No that is not correct, it was written for gentiles and proselytes.
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous
You don't know that. Your spouting unsubstantiated apologetic rhetoric that holds no credibility in any way.
The best we guess is that he had his inner circle with him. 3 or 4 tops.
the 12 is probably straight up mythology.
These followers no matter what number did not have anything to do with any gospel in the NT
As I already asked you; what is the basis for your claims?
Just saying it doesn't make it true. Guesses and speculation are just that. By themselves they don't mean anything unless they are backed up by some kind of real evidence.
A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop
Papias (c.AD 125) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.
It's not just Papias. From the 2nd and 3rd century we have Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen all echoing that Mark was the writer based on the teaching of Peter.
Furthermore, the Muratorian fragment, from the 2nd century at least, makes reference to this fact.
So, given all that, I'm asking you on what factual basis you reject what history clearly tells us. Simply stating that some scholars reject it doesn't in itself prove anything. What are the primary sources those scholars are using as the basis for thier opinions and speculation?
Harvard and YaleWhat historical sources are you using to draw your conclusions from?
Harvard and Yale aren't historical sources, which is what I asked you for.
You claim what we read about the early church in scripture and church history is wrong, therefore I'm asking you what primary source historical basis you use for the many claims you make.
If, in fact, someone at Harvard and Yale agrees with your claims, and they did so using historic primary sources as their basis for their conclusions, then by all means reference the primary sources they used and argue from them. Otherwise just pointing in the general direction of a university doesn't advance the discussion or prove your point at all, especially when you aren't even attempting to cite something out of that university as a secondary source for your claims.
The gospel authors are factually unknown. Stop posting things you don't know anything about. You need to use credible sources to substantiate your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
It's ironic that you call my use of primary historical sources as not credible when so far the only source you've given us for your claims is wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a secondary source, not primary source, and even as far as secondary sources go it's not even a source that any college research paper would accept as authoritative.
As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases
First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:
you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?
You're making a logical error by confusing anti-pharisical language with anti-jewish language.
You can denounce the corruption of the Pharisees as a power group without denouncing the Jewish people as a race and nation.
The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]
That is not true.
"Jews" appears 5 times in Matthew, and 4 of those times it is used to call Jesus the King of the Jews.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have sparse use of the word Jew. In all three of these gospels there is a single use of the word "Jews" outside of calling Jesus the King of the Jews and in all cases it is neutral in it's use (as I will demonstrate is the case with Matthew).
John is full of use of the word Jews by comparison to the other gospels - over 60 times. If you were going to accuse any gospel of being anti-semitic simply on the basis of using the word "Jews" in relation to bad things that happened in the gospels then you wouldn't point to Matthew as your best case for that. I am not saying John is anti-semitic either, but we can logically assume Matthew would look a lot more like John in it's explicit use of "Jews" to describe the people opposed to Jesus if your claims about Matthew were truth.
But aside from that, and more importantly, is that you are distorting the use of the word "Jews" in Matthew 28:15 to draw inaccurate conclusions from the text. The word "Jews" here is actually used in a neutral way.
12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, "Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.
We can see clearly the religious leaders are said to be the ones who conspired to spread a lie.
It says that this lie circulated amongst the Jews (the people as a whole) and continues to do so. That statement about the Jews is itself neutral and has nothing to do with implying that the Jews as a whole were to be equated with the religious leaders who created the lie. The Jews is merely used to describe amongst whom the lie was spread.
The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering
than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25)
Your perception of that one passage is not harmonious with the context of the entire Gospel.
In Matthew we find passages, unique to Matthew, that affirm the special and unique place of the Jewish people in relationship to God in direct comparison with the gentiles.
This is not something you would do if you were writing to gentiles with the intent of causing them to hate the Jewish people.
Matthew 10:5-7
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
Matthew 15:22-24
22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
This is consistent with Romans 1:16, where the Jew is given first priority in God's revelation and blessing.
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
We also see harmony in what Matthew states with Luke's writings. In Acts 2, Luke, relates to us an account where Peter is telling the Jewish people that they were responsible for the crucification of Jesus.
Acts 2:
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
The reason you would relate this story in a gospel written primarily to the Jews living in Judea is the same reason Peter would relate this information in a gospel preached to an audience of mostly Jews living in Judea - Because it is relevant to them and brings them to repentence. That information is actually not as relevant to a gentile hearing the Gospel.
Furthermore, the idea that the Jews in Judea will at some point recognize what they did to Jesus and repent for it is consistent with what is found in Zechariah 12:10, which John 19:37 references.
Zechariah 12:10
10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.
So there is no reason to assume Matthew was trying to turn gentiles against the Jewish people with his writing in Matthew 27:25 when it is not only relevant to a Jewish audience specifically for this to be told, but also serves as a prophetic fulfillment that is also relevant to a Jewish audience in Judea.
Last edited: