Revisiting Mark

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Status
Not open for further replies.

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
I find it highly unlikely that Matthew and John actually wrote those Gospels given, as you say, the seeming reliance on Mark and Q.
It seems very unlikely that the book of Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collector.

John's gospel is also a big question mark.

John the disciple was a key member of the twelve and sometimes he is speculated to be the "beloved disciple". Still he was one of those often rebuked by Jesus for lack of understanding. Could he have made the leap to writing the gospel of John with its well-developed theology?
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,624
Reaction score
3,614
I find it highly unlikely that Matthew and John actually wrote those Gospels given, as you say, the seeming reliance on Mark and Q. More likely, they were attributed to them and the real author remains anonymous. That kind of attribution was common in the Greek world especially, and we see it again in the New Testament with the pseudo-Pauline letters. That said, I am not up on the scholarship, just going on instinct and knowledge of that world.
None of the writers were eyewitnesses and don't claim to be. The book of John author claims to have gotten some of the information from the disciple and says so at the end John 21:24. Mathews gospel is written in the third person throughout. The names attached to all of the gospels are said to be later additions so people knew who they were talking about.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
32,006
Reaction score
14,464
None of the writers were eyewitnesses and don't claim to be. The book of John author claims to have gotten some of the information from the disciple and says so at the end John 21:24. Mathews gospel is written in the third person throughout. The names attached to all of the gospels are said to be later additions so people knew who they were talking about.

So attribution, as I suspected.

Third person means nothing, BTW. We've had people write about themselves in third person forever. Julius Caesar uses third person in The Gallic Wars for instance.
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,624
Reaction score
3,614
That's a very reasonable interpretation but it doesn't explain why Matthew and Luke would have declined to use the story in their gospels.
See the above as to who wrote the gospels, (perhaps it didn't fall into the writers understanding of Jesus? my quote)
"In Mathew there is not a word about Jesus being God and Jesus doesn't perform miracles to prove his identity. In John, Jesus teaches about Himself and His divinity, and He proves his identity by performing miracles." (source "Jesus interrupted")
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,624
Reaction score
3,614
So attribution, as I suspected.

Third person means nothing, BTW. We've had people write about themselves in third person forever. Julius Caesar uses third person in The Gallic Wars for instance.
Well I should have acknowleged this is Bart Ehrmans view as a biblical historian and if we read his books it would probably be made clearer. Of course I'm sure there are various opinions from other scholars too.
I'm just offering another viewpoint from someone that is more qualified than myself.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
(perhaps it didn't fall into the writers understanding of Jesus?
Yes, I suspect this is the case for Matthew and Luke when it comes to the stories they leave out. What I don't understand is the nature of their disagreement. The spit, as I said earlier, might be a factor in those healing stories. It might make the stories seem too "magical" and not faith-based enough for their liking.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
1,025
my view here

Mark 16 seems to have some controversy about verses 9-20 -----for all the scholars who say this verse was put in or added ---you can find others who say it is authentic ---so who to believe ----we have free will to believe what we want --if we want to believe that this piece was added then that is what we will believe in my view ------God says His word is truth ---and that no prophecy was given by any man ----and it also says that all scripture is God breathed --God inspired given by way of the Holy Spirit -----

True Faith is involved here -----you either believe what the word says who is Jesus according to scripture ---the Word became Flesh ---or you believe what man says ---for me that what it boils down to -----


Here is a long article on this -----you can read it if you desire -----

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?


I am posting the conclusion statement only as this shows this persons belief ---and it shows my belief as well ----

CONCLUSION
For the unbiased observer, this matter is settled: the strongest piece of internal evidence mustered against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 is no evidence at all. The two strongest arguments offered to discredit the inspiration of these verses as the production of Mark are seen to be lacking in substance and legitimacy. The reader of the New Testament may be confidently assured that these verses are original—written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of Mark as part of his original gospel account.


So this goes for the writers of the Gospels as well -----it is all in what we want to believe in my view ----some scholars will say one thing while others say another -----so choose your belief is the name of the game in my view -----

Many believe these gospel writers copied one another etc --etc ----all nonsense in my view ---God is not a God of confusion -----that would make Him a Liar ---and God says He can't lie -----again all about personal belief
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Many believe these gospel writers copied one another etc --etc ----all nonsense in my view
So when we find 90% of Mark duplicated in Matthew, and 50% of it duplicated in Luke, you would understand God to have inspired it this way? And the Holy Spirit to be guiding the hands of the gospel writers in this fashion?

I think it unlikely myself, but I respect your biblical knowledge base and I am interested in understanding your frame of reference.

This has been a good discussion thread. We are not all peas in a pod by any means, which is a positive thing when it comes to sharing our views.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
A couple of things still to consider from Mark 16: 1-8.

Why were the women so afraid? Were they in a state of awe, as @Mendalla has suggested?
Who was the young man in the white robe?
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,390
Reaction score
1,453
I think the fear is natural. You have witnessed a terrible event but even so you make an effort to do what is traditional for the body. My comment here was I wonder why the body wasn’t anointed after death when placed in the tomb. It seems more logical. Though I think someone records the burial as being done rapidly and hidden

however. You arrive for a traditional treatment and find the body gone. stolen? Risen? Hidden? Taken by the romans?

any of those options are pretty scary. And they feel pretty vulnerable as people who followed Jesus. At risk themselves no doubt

but Jesus told people he would rise. And he did. So that is really scary. In fact, the man you were following because you thought he was a good rabbi, was in fact exactly what he said he was. The son of god And he has done what he said he would do.

so scared I get. Not telling anyone I don’t get. I would expect them to rush to the men in the group and weep, cry, celebrate......
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
1,025
this is the piece of scripture ----

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

My view on the young man and verse 8---He is an angel as he gives the women instructions and tells them where Jesus has headed ----

The women went there to anoint Jesus body with spices as it had not been done yet ----they are met by a young man who told them that He had been brought back to life ----these words alone would have shocked them I would think as they went to anoint the body -- then they go in the tomb and it's empty and then then the young man gives them details as to what they are to do --tell the Disciples ---and then the young man tells them where Jesus is going ------So when they left the tomb they would be bewildered and shocked but yet filled with joy ----and fled saying nothing to anyone except the Disciples fearing they could have been accused of stealing the body by the Jews and be punished ----- just my view here -----
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
1,025
paradox3 ---you ask -----So when we find 90% of Mark duplicated in Matthew, and 50% of it duplicated in Luke, you would understand God to have inspired it this way? And the Holy Spirit to be guiding the hands of the gospel writers in this fashion?

my understanding is that each Gospel writer is writing to a different audience and so that is the reason for the different in why some have more detail than others -----knowing who the audience is in each Gospel is important ------

I am posting this so you can see what I am saying -----

https://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2012/12/11/why-are-there-four-gospels/

EACH GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN FOR A DISTINCT PURPOSE
It is important that we understand these sources and what they are trying to accomplish. The Gospels are neither biographies of the life of Christ nor are they a disinterested record of certain events in His life. Each writer wants the reader to know the truth about Jesus and become a disciple. To accomplish this purpose, each Gospel is aimed at a certain audience and each writer is selective of the events he includes.

MATTHEW
The Gospel according to Matthew is aimed primarily at the Jew, the person familiar with the Old Testament. Jesus is portrayed as Israel’s Messiah, the King of the Jews. Matthew records how the promises God made in the Old Testament, with regard to the Messiah, are fulfilled in Jesus. Matthew begins his book by stating the family tree of Jesus:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1).
This genealogy demonstrates that Jesus is the rightful heir to the kingdom that was promised to David and his descendants and sets the tone for the book. The remainder of the book emphasizes that Jesus has the credentials to be Israel’s Messiah.

MARK
Mark, on the other hand, is not writing to the Jew or to those who are familiar with the Old Testament. His audience is basically those people in the Roman Empire who are unfamiliar with the religion of the Jews. Consequently, Mark’s Gospel does not start with the birth of Jesus or any family tree that demonstrates Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy. It starts, rather, with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).
Mark’s is a Gospel of action. Jesus is portrayed as the servant of the Lord doing that job that God has sent Him to do. Thus, the emphasis is on doing, and Mark shows that Jesus got the job done. Consequently Mark’s gospel records more miracles of Jesus than Matthew, Luke, or John.

LUKE
Luke was written to those more intellectually minded. He states his purpose in the book’s prologue:

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account (Luke 1:1-3).
Luke is not writing as an eyewitness but as one who is recording eyewitness testimonies. His portrayal of Jesus is as the perfect man. Hence, he focuses on those events in Jesus’ life that stress His humanity. The Greeks in their art and literature were always looking for the perfect man. The Gospel of Luke reveals that man.

JOHN
John, the writer of the fourth gospel, was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. The things he recorded were for the purpose of establishing the fact that Jesus was the eternal God who became a man. John wanted his readers to exercise faith toward Jesus.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are 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).
When John states his purpose he also states that he is selective in what he has recorded.

SUMMING UP THE TESTIMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS
We can sum up the testimony of the four gospels in the following manner.

In Matthew, Jesus is the Son of David (Isaiah 11:1; Matthew 1:1)

In Mark, Jesus is the Son of Man (Zechariah 3:8; Mark 8:36)

In Luke, He is the Son of Adam (Zechariah 6:12; Luke 3:38)

In John, Jesus is the Son of God (Isaiah 4:2; 7:14; John 3:16)

SUMMARY
The four gospels were written to cover four aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus. Each gospel writer wrote from a different perspective to a different audience. They each looked at the character of Jesus from different angles. Thus the number of four arises from the four different perspectives we have given about Christ’s life and ministry.

Each author is presenting a different aspect of Jesus’ character. In Matthew Jesus is the king; in Mark; He is the servant; in Luke; He is the perfect man; in John, He is God. This is because each writer addressed a different type of audience.

The Gospels are not intended to be a history or biography of the life of Christ in the modern sense of the term. Each author is selective in what he portrays. Jesus did many more things than the Gospels record as John testified.

When the Gospels are compared with each other we get an overall portrait of Jesus. He was God from all eternity who came down to earth as the perfect man. He was the Messiah of Israel, the King of the Jews, the one who did the job that God sent Him to do. This is the testimony of the four Gospels.


I say --each of us have a right to believe what we want to about God's word -----so if your belief is that man wrote the scriptures and copied each other etc --then I respect your belief but the word itself says that what is written is truth so it can't be false and true at the same time ----we either believe the word as it is written or we don't -----my view
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
my understanding is that each Gospel writer is writing to a different audience and so that is the reason for the different in why some have more detail than others -----knowing who the audience is in each Gospel is important ------
Agreeing with you about the four gospels having different intended audiences and being written in different styles. I was actually thinking about the four writers earlier today and considering what they each offer us. They have certainly left us a wonderful legacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top