The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote GMark?

[JoeWallack]

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote GMark? A Dear John Letter

The Marks Brothers (of the Lord)


In my Thread here:

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

proponents of pre 70 are having [understatement]a difficult time [/understatement] trying to articulate their evidence.

The purpose of this Thread will be to provide an inventory of Patristic descriptions of attempted identification of the author of GMark.

This will than be a resource regarding External evidence for the dating of GMark.

The list of Markan candidates for authorship of GMark so far (in attempted chronological order):

First "Mark"

• Source: Irenaeus
  
  Date of projected original writing of source (here, Irenaeus): c. 180
  
  Description of supposed author of GMark: Follower and interpreter of Peter
  
  Claimed Author's (author of GMark) Source: Memory
  
  Authority of author (author of GMark): None
  
  Location of composition (of GMark): Unknown

Second "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Clement
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Description: Follower of Peter but not the Cephas (Peter) that Paul knew.
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Memory
  
  Authority: Request of Romans
  
  Location: Rome

Third "Mark" (Glaucias)

• Source: Clement referring to Basilides
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Author or at least source of information: Glaucias
  
  Description of "Mark": Interpreter of Peter
  
  Timing: Contemporary to orthodox claim of "Mark" as interpreter of Peter
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: ?

Fourth "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Clement
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Description: Follower of Peter
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Memory
  
  Authority: Request of Romans
  
  Location: Rome

Fifth "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Origen
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230
  
  Description: Follower of Peter
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: Peter
  
  Location: Rome

Sixth "Mark"

• Source: Jerome
  
  Date: c. 400
  
  Author: Peter
  
  Description of "Mark": Scribe
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: Peter
  
  Location: Rome

Seventh "Mark"

• Source: Augustine
  
  Date: c. 400
  
  Author: Mark
  
  Description of "Mark": Follower of Peter
  
  Timing: Wrote after "Matthew" and before "Luke"
  
  Author Source: "Matthew"
  
  Authority: ?
  
  Location: ?

Eighth "Mark"

• Source: Hippolytus/Fake Hippolytus
  
  Date: c. 202 - c. 19th century (We'll see how the Assertian fits the timelieon at the end)
  
  Author: Mark
  
  Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Jesus
  
  Authority: Peter
  
  Location: Rome

Ninth "Mark"

• Source: Acts of Mark
  
  Date: ?
  
  Author: ?
  
  Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus
  
  Timing: ?
  
  Author Source: ?
  
  Authority: ?
  
  Location: ?

So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?


Joseph

Church Tradition, n. A mysterious entity that unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically incarnated at an Apologist's whim to support Christian assertian as reliable and undisputed evidence and than disincarnate just as quickly as only the word of men and not Scripture when it goes against Christian assertian.

ErrancyWiki

[Metacrock]

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote GMark? A Dear John Letter

The Marks Brothers (of the Lord)


In my Thread here:

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

proponents of pre 70 are having [understatement]a difficult time [/understatement] trying to articulate their evidence.

The purpose of this Thread will be to provide an inventory of Patristic descriptions of attempted identification of the author of GMark.

This will than be a resource regarding External evidence for the dating of GMark.

The list of Markan candidates for authorship of GMark so far (in attempted chronological order):

First "Mark"

• Source: Irenaeus
  
  Date of projected original writing of source (here, Irenaeus): c. 180
  
  Description of supposed author of GMark: Follower and interpreter of Peter
  
  Claimed Author's (author of GMark) Source: Memory
  
  Authority of author (author of GMark): None
  
  Location of composition (of GMark): Unknown

wrong. Irenaeus was the student of Polycarp and he also knew Papias and a couple of others. All those men knew John the Apostle and Elder John. They also knew other disciples. That give Irenaeus excellent authority.

your premise for the thread is wrong. scholars no longer think in terms of a single author. These books are redacted the stuff in them is coming from whole communities. the communities are the authors.

Second "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Clement
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Description: Follower of Peter but not the Cephas (Peter) that Paul knew.

wrong! very Very Wrong! he is supposed to be that Peter. You don't have way of knowing othersise. you have no real reason for saying he's not.

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome[/list]

that's not a different Mark. It's the same Gospel.

Third "Mark" (Glaucias)

• Source: Clement referring to Basilides
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Author or at least source of information: Glaucias
  
  Description of "Mark": Interpreter of Peter
  
  Timing: Contemporary to orthodox claim of "Mark" as interpreter of Peter
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: ?

that's more backing for Mark as the interpreter to Peter.

Fourth "Mark"

[Metacrock]

Church Tradition, n. A mysterious entity that unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically incarnated at an Apologist's whim to support Christian assertian as reliable and undisputed evidence and than disincarnate just as quickly as only the word of men and not Scripture when it goes against Christian assertian.

cute. all you are really doing here is compiling a list of people who support Mark and interpreter of Peter or who try to voice some knowledge of who wrote Mark. A useful compilation but it doesn't prove anything either way. The conclusions you draw from are unwarranted skepticism.

[Mental flatliner]

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote GMark? A Dear John Letter

The Marks Brothers (of the Lord)


In my Thread here:

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

proponents of pre 70 are having [understatement]a difficult time [/understatement] trying to articulate their evidence.

The purpose of this Thread will be to provide an inventory of Patristic descriptions of attempted identification of the author of GMark.

This will than be a resource regarding External evidence for the dating of GMark.

The list of Markan candidates for authorship of GMark so far (in attempted chronological order):

First "Mark"

• Source: Irenaeus
  
  Date of projected original writing of source (here, Irenaeus): c. 180
  
  Description of supposed author of GMark: Follower and interpreter of Peter
  
  Claimed Author's (author of GMark) Source: Memory
  
  Authority of author (author of GMark): None
  
  Location of composition (of GMark): Unknown

Second "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Clement
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Description: Follower of Peter but not the Cephas (Peter) that Paul knew.
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Memory
  
  Authority: Request of Romans
  
  Location: Rome

Third "Mark" (Glaucias)

• Source: Clement referring to Basilides
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Author or at least source of information: Glaucias
  
  Description of "Mark": Interpreter of Peter
  
  Timing: Contemporary to orthodox claim of "Mark" as interpreter of Peter
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: ?

Fourth "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Clement
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200
  
  Description: Follower of Peter
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Memory
  
  Authority: Request of Romans
  
  Location: Rome

Fifth "Mark"

• Source: Eusebius referring to Origen
  
  Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230
  
  Description: Follower of Peter
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: Peter
  
  Location: Rome

Sixth "Mark"

• Source: Jerome
  
  Date: c. 400
  
  Author: Peter
  
  Description of "Mark": Scribe
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Peter
  
  Authority: Peter
  
  Location: Rome

Seventh "Mark"

• Source: Augustine
  
  Date: c. 400
  
  Author: Mark
  
  Description of "Mark": Follower of Peter
  
  Timing: Wrote after "Matthew" and before "Luke"
  
  Author Source: "Matthew"
  
  Authority: ?
  
  Location: ?

Eighth "Mark"

• Source: Hippolytus/Fake Hippolytus
  
  Date: c. 202 - c. 19th century (We'll see how the Assertian fits the timelieon at the end)
  
  Author: Mark
  
  Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus
  
  Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.
  
  Author Source: Jesus
  
  Authority: Peter
  
  Location: Rome

Ninth "Mark"

• Source: Acts of Mark
  
  Date: ?
  
  Author: ?
  
  Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus
  
  Timing: ?
  
  Author Source: ?
  
  Authority: ?
  
  Location: ?

So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?


Joseph

Church Tradition, n. A mysterious entity that unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically incarnated at an Apologist's whim to support Christian assertian as reliable and undisputed evidence and than disincarnate just as quickly as only the word of men and not Scripture when it goes against Christian assertian.

ErrancyWiki

There was at one time a biography (4th century, I think) that named all 70 of the secondary circle of apostles, and among them were the three Mark's theorized to have been the authors.

Because there are so many "Peter-centric" passages in Mark, it's hard to conclude any other Mark than the one who travelled with Peter, wrote his sermons, and was asked to write a gospel. (This is Eusebius' claim.)

[stevencarrwork]

Because there are so many "Peter-centric" passages in Mark, it's hard to conclude any other Mark than the one who travelled with Peter, wrote his sermons, and was asked to write a gospel. (This is Eusebius' claim.)

Does the Acts of Peter include many, many Peter-centric passages?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Because there are so many "Peter-centric" passages in Mark, it's hard to conclude any other Mark than the one who travelled with Peter, wrote his sermons, and was asked to write a gospel. (This is Eusebius' claim.)

That´s possible. As evidenced by what he wrote about Peter, he must have hated him.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Joe,

Brilliant work as usual. Thanks.

To show the myth of Jesus, we must show the numerous other myths that support the myth of Jesus as being myth not history. Mark the writer of the gospel of Jesus is as much a myth as Jesus. He is like Dr. Watson whom the stories of Sherlock Holmes suggest is the writer of the Sherlock Holmes stories. In fact, Watson is just another literary character in the Sherlock Holmes' stories, not the writer of them. Mark is another fictional character in the Jesus mythologies, not the writer of one of them. He is a very underdeveloped character, being tied through some kind of simple relationship to the fictional character Peter, mainly. He is little more than a name with a few fictitious associations. Bringing out the numerous contradictions in the fictitious associations shows the haphazard process of his invention.
He is an invention of the Christian communities as are all the characters in the Jesus mythologies. Mark is the fictional writer of the gospel of Mark. The actual writer of the gospel of Mark remains quite unknown.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote GMark? A Dear John Letter

{snip}
So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?


Joseph

Church Tradition, n. A mysterious entity that unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically incarnated at an Apologist's whim to support Christian assertian as reliable and undisputed evidence and than disincarnate just as quickly as only the word of men and not Scripture when it goes against Christian assertian.

ErrancyWiki

[ghost]

So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?

Caesars.

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

[Mental flatliner]

To show the myth of Jesus, we must show the numerous other myths that support the myth of Jesus as being myth not history.

No, if you want to show that Jesus is a mythical figure, you have to have evidence. Pretending that other histories are myths not only fails in itself but doesn't touch on the subject of Jesus being a myth.

For example, you must also prove that Tacitus was influenced by Mark if that's your basis. You have to prove that Josephus was, as well. Then you have all the New Testament authors, the early church fathers, the rabbis who contributed to the Talmud, etc.

At the end of the day, if everyone has to be a myth or a liar for your "myth" theory to be true, I'd say your time is better spent at an asylum.

[Ulan]

No, if you want to show that Jesus is a mythical figure, you have to have evidence. Pretending that other histories are myths not only fails in itself but doesn't touch on the subject of Jesus being a myth.

I'm not a "mythicist" in that I consider it much easier to makes sense of the whole affair if we just assume that Jesus actually existed, but this line of reasoning doesn't hold any water. Evidence for existence has to be positive. Unfortunately, none of the things you listed quite qualify:

For example, you must also prove that Tacitus was influenced by Mark if that's your basis. You have to prove that Josephus was, as well.

Actually, no, you don't have to. This line of thought is based on the false assumption that Tacitus or Josephus claim at any point that they were talking about some person called "Jesus". Which they were not. They were talking about other people that had some relation to a "Jesus". It just tells us something about a movement, not about the person Jesus.

Then you have all the New Testament authors...

Well, maybe the first one would qualify, not so much the copyists (Matthew, Luke) or the commentator (John). Unfortunately, the first gospel doesn't look like it talks about anything real, and we don't know who the author was. Even the canonically assumed author doesn't claim to have known Jesus.

...the early church fathers, the rabbis who contributed to the Talmud, etc.

Those are, again, just witnesses that there were some stories about some Jesus circulating at some point. Which nobody denies. Paul is nearly universally believed to have existed among scholars.

In the end, all that impressive list of "witnesses" crumbles to nothingness, as none of them is witness to the person "Jesus", just witness to the existence of a movement. Which doesn't help much.