Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
But, you are drawing a line on how far you will go with supernatural explanations. That's interesting and I would like to see you elucidate how that works for you further.
|
Quite right. Over in my "Timotheist exposed" blog I give several examples where the added text in Matthew and Luke embellish the text of Mark with supernatural events. Earthquakes, voices from heaven, etc. Since many of these supernatural events were added to the Mark text, it makes them highly suspect.
Did not get into it yet, but angelic appearances have also become a warning sign to me. I like John and Mark because they are light on the supernatural in comparison.
Going back to Mark 1:11, which I have discussed at length. "This is my beloved Son..." I was trying to be careful with my words. I say it is the intent of the author to apply significance to the baptism, but it is in discord with John. There is no voice out of heaven in John, just the Baptist's testimony that he was instructed privately to look for the Spirit. John's gospel is more reasonable, believable.
But I am not declaring John to be without error, either. It just smells less bad.
I earlier argued an earlier date for John relative to the other gospels because I want that to be true. I will admit that I do not have history to back me up on that. But later or not, it seems to be a more honest attempt at recording history.