Dating Mark in 115 CE

[Giuseppe]

I am reading a book of Weill-Raynal, la chronologie des evangiles, Ed. Rationalistes, 1968.

What I find particularly interesting, apart the relations between Mcn and the other synoptics, is the his dating of Mark in 115 CE.

The fact that the epistles of Paul are formed by more layers, precisely the original layer (coming from the pen of the historical Paul) and the layer of the "mystical"/Gnostic Paulines and the more recent Catholic layer, allows, as terminus post quem, the collocation of Mark immediately after the "mystical" redaction of the original Paul, happened about the end of the first century.
As an entire, the epistles are silent about the Gospel Jesus and once these epistles are "spread" along the entire first century, their silence about the Gospel Jesus could only be broken after the entire first century.

As terminus ante quem the expulsion of Marcion by Rome in 138 CE allows the dating of Mcn in 125 CE.
Being Mcn based on Mark and since the diffusion/manipulation of Mcn required 10 years, then probably Mark was written 10 years before Mcn. That gives us the date of 115 CE for Mark.

[John2]

I am reading a book of Weill-Raynal, la chronologie des evangiles, Ed. Rationalistes, 1968.

What I find particularly interesting, apart the relations between Mcn and the other synoptics, is the his dating of Mark in 115 CE.

The fact that the epistles of Paul are formed by more layers, precisely the original layer (coming from the pen of the historical Paul) and the layer of the "mystical"/Gnostic Paulines and the more recent Catholic layer, allows, as terminus post quem, the collocation of Mark immediately after the "mystical" redaction of the original Paul, happened about the end of the first century.
As an entire, the epistles are silent about the Gospel Jesus and once these epistles are "spread" along the entire first century, their silence about the Gospel Jesus could only be broken after the entire first century.

As terminus ante quem the expulsion of Marcion by Rome in 138 CE allows the dating of Mcn in 125 CE.
Being Mcn based on Mark and since the diffusion/manipulation of Mcn required 10 years, then probably Mark was written 10 years before Mcn. That gives us the date of 115 CE for Mark.

I think Papias is evidence against this idea, as per Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31):

There has been a propensity among modern scholars to date Papias' writing during the reign of Hadrian (117-138 GE) or later rather than earlier, although the reasoning behind such estimates is often not spelled out. Eusebius considers Papias in connection with his treatment of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome during the reign of Trajan (98~117 GE). As Vernon Bartlet has pointed out, in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica, Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four. "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110, though he is at pains to refute Irenaeus's statement that Papias was actually 'a hearer and eye-witness of the sacred Apostles.' " Bartlet's view has recently been confirmed by Ulrich Kortner, whose interpretation of the Papias fragments substantiates the early date suggested by Eusebius' relative chronology. Kortner argues persuasively that the polemical function of Papias' work, the Tradentenkreis of the presbyters, and Papias' association with the daughters of Philip are all more suited to a time around 110 than the middle of the second century. Since there is no convincing reason to dispute Papias' contact with the daughters of Philip, a date before 110 CE for his writing is to be preferred, lest we find ourselves constantly rewarding early Christian figures with extraordinary life spans.

And I think Papias also refers to an original Hebrew Matthew being translated multiple times into Greek, and that would have taken a certain amount of time to happen prior to Papias.

[Giuseppe]

Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.

Weill-Reynal places Papias and Justin between 140 and 160 CE. They know the material that will become part of the Fourth Gospel.

[John2]

Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.

No, he and Bartlet are correct that "in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica [in which Papias is mentioned], Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four" and thus that "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110."

[Giuseppe]

Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.

No, he and Bartlet are correct that "in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica [in which Papias is mentioned], Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four" and thus that "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110."

it is really a stupid argument. In virtue of the same "logic", I made the error in past by placing the second century Gnostic Ophites in pre-Christian times only because the fool proto-Catholic pseudo-Hippolytus said so.

The strong evidence that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel is that an Armenian author of XII century, Vardan Vardapet, mentions the aloes as mentioned by Papias. Now, the aloes appears only in the Fourth Gospel (John 19).

He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds

Therefore Papias knew this Gospel. And being GJohn written VERY probably in full second century, your Matthews and Bartlet are clearly and completely wrong.

[John2]

Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.

No, he and Bartlet are correct that "in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica [in which Papias is mentioned], Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four" and thus that "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110."

it is really a stupid argument. In virtue of the same "logic", I made the error in past by placing the second century Gnostic Ophites in pre-Christian times only because the fool proto-Catholic pseudo-Hippolytus said so.

The strong evidence that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel is that an Armenian author of XII century, Vardan Vardapet, mentions the aloes as mentioned by Papias. Now, the aloes appears only in the Fourth Gospel (John 19).

He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds

Therefore Papias knew this Gospel. And being GJohn written VERY probably in full second century, your Matthews and Bartlet are clearly and completely wrong.

Maybe John knew Papias (or the traditions he had access to), since both (certainly Papias and arguably John) are from Asia Minor. Suffice to say, as Ben wrote on another thread, "Now, you may still not be convinced that Papias knew, not John, but rather Johannine tradition (and indeed helped to develop it), but that is fine. My point, again, is that this scenario is possible. It ought to be considered."

Here is how Ben presents the options on that thread (called the "The drawbacks of overlooking oral traditions as an option," which I highly recommend; viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765):

(A) if Papias has connections with John, then Papias must know the text of John and the connections mean everything; (B) if John postdates Papias, then the connections with John must be an illusion and mean nothing. Both options equally assume that the order of which Papias speaks must have derived from a text. Neither considers that Papias may have received a different picture from his travelers and from his own local liturgical practices than he received from the text of Mark.

But in any event, how do you know John wasn't written prior to 115 CE? As Kierspel (for example) writes:

Most scholars continue to date the gospel [of John] somewhere between AD 80-100, which overlaps more or less exactly with the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81-96).

https://books.google.com/books?id=68f2c ... ia&f=false

I'm not suggesting that John must have been written during this time period just because "most scholars" think so, I'm only pointing out that they do and wondering why you think it wasn't. For what it's worth, I think if Papias knew John then Eusebius would have said so, as per Ben in the above thread:

Papias attributes his most valuable information, not to any written gospel text, but to travelers claiming to be handing down quotes from the seven disciples on his list. This would explain why Eusebius does not quote Papias mentioning the gospel of John: that gospel, as MacDonald suggests, postdates Papias (and probably relies upon him to some extent!). It would explain why the names on Papias' list are the ones with solid speaking parts in John but in few other texts: Papias learned about those disciples from his travelers, and John drew some of their words from what Papias recorded about them. It would explain why Irenaeus may have gotten a dominical saying now found in John from Papias (he actually attributes it to "the elders," but this may at least include Papias): Papias got that saying from his travelers, and John got it from Papias. Finally, it would explain why Papias thought that Mark was out of order: most of the examples of church fathers from century II noticing the differences between John and Mark could easily have been gleaned from know-it-alls passing down stories.

[Charles Wilson]

But in any event, how do you know John wasn't written prior to 115 CE? As Kierspel (for example) writes:

Most scholars continue to date the gospel [of John] somewhere between AD 80-100, which overlaps more or less exactly with the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81-96).

The appearance of Domitian AS the "Holy Spirit" means that Kierspel is more or less on target. After 96/98 until around 115 for Mark. I have Mark at 110 at the latest. The purpose of GJohn may be seen as "Correcting" Mark in a number of ways (See especially the Crucifixions). We have a fragment of John that plausibly dates to around 125 so 115 is OK with me. Raskin shows that Mark and John Cut and Pasted from a common document and such a document wouldn't have been kept for use at the South Rome Lending Library and Car Wash for a long, long time.

PLZ see the Thread on "The Grafted Story of the Empty Tomb" on this site. The evidence appears to suggest that all of the Gospels were closely held at one time. Closely held in one place over a very short period of time.

Mark this one in your diary, Giuseppe. Your friend Kierspel is OK in my book.

CW

[Giuseppe]

But in any event, how do you know John wasn't written prior to 115 CE?

About GJohn, I follow April DeConick about the original interpretation of John 8:44 and I think that Stuart has fixed the point about John.

[Giuseppe]

Here is how Ben presents the options on that thread

(B) if John postdates Papias, then the connections with John must be an illusion and mean nothing.

According to Weill-Raynal, Papias knew what will become later part of GJohn. I wonder why Ben doesn't list that option, too.

[John2]

The strong evidence that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel is that an Armenian author of XII century, Vardan Vardapet, mentions the aloes as mentioned by Papias. Now, the aloes appears only in the Fourth Gospel (John 19).


He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds

Therefore Papias knew this Gospel. And being GJohn written VERY probably in full second century, your Matthews and Bartlet are clearly and completely wrong.

Here is Vardan Vardapet's reference (which Ben sent to me):

But concerning the aloe which people brought [to Jesus' tomb; cf. John 19:39], some say that it was a mixture of oil and honey, but the aloe is certainly a kind of incense. The Geographer and Papias report that there are fifteen kinds of aloe in India ...

Assuming that it even does refer to Papias (which is in doubt, as per Shanks; https://books.google.com/books?id=YCxTA ... 22&f=false), what does it have to do with the gospel of John? So what if Papias (or whoever) "report that there are fifteen kinds of aloe in India"?