p. 609).

It is clear from the evidence that the Old Testament was considered to be sacred by the Jews - the inspired Word of God.

The Testimony Of The New Testament

The New Testament considers the Old Testament to be the Word of God. The Apostle Paul spoke of it as authoritative Scripture:

which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures (Romans 1:2).

He also saw the Old Testament as predicting the doctrine of justification by faith.

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith (Galatians 3:8).

Confirmation By Jesus

Finally, we have the testimony of Jesus Christ. He made it clear that He believed the Old Testament was God's revelation of Himself to humanity.

Scripture

Jesus recognized the existence of an Old Testament Scripture.

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life (John 5:39).

Word Of God

Jesus said this Old Testament Scripture was the Word of God.

Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and your mother (Matthew 15:3,4).

Unified

He also testified that the Scriptures were a unified whole:

The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

Cannot Be Altered

Jesus also made it clear that the Old Testament could not have been altered, even in the slightest:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (Matthew 5:18).

Since Jesus demonstrated Himself to be the Son of God, His word on the matter is final. By definition, God knows everything and Jesus, being God, would know whether or not the Old Testament was His revelation to humanity. He made it clear that it was.

Four Witnesses To Old Testament

Therefore, we have the witness of the first-century Jews, the Old Testament itself, the New Testament, and Jesus Himself that the Old Testament was the inspired Word of God. The evidence is clear concerning how they regarded the Old Testament.

New Testament

The New Testament is also considered to be inspired of God for the following reasons:

Divine Origin

All throughout Jesus' ministry the divine origin of His words is stressed.

He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak (John 12:48,49).

In addition, Jesus said His words would never pass away.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away (Matthew 24:35).

That Jesus said His words would last forever hints at the idea they would be recorded.

The Promise Of Jesus

The main reason we believe that the New Testament has been inspired of God is the promise of Jesus. Before His death and resurrection Jesus made the following promises to His disciples.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14:26).

But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning (John 15:26,27).

However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come (John 16:13).

We have, at least, two promises of Jesus contained in these verses:

1. The Holy Spirit would guide these hand-picked disciples into all truth.

2. They would be given the gift of total recall of the things He said and did.
This would guarantee the truth of their preaching and teaching as well as anything they would eventually write about Jesus.

Anticipates The New Testament

Consequently these promises look forward to a written body of truth. Those men to whom Jesus made these promises either wrote the books of the New Testament or had control over what writings were considered authoritative. Since God had already demonstrated His desire to commit His Word to writing by giving His people the Old Testament, it would follow that He would do the same in a New Testament. The inspiration of the New Testament, therefore, was authenticated ahead of time by the Lord Jesus.

In A Position To Know

Jesus was in a position to make such authoritative declarations about Scripture. He demonstrated that He was God's Son by His resurrection from the dead.

who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 1:4).

Therefore Jesus is the final authority on all matters in which He speaks. His word settles the issue (for thorough documentation of Jesus' authority, see our course The Case For Christianity).

Specific Statements Of Other Writers

Apart from the four gospels, the New Testament makes other specific statements about its own inspiration. The Apostle Paul said that his writings were the commandments of the Lord.

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37).

In the first letter that Paul wrote, he stated that his commandments were to be received as the Word of God.

And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Paul also emphasized that all Scripture is God-breathed.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

Nothing To Be Changed

The disciple John emphasized that no words of Scripture are to be changed.

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life (Revelation 22:18,19).

Accepted As Scripture

Although the concept of a completed New Testament may not be found, we do have the concept of the writings being considered as Scripture. Simon Peter compared the writings of Paul to other Scripture:

Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his letters . . . which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16).

Consequently the idea of a written New Testament can be found within the pages of Scripture. The words of the New Testament are equated with the words of God.

Conclusion

The words of Scripture, in both Testaments, are the inspired Word of God - the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. This is the unanimous testimony of the authors.

Purpose

Finally, we should remember that the ultimate purpose of Scripture is to make its readers wise unto salvation. Paul wrote to Timothy:

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15).

John made it clear why he wrote his gospel.

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).

The Scriptures were written to create belief in the Person of Jesus Christ - the one way to reach the one true God.

Summary

1. Christianity believes and teaches that the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, has been inspired by God. This however, is not a claim that was developed by the church over a period of time. The idea that the Bible is inspired by God is the claim of the Bible itself.

2. Jesus confirmed that all parts of Scripture were inspired. Since He has demonstrated Himself to be the Son of God, He would be in a position to know the extent of the Bible's inspiration.

3. The Scripture claims to be God's Word, therefore the claim ought to be examined. The consequences of ignoring its message can cause someone to spend eternity apart from the living God. Therefore the matter of the nature of the Bible is of the utmost importance for humans to consider.


unsafe asks ---if one is going to discredit the Word the sources should be provided so we can comment on the source ------


unsafe says ----number 3 -----need to be taken very seriously --------and is worth repeating -------
The consequences of ignoring its message can cause someone to spend eternity apart from the living God. Therefore the matter of the nature of the Bible is of the utmost importance for humans to consider.

Mendalla said:

FYI, in my world, a "daemon" is a program running in the background in a UNIX or Linux system. In the Windows world, we call the same thing a "service". So, technically, Wondercafe2, which is hosted on web server software called Apache on a Linux operating system, is run by daemons.

Click to expand...

That's demonic because real folk don't wish to know things like that ... thus infinite unknowns which stretch enough to create a large black zone ... mysterious!

Mendalla said:

Go bilingual, "Quelle quelle?" meaning "Which source?"

Click to expand...

Quelle even as a source of script coming from the imaginary pennings of some idealism? The goose assisted back in those days ... if not a Swan situation!

Thus the words take us in circles ...

Hi @unsafe

You certainly like to keep me on my toes.

For a start, let me quote my copy of the Bible in its introduction to the New Testament:

"Gospels are not biographies. They are accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus, but they are also reflections on who Jesus is and what he means for the world. Each of the gospel writers wanted to say something specific about the meaning of Jesus and carefully selected materials and arranged them to carry his own particular emphasis. The gospels contain a great deal of historical information, but that information is always interpreted by the writers to show Jesus as Son of God and Savior of the World.

There are four gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke are called synoptic gospels because they follow a common synopsis, or outline. These three gospels can be studied in parallel because they follow the same basic outline, use many of the same words and the same order. Much of modern biblical study is based on the assumption that that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a base source and outline. The Gospel of John is entirely different from the other three. It does not follow the same outline, has a three year ministry instead of one year, and contains long reflections about the meaning of Jesus instead of short sayings and parables."

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989

Do you have any difficulty with the above?

There is no mention in my bible of Q. As a few of us have stated already, Q is a hypothetical document. The hypothesis has been around for a long time and gained new momentum after the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas. I am not arguing in favor or against Q, unsafe. The hypothesis of Q is utilized by the Jesus Seminar and others.

Q stands for Quelle which means source in German, I have just learned today. Apparently the name was adopted by a German scholar.

Mendalla said:

Go bilingual, "Quelle quelle?" meaning "Which source?"

Click to expand...

We could have fun with this on the LAST post thread.

blackbelt1961 said:

I too have experienced demons, in my teenage yrs playing with the occult, I was traumatized to the point that my parents took me to the doctors, they thought I had some form of mental illness...

Click to expand...

I'm just going to leave this here as a possible explanation for so many things.

paradox3 ---thanks for your reply --------

unsafe says -----So this is what I found with this Q Gospel------and I agree with this statement made here in the article below -----Much of this analysis is speculative and hypothetical.

unsafe says ---here lies the problem as I pointed out to Seeler in her thread ----The Real Truth is ---WE DON'T KNOW !----All these people were not there they can only Speculate or assume ---- The Bible itself states that all scripture is God Breathed and is the truth --who are we to dispute what God has said is truth -----If we personally don't want to believe God's word that is our choice but to say outright that the Bible was copied back and forth without real proof is irresponsible on our part in my view -----

We can say there are scholars who speculate this and that but we should always acknowledge the real fact and that it is only their opinion and God has said in His word that His Word is truth -----we can believe that or not -----that is our choice ---


WHAT IS THE "Q-SOURCE"?
R.C. SPROUL
What Is the "Q-Source"?

The general assumption among source critics is that Mark was the first written gospel. This is seen by an analysis of Matthew and Luke — both Matthew and Luke have material in their gospels that is common to the gospel of Mark.

At the same time, there is common material found in Luke and in Matthew that is not found in Mark. The scholars then try to account for this common information found in these two gospels that is absent from Mark's gospel.

The working hypothesis is that Matthew and Luke, in addition to having Mark as a source for their information, had a second independent source that Mark did not use. This second independent source is called simply the "Q-source."

That letter Q is used since it is the first letter of the German word quelle, which is simply the word for source. That is to say, the Q-source is a source that is unknown to us but known to the gospel writers Matthew and Luke. Much of this analysis is speculative and hypothetical.

Scholars differ as to whether the alleged Q-source was a written source shared by Matthew and Luke, or simply an oral tradition they both had access to. Wherever we land in our conclusions about the method by which the gospel writers compiled their texts, the very analysis that we have seen gives us one clear benefit.

By isolating material that is found in Matthew and only in Matthew, or isolating material that is found in Luke and only in Luke, or isolating material found in Mark and only in Mark, we get clues as to the audience to which the author was directing his information and also his major themes in the particular gospel.

For example, in looking at the gospel of Matthew, we find more citations and allusions to Old Testament Scriptures than in any of the other gospels.
This fact alone lends credence to the idea that Matthew was directing his gospel primarily to a Jewish audience to show how Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah, fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.



unsafe says ---the three Gospels were written for different audiences and this could have something to do with why they contain similar dialogue -----

unsafe says ---this is an interesting read -----


The Synoptic Gospels – What are they?
The Synoptic Gospels – What are they?

Simply defined, the Synoptic Gospels are the first three books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The "Gospels" are an accumulation of the Synoptic Gospels plus the book of John. They describe the good news of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, which are the foundation of Christ's message of salvation.

The apostle Matthew, who was one of the twelve disciples appointed by Jesus, wrote the Gospel of Matthew. John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, and he was a close associate of the apostle Peter. Luke, the physician, a friend of the apostle Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke.

The word "synoptic" means "together sight." The Synoptic Gospels are called such because the authors "saw together with a common view." These books cover many of the same events in Jesus' life in almost the same exact order. Just about ninety percent of the content in Mark is also found in Matthew, and about half of Mark also appears in Luke. The Synoptic Gospels are encompassing of all of Jesus' parables, and the book of John (a Gospel, but not synoptic) does not contain any of Jesus' parables.

Although there are abundant similarities in these books, there are also quite a few differences. Mark is the shortest book of the three by a considerable amount. Further, all three books were written for different audiences. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience, Mark wrote to a Roman audience, and Luke wrote to a Gentile audience.

Matthew took a unique approach to his writing by frequently quoting the Old Testament. He is also the only author to extensively use the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," which is not found anywhere else in Scripture.

Luke was drawn to Jesus' compassion, and was faithful to record Jesus' acts of kindness toward Samaritans and Gentiles.

Biblical scholarship often has a difficulty defining the similarities and differences within the Synoptic Gospels, and dubbed this difficulty the "Synoptic Problem." Overall, scholars can agree that God inspired all three authors to detail the life of Jesus Christ and relay the meaning of His life to three different audiences.



unsafe says ------we need to be very careful when we get hasty with Scripture and cause confusion to others who read what we say ----God is not the author of Confusion ----Satan is the master of confusion -----causing doubt about God's word is the work of Satan not God ----

Mark, the second gospel's author, was the pupil and companion of two great missionaries, Peter and Paul.

He was a Jew by birth, and his Jewish name was John. His surname, which he adopted when he became a Christian, was Mark.

He was the son of Mary, a woman of Jerusalem who later became a prominent member of the congregation in that city by offering her house for meetings. It was to her house that Peter went upon his deliverance from prison.

Mark had crossed paths with Jesus even before the Passion. He's the young man who fled naked from Gethsemane.

Mark was close to Peter, through whom he'd been converted. He was Barnabas' cousin. Through Barnabas he came into closer contact with Paul, and he accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. At that time, however, he was not yet spiritually mature, for he left them at Perga and returned to Jerusalem, much to Paul's displeasure. For this reason Paul refused to take him on the next journey, while Barnabas was willing to overlook the temporary weakness. There was an argument over the matter, with the result that Paul and Barnabas parted company.

Mark also helped Peter, in Babylon and in Rome.

This is all that the New Testament records of him.

From tradition it appears that he afterwards founded the church at Alexandria, where he died as a martyr. In 827 his relics were removed to Venice, where a church was built for him.

Mark wrote for Roman Christians. He frequently uses Latin expressions. He rarely quotes from the Old Testament. He translates Aramaic words and expressions; He explains Jewish customs.

Mark wrote as Peter's interpreter. He was the editor and publisher of the oral Gospel which he'd heard from his teacher. Peter's influence is evident throughout the book.

Mark wrote his Gospel to show the beginning of Christ's Gospel. This Gospel owed its power and success to Christ. Mark emphasizes Christ's miracles and only gives sermons in brief form.

Two miracles are distinctive of Mark's Gospel, that of the healing of the deaf, and that of the slow healing of the blind man.

Mark also includes Jesus' times of solitude, during which he prepared hiimself for a new stage in his missional work.

Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome in the 60's. He makes no reference to Jerusalem's destruction.

The book's outline is like Matthew's. There's an introduction concerning John the Baptist. Christ's work in Galilee's then given. In the books last part, Christ's Messianic work in Judea's given. The book closes with Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.

@unsafe I agree with you about Q being hypothetical and speculative.

I Liked your post because I agree with almost all of it and I appreciate your willingness to engage with me on these threads.

Do you have any reaction to Mark 1? Anything in the chapter that especially appeals to you or causes you difficulty?

Jae said:

The book closes with Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to Mark 16:9-19, which was added much later?

Also how do you know Mark was the naked youth in Gethsemane?

Waterfall said:

Are you referring to Mark 16:9-19, which was added much later?

Also how do you know Mark was the naked youth in Gethsemane?

Click to expand...

Even before those verses Waterfall, we have, "Which saith to them, Do not ye dread; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth crucified; he is risen, he is not here; lo! the place where they laid him." - Mark 16:6 (WYC).

@Jae, I am very much striving for a chapter by chapter analysis of Mark. If you are not happy to participate on this basis, you are welcome to start another thread that will suit you better. I might even pop in and see what approach you are taking.

You might try focusing on the questions I posed to unsafe if you are actually interested in this thread. What appeals to you about Mark 1? Anything you struggle with?

unsafe said:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (AMP)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage];

Click to expand...

Unsafe, you've used this quote before to "prove" that "The Bible" is the Word of God. You can't; find another if you can. When this letter was written, the only Scripture that it could refer to is the Hebrew Bible. The letter was written in the 60s, maybe contemperaneously with Mark, but certainly there was NOTHING like a New Testament.

paradox3 said:

@Jae, I am very much striving for a chapter by chapter analysis of Mark. If you are not happy to participate on this basis, you are welcome to start another thread that will suit you better. I might even pop in and see what approach you are taking.

You might try focusing on the questions I posed to unsafe if you are interested in this thread. What appeals to you about Mark 1? Anything you struggle with?

Click to expand...

Paradox3, I appreciate your focus. What I've shared thus far are my opening thoughts on Mark. I'm a bit behind some of you. I'm only currently working on my Chapter 1 reflections.

Jae said:

Paradox3, I appreciate your focus. What I've shared thus far are my opening thoughts on Mark. I'm a bit behind some of you. I'm only currently working on my Chapter 1 reflections.

Click to expand...

I will be very interested to see your Chapter 1 reflections when you post them. Thx.

Jae said:

Even before those verses Waterfall, we have, "Which saith to them, Do not ye dread; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth crucified; he is risen, he is not here; lo! the place where they laid him." - Mark 16:6 (WYC).

Click to expand...

Although without the added verses "risen" could be interpreted as Jesus having been raised up to the right hand of God without any sightings of a risen or wounded Jesus.