Mark 15 - 16 The Crucifixion

[Blake]

The gospel of Mark is the shortest and oldest gospel in the C*h*r*s*t*ian "New" Testament canon.
The fact that the three other gospels also borrow from Mark is proof of this

This has brought me into a deep study of this book.

I am examining the passages dealing with Rebi Yehoshua HaMoschiach's trial and execution.

I was wondering how likely it would be for the Sanhedrin to organize a trial on Pesach. This must be highly illegal and a major breech of the commandment about labor and business on moedim as Mark suggests.

[Pioneer]

blake said:

The gospel of Mark is the shortest and oldest gospel in the C*h*r*s*t*ian "New" Testament canon.
The fact that the three other gospels also borrow from Mark is proof of this

By what biblical information did you form that conclussion? Or could it be from someones commentary?

[Blake]

pioneer said:

blake said:

The gospel of Mark is the shortest and oldest gospel in the C*h*r*s*t*ian "New" Testament canon.
The fact that the three other gospels also borrow from Mark is proof of this

By what biblical information did you form that conclussion? Or could it be from someones commentary?

Its a conclusion I've come to through personal study.
Although its possible that there is an unknown earlier source which all four borrow. (This I doubt but I can't discount it as a possibility)
The style of Mark is also a clue to older age, its many allusions to tales in the Tanach make it seem almost like a Midrash.
"Also for example, out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone, and at most 51 peculiar to itself, according to one reckoning. The commonality goes beyond the same selection of what stories about Jesus to tell but extends to the use of many of the same words in how they are told." - Wikipedia

Unfortunatly the authors of the gospels never divulge the sources they used, so you won't find Matthew saying, "I borrowed some of the material from Mark" but you can look at the similarites and see it.

Mark contains none of the information peculiar to the other gospels, but they all contain verses in common with Mark which points to an earlier date.

Now I didn't personnaly use any commentaries but I believe George Storr was the first to put forth the idea of Markan supremacy, and I'm sure many others do as well.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Many scholars agree that Mark is the oldest of the B'sorah Tovot. However, one has to keep in mind that they have always looked at it through the Greek primacy perspective and not from Aramaic primacy perspective. Now, I am certainly not in a position to say which is the oldest or if one was copied from another. But it is not my belief that they shared a common source text. A common source yes (Yeshua), but not a common text.

Epiphanius did mention however that the Netzarim / Ebionites had a copy of Mattiyahu in Hebrew. This lends to the suggestion that perhaps Mark was not the oldest, nor the only sefer used.

I was wondering how likely it would be for the Sanhedrin to organize a trial on Pesach. This must be highly illegal and a major breech of the commandment about labor and business on moedim as Mark suggests.

Yes, it was highly illegal. In fact, if you remember, false witnesses were even brought to testify. This alone was a breach of .
{You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.} Sh'mot 20:16

Something else to consider... The Tzeddukim (Sadducees) lived according to the Written alone. They had no Oral to rely on for interpretations of the mitzvot. Therefore, they may have felt fully justified in their hasty trial.

[Pioneer]

blake said:

pioneer said:

By what biblical information did you form that conclussion? Or could it be from someones commentary?

Its a conclusion I've come to through personal study.
Although its possible that there is an unknown earlier source which all four borrow. (This I doubt but I can't discount it as a possibility)
The style of Mark is also a clue to older age, its many allusions to tales in the Tanach make it seem almost like a Midrash.
"Also for example, out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone, and at most 51 peculiar to itself, according to one reckoning. The commonality goes beyond the same selection of what stories about Jesus to tell but extends to the use of many of the same words in how they are told." - Wikipedia

Unfortunatly the authors of the gospels never divulge the sources they used, so you won't find Matthew saying, "I borrowed some of the material from Mark" but you can look at the similarites and see it.

Mark contains none of the information peculiar to the other gospels, but they all contain verses in common with Mark which points to an earlier date.

Now I didn't personnaly use any commentaries but I believe George Storr was the first to put forth the idea of Markan supremacy, and I'm sure many others do as well.

#1 I am not a noted historian nor bible scholar and I definately wasn't there.
The gospels are not in my oppinion "Synoptic".
So from my perspective the gospels are the four levels of interprettation, P'shat, D'rosh, R'mez and Sod. Mark is P'shat John is Sod.
So for whatever it's worth, my oppinion.

Shalom

[Blake]

"Many scholars agree that Mark is the oldest of the B'sorah Tovot. However, one has to keep in mind that they have always looked at it through the Greek primacy perspective and not from Aramaic primacy perspective. Now, I am certainly not in a position to say which is the oldest or if one was copied from another. But it is not my belief that they shared a common source text. A common source yes (Yeshua), but not a common text."

I'm not sure... Mark seems so much like a Midrash, I really get a very Judaic vibe that I don't get from Luke which makes me lean to its early date.
Perhaps Mark was translated into Greek earlier than the others because of its short length and that similar verses in the other Gospels were harmonized with Mark.
If this is true, than we have no possible idea which one is the oldest.

"Epiphanius did mention however that the Netzarim / Ebionites had a copy of Mattiyahu in Hebrew. This lends to the suggestion that perhaps Mark was not the oldest, nor the only sefer used."

These Church historians are notriously unobjective and often innaccurate in their accounts of "heretics". We have consider this, as well as the fact many of their writings were bound to have been lost when fleeing Yahrushalem before its destruction. They were commanded not to even get their coats, so just because Matthew is the only one that survived to the community at Pella, its possible the The Called out Ones in Yahrushalem had a larger library before 70 AD.
However, if Matthew was preserved orally or if a manuscript was brought with them, it points to a much earlier date of the authorship of that work than previously thought.
I think this issue requires further study before I come to a consclusion.

Thank you as well for the information.

[Chizuk Emunah]

I'm not sure... Mark seems so much like a Midrash, I really get a very Judaic vibe that I don't get from Luke which makes me lean to its early date.

Oh no, Mark is very Judaic. I was merely trying to point out that when it comes to dating, we have to keep in mind that scholars have based their dating methods off of the idea of Greek primacy and not Aramaic primacy, therefore leading to faulty dating.

These Church historians are notriously unobjective and often innaccurate in their accounts of "heretics".

This is true, though unfortunately we don't have much else to go on.

We have consider this, as well as the fact many of their writings were bound to have been lost when fleeing Yahrushalem before its destruction. They were commanded not to even get their coats, so just because Matthew is the only one that survived to the community at Pella, its possible the The Called out Ones in Yahrushalem had a larger library before 70 AD.

Oh yeah, I'm sure there were many other seferim that were owned and collected by the original community. I was just pointing out that Mattiyahu may have even predated Mark, but really there's no way to know for sure.

However, if Matthew was preserved orally or if a manuscript was brought with them, it points to a much earlier date of the authorship of that work than previously thought.
I think this issue requires further study before I come to a consclusion.

Thank you as well for the information.

No problem. Glad I could get you thinking.