1. The last sentence here sounds too much like Luke’s emphasis. If Mark is concerned to show that Jesus is not conquering, would it not be more plausible that his concern is to blunt the typical “messianic” symbolism of the entry, given that he is trying to change the content of messianism?


    1. I think you are correct, Kevin. I think Mark is desperately trying to change what Messiah means.

  2. Gary

    1st, none of your noncanonical links work.
    2nd, I see no connection between Mark and The Wars of the Jews, at least in the references you gave.
    I’m no expert…but you really are serious? Or it’s all Greek to me, and buried in the Greek. The English translations do nothing for me.


    1. Gary, it would have to be based in the Greek… so it is all Greek. As I develop the literary basis more, i will post more.

      briefly, ancient authors would use previous works and morph them in some way and write their stuff. Sometimes, they would use it to counter it.

  3. Gary

    First of all, I am progressive, and do not believe in inerrancy. But there just seems to be something wrong about Mark (the gospel, since I agree that the author wasn’t the disciple), being written by using Wars of the Jews as a guide. I would much prefer believing it was derived from Q. Not based upon facts, but based upon hope. If the author of Mark can’t even come up with his own original story, without stealing from Josephus, I might as well worship Titus. But I digress…


Leave a Reply, Please!