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

[ghost]

There is a Latin word for "possessed" that can also mean "besieged".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obsessus#Participle

1. inhabited
2. besieged
3. obsessed

Maybe the demoniac is besieged by a legion, or a besieged legion?

[ghost]

Here is the verb.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obsideo#Verb

1. I sit, remain, abide, stay.
2. I frequent, haunt, inhabit.
3. (military) I beset, besiege, hem in. [quotations ▼]
4. I occupy, fill, possess.
5. I watch closely; I am on the lookout for.

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definit ... i-obsessus

1. blockade, besiege, invest, beset
2. take possession of

[Ulan]

I mentioned the Gerasene demoniac, as that scene seems to refer to the occupation of the Decapolis by the Legio X Fretensis, which was stationed in Syria. After the fall of Jerusalem, it was moved to Jerusalem. This, together with the positive outcome of Jesus driving the Fretensis to death, makes me think of a date of slightly before 70 for this scene.

This doesn't mean too much for the gospel as a whole, but it's a puzzle piece.

[ghost]

Could it be that "Gerasene" originally meant Ceraunian?

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

[JoeWallack]

Next = what exactly does I-Ly say to support pre 70?

JW:
I'm going to rightly divide now between I-Ly's general and specific support for pre-70:

Irenaeus of Lyons Book III.

General
1)

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;

2)

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.

3)

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? ""I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Specific
1)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome

2)

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

3)

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

4)

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Rating the strength of I-Ly's specific evidence will help us evaluate the strength of his general evidence:

1)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome

The most potentially direct evidence for dating here, "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome", supports pre-70. Every other assertion though in this statement looks wrong:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect"

• 1 - No quality evidence exists for a GMatthew originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew
  
  2 - Canonical GMatthew looks like an original Greek composition
  
  3 - GMatthew appears to have used GMark as a base
  
  4 - I-Ly claims that GMark was not a disciple of Jesus so it is not logical that if Matthew was a disciple he would use GMark as a base.
  
  5 - For the author of GMatthew to use GMark as a base, which had a primary theme of discrediting the supposed disciples as witnesses to Jesus indicates that not only was the author of GMatthew not a witness to Jesus but had no witness sources to Jesus.
  
  6 - There is no Internal evidence that the author of GMatthew was Matthew.
  
  7 - The Patristic tradition is that Matthew was the tax collector in the narrative. GMatthew appears to have copied this story though from GMark where the tax collector's name was Levi and there is evidence that "Levi" is also original to GMatthew.
  
  8 - Outside of Patristic confirmation of this tradition, there is no quality evidence that GMatthew was written pre-70

2)

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Again, the most potentially direct evidence for dating here, "After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing", supports pre-70. Every other assertion though in this statement looks wrong:

"Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

• 1 - It's been clearly demonstrated that GMark has a primary theme of discrediting Peter as witness to Jesus. That Peter would have been the source of such a Gospel with a primary purpose of witnessing to Jesus is not just ridiculous, it is comical.
  
  2 - It's also been demonstrated that GMark is a sophisticated, complete, literary work that few authors of the first century would have been capable of. It does not look like a summary of an associate's preaching career.
  
  3 - There is no Internal evidence that the author of GMark was Mark.
  
  4 - Outside of Patristic confirmation of this tradition, there is no quality evidence that GMark was written pre-70

3)

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

The most direct evidence for dating here supports pre-70. Every assertion though in this statement looks wrong:

"Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him"

• 1 - Paul's own writings have little or nothing in them with detail parallels to GLuke.
  
  2 - Paul's own writings indicate he was in competition with the supposed disciples. The author of GLuke is also thought to be the author of Acts and Acts shows Paul as in cooperation with the disciples.
  
  3 - GLuke, like GMatthew, used GMark as a base indicating that there was no other primary source such as Paul.
  
  4 - There is no Internal evidence that the author of GLuke was Luke.
  
  5 - Outside of Patristic confirmation of this tradition, there is no quality evidence that GLuke was written pre-70

4)

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

The most direct evidence for dating here supports pre-70. The following problems though:

• 1 - I-Ly is the first known assertion of this c. 180.
  
  2 - Justin Martyr, c. 150, appears unfamiliar with GJohn.
  
  3 - There is no Internal evidence that the author of GJohn was John.
  
  4 - GJohn never even mentions a disciple named "John".
  
  5 - GJohn explicitly says that "the beloved disciple" was the source for the author(s).
  
  6 - Outside of Patristic confirmation of this tradition, there is no quality evidence that GJohn was written pre-70

In summary, every specific assertion here of I-Ly that can be tested indicates I-Ly is wrong. It's a sweeper! This than reduces his related general evidence to just what he claims it is, a tradition. And this coordinates with the earlier observation that the primary reason I-Ly has a tradition of likely pre-70 authorship is because he thinks Scripture requires it and not because he has quality external evidence to support it.

Thus there is no quality evidence from I-Ly for pre-70. All other Patristic support for pre-70 seems to have the same wrong tradition as I-Ly. This than opens up Literary Criticism as relatively good evidence to determine the likelihood of relative dates for dating. In an issue of dating of composition Literary Criticism has limited value to support the earlier side since the issue at hand is the dating and any date after the setting date and up to and after the issue date (here 70) could be the real composition date. On the other side though (so to speak) to the extent there are anachronisms to the issue date, that is potentially good Literary Criticism evidence for the later date.

Note that as always, in general Literary Criticism evidence is relatively weak evidence compared to Source Criticism. Here the Source Criticism evidence is all pre-70 but is very weak. If post-70 Literary Criticism evidence is good, that will make post-70 more likely than pre-70, but just relative to each other. In the absence of any good Source Criticism evidence, no conclusion here is likely by itself. The only thing likely is uncertainty as to any conclusion.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[ghost]

If the Mark plot is based on the 49 BC to 44 BC Caesar plot, then what happens?

[spin]

Why does the Gerasene demoniac call himself Legion in Mark 5:9 if he is not a military legion?

The text explains itself. They were many.

Also there's a bit of wordplay as the word for "say" is quite similar to "legion" and they are together in the text: λεγων λεγεων ονομα, "He said 'Legion' is [my] name".

he was possessed by "Legion".

There is no equivalent to "possessed" in the narrative.

If the Mark plot is based on the 49 BC to 44 BC Caesar plot, then what happens?

Personally, I think the Gadarene scene is after the time of Caesar, based on AJ 15.358 (15.10.3 a third of the way through), where the Gadarenes accused Herod of cruelty and when they saw the Romans siding with Herod, many committed suicide, including throwing themselves down from high places and killing themselves in the river.

[ghost]

Personally, I think the Gadarene scene is after the time of Caesar, based on AJ 15.358 (15.10.3 a third of the way through), where the Gadarenes accused Herod of cruelty and when they saw the Romans siding with Herod, many committed suicide, including throwing themselves down from high places and killing themselves in the river.

Here it is…

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D3

However, Caesar gave him his right hand, and remitted nothing of his kindness to him, upon this disturbance by the multitude; and indeed these things were alleged the first day, but the hearing proceeded no further; for as the Gadarens saw the inclination of Caesar and of his assessors, and expected, as they had reason to do, that they should be delivered up to the king, some of them, out of a dread of the torments they might undergo, cut their own throats in the night time, and some of them threw themselves down precipices, and others of them cast themselves into the river, and destroyed themselves of their own accord; which accidents seemed a sufficient condemnation of the rashness and crimes they had been guilty of; whereupon Caesar made no longer delay, but cleared Herod from the crimes he was accused of.

[steve43]

The incident describe took place in 20 B.C.

More than a half-century before Mark's gospel at least.

Three generations.

A long time.

[ghost]

Carotta says the story of the Ceraunian demoniac was the story of the battle of Dyrrhachium…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... _(48_BC%29