Diogenes the Cynic wrote:maryhelena wrote:cienfuegos wrote:
Make some predictions based on your favorite pet theory. If you hold that all the Gospels are later, as in late 2nd century, then you are likely to predict that some verifiable and trustworthy dating will place this material later. Otherwise, you will predict an earlier date. As toejam observed, a dating to the 90s or so doesn't impact the Carrier/Doherty theory. If it can be dated so precisely as to determine late first, early second, I will say no earlier than 100 CE. That's my prediction based on my position that Mark is dependent on Josephus, so 70s for the original creation of Mark at the earliest, some time for the gMark to itself disseminate to where it is preserved in an Egyptian mask. My prediction: no earlier than 100 CE.
According to the link, in the OP, it is being proposed that the Mark fragment could be dated prior to 90 c.e. i.e. prior to the publication of Antiquities (93/94 c.e.). My own position would place gMark prior to Antiquities for the simple reason that gMark (and gMatthew) have Herodias married to the Philip prior to a marriage to Antipas. This is contrary to what is stated in Antiquities. However, this gMark and gMatthew position is supported by material that is now in Slavonic Josephus. (i.e. Herodias was married to the tetrarch Philip). Whatever the linkage between the material in Slavonic Josephus and
War the fact remains that the Slavonic Josephus material on Herodias and Philip supports the gMark and gMatthew material - and thus places these two gospel stories prior to Antiquities.
Mark seems to show knowledge of
Jewish War, not
Antiquities. BJ has the Jesus ben Ananius parallels and BJ was written in the 70's. So Mark can be prior to AJ, but still have knowledge of BJ. Those books were published 20 years apart.
Yep, the Jesus ben Ananus story.....so....gMark used a story in War as a template for his Jesus figure...?
I'd much rather go with gMark's use of Herodias and Philip being married than with the Josephan story. At least it could well have been common knowledge that this marriage was historical. Unless one had a copy of
War one would not have heard of Jesus ben Ananias. i.e. no evidence that such a figure existed.
Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus. Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.
Page 428/429. "Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passion narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s ce who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70). His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believable that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus—or the same tale known to Josephus.
my bolding
If it's dating gMark that is the issue - Jesus ben Ananias is not really of much help. i.e. dating the story does not help with dating gMark. i.e. once the story is published it could be many years before a gospel writer decides to use that story. gMark can be dated, because of it's mention of a marriage between Herodias and the Tetrarch Philip to prior to the publishing of Antiquities in 93/94 c.e. Antiquities tells a very different story about Herodias. i.e. Antiquities does not have Herodias married to Philip. (likewise with gMatthew)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
