HA, you just posted a quote saying that the gospels are not independent which backs up my point that the other gospels are copies of Mark? Then it goes on to say MOST NT SCHOLARS ARGUE FOR MORE??? Which means they believe they were ALL copied from Mark.
This is the conclusion of Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman and most NT historians?
Now, you haven't yet explained what part of this article was "junk". You just posted a quote saying the other gospels were indeed reliant on MArk. This is from Bible.org
If you read actual NT historians they believe all were copied from Mark.
Now again, what part was junk and please give sources.
Oh, you failed to respond to the debunking that myths don't contain "sightseeing" as well. Krishna also did some sightseeing. You failed to respond to anything actually?
This is called a "source" -
"
4. “The Gospels”
“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (
OHJ, ch. 10.7)."
Dr Carrier
41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier
I already gave sources that the gospels are anonymous. This is consensus even in Christian scholarship never mind historicity. I get you are living in a fantasy world where your beliefs are all true despite what even your own religion thinks but could you at least try?
"Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the
Second Temple in 70 AD.
[6] They reject the traditional ascription to
Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the
Apostle Peter, which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure, and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative."
An author. Anonymous. Using miracle stories, parables ....myths.
Besides copying OT lines verbatim Mark also took Paul's letters and created earthly stories around them. In Paul Jesus is talking to him giving a message to future Christians about how his body is bread and so on. Mark changes it to an actual supper with people and real bread. It's a myth.
"
Another example is “the last supper.” This began as a vision Paul had of Jesus relating to him what he spoke mystically to all future generations of Christians, as we see in
1 Corinthians 11:23-27. As Paul there says, he received this “from the Lord.” Directly. Just as he says he received all his teachings (
Galatians 1:11-12;
Romans 10:14-15;
Romans 16:25-26). In Paul’s version, no one else is present. It is not a “last” supper (as if Jesus had had any others before), but merely “the bread and cup of the Lord.” And Jesus is not speaking to “disciples” but to the whole Christian Church unto the end of time—including Paul and his congregations.
The text in Paul reads as follows (translating the Greek as literally as I can):
For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, during the night he was handed over, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in the remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you might drink it in remembrance of me.” For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26
Notably, “until he comes,” and not “until he returns.” This becomes in Mark (emphasis added):
While they were eating, having taken bread, and
having blessed it, he broke it, and
gave it to them, saying, “
Take; this is my body.” Then, having taken a cup, and having given thanks, he
gave it to them, and
they all drank from it. And he said
to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many. Truly
I tell you, that
never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” And
having sung a hymn,
they went out to the Mount of Olives.
MARK 14:22-26
Notice what’s changed. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “
they were eating” (Paul does not mention
anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to
them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to
them” (does not occur in Paul) and “
they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to
them” (no such audience in Paul).
Then Jesus says he will not drink “again” until the kingdom comes, a statement that fits a narrative event, implying Jesus drank, and here drank, and often drank, and will pause drinking until the end times. Likewise Jesus “blesses” the bread (which also doesn’t happen in Paul), implying the actual literal bread he has in his hand is thereby rendered special to the ones about to eat it; whereas in Paul that makes no sense, because no one is there to eat it, Jesus is just depicting and explaining a ritual
others will perform in his honor, not that he is performing for them. So it is notable that all of these things are absent from Paul. There is no narrative context of this being the last of many cups Jesus has drunk and of Jesus pausing drinking or of his blessing the bread and giving it to people present. In Paul, the whole scene is an instruction to future followers, not a description of a meal Jesus once had.
This is how Mark reifies a revelation in Paul, relating Jesus’s celestial instructions for performing a sacrament and its meaning, into a narrative historical event. Mark has even taken Paul’s language, about Jesus being “handed over,” which in Paul means by God (
Romans 8:32, exact same word) and even by himself (
Galatians 2:20, exact same word), not by Judas, and converted it into a whole new narrative of a betrayal by “the Jews” (the meaning of Judas, i.e. Judah, i.e. Judea). Paul has no knowledge of a betrayal. Indeed in Paul, all of “the twelve” get to see Jesus right after his death and are recognized as apostles (
1 Corinthians 15:5; see
Proving History, pp. 151-55).
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier
