2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:42 am
arnoldo wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:46 pm This may be a depiction of Mark.
stumpy.jpg
stumpy.jpg (5.32 KiB) Viewed 4262 times
So, maybe he is a Vulcan (Star Trek)!

Or perhaps time travel is real, to transport the meme of a fictional space alien's hand greeting back to the time this fresco was painted (I don't know by whom or when, painted art is not my thing)!

DCH
I was on an Egyptian Coptic Church website and dowloaded that pic some years ago. Going back to the time machine analogy Justin Martyr may've had Sgt Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band materialized for him to listen to. He naturally attributed the time machine to some supernatural event and thought the music was composed by Sgt. Pepper. You and I know (have the gnosis) it was composed by the Beatles. . .
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: Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:56 pm
MrMacSon wrote:As I said elsewhere recently: I wonder if texts like Justin's, Irenaeus's, and Tertullian's (+/- others) are fore-runners to the NT gospels, not consequences to, or reflections on, them.
How do we go from A to B?1 This is obviously the most precarious part of the whole thing1. It's in no way obvious2 / apparent2 / evident2 that "texts like Justin's, Irenaeus's, and Tertullian's (+/- others) are fore-runners to the NT gospels..."

Can this get anywhere beyond "wondering"?
Keep contemplating en masse. It will take a while for 'the academy' to respond to Vinzent, Klinghardt, BeDuhn, and Tyson, and I bet first responses won't be from the apologetic part of 'the biblical scholarship academy'. Note Neil Godfrey's despair at Ben Worthington's inability to name sources of 'chatter'.

2 Clearly it's not apparent. Investigation begins with speculation.

1 It involves more than A to B. If we say today's view for 'NT book 1' is A1 -> B1 -> C1 -> D1 (+/- -> E1), and that is repeated for all 27 books there are 1 to 27 paths for NT books. We could do the same for related apocryphal books too. I'd say starting with C or D would be a good place to start (eg. Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc).

That's happened for Luke in relation to Marcion with all the recent books by Lieu, Moll, Roth, Beduhn, Klinghardt, and Vinzent, etc., (and some of those scholar-authors have related their views of what happened with Luke with views of other synoptics).

Perhaps best to look at this from first principles.

eta: when I say fore-runners I do not mean absolute, or ur- or proto- text, beginnings. I generally mean part of a process.

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Papyrus 45 (P45 or P. Chester Beatty I) is considered the earliest extant manuscript containing parts of Mark: it contains Mark chapters 4-9 and 11-12. It was bound in a codex, which may have consisted of 220 pages, however only 30 survive (two of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and 13 of Acts)

It is considered to have been created around 250 in Egypt. It also contains the texts of Matthew 20-21 and 25-26; ; Luke 6-7 and 9-14; John 4-5 and 10-11; and Acts 4-17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

Notable Readings - omissions - in Mark -

Mark 6:40 omits text κατὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ κατὰ πεντήκοντα (by fifties and by hundreds)

Mark 6:44 omits text τοὺς ἄρτους (those loaves) with א D W Θ f1 f13 28 565 700 2542 lat copsa

Mark 6:45 omits text εἰς τὸ πέραν (to the other side) with W f1 118 itq syrs

Mark 8:12 omits text λέγω ὑμῖν (I will tell you) with W

Mark 8:15 reads των Ηρωδιανων (the Herodians) with W Θ f1,13 28 565 1365 2542 iti.k copsamss arm geo

Mark 8:35 reads ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (for the sake of the Gospel) omitting ἐμοῦ καὶ (of me and) as in D 28 700 ita.b.d.i.k.n.r1 syrs arm Origen

Mark 9:27 omits text καὶ ἀνέστη (and he arose) with W itk.l syrp


P45 has, in Mark, a relatively close 'statistical relationship' with Codex Washingtonianus. Like in Codex Bezae, the Gospels in Washingtonianus follow in Western order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.

The Washington Codex contains a unique insertion after Mark 16:14, not known in any other text, known as the Freer logion - a logion being "a saying attributed to Jesus.”

.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

JoeWallack wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:17 am
.. Say for example, the Ending of GMark: Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), is generally cited as the first clear evidence of the LE by both sides.

Apologists inventory Irenaeus here as if it was an accurate copy equivalent to what was originally written in the 2nd century1. Yet:
  1. The extant source is about 700 years after the original.
  2. Most extants are in a different language (Latin) than the original (Greek).
  3. Everyone agrees that the extant Latin was not copied from the original Latin and the degree of copying is unknown.
  4. Everyone agrees that with time and translation citations were moved to orthodox ones.

So, by the criteria in this Thread [Rule #1 of Historical Reasoning], extant Irenaeus likely fails as meeting the minimum standard for containing primary source material. So should the Skeptic exorcise it as evidence for LE? I don't think so. Just doubt it and give it less weight ...
.

1 Yet, all we have in Irenaeus is hints of disparate parts of the end of 'the LE' of Mark 16 (we have a hint of Mark 16:20 in Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapter XLV. And apparently Tatian's Diatessaron has all the LE of Mark; see below).


DCHindley tabulated these in this post - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 356#p75356

and here are the pertinent sections of Adv Haers -

Mark
Adv Haers
bk.ch.sec
ANF vol 1
Mark 16:17-18
2.20.3
388
Mark 16:19
3.10.5
426



It is very hard to find Mark 16:17-18 in Adv Haers. 2.20.3, if at all


Mark 16:14-20 (NIV)
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Adv Haers. 2.20.3
But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances. For the Æon underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being destroyed. But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a merely accidental passion; not only was He Himself not in danger of being destroyed, but He also established fallen man by His own strength, and recalled him to incorruption. The Æon, again, underwent passion while she was seeking after the Father, and was not able to find Him; but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship. The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective; but His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, "ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men", and conferred on those that believe in Him the power to "tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy", that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, while He manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption. But their Æon, when she had suffered, established ignorance, and brought forth a substance without shape, out of which all material works have been produced— death, corruption, error, and such like. - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103220.htm

Adv Haers. 3.10.5
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God'; [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool' [Ps 110.1]. - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm


Irenaeus's 'use' of Mark 16:9 [in Adv Haers. 3.10.5].. together with Mark 1:2-3, is in fact the first ever instance of an explicitly named citation from any part of the second Gospel [ie. Mark] in extant patristic literature [the next supposedly being Clement of Alexandria]

Nicholas P. Lunn (2015) The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20; pp. 82-3.



Lack of Attestation by Early Church Fathers. The lack of reference to 16:9–20 by Origen, Tertullian, Cyrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others, indicates that they were apparently unacquainted with the longer ending of Mark.

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr18a04_stein.pdf

The witness of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, Clement, and Origen, and the testimony of both Eusebius and Jerome that the majority of Greek manuscripts they were aware of lacked 16:9–20 is weighty.23

3.6. One of the strongest arguments that Mark did not originally end at 16:8 involves Mark 14:28 and 16:7. These two verses, heavily Markan in
nature, are insertions by Mark into the tradition that he inherited.77
  • 77. Robert H. Stein, “A Short Note on Mark XIV.28 and XVI.7,” NTS 20 (1973): 445–52


Papyrus 45, considered the earliest extant manuscript containing parts of Mark (chapters 4-9 and 11-12; among other synoptic gospel texts). P45's Mark section has a relatively close 'statistical relationship' with Codex Washingtonianus which contains a unique insertion after Mark 16:14, not known in any other text, named the the Freer logion - a logion being :a saying attributed to Jesus.”

The “Longer Ending” with the Freer Logion after verse 14 is also in Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.15.
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr18a04_stein.pdf



Apparently Justin Martyr has a passage in Chapter XLV of First Apology remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20

Justin treats Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy and states that Ps. 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus' disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. Justin's wording is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20 and is 'consistent with' Justin's 'use' of a Synoptics-Harmony in which Mark 16:20 was blended with Lk. 24:53.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pp. 122-126 -
Justin Martyr ... in his Apology (i.45) includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, f4th ed. (London: George Bell & Sons, 1894), vol. 2, pp. 337-344.
The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells us that they were not εν απασι τοις αντιγραφοις, but after εφοβουντο γαρ that τα εξης are found σπανιως εν τισιν, yet not τα ακριβη: language which Jerome twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying, 'in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habentibus.'

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html



Justin's [alleged] student, Tatian (c. 172), supposedly incorporated almost all of Mark 16:9-20 into his Diatessaron

based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#E ... ger_Ending

add: Writers in the 200's such as Hippolytus of Rome and the anonymous author of De Rebaptismate ... 'used' the "Longer Ending."
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

.
.. Most scholars.. regard [gMark] as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

__________________________________

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material word for word and yet also exhibit important differences has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their inter-dependence, a phenomenon termed 'the Synoptic Problem'. Traditionally, Mark was thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew: for example, Augustine of Hippo believed they were written in order, "first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John" and that Mark followed Matthew as "his attendant and epitomizer".[Harmony of the Gospels, I, ii]

Today, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that Mark was the first gospel[3][4] and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material. The strongest argument for this is the fact that Matthew and Luke agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.[15]

The 19th century recognition of Mark as the earliest gospel led to the belief that it must therefore be the most reliable.[16] This conclusion was refuted by two works published in the early decades of the 20th century: in 1901 William Wrede argued that Mark's sequence of episodes is, in fact, an artificial construct with theological motivation; and in 1919 Karl Ludwig Schmidt showed how the links between the episodes are the invention of the writer, thus undermining the gospel's claim to be a reliable guide to the chronology of Jesus' mission.[17] The modern consensus is that Mark's purpose was to present a theological message rather than to write history.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of ... ty_of_Mark


3 Perkins, Pheme (1998) "The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story", in Barton, John. The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 241–58. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
  • (Perkins, Pheme (2009) [2007] Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-6553-3)
4 Brown, Raymond E. (1997) An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-24767-2

5 Burkett, Delbert (2002) An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.

15 Koester 2000, pp. 44–46.

16 Williamson 1983, p. 17.

17 Joel 2000, p. 859.
Brom Ponie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:22 am

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Brom Ponie »

" The gospel called according to Mark is considered to be a forgery or falsely attributed to Mark, no contemporary historical source mentioned or identified any actual person named Mark plus there is no corroborative evidence that any version of gMark represents an historical account of the character called Jesus. "

" The stories of Jesus in gMark are non-historical and implausible from the baptism to the resurrection. "

Sorry brother, but you are mistaken in several aspects and, with all due respect, it seems you are bit ignorant on the topic.
Several contemporary sources mentioned Mark, namely Colossians, Philemon, 2 Timothy, Acts, 1 Peter, possibly Papias, etc. And besides that, when considering ancient history one doesn't necessarily always need to rely on contemporary accounts in any case. While many scholars do indeed deny traditional authorship, a very good case can be made for it's authorship by John Mark, the interpreter of Peter.
The stories of Jesus in Mark is historical and many are definetly not "implausible" as you claim, the baptism is also accepted by basically 100% of scholars relevant to the field. "Versions of Mark's Jesus" as you suggest is corroborated by Matthew, Paul, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Tacitus, Josephus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Justin Martyr, and sooo many others.

Based on your objections it seems you are perhaps a Muslim?
Anyway, take care mate. Cheers
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by John2 »

Brom Ponie wrote:
Several contemporary sources mentioned Mark, namely Colossians, Philemon, 2 Timothy, Acts, 1 Peter, possibly Papias, etc. ... While many scholars do indeed deny traditional authorship, a very good case can be made for it's authorship by John Mark, the interpreter of Peter.
I'm starting to lean this way myself. I've already been thinking that there is something to Papias' statement that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and translated multiple times into Greek (with one of those being the canonical version and another being one or more Jewish Christian gospels). I've also been thinking lately that 1 Peter is genuine (for example, it is addressed to a region with a Jewish Christian presence, where Revelation was written, and Papias -and Polycarp- lived there too and used it as well as Revelation, and Papias is also said to have known the Jewish Christian gospel of the Hebrews), and I don't see any reason why the Mark mentioned in 1 Pet. 5:13 could not be the same person who Papias says wrote the gospel of Mark.

I wasn't aware that there is a Mark mentioned in Philemon (the only letter you cite above that I feel is genuinely Pauline), and I suppose he could be the same one mentioned in 1 Peter and the gospel writer too.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply