Jesus SportsGospel Line in the Sands-Odds that GMark post 70

[Ulan]

The multitude of pointers towards the destruction of the temple in that gospel make me prefer a date of 70 and later for the composition of the whole. Parts seem to be slightly earlier, like the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac, which I would place in the late 60's.

[Metacrock]

Nonsensical OP

It looks to me like drivel, instead of an honest approach to determine dating.

The work was a compilation, are you after the compilation date?


I like Peters links giving a fair comparision of the whole playing field.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

this is just re writing the school of textual criticism. Scholars know we don't have a book store where they published the latest books in the ancient world. So it's not odd that we don't have any Ms of Mark for a while. Not true that there are no fragments before 500.

Koester says there were two versions of Mark. Stephen Neil showed that since 19th century there was a theory of the Ur Mark, John Robinson says the Ur Mark began in the 30s. We don't just go by MS to establish dates. We can also use quotes by other people and the nature of readings in a MS. That's why Jurgan Danker says the Passion narrative was Pre Mark, and he bases that on the Diatesseron which is late second or thrd (?) century. Because the nature of the readings.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Speaking of odd(s):

The 'First Century' Gospel of Mark, Josh McDowell, and Mummy Masks: What They All Have in Common

In this video (posted below), McDowell explicitly explains his involvement in the deciphering of mummy masks, images of which Scott Carroll has also made public (see my last post on this here). McDowell is a Christian evangelical apologist with no scholarly credentials. He is perhaps best known for his book, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which attempts to prove the legitimacy, relevancy, and historical accuracy of the Bible. This book has itself become a "Bible" for fundamentalist Christians.

...

“It was in here that we discovered Mark, the oldest ever: back to the first century. Before then it was 120-142, the John Ryland Papyri [sic]. Now, what you do, you take this mask [chuckles]…Scholars die when they hear it, but we own them so you can do it. You take these manuscripts, we soak them in water. There is a process we use with huge microwaves to do it but it’s not quite as good. We put it down into water at a certain temperature and you can only use Palmolive soap, the rest will start to destroy the manuscripts; Palmolive soap won’t. And you start massaging it for about 30-40 minutes you’ll pull it up and ring it out, literally ring it out, these are worth millions, and you’ll put it back in for 30-45 minutes.”
McDowell's statement that "we own them" suggests he is heavily involved in this collection, perhaps financially. I'm interested in learning more about the Palmolive soap and those "huge microwaves." In any case, McDowell explicitly reveals where the so-called "first-century" Gospel of Mark came from: a mummy mask.

JW:
It would appear than that the solidly dated to 1st century fragment of GMark (per Daniel Wallace who's strangely only other related confession is that after he was legally involved he went out, and fled from the tome; for trembling and astonishment had come upon him: and he said nothing to any one; for he was afraid of being sued) is in the culpable hands, so to speak, of Super non-Skeptic Josh "Evidence" McDowell.

Speculation is that this fragment is owned by The Green Collection which has assembled a team with more sympathy cards than HallMark to consider dating of the new and re-dating of old fragments. Reminds one of the Shroud of Turin team picked by the Vatican to date The Shroud. Instead of an "Oceans Eleven" team, it is the "C12" team. The offending fragment of GMark has now been pushed back sufficiently where McDowell El-Al claim it was actually dating Jesus.

The initial CBS reaction is one of shock and disdain for McDowell but I have faith that historically the evidence for the dating of GMark has been (mis)handled more than what McDowell may show here. The obvious problem from a conclusion standpoint is when the snake verse handlers are in the position of Judges but are really Advocates, they will filter the evidence towards the conclusion they want. Case in point for this Thread. Right now I am trying to be neutral and making a very broad conclusion and opening line. The External evidence (mainly Patristic) favors pre-70 and the Internal evidence favors post-70. But most of the evidence has historically been handled by those who believed in and wanted a pre-70 conclusion. So should there be some discount here for bias that moves the odds to post-70?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Mental flatliner]

"On the longest possible time line, the survival rate of religion goes to zero" - Fright Club

The purpose of this Thread is to establish the odds that GMark (the Gospel work currently in Christian Bibles, as distinguished from the anonymous author here referred to as "Mark") was substantially written post 70.

History
Regarding the history of dating GMark we have a The Curious Case of Benjamin Button type situation where as the related available evidence ages, the dating of GMark continues to get younger. A brief summary:

• 0 - 175 = No extant mention of GMark
  
  175 - 500 = Believers claim GMark pre 70. Non-believers don't believe
  
  500 - 1,500 = Believers kill/convert Non-believers
  
  1500 = Non-believers resurrected. Skeptical regarding dating of GMark
  
  1500 - present = Believer tactics gradually change from primarily physical based to spiritually based. Skepticism increases proportionate to decrease in use of force.

We can see from the above that the primary variable regarding a conclusion as to the dating of GMark may be the extent of religious belief of the Judges. We see this over and over again in religious studies, there is often a direct relationship in general between level of religious belief and conclusion on an individual religious question. So who should the Judges be here? It's easy to say that it should not be Believers since there is a direct relationship between belief and conclusions. But you could also say that it should not be non-believers because again, there is a known relationship between non-belief and conclusions. Ahh, the Beliemma.

Fortunately there is a higher power than belief in setting odds and that higher power is money. Money can not buy love one another but it can rent an awful lot of affection. The historically most accurate prediction force known to the son of man are the odds set by Las Vegas. Here, evidence is King. Belief may be what the individual/sucker uses to conclude but the Father's House only uses evidence. Inside evidence, the best money can buy.

Likewise, odds could be established to predict the likely outcome of religious questions. Practically speaking, conversion of placing odds on religious questions similar to sporting events, would work better the sooner and more definite the question is likely answered. Fer instance, that proffered 1st century fragment of GMark, courtesy of Daniel Wallace. Odds could be established as to the when it is finally revealed:

• 1) By 6-30-14.
  
  2) By 6-6-(1)6
  
  3) By whenever Wallace says it should be revealed
  
  4) By Jesus' return
  
  5) Never

This could be a way for this Forum to raise money. Set odds and offer online betting for more easily decided religious questions like:

• 1 - When will Jesus return?
  
  2 - When will Priests be allowed to marry?
  
  3 - When will Joel Osteen have to get a real job?

This Forum could charge the standard 10% on losing bets but instead of calling it "The Juice" call it "The Jews".

The underlying question for this Thread, whether GMark is post 70, is unlikely to be conclusively answered anytime soon, if ever. However, it can still be used as an example of how odds could be initially set on a religious question and gradually adjusted based on presentation of evidence. Typically regarding such religious questions so/self called Bible scholars are quick to add "certain/most probable/probable/quite likely/likely" to their conclusion's description with little/no related statistical analysis. Ultimately, odds for everything, including religious questions, are based on statistics. To the extent there is a lack of evidence this uncertainty moves the odds for competing conclusions towards each other. To the extent evidence for one conclusion is greater than evidence for another conclusion, this moves the odds for competing conclusions away from each other. When the evidence favors one conclusion over another the odds for the competing conclusions depend on how the available evidence compares to the total potential evidence. Same as it would be for the results of any sample.

That being said, getting this party of God started, very generally, the External evidence favors GMark pre-70 while the Internal evidence favors GMark post-70. I hereby set the initial conclusion that GMark was substantially intially written...70 =

Jesus SportsGospel Line in the Sands - Opening odds that GMark written post 70 = 50%

Now, does anyone have any more detailed inside information evidence to adjust the odds?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The gospel of Mark was written by a man named Mark at the request of Peter about 44 AD.

There's no reason to believe otherwise.

The gospel itself as far too many "Peterisms" to believe it's something else.

(The gospel itself was written from older sources that were written down while Jesus was still alive. I find it irrational to believe otherwise. It's impossible for the four gospels to be in such full agreement on so many stories and yet written in four different parts of the world by four different men in four different times. I don't know about your memory, but mine fades after a week. It's just not possible for the four gospels to be in agreement to this level written decades after the fact.)

[Peter Kirby]

The gospel of Mark was written by a man named Mark at the request of Peter about 44 AD.

There's no reason to believe otherwise.

The earliest external attestation regarding the Gospel of Mark does attribute it to a man named Mark, does associate it with Peter, but does not give a date. That is Papias, quoted by Eusebius. The next oldest external attestation also does not give a date but does state that it was written down after Paul and Peter. That is Irenaeus. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html)

I'm not sure how far you'd have to go to find someone giving the Gospel of Mark a date of 44 AD. I'm not even sure there is such a claim before the printing press.

The internal evidence in the Gospel of Mark has sometimes been interpreted in conjunction of the events of ca. 44 AD. It has sometimes been interpreted in conjunction with the events of 135 AD. It has more frequently been interpreted in conjunction with the events of 70 AD.

PS - Welcome to the forum!

[Mental flatliner]

The gospel of Mark was written by a man named Mark at the request of Peter about 44 AD.

There's no reason to believe otherwise.

The earliest external attestation regarding the Gospel of Mark does attribute it to a man named Mark, does associate it with Peter, but does not give a date. That is Papias, quoted by Eusebius. The next oldest external attestation also does not give a date but does state that it was written down after Paul and Peter. That is Irenaeus. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html)

I'm not sure how far you'd have to go to find someone giving the Gospel of Mark a date of 44 AD. I'm not even sure there is such a claim before the printing press.

The internal evidence in the Gospel of Mark has sometimes been interpreted in conjunction of the events of ca. 44 AD. It has sometimes been interpreted in conjunction with the events of 135 AD. It has more frequently been interpreted in conjunction with the events of 70 AD.

PS - Welcome to the forum!

No, the earliest attestation of Mark's gospel is Mark.

Omitting him from authenticity requires evidence before you can continue.

(Incidentally, the analysis offered for Mark by this web site is really sad. There are false premises in almost every statement. I wouldn't rely too heavily on them.)

[Bernard Muller]

No, the earliest attestation of Mark's gospel is Mark.

Mental flatliner, how do you know that?
Cordially, Bernard

[Mental flatliner]

No, the earliest attestation of Mark's gospel is Mark.

Mental flatliner, how do you know that?
Cordially, Bernard

Logic.

The first person to read, edit, correct and publish the gospel of Mark was Mark.
Presumably, the second would have been Peter.

The next would have been those in the local church who got the first copy hot off the scroll press.
After that would have been those for whom copies were made.

Attestation was happening at every step in the process. People were still alive who could contradict any statement in the gospel.

***************

You can't have a copy of the gospel of Mark and pretend that it just popped in out of thin air.

Even if Mark and Peter were not the original authors/sponsors of the gospel, you can't pretend that the oldest surviving copy of a document is the original and move on without analysis. All documents are subject to provenance study, and in the explanation above, this was not done. There was an unspoken assumption that nothing older exists, and this is ridiculous from all angles.

***************
Another analysis missing from this thread is the support that the other gospels lend Mark. How can any analysis be complete without inclusion of the other sources?

[Bernard Muller]

I read them

Mental flatliner, what do you mean by that? Who is "them"?
Cordially, Bernard

[Mental flatliner]

I read them

Mental flatliner, what do you mean by that? Who is "them"?
Cordially, Bernard

Sorry, I misread your line. I edited the post.