Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[shunyadragon]

The Editor of John (who happens to be John the Apostle) wrote about the same proportion of the Prologue of John as he did of John 21:1-18,

There is no evidence that John the apostle wrote John, and most scholars consider it unlikely.

[robrecht]

There is no evidence that John the apostle wrote John, and most scholars consider it unlikely.

Nor is there any evidence for an Urmarcus or Proto-Mark.

[shunyadragon]

Nor is there any evidence for an Urmarcus or Proto-Mark.

Than what you proposed concerning earlier Marks. Concerning the Gospel of John there is more evidence that it is in reality not written by the John the Apostle, and written later.

[One Bad Pig]

Than what you proposed concerning earlier Marks. Concerning the Gospel of John there is more evidence that it is in reality not written by the John the Apostle, and written later.

Meh. Consensus or no, there is rampant speculation based on wisps of evidence which can be variously interpreted.

[Adam]

Nor is there any evidence for an Urmarcus or Proto-Mark.

First you would need to define your terms. "Urmarcus" can mean a supposed earlier draft much smaller than Mark (and would better be termed, "Proto-Mark). If that's what you mean, however, you are wrong historically, because the 19th Century German scholars meant by "Urmarcus" a document bigger than canonical Mark which would be better termed a "Proto-Gospel", "Proto-Evangelium", or "Grundschrift".*

C'mon, Robrecht, didn't you say what you said just to provoke me? "no evidence"? If you seriously meant "no evidence" you are no scholar at all, or don't know what "evidence" means.

And Shunya is even more wrong than you are.

*And the precursor to Mark I actually call "Proto-Matthew". Try that through Van Bella and Neirynck.

[shunyadragon]

Meh. Consensus or no, there is rampant speculation based on wisps of evidence which can be variously interpreted.

Grabbing at straws with style.

[robrecht]

Than what you proposed concerning earlier Marks. Concerning the Gospel of John there is more evidence that it is in reality not written by the John the Apostle, and written later.

What are you trying to say? What is your evidence for an Urmarcus or Proto-Mark?

[robrecht]

First you would need to define your terms. "Urmarcus" can mean a supposed earlier draft much smaller than Mark (and would better be termed, "Proto-Mark). If that's what you mean, however, you are wrong historically, because the 19th Century German scholars meant by "Urmarcus" a document bigger than canonical Mark which would be better termed a "Proto-Gospel", "Proto-Evangelium", or "Grundschrift".*

C'mon, Robrecht, didn't you say what you said just to provoke me? "no evidence"? If you seriously meant "no evidence" you are no scholar at all, or don't know what "evidence" means.

And Shunya is even more wrong than you are.

*And the precursor to Mark I actually call "Proto-Matthew". Try that through Van Bella and Neirynck.

I wasn't even talking to you. Why do you think I was trying to provoke you??? What is your supposed 'evidence'?

[Adam]

I think our problem is your definition (or lack thereof) of "evidence". Evidence is not necessarily proof, it may be just indications, just making possibilities seem probable. That there is a Proto-Mark or Proto-Matthew underlying Mark is more than a possibility, it's a matter of judging EVIDENCE as to whether it's probable or not. (I say it's almost a certainty.)
You mean there's someone else besides me that you would be trying to impress or exasperate?

[robrecht]

I think our problem is your definition (or lack thereof) of "evidence". Evidence is not necessarily proof, it may be just indications, just making possibilities seem probable. That there is a Proto-Mark or Proto-Matthew underlying Mark is more than a possibility, it's a matter of judging EVIDENCE as to whether it's probable or not. (I say it's almost a certainty.)
You mean there's someone else besides me that you would be trying to impress or exasperate?

You and Shuny are the ones claiming to have evidence for your views. I have merely asked you to present this so-called evidence.

[Adam]

Present your evidence that there is no evidence. Go ahead, contradict Van Bella et all. You're the one who made the assertion.
(Sorry to be so acerbic on you. Welcome back!)

[robrecht]

Present your evidence that there is no evidence. Go ahead, contradict Van Bella et all. You're the one who made the assertion.
(Sorry to be so acerbic on you. Welcome back!)

Silly question. I haven't seen whatever evidence you are referring to. I'm simply not aware of any. Or at least I do not share the same presuppositions that lead you to consider the existence of some Proto-Mark or Proto-Matthew underlying Mark to be a near certainty.

[Adam]

Ok. Don't come out and play.

[robrecht]

Ok. Don't come out and play.

Sorry, but you are the one who is choosing not to present your evidence.

[Adam]

I never claimed there was no evidence. That's prima facie the absurd statement. Plus you said it first. (Are we playing "Kick the can" now?)
Can you cite even one scholar who agrees with you, that there is absolutely no evidence there was an earlier draft of Mark?. For good measure, would that scholar (if he exists) hold that our Mark was NOT further redacted before another gospel was written from it, with that Deutero- or Trito-Mark having been lost forever after being used for Matthew or Luke?
Note I'm saying SCHOLARS, not Fundamentalists whether Protestant nor Catholic.