Do you think that God added to the teachings of Jesus after His Ascencion?

[Thomas]

I really do think that this incident was so traumatic and experience for the author that he made mention of it. If it had happened to you I think that it would have been sharp in your memory as well.

That's a big if ... I'm not sure that the author of Mark was 'there'.

Surely you do not think that this gospel was written by an experienced story-telling literary author?

Actually I do, and there has been a growing number of scholars who do, too.

In their view, Mark is writing to a popular audience, in a popular style, and very successfully, whereas Luke, for example, is writing more for the literati, an educated audience.

I mean, Dan Brown's English is execrable, but he's certainly popular.

Because it happened, a memory so traumatic that the author made mention of it. If it had not been exactly this then your 'why?' question would be much stronger.

Well there's no actual evidence that it was exactly 'this'.

On the other hand, if the scholars are right and Mark is writing a fast-paced and dynamic tale to be 'performed', then such a device would be very useful – not the least to imply the author was 'there' and add another layer of drama.

 

[Thomas]

Surely you do not think that this gospel was written by an experienced story-telling literary author?
I think it was written by a determined follower with basic literary skills.

I thought you were a fan of Mark!

I've read a couple of really complementary accounts of Mark's Gospel – Hart, my go-to theologian-of-the-moment, is a firm supporter. I'll dig out some comments of his if I can track them down.

 

[badger]

That's a big if ... I'm not sure that the author of Mark was 'there'.

Oh no. That gospel looks to me as if it was written (partially) as direct evidence, and the only one that I've ever seen.

Actually I do, and there has been a growing number of scholars who do, too.

In their view, Mark is writing to a popular audience, in a popular style, and very successfully, whereas Luke, for example, is writing more for the literati, an educated audience.

No no..... In my opinion this was a gospel written to put the record(s) straight. Popular a count? No, I used to write witness statements for the courts and they needed to be accurate and true, and Mark reads like that to me, not as a popular piece of work for the intelligentsia.

Well there's no actual evidence that it was exactly 'this'.

On the other hand, if the scholars are right and Mark is writing a fast-paced and dynamic tale to be 'performed', then such a device would be very useful – not the least to imply the author was 'there' and add another layer of drama.

If those scholars believe that G-Mark was only writing a dramatic tale, a performance, then it cannot (in their opinions) be very much of a deposition. It seems to me like they would need a good cross examination.

 

[badger]

I thought you were a fan of Mark!

Very much so. I am placing my respect upon it being first and good second hand evidence.

I've read a couple of really complementary accounts of Mark's Gospel – Hart, my go-to theologian-of-the-moment, is a firm supporter. I'll dig out some comments of his if I can track them down.

That would be interesting to read