2nd Century Mentions of Mark

[Peter Kirby]

Justin Martyr's “Dialogue with Trypho” included this passage (Chapter 106) :

“It is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and ... it is written in his memoirs ... he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Because only the gospel attributed to Mark describes John and James that way, it has been assumed that the memoir that Justin was referring to was the gospel of Mark.

However, the full passage [paragraphed by me] is -

The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and 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; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' [Numbers 24:17] and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

So, this passage is about framing the wider narrative.

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? How is this relevant to determining the identity of the source text?

[MrMacSon]

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.'

But looking further, in response to your prompt, Peter, I note the Catholic Encyclopedia has titled Chapter 98 as "Predictions of Christ in Psalm 22" and gives -

Justin: I shall repeat the whole Psalm [22], in order that you may hear His reverence to the Father, and how He refers all things to Him, and prays to be delivered by Him from this death; at the same time declaring in the Psalm who they are that rise up against Him, and showing that He has truly become man capable of suffering [which Chap 98 dies]

Then, chapters 99-16 (inclusive) are Justin's commentary about Psalm 22.

All of Chapter 106 [again, paragraphed by me] is-

Justin: The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.

The words are the following:

• 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' [Psalm 22: 22-23]

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and 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; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' [Numbers 24:17] and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

How is this relevant to determining the identity of the source text?

I'm not sure what source text you are referring to: the source text for Martyr's commentary? I'm not sure it's clear. Psalm 22?

eta: He -in this passage [of Chap 106 of Dialogue with Trypho]- is said to be Jesus -

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and 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; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel ...

[MrMacSon]

Justin Martyr supposedly writing in the mid 2nd century knew nothing of any writer named Mark.

It seems not.

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 ...

... Now, if gMark was a forgery or falsely attributed to Mark, then the claim that he wrote such a Gospel in writings attributed to Irenaeus becomes
extremely questionable when it is realized that claims about the authorship and date of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by the supposed Irenaeus have been rejected.

It would appear that Gospels called according to Mark, Matthew, luke and John were invented no earlier than the late 2nd century.

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.

.

[Peter Kirby]

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.'

But looking further, in response to your prompt, Peter, I note the Catholic Encyclopedia has titled Chapter 98 as "Predictions of Christ in Psalm 22" and gives -

Justin: I shall repeat the whole Psalm [22], in order that you may hear His reverence to the Father, and how He refers all things to Him, and prays to be delivered by Him from this death; at the same time declaring in the Psalm who they are that rise up against Him, and showing that He has truly become man capable of suffering [which Chap 98 dies]

Then, chapters 99-16 (inclusive) are Justin's commentary about Psalm 22.

All of Chapter 106 [again, paragraphed by me] is-

Justin: The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.

The words are the following:

• 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' [Psalm 22: 22-23]

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and 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; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' [Numbers 24:17] and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

How is this relevant to determining the identity of the source text?

I'm not sure what source text you are referring to: the source text for Martyr's commentary? I'm not sure it's clear. Psalm 22?

eta: He -in this passage [of Chap 106 of Dialogue with Trypho]- is said to be Jesus -

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and 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; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel ...

I intended a straightforward question. Doesn't Justin Martyr here betray knowledge of the Gospel of Mark?

It seems like the OP is saying no, it doesn't seem so (i.e., no, there is no evidence of such).

It also seems like the OP and this last post are gathering observations about the text of Justin Martyr that are supposed to be relevant.

How are these observations relevant to the question of whether Justin Martyr has used the Gospel of Mark here?

[Peter Kirby]

Justin Martyr's “Dialogue with Trypho” included this passage (Chapter 106) :

“It is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and ... it is written in his memoirs ... he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Because only the gospel attributed to Mark describes John and James that way, it has been assumed that the memoir that Justin was referring to was the gospel of Mark.

See, I understand this. It makes sense.

With the rest, you've lost me.

[MrMacSon]

I intended a straightforward question. Doesn't Justin Martyr here betray knowledge of the Gospel of Mark?

My understanding is that "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" (J Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap 106) is said to be reference to, or reference to knowledge of, the Gospel of Mark.

That seems like over-reach.

[Peter Kirby]

I intended a straightforward question. Doesn't Justin Martyr here betray knowledge of the Gospel of Mark?

My understanding is that "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" (J Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap 106) is said to be reference to, or reference to knowledge of, the Gospel of Mark.

That seems like over-reach.

Why?

It's okay if you're not convinced, but I was wondering if there was any insight into this question (whether Justin Martyr knew the Gospel of Mark) to be had from all the other comments on Justin Martyr's text you've presented in this thread.

[MrMacSon]

... I was wondering if there was any insight into this question (whether Justin Martyr knew the Gospel of Mark) to be had from all the other comments on Justin Martyr's text you've presented in this thread.

My only comment was "..this passage is [or seems to be] about [or part of] framing the wider narrative."

Based on this -

... this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' [Numbers 24:17] and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

To paraphrase/elaborate what I said in another post, it seems that commentary-texts such as Irenaeus's Adv Haers, Eusebius's Church History, or even Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, etc, are either forerunners to a developing theological narrative, or they are developing a theological 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 [and possibly also Justin Martyr] are closer in time than we have been otherwise led to believe.

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]

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

3) Based on the data that you cite, the conclusion that there was already a written gospel attributed to Mark does seem warranted. Again we need to anger Ockham to keep a straight face and play the 'could well have been otherwise' card here.

Papias is said by Eusebius to have identified a presbyter John or ‘elder’ who is said to have said "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ" -

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.

For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14-16

I'm not really up to the task of trying to push against all of this and claim that there are no known mentions of GMark to be found here.

[Peter Kirby]

By the times of Irenaeus, gMark was the least important gospels out of the four, and not even considered as the first one written. So relatively few mentions and quotes of/from gMark (as compared with the others) should not be surprising.

No abundance of evidence on a particular point is not a reason to doubt the available relevant evidence 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).

Muller's logic here is spot on. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is supposed to be. (Other than gathering references for the sake of it.)