Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?

[badger]

No, I'm not an academic.

Well, not bad, I think.
What degree did you gain, I can't remember, and in what subject?

Story..... About 50 years ago I joined a chess club, but wasn't good enough to play on inter club matches. One evening a chess master who was over classed to play in the match offered to play me. I lost....lost again...again, and as we prepared for yet another game I apologised for being such poor sport. He corrected me quickly...
I failed to succeed, he said, I won the battles but I lost lives. That was my failure. I never take any notice of who I playing , I simply fight the battle which is on the board.
I've never forgotten his words although I can't even tember his face.

And so now I focus upon what I can hear, see, read. Anybody who seeks to impress any other with any kind of status is an impostor because they haven't got the information or skill or whatever to present.

Some of my friends were expert witnesses and one had an acquaintance who taught the Met Police handwriting analysis and he was caught red handed by a journalist, declaring a document to be true when he knew it was false....it only took some money. Each side paid expert witnesses to speak forvthem. What a joke.

 

[badger]

@badger

Let's assume poetic licence was taken with the idea (that people came from all around to visit Jesus in Galilee) being extended to a specific list of places more likely to match the Jerusalem Passover crowds, and thus excluding Samaria.

What is the significance? As observed earlier it's obvious Jesus had a significant multitude of followers when he entered Jerusalem to hosannas from the whole population on Palm Sunday --although you suggest the palms were thrown down by greedy locals for all visitors to the festival, that is clearly not the intended meaning of the gospel story.

I do not see the inclusion of a list of places, that were indeed probably an unlikely distance from Galilee -- to colour the account -- to mean a deliberate conspiracy to alter the meaning of the gospel story. Why is it so sinister?

I don't understand the importance?

EDIT
I still don't see the importance either of the fact that not everyone notches up an 'Oh yeah' to the fact that Jesus's first stop on entering Jerusalem was the Temple, and that he looked around? It isn't significant enough to to most people to be an issue.

Again, why is it so significant to you?
You seem to make it a black mark against Christians in general?

My interest in the verses discussed is simply focused upon the Markan gospel story that Jesus based his mission and early travels in Galilee and the north, that's all, and then after all else he came down to Jerusalem.

My interest in his Palm Sunday is based upon what he did there. Thus suggests that he wasn't do intimately acquainted with the Temple as some maintain, which supports the Markan gospel's single journey to Jerusalem during that mission.

Tiny sideline details interest me, like Luke's mention of Pilate killing a group of Galileans who must have been sacrificing somewhere not the Temple. I have always believed that many Northerners would have tried to avoid such time and expenditure as the Temple.

Tiny insignificant verses can have value. For me.

 

[badger]

As I read G-Mark this deposition does tend to get shorter in length, yet without seeming to lose anything solid..... but that's me.

See this short piece, and the Divine Spirit of Judaism becoming the 'Holy Ghost' of Christianity, a tangible entity. I tend to think of Judaism's Divine Spirit as a feeling, a mindset, a movement amongst the people, and in Nature's sends and surges, and so if I remove what looks to me to an addition, then nothing seems to be lost imo.

{1:6} And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Wonderful...... living from the sends and surges of the seasons.... respect!

{1:7} And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. {1:8} I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Well.....yeah.... but it wasn't so long before John was sending for more information about Jesus, he was worried about what he heard.

{1:9} And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Yes....... No doubt..... and with thousands of others, thus reducing Temple takings massively, I think.

{1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending
upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven, [saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Thunder and lightning maybe, but John would soon be in doubts so I doubt...that he heard such calls.

{1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. {1:14} Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Yes....... The Kingdom of God through a return of all the laws, imo.

And so, a redacted and slightly rearranged version by me reads something like this:- There ...... anybody could believe in such an account.
And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; and it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. Now after that John was put in prison, immediately the Spirit driveth Jesus into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, and then Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.

And so, rightly or wrongly, I can read such an account and it simply makes sense.......to a Deist.

 

[RJM]

{1:7} And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. {1:8} I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Well.....yeah.... but it wasn't so long before John was sending for more information about Jesus, he was worried about what he heard.

John was prophesying the Christ. When he heard about Jesus, he sent to find out more, to satisfy himself that Jesus was in fact the one whom he had prophecied, imo

{1:9} And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Yes....... No doubt..... and with thousands of others, thus reducing Temple takings massively, I think.

But John had previously said that Jesus would be the one whose shoe he was unworthy to touch, and for that reason John did not at first want to baptise Him, until Jesus insisted.

1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending
upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven, [saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Thunder and lightning maybe, but John would soon be in doubts so I doubt...that he heard such calls.

Of course a person who doesn't want to hear a word about Jesus being the unique 'Son of God' needs to find natural explanations. But don't you think John knew what thunder sounded like? All men have doubts at times.

{1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. {1:14} Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Yes....... The Kingdom of God through a return of all the laws, imo.

Or perhaps He really did mean the spiritual Kingdom of God?

And so, rightly or wrongly, I can read such an account and it simply makes sense.......to a Deist.

In other words just drop any reference to Jesus as a spiritual figure, and that's all fixed, lol?

The Church has preserved the scriptures in their fixed form for people to be able to examine -- but not for every king or ruler or pope to be allowed just edit the gospels to suit themselves. Without the Church there'd be no gospels: the documents would be dust, and the stories garbled and lost.

Countless folks have always studied the gospels in order to support their own pet theories about them. Meantime -- fortunately -- the gospels we have, remain just as they are

 

[badger]

John was prophesying the Christ. When he heard about Jesus, he sent to find out more, to satisfy himself that Jesus was in fact the one whom he had prophecied, imo
But John had previously said that Jesus would be the one whose shoe he was unworthy to touch, and for that reason John did not at first want to baptise Him, until Jesus insisted.
Of course a person who doesn't want to hear a word about Jesus being the unique 'Son of God' needs to find natural explanations. But don't you think John knew what thunder sounded like? All men have doubts at times.
Or perhaps He really did mean the spiritual Kingdom of God?

I acknowledge your opinion and belief.

In other words just drop any reference to Jesus as a spiritual figure, and that's all fixed, lol?

I'll take that as a question.
No. Jesus was without doubt strong in the Divine Spirit of Judaism, as described within Judaism.
And the Spirit was in the Laws of Moses, I think.,

The Church has preserved the scriptures in their fixed form for people to be able to examine -- but not for every king or ruler or pope to be allowed just fix the gospels to suit themselves. Without the Church there'd be no gospels: the documents would be dust, and the stories garbled and lost.

It's good that we can examine the gospels. And, no, even the writings discarded by the church are turning up, being found, being translated and this gives me a belief that the gospels might have survived, even without the Church. Of course, other churches kept the gospels from the beginning as well.

Countless folks have always studied the gospels in order to support their own pet theories about them. Meantime -- fortunately -- the gospels we have, remain just as they are

That's good. I don't seek to rule the world and destroy anything about them, and cannot speak for anybody else.

Thank you for the question.

 

[RJM]

other churches kept the gospels from the beginning as well.

The great schism between the Catholic and Orthodox church only occurred in 1054?

And, no, even the writings discarded by the church are turning up, being found, being translated

These are all of a much later date, I believe? Do you have examples of discarded Christian writings contemporary with the New Testament? We have a very extensive NT Apocrypha collection here
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/

gospels might have survived, even without the Church.

Have you read the gospel of Thomas? (60 - 140AD)
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-thomas/

 

[badger]

The great schism between the Catholic and Orthodox church only occurred in 1054?

An interesting question. I wonder who placed the Dead-Sea scrolls. The Ethiopian church is most ancient, maybe 350-400AD. I'd prtefer to focus on G-Mark, really.

These are all of a much later date, I believe? Do you have examples of discarded Christian writings contemporary with the New Testament? We have a very extensive NT Apocrypha collection here
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/

I'd prefer to stick to discussion on the Gospel of Mark, if I may?

Have you read the gospel of Thomas? (60 - 140AD)
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-thomas/

Some time ago..... That could be a Thread to parallel your existing one, maybe?

 

[badger]

Moving on.........

For material suitable to this thread I do not have to try very hard. Some 'fiddlings' are tiny innocuous inclusions, but they are interesting.
This morning I opened G-Mark, scrolled down and stopped at random, and this is what I read:-

Mark {2:14} And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

The calling of Levi. There's no need to 'source' these brief mentions which I have plucked from various studies........ I don't think any are accurate.

— Matthew, called Levi in Luke, worked as a tax collector for the Roman government. He would have acquired some education and reputation to .....
....and....Matthew was a publican, a tax collector for the Roman Empire. Thus, he was greatly distrusted by his fellow Hebrews.....
...., it seems that a few of the original disciples underwent a name change after joining Jesus (remember that Simon becomes Peter). In the same way, Levi becomes Matthew,.....

Stuff like the above doesn't work for me. Matthew/Levi didn't work for the Roman government, he worked for Herod Antipas who ruled the Galilee.
He never underwent a name change, but like most folks he had a nickname...... they all had nicknames, I think.
Simon never became 'Peter' nobody ever heard Simon called that name, his nickname was 'Cephas', if people want to translate that in to English then it won't be 'Peter' but 'Rock' or 'Stone' or maybe 'Anchor'.
They were not fellow 'Hebrews'...... They were Galilean Boatmen and they didn't speak Hebrew, rather they spoke 'Eastern Aramaic'
None of these errors are particularly huge, they simply show that not much thought has been pout in to the person of Matthew.

So I wanted to start again...... This is what I think about Matthew. If you don't like it then please show us what you've figured out about him.

The man's name was Matthew. He was a publican.
Publican's were junior or 'less powerful' taxation inspectors.
Matthew might have been a general tax officer but he was more likely to have been a 'Lake Taxation Officer'. I'll dig out a chart of the (expected) Lake taxation schedule that was charged to boatmen, buyers and sellers around the lake and this was very specialised and not general collection.
Publicans would not have been recruited from the working people, the locals, they were holding official positions and the people selected to hold these were Levites. So now we've probably found a nickname for Matthew. He could have been Matthew the Levite which just became Levi, since he was fairly popular (unlike most of them).
More on the nickname. See how he is referred to as 'Levi the [son] of Alphaeus' in G-Mark. If he had been a Galilean boatman he would have been titled 'BarAlphaeus', son-of-Alphaeus.... but as a Hebrew Levite he would have been titled 'BenAlphaeus' in his own tongue, and maybe the author didn't want any of the disciples to be associated with Levites.

And so (for me) Matthew emerges as Matthew BenAlphaeus called Levi, the (lake?) publican.
Single verses can lead to interesting perceptions. imo.

 

[Thomas]

Looking at sources, I found this:

The Quest for Mark’s Sources:
An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians
Thomas P. Nelligan, Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2015 Review by Tom Dykstra

Excerpts:
The ultimate goal of Quest is to determine the likelihood that the author of Mark’s gospel read 1 Corinthians and used it as one of the sources for his gospel story. The book looks for evidence of literary borrowing in three specific places, in each instance between a set of parallel passages in the Gospel and the epistle (1 Cor 1-2 and Mark 1:1-28; 1 Cor 5 and Mark 6:14-29; 1 Cor 11:2-34 and Mark 14:1-25).

... the most prominent example being Mark’s borrowing from 1 Corinthians for his story of the last supper. The similarities between the Gospel and the epistle here are commonly written off as a result of dependence by both on a common liturgical source. Nelligan points out the obvious fact that no actual document has ever been found that might have functioned as this common source. And because his criteria are not limited to a focus on vocabulary and phraseology, he also notices a number of other similarities between the sections of Mark and 1 Corinthians related to the institution of the Eucharist.

It is the connections between Mark and 1 Cor in these surrounding texts that lead to this conclusion [that Mark depends on 1 Cor]. For example, preceding the Eucharist in both texts are scenes involving angry and contentious people, judgment and condemnation. As has also been seen, there are many shared themes, elements of action and plot, and some shared vocabulary. ... No other text can be shown to be as close to Mark here without appealing to traditions which are hypothetical and unnecessary.

+++

This is not to say Mark's sole source was Paul. From Papias (as recorded by Eusebius) we have:
"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the Sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them."

+++

It would seem evident that the Eucharist was celebrated in the Church before Paul's first writings, (c50AD) and the earliest Gospel (Mark, c60AD). While Mark can then be said to derive from Paul, we can surmise that Paul derives his wording from existing Liturgical practice.

 

[RJM]

I think the eucharistic communion of the body and blood of Christ in sharing of bread and wine was probably the first common ritual of the early church, and it was certainly mistaken to mean actual cannibalism in the persecution of the earliest Christians spoken of by Tacitus and Pliny the younger

 

[badger]

Looking at sources, I found this:

The Quest for Mark’s Sources:
An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians
Thomas P. Nelligan, Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2015 Review by Tom Dykstra

Oh dear.......... and all this picked up by Richard Carrier who used it to convince his readers that Jesus and the Jesus story was a myth.
The mythers....!
I'm not going to waste too much time on this, only to mention that I have been advocating the extraction and binning of any obvious inclusions from Christianity in to a deposition about the missions of people like the Baptist and Jesus, for a return of the laws, mostly those which supported the poor classes.

Oh well.......... In a moment, down below, let's snatch 1 Cor 1-2 and Mark 1:1-28 and have a look at that.

... the most prominent example being Mark’s borrowing from 1 Corinthians for his story of the last supper.

No doubt they had a last meal..... no doubt. But if the last supper is binned then the basic account lives on, strong.

It is the connections between Mark and 1 Cor in these surrounding texts that lead to this conclusion [that Mark depends on 1 Cor]. For example, preceding the Eucharist ........

Stop there.......... I've discarded the last supper as spin already.......moving onwards......

This is not to say Mark's sole source was Paul. From Papias (as recorded by Eusebius) we have:
"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the Sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them."

The author of Mark had to be present at the arrest. The evidence is in the gospel account of the arrest.
What's wrong with these people?

It would seem evident that the Eucharist was celebrated in the Church before Paul's first writings, (c50AD) and the earliest Gospel (Mark, c60AD). While Mark can then be said to derive from Paul, we can surmise that Paul derives his wording from existing Liturgical practice.

So that's all the fuss, right there....... the Eucharist.

Richard Carrier has fetched himself quite a name and probably plenty of funds with his gambit..... because extreme atheists cling to this stuff.

Let's have a look at 1Cor 1-2
1 Corinthians
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians {1:1} Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother, {1:2} Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: {1:3} Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ. {1:4} I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; {1:5} That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and [in] all knowledge; {1:6} Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: {1:7} So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: {1:8} Who shall also confirm you unto the end, [that ye may be] blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. {1:9} God [is] faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. {1:10} Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. {1:11} For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. {1:12} Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. {1:13} Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? {1:14} I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; {1:15} Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. {1:16} And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. {1:17} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. {1:18} For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. {1:19} For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent. {1:20} Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? {1:21} For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. {1:22} For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: {1:23} But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; {1:24} But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. {1:25} Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. {1:26} For ye see
your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called: ]{1:27} But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; {1:28} And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea,] and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: {1:29} That no flesh should glory in his presence. {1:30} But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: {1:31} That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

--------------- A quick read through the above with any words true to G-Mark are emboldened.
But quite a lot of G-Mark does have additions, imo, such as those underlined.

Mark {1:1} The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; {1:2} As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. {1:3} The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight. {1:4} John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. {1:5} And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. {1:6} And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; {1:7} And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. {1:8} I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. {1:9} And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. {1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven, [saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. {1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. {1:14} Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, {1:15} And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. {1:16} Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. {1:17} And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. {1:18} And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. {1:19} And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. {1:20} And straightway he called them:
and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. {1:21} And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. {1:22} And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. {1:23} And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, {1:24} Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. {1:25}
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. {1:26} And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. {1:27} And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine [is] this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. {1:28} And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

 

[RJM]

Oh dear.......... and all this picked up by Richard Carrier who used it to convince his readers that Jesus and the Jesus story was a myth.
The mythers....!
I'm not going to waste too much time on this, only to mention that I have been advocating the extraction and binning of any obvious inclusions from Christianity in to a deposition about the missions of people like the Baptist and Jesus, for a return of the laws, mostly those which supported the poor classes.

Oh well.......... In a moment, down below, let's snatch 1 Cor 1-2 and Mark 1:1-28 and have a look at that.


No doubt they had a last meal..... no doubt. But if the last supper is binned then the basic account lives on, strong.


Stop there.......... I've discarded the last supper as spin already.......moving onwards......


The author of Mark had to be present at the arrest. The evidence is in the gospel account of the arrest.
What's wrong with these people?


So that's all the fuss, right there....... the Eucharist.

Richard Carrier has fetched himself quite a name and probably plenty of funds with his gambit..... because extreme atheists cling to this stuff.

Let's have a look at 1Cor 1-2
1 Corinthians
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians {1:1} Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother, {1:2} Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: {1:3} Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ. {1:4} I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; {1:5} That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and [in] all knowledge; {1:6} Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: {1:7} So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: {1:8} Who shall also confirm you unto the end, [that ye may be] blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. {1:9} God [is] faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. {1:10} Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. {1:11} For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. {1:12} Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. {1:13} Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? {1:14} I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; {1:15} Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. {1:16} And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. {1:17} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. {1:18} For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. {1:19} For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent. {1:20} Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? {1:21} For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. {1:22} For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: {1:23} But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; {1:24} But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. {1:25} Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. {1:26} For ye see
your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called: ]{1:27} But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; {1:28} And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea,] and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: {1:29} That no flesh should glory in his presence. {1:30} But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: {1:31} That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

--------------- A quick read through the above with any words true to G-Mark are emboldened.
But quite a lot of G-Mark does have additions, imo, such as those underlined.

Mark {1:1} The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; {1:2} As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. {1:3} The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight. {1:4} John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. {1:5} And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. {1:6} And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; {1:7} And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. {1:8} I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. {1:9} And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. {1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven, [saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. {1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. {1:14} Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, {1:15} And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. {1:16} Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. {1:17} And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. {1:18} And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. {1:19} And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. {1:20} And straightway he called them:
and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. {1:21} And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. {1:22} And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. {1:23} And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, {1:24} Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. {1:25}
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. {1:26} And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. {1:27} And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine [is] this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. {1:28} And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

On what basis do you conclude the underlined sections to be insertions?

 

[badger]

On what basis do you conclude the underlined sections to be insertions?

I do not believe in Holy Ghosts, religious prophesies, God coming to this planet (amongst trillions of them) as a human, Christ etc....... I would have to write a book to describe a lifetime's experiences to cause clear doubts.

But I do believe in the gospel of Mark, so quasi academics (I don't care how they got their medals) making claims that the Gospel of Mark was all built from Paul's letters is seen by me to be utter junk.

 

[RJM]

I do not believe in Holy Ghosts, religious prophesies, God coming to this planet (amongst trillions of them) as a human, Christ etc....... I would have to write a book to describe a lifetime's experiences to cause clear doubts.

But I do believe in the gospel of Mark, so quasi academics (I don't care how they got their medals) making claims that the Gospel of Mark was all built from Paul's letters is seen by me to be utter junk.

So, to get it straight: you don't like it or believe it, so it has to go?

 

[badger]

So, to get it straight: you don't like it or believe it, so it has to go?

Wrong.
.........a lifetime's experiences to cause clear doubts.......
That includes study of the gospels and assessments, with studies of early first century Palestine.

That's a whole mass of info drawn over about 25 years of study.

Let me grasp just any question from thin air.....any.....
What do you think of the proposal that Joseph of Arimathea used to go to Cornwall?

Another one.... just one more...
What do you think of Celcus's comments about Jesus?

 

[RJM]

What do you think of the proposal that Joseph of Arimathea used to go to Cornwall?

What of it? It doesn't mean Jesus married Mary Magdalene, etc. It's unsupported conjecture.

What do you think of Celcus's comments about Jesus?

Which comments? Celcus hated Jesus's influence as an anti-Roman peacenik, I believe? I mean, as opposed to Roman values

The New Testament presents Jesus clearly as a spiritual figure. He was so regarded during his life and ministry. That's the Jesus portrayed by the gospels, imo. The only way around it is to discard whole chunks of the gospels ...

 

[Thomas]

Oh dear...

I know! Same here.

I'm not going to waste too much time on this,

Probably for the best.

The author of Mark had to be present at the arrest.

Not necessary at all – How about Mark heard it from Peter? Or Mark is recounting oral tradition of the community?

A quick read through the above with any words true to G-Mark are emboldened.

Unless, of course, Mark was using Paul, in which case the reverse.

 

[Thomas]

As a point of general interest, while checking out Prof Richard Carrier, I happened upon an article on Bart Ehrman's blog.

People here will know I am no follower of Ehrman, I take issue with some of his findings, but reference him often, because he does ask questions worth thinking about, and he does dialogue with opponents without descending into abuse and accusation.

So I was surprised to see Carrier had initiated a quite vociferous and vociferous – and decidedly unscholarly – ad hominem assault on Ehrman's book: "Did Jesus Exist". That was enough to set alarm bells ringing for me. Then a quick search for reviews of Carrier's mythology thesis says the rest.

 

[badger]

I know! Same here.

Probably for the best.

Bloomin' mythers.....

Not necessary at all – How about Mark heard it from Peter? Or Mark is recounting oral tradition of the community?

No. Absolutely not, imo. The author of Mark was there.
That's a conversation in it's own right.

Tell me what you think of the report of the youth who tore free out of his clothing and ran clear. I've seen that happen many times, people pulling out of their (held) clothing and running, some getting clear, some not.
Now....who do you think saw that happen?

Unless, of course, Mark was using Paul, in which case the reverse.

I don't think so, but Christianity was inserting pieces here and there, I feel sure.

 

[Thomas]

No. Absolutely not, imo. The author of Mark was there.
That's a conversation in it's own right.

OK, I'll go for it:

The author of the Gospel is un-named and anonymous; it's attributed to Mark by the early church (Papias being the earliest), and assumed to be John Mark, younger cousin of Barnabas, who was with Peter and wrote his gospel for the benefit of the Roman Christian community.

He might well have been one of the seventy-two, a distant follower of Christ, his mother seems to have made her house a place of Christian gathering. But was he at the arrest?

Mark 14:51 makes no identification, other than a young man, apparently wearing a sleeping garment, so it's generally regarded as someone who lived or was staying close by, abed, who heard the commotion and got up to see what it was. Some say John, but I don't find that likely. Some say Mark, the scribe making an allusion to himself. Some say Lazarus, or Simon of Bethany.

Now....who do you think saw that happen?

Peter? The other disciples?

But if it was Mark, then we can surmise:
1) He was at home, in bed, and aroused by the noises outside as the mob descended on the garden.
2) He follows to witness the betrayal, the arrest, the flight of the disciples.
3) He is spotted, chased, but he slips out of his night robe, and runs away naked.

So whoever he was, he was late upon the scene, and if he witnessed anything, it was at a distance – at most the betrayal, the scuffle, the arrest and the flight of the others. Then he fled.
Not enough to offer a full account. So he must have got the details from elsewhere.