Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Best Bad Reason To Date The Gospels

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:34 am

.
Thanks to everyone who participated so far.

The dating by our forum-colleagues is based on (supposed) internal references in GMark to historical events and circumstances (outhouse, Bernard Muller, Stephan Huller, Giuseppe, Charles Wilson, perseusomega9) or references in GMark to other texts as sources (Paul the Uncertain, mlinssen, Giuseppe) and external references in other texts (Ken Olson, JoeWallack).

First, it seems to me that Joe is right that Justin is the established terminus ante quem.
JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:15 pm
The starting ending point is Justin Martyr:

Why not Papias?

My problem with Papias is that we have no extant writings from him and - as long as I haven't missed anything - only Eusebius claimed that Papias already reported that Mark wrote his Gospel as the interpreter of Peter.

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.14ff: „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. “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.“

The tradition about Mark as the interpreter and companion of Peter is old (Old Latin prologues, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria), but no one before Eusebius claims that Papias has already reported it and it is only Eusebius who claimed that Clement reported it in agreement with Papias („Clement in the eighth of the Outlines sets forth the record, and the Heirapolitan bishop, Papias by name, also testifies with him …“).

To me, the supposed account by Papias about the Gospel origins is therefore not sufficiently certain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:45 am

Irenaeus Book Three knows Papias.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8393
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:16 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:45 am
Irenaeus Book Three knows Papias.
I think what she means is that no one extant before Eusebius names Papias as the tradent for Peter and Mark.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3566
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:49 pm

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin.
If we set up the terminus ante quem of gMark by the external evidence, and accepting "John", "Luke" and "Matthew" knew about gMark (& "John" also about gLuke), then the epilogue in gJohn (pointing to being written around 110 AD) would have gMark written before.
Furthermore Revelation (written before 96 AD) was aware of gMatthew.
I also think that 1 Clement (80-81 AD) used gMark as material. However the dating for 1 Clement and its use of gMark can be debated and are not widely accepted.
The Didache, with the initial one (written before the Christian interpolations on a basically ebionistic tract) is datable before 96 AD and contains a fair amount of material found only in gMatthew.
Finally, the epistle of Barnabas (my dating is during the rule of Nerva (96-98 AD)) seems to know about gMark or/and gMatthew, and gLuke, and, more generally, about the gospels.

About 1 Clement, the Didache & epistle of Barnabas see (bottom of) http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
About Revelation see http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html then "find" on: GMatthew.

PS: Kunigunde, I intend, time permitting, to write a piece about Goulder's remarks on the nativity stories.

Cordially, Bernard

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:35 am

.
Neil Godfrey
Another Pointer Towards a Late Date for the Gospel of Mark?

P.S. Sorry for not being involved in the recent weeks, but I was in hospital for an operation (nothing really bad) and I'm still recovering. I'd like to take up again the topic. :wave:

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8508
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pm

Note that if you think, under Markan priority, that Marcion preceded both our Luke and Matthew, then Mark had to precede Marcion of about the only time necessary for his diffusion in the Christian communities: 10-20 years. Hence, 135 - 10 would give 115 CE as date for Mark.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:33 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pm
...would give 115 CE as date for Mark.
Yes.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Was Papias The Earliest Witness To GMark?

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Dec 12, 2020 4:39 pm

JW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_RwIt3a8xs

Gospel origins What the Church Says Eusebius Said Papias Wrote:
Papias provides the earliest extant account of who wrote the Gospels. Eusebius preserves two (possibly) verbatim excerpts from Papias on the origins of the Gospels, one concerning Mark[21] and then another concerning Matthew.[22]

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Specific Claim Orthodox Claim Reasons Not To Accept Orthodox Claim
What was written Gospel of Mark 1. The quote indicates that what was written was anecdotal in nature. GMark is a carefully and stylishly crafted complete story.
2. The quote indicates that what was written was done without style but GMark is very stylish.
3. The quote indicates that what was written was what Jesus said or did but GMark is not limited to that.
Who wrote it Mark, interpreter/translator of Peter -
Source of author Peter -


Joseph

GRAMMAR, n. A system of pitfalls thoughtfully prepared for the feet for the self-made man, along the path by which he advances to distinction.

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

A Few Bad Men

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:14 pm

JW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

Gospel origins What the Church Says Eusebius Said Papias Wrote:
Papias provides the earliest extant account of who wrote the Gospels. Eusebius preserves two (possibly) verbatim excerpts from Papias on the origins of the Gospels, one concerning Mark[21] and then another concerning Matthew.[22]

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Specific Claim Orthodox Claim Reasons Not To Accept Orthodox Claim
What was written Gospel of Mark 1. The quote indicates that what was written was anecdotal in nature. GMark is a carefully and stylishly crafted complete story.
2. The quote indicates that what was written was done without style but GMark is very stylish.
3. The quote indicates that what was written was what Jesus said or did but GMark is not limited to that.
Who wrote it Mark, interpreter/translator of Peter 1. There is a time issue with how old Mark would have been here when he supposedly wrote a Gospel. It's generally thought that Jesus died c. early 30s. Let's say Peter promoted Jesus to 40 and Mark was with him at this time. GMark has numerous anachronisms that date it to well after 70. There is not a single good reason to date GMark close to 70. Let's say Mark was 30 in 40 CE. If he wrote GMark in 90 CE he would have been 80 at the time. Unlikely he would have lived that long and even more unlikely he would have been able to produce a masterpeace at that age.
2. The language range in GMark is inconsistent with the above excerpt. GMark describes a Peter who was a fisherman. Presumably he had a Semitic background and no formal education. GMark though shows an underlying source that could read Greek and understand Latin.
Source of author Peter 1. The implication from everything above is that the intent is to provide a line of historical witness to Jesus. The primary theme of GMark though is to in general discredit all supposed disciples as historical witness to Jesus and specifically Peter, by showing that they never properly understood Jesus and abandoned him. Although this is merely Literary Criticism and not Source Criticism, as there is no quality Source Criticism to support Peter as historically preserved witness to Jesus, it is exponentially better evidence against than any Literary Criticism evidence for. -


Joseph

TRUTHFUL, adj. Dumb and illiterate.

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

StephenGoranson
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

Post by StephenGoranson » Mon Dec 14, 2020 3:17 am

To be published in 2021 by Oxford UP:
Papias of Hierapolis Exposition of Dominical Oracles
The Fragments, Testimonia, and Reception of a Second-Century Commentator
Edited by Stephen C. Carlson
Oxford Early Christian Texts
Description
This work is the most complete edition of the remains of the lost five-volume work, Exposition of Dominical Oracles, by Papias of Hierapolis, a second-century Christian commentator. In all, some ninety-eight separate mentions of Papias and his work are documented, from the second century to the age of printing in the fifteenth century, both in their original language and in English translation. This body of evidence is scattered over fourteen centuries across fifty-seven different authors writing in five different languages (Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian).

This edition adopts the distinction between his fragments proper, for what we know of his work, and the testimonia, for what we know of his reception. In addition to these, Stephen C. Carlson provides a list of potential citations of Papias, potential uses of Papias, and fragments falsely attributed to Papias. The volume features an extensive introduction treating the most important instances of reception of Papias and his work.
ISBN: 9780198811602

Post Reply