Why when he is dealing with Mark's gospel does he quote Peter's confession using Mathews words "You are the Christ the Son of the living God" and NOT the words Mark used "You are the Christ". It looks as if he was ad libbing..quoting off his mind and doing exactly what he said the early Christians did..allowing Mathew to overshadow Mark...hmm.. there appears to be a theological reason Mark waits til the cross before a human confesses Jesus as the "son of God".
read Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ and you will see why it's allmost impossible that the gospels were written anonymously and that the names were added a long time after they were written
Mark was such a small figure in the early church. Why not attribute it right to Peter, since Peter would have been a source if the document was authored by Mark? Attributing to Peter would have put apostolistic authority behind it. It makes no sense to just randomly choose Mark! Unless...the early church fathers actually knew who authored the document. This seems a more likely hypothesis.
Do you not understand English. Dr literally said that Mark translated the Gospel from aramaic to Greek. Peter preached the GOSPEL in aramaic and mark translated it in Greek. It was written by mark.
As a matter of fact, scholars are split on the issue, with the majority actually favoring Markan authorship. And Witherington is a professional historian. No one is claiming that John Mark was a disciple-he wasn't. According to Church history, he followed Peter around and synthesized Peter's preaching. Here's why many scholars hold to mark-an authorship: if I have an anonymous gospel in my hand, and I can attribute it to anyone to put authority behind it, why attribute it to Mark?
Jesus Christ , yesha shammah told me it's time to establish the mountains of the Lord's house because we are in the end days all churches are supposed to come together as one well the ones who are left the ones who will not sign up with a beast
The longer ending of Mark is attested in Irenaus which is written at a date (not the manuscripts) to before the Alexandrian manuscripts and an amazing analysis on the word numbers of all the gospels shows the Gospel of Mark must have had the same number of words as that Mark has with the longer ending of chapter 16 has. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Aye8q9tIrws.html Once I saw that amazing sequence I gave up any doubts over the longer ending and Mark attesting the resurrection appearances. Preaching that Mark ends with the women scared and running away not telling anyone us just scholar or preacher trying to be novel and unique...it's just mistaking a fragment dropping off as if it's the ending.
@@Liminalplace1Except that evidence against the authenticity of the long ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) includes that it: • is marked-off and/or annotated in many of the existing 1,653 _Greek_ manuscripts to indicate that it is suspect; • has a style and vocabulary that differs from the rest of the Gospel, showing that someone else wrote it; • in numerous manuscripts is replaced by or included with other endings (e.g. Codex Washingtonianus); • is missing from Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian and Georgian manuscripts; and • was regarded as spurious by numerous early church writers including Eusebius, who wrote that “the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark [at 16:8] . . . in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies”. Jerome and, later, Severus of Antioch, reported that most of the manuscripts known to them had the shorter ending. Hesychius of Jerusalem likewise affirmed that "the more accurate copies" of Mark ended at 16:8, as did the 6th century writer of a commentary attributed to Victor of Antioch.
Dr. Witherington does an excellent job giving an apologist's view of this gospel. Most apologists skip over the apocalyptic prediction of Jesus in Mark 13:8, or give some kind of reinterpretation. However, in that passage, Jesus clearly predicts the Return within the very same generation of people. It didn't happen. On a separate note, as Dr. Witherington points out, there may be some Aramaic influence on Mark's Greek, but this does not clinch the case that Pappias is right about Mark hearing this directly from Peter. Most scholars doubt that Mark is recording eye-witness (aka from Peter) accounts. Even accounting for the Aramaic influence, much of Mark seems far-fetched as actual historical material.
Scholars are not split on the question of authorship of Mark. Once you study a little more in a unbiased fashion, you will find out GMark is a complation or written and oral traditions. The unknown author is also writing to and for a Roman audience factually making Jews the villains. You would need to explain why Jews from Galilee would be writing scripture for the oppressors or enemies while trashing theri own people and religion. The author was a Hellensitic Proselyte to Judaism
Mark is against everyone though. No one really gets a free pass; be they Sadducee, Pharisee, ordinary folk, the Apostles themselves, nor the women at the end. To my mind he's making a rhetorical point about the difficulty in following Jesus and the failure of even those who claim to follow him; the stark ending of the women running away in fear leaving space for "us", the reader, to stay true to the cause and bear our crosses. That's a speculative reading, and this next inference is also speculative, but if I'm right it suggests that the standard Jesus narrative; his Resurrection and all, were well established to Mark's immediate readers, giving him freedom to omit things and play with the narrative to make his point. He's not trying to convince his readers of anything, he's presuming their beleif and asking if their behaviors match. That's just my pet theory anyway
Great apologetics Ben, poor historical work. Mark was not written by JohnMark, the author/s are unknown. But what we do know is that this piece was written too and for a Roman audience probably in Syria. This would have amounted to Jewish Proselytes with different adherance to Judaism, writing to other Proselytes. There is no way a Galilean Jew with Zealot influence's as Jesus followers would have been, would ever write a piece for their very enemies. The real apostles were illiterate
@@VIV-Official whats funny is Paul here thinks Papias is credible, when most scholars think the opposite. Eusebius even though he was lacking intellect. This is a lousy excuse when we only have two sources that are quoting Papias, and one source thinks he is an idiot
outhouse848 well that all sounds good, but all of the external evidence we have for this Gospel reach essentially the same conclusions. That is, this is a Gospel composed from the memories of Peter. Now, that could be for a number of reasons: maybe they all rely on Papias and he got his information wrong. Which doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case, but it’s certainly possible. Or, they all got the information wrong in the same exact ways. Which is rather odd and I’d be interested for you to show me other historical parallels where with disregard all external evidence for a document the way you have this one. But, external evidence aside, you’ve spoken nothing on the internal evidence in Mark that in many ways seems to connect the gospel directly with Peter.
@@andys3035 true that. The early education system was brought about by Christians and nowadays has basically thrown God out with the bathwater. NC/Chapel Hill where NT theology is taught by scholar skeptic Dr. Bart Ehrman. I wonder what his mentor, Dr. Bruce Metzger would have to say. Hoping he comes back to the faith he professes to have once had. Shalom
