Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidence for Religion: possible excesses in some replies
Message-ID: <112@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 17:31:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.112
Posted: Mon Jun 10 17:31:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:19:34 EDT
References: <387@uvm-cs.UUCP> <2214@topaz.ARPA> <1064@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 31

In article <1064@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>>the oldest Gospel, Mark, ends with an empty tomb and no mention of a
>>>resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples (the most ancient versions). 
>>> [popayack]

>> Be careful about circular arguments.  There is no external evidence that
>> Mark is the oldest Gospel.  Indeed many early Church tradition says
>> Matthew
>> is.  Scholars believe that Mark is earliest because his accounts appear to
>> be more "primitive".  That is, in a number of cases he makes the least of
>> Jesus' authority, and seems to have the least "mythological" versions of
>> many of the stories.  If we assume that the stories gathered
>> Christological
>> elaborations over time, then the least elaborated gospel would be the
>> earliest.  That argument is fine.  I think I even believe it.  But we
>> can't run the argument backwards.  We can't use Mark's alleged age as an
>> argument for the historicity of his accounts.  The apparent historicity
>> of his accounts is what caused us to conclude that his gospel was the
>> earliest one in the first place.  [CHUCK HEDRICK]

>Relative age is an important but no an all-encompassing factor here.  The
>fact alone that a "Gospel" exists that fails to mention Jesus' divinity and
>resurrection at all says something.  After all, if those things DID happen,
>who on earth would leave such truly remarkable and alluring aspects out of
>their account?

Gad, the list of reasons one could give to account for the truncation of
Mark is LONG.  The author could have died before finishing it, or the end
was torn off, or ....  One can speculate endlessly, to little purpose.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe