Re: The Best Bad Reason To Date The Gospels
Posted: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.