2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:21 am
No abundance of evidence on a particular point is not a reason to doubt the available relevant evidence ...
That is a loaded statement and a confirming the consequent fallacy.

It leads one to believe there is evidence of a Gospel of Mark.


Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:21 am
and/or worse, to declare that non-abundant evidence as useless for justifying the point (because non-abundant evidence is quasi-considered as absence of evidence).
No. There is evidence. It is distinctly lacking in abundance.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:59 pm I think that
"..when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder ..."
could well be a pericope that was, when it appeared in Martyr's Dialogue, not yet in a gospel attributed to Mark.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:05 pm
Okay, sure, it's possible.

A few things though:

1) The Gospel of Mark and "a gospel attributed to Mark" are not exactly the same thing.
That's possible. But there does not seem to be any information before or during the times of irenaeus or Tertullian to discern that.


Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:05 pm
Generally, in the literature you will see the "second gospel" (i.e. "the Gospel of Mark") referred to as such if the scholar believes it has substantially much the same Greek text.
The same Greek texts as what? each other? "a gospel attributed to Mark" and The Gospel of Mark ?

How can we discern what you say?


This seems contradictory -
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:05 pm It might not yet be "attributed to Mark" at that point in time, but that doesn't keep it from being called "the Gospel of Mark" in present-day literature.

What does this mean? -
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:05 pm
2) Positing a different text with this gospel material that is found in Justin here (if anyone does) is to play pretty loose with the available data.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by hakeem »

The mention of a Gospel according to Mark in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is very significant.

In "Against Heresies" the supposed Irenaeus argued that the Gospels preceded the teachings of the so-called Heretics.

The dates, chronology and authorship of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as claimed in "Against Heresies" have been rejected almost universally by Scholars.

In effect, whoever wrote "Against Heresies" presented bogus dates, chronology and authorship of the Gospels to make it appear that the Gospels were early when in fact they were not.

It was the teachings of the so-called Heretics that were known before the Gospels, in other words, the Gospels are corrupted versions of earlier stories which were not associated with gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

For example, the teachings of Carpocrates in "Against Heresies" most likely preceded gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:54 am
1) The Gospel of Mark and "a gospel attributed to Mark" are not exactly the same thing.
That's possible. But there does not seem to be any information before or during the times of irenaeus or Tertullian to discern that.
It's more than possible. It's a clarification of language and what is meant by the relevant phrases.

One might say it's tautological. At the least, it has little to do with whether or not there is any kind of particular ancient historical information.

Unfortunately, this attempt at clarification led to some kind of misunderstanding.
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:54 am The same Greek texts as what? each other? "a gospel attributed to Mark" and The Gospel of Mark ?

How can we discern what you say?
This response seems to be a part of the misunderstanding above.
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:54 amThis seems contradictory -
It isn't.
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:54 amWhat does this mean? -
Justin Martyr references a "memoir" here, with specific details. There are only so many explanations for what that text was. Out of all the possibilities, that of the Gospel of Mark doesn't require us to invent superfluous entities out of thin air. The only motivation for inventing these entities is the reference in Justin itself, and perhaps to avoid the conclusion that Justin knew GMark. But the text of GMark with these details is already part of our knowledge on other grounds. Pretty straightforward stuff. Goes right along with all the references to Ockham.

So, here is that paragraph again. Seems intelligible to me, anyway.

Positing a different text with this gospel material that is found in Justin here (if anyone does) is to play pretty loose with the available data. What we know is that Justin is referring to a text here ("written in the memoirs") and that the extant Gospel of Mark is the only such text known to correspond to this material. Ockham's razor favors the conclusion that Justin Martyr is referencing GMark, not something else.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:47 amIt leads one to believe there is evidence of a Gospel of Mark.
You'd almost think there might be, given that you started a thread cataloging some of it.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by arnoldo »

hakeem wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:39 pm . . .
It would appear that Gospels called according to Mark, Matthew, luke and John were invented no earlier than the late 2nd century.

Justin Martyr supposedly writing in the mid 2nd century knew nothing of any writer named Mark.
I think you may be right in a sense. Before Marcion, there may've been no distinction between various gospel narratives. To make a parallel to pop culture, Marcion may've been to the gospel writings what Yoko Ono was to the Beatles. After Yoko, George, Paul, Ringo and John went on to their perspective solo careers. In the same way, after Marcion the gospels split up into Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. Justin Martyr perhaps knew of the writings in the gospel of Mark but didn't recognize it as such since the gospel narratives hadn't yet gone "solo."
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:08 am Positing a different text with this gospel material that is found in Justin here (if anyone does) is to play pretty loose with the available data. What we know is that Justin is referring to a text here ("written in the memoirs") and that the extant Gospel of Mark is the only such text known to correspond to this material.
All we know is there is a passage that is common to the two texts ie. common to Martyr's Dialogue (chap 106) and to Mark (3:17)

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:08 am Justin Martyr references a "memoir" here, with specific details. There are only so many explanations for what that text was. Out of all the possibilities, that of the Gospel of Mark doesn't require us to invent superfluous entities out of thin air.
Which is not what I've done.

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:08 am The only motivation for inventing these entities is the reference in Justin itself..
Which is not what I've done.

But the text of GMark with these details is already part of our knowledge on other grounds.
What knowledge are you referring to?

and perhaps to avoid the conclusion that Justin knew GMark.
"the conclusion that Justin knew GMark." So that's it then? Done and dusted?



Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:14 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:47 am It leads one to believe there is evidence of a Gospel of Mark.
You'd almost think there might be, given that you started a thread cataloging some of it.
It's interesting you've quoted me and responded completely out of context of that comment of mine (part of a reply to Bernard, top of this page).

The fact that I started a thread cataloguing some of the 2nd century mentions of Mark, or purported mentions of Mark, is beside the point about what I then thought of each of those mentions.

Me then commenting with a one-liner that the wider passage "is about framing the wider narrative" has no bearing on the fact I catalogued the passage; or the significance of the passage as a possible marker of the Gospel of Mark, or not.

I have been dragged into a tortuous discussion about it by your tortuous commentary.

You seem reluctant to acknowledge there is scant reference to much of the body of the Gospel of Mark in texts attributed to the 2nd century.

.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Bernard Muller »

"scant" meaning: barely sufficient or adequate, but still sufficient or adequate.
Small amount of evidence is not absence of evidence.

Furthermore, the internal evidence in gMark points to it being written right after the events of 70 CE: http://historical-jesus.info/41.html
If it is agreed that "Matthew" used gMark, then the internal evidence in gMatthew points to it being written around 85-90 CE: http://historical-jesus.info/57.html. Therefore gMark was written earlier.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:01 pmMe then commenting with a one-liner that the wider passage "is about framing the wider narrative" has no bearing on the fact I catalogued the passage; or the significance of the passage as a possible marker of the Gospel of Mark, or not.

I have been dragged into a tortuous discussion about it by your tortuous commentary.
I am sorry that you feel that way.

There seem to be some persistent communication issues:

(1) I sense that you deliberately undercommit yourself to saying anything. Perhaps even explaining what you mean or what's on your mind on the topic. Despite actually posting on said topic. This is excellent strategy, but it leads to situations like my response to the OP, and other points in this discussion, where I have very little clue about what your meaning is. Asking for clarification gets little of it; offering to fill in the rhetorical gaps in the topic itself leads to discussion of misattribution. (Despite careful wording to avoid attribution...)

(2) I tend to write a little more in response to your posts than I otherwise would, because I tend to find that you ask a greater number of questions and have a greater number of problems interpreting what I am saying than I'd normally expect. This leads to tedium, and even then it isn't always successful. The questions and misinterpretations usually come anyway.

I had no intention of torture here, but it appears to me that these factors contributed to that result. Well, that and maybe a couple unnecessarily rough edges to my words.
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:01 pmYou seem reluctant to acknowledge there is scant reference to much of the body of the Gospel of Mark in texts attributed to the 2nd century.
This seems headed down the path to what the appropriate emphasis is, which is primarily dictated by agenda, not any ground truth. If I don't share an agenda, then I naturally won't hit the exact same desired / appropriate emphasis. That's just the way that cookie crumbles.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:17 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:49 pm
I had always understood this to be a reference to the Gospel of Mark in the text of Justin Martyr. If the OP demurs from this view and offers a contradicting conclusion, then I am not yet able to perceive the outline of the alternative interpretation offered. Could you explain a bit more explicitly what is intended? How are you reading the text of Justin?
The OP is about 2nd century texts that make reference to or are supposed to make reference to Mark or the gospel attributed to him (after having just looked at Irenaeus). In finding a reference to the text of Justin Maryr -quoted in the first text box- I decided to look at it more fully; in context. My comment "So, this passage is about framing the wider narrative" was almost '..this passage seems to be about framing the wider narrative.'
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:33 pm In reading Irenaeus's Adv. Haers. and Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, it seems more likely those commentary-texts are either the forerunner to a developing narrative, or they are developing a narrative, rather than being discussions of pre-existing texts. And it seems they're likely to be doing it together -ie. it would seem Irenaeus and Eusebius are closer in time than we have been otherwise led to believe.
I found always the following case interesting (taken from Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem).

Mark 11
1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, 2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt (πῶλον) tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. 3 And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. 4 And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. 5 And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

At first glance Mark seems to refer to Zechariah 9, but at the end there is no clear textual allusion. On the other hand, there is only one "tied colt" in the LXX. It's the famous Shiloh „prophesy“ in Genesis 49:11
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 11 Binding his foal (πῶλον) unto the vine, and his ass' colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

It could be that Mark wanted to allude to both texts. Zechariah springs to mind, but the wording is related to Genesis.


Matthew 21 made the allusion to Zechariah explicit.
1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. 6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

But Justin, First Apology 32, made the allusion to Genesis explicit.
And the prophecy, "binding His foal to the vine, and washing His robe in the blood of the grape," was a significant symbol of the things that were to happen to Christ, and of what He was to do. For the foal of an ass stood bound to a vine at the entrance of a village, and He ordered His acquaintances to bring it to Him then; and when it was brought, He mounted and sat upon it, and entered Jerusalem, where was the vast temple of the Jews which was afterwards destroyed by you. And after this He was crucified, that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For this "washing His robe in the blood of the grape" was predictive of the passion He was to endure, cleansing by His blood those who believe in Him.


imho, both Matthew and Justin did the same thing but in different directions and neither of them mentioned Mark.
Post Reply