Mark 10:19 omits the observance of the Sabbath because of the ban of it by Hadrian

[Paul the Uncertain]

Just to be clear, Giuseppe, is it your view that GMark was composed between 117 and 138 CE (and its author omitted sabbath observance among others from a character's remark about the commandments) or is it your view that GMark was composed earlier than that, but some copyists-or-editors durng those years removed the author's reference to sabbath observance (and no earlier physical text survives this "bottleneck" in the transmission of GMark)?

[Giuseppe]

Just to be clear, Giuseppe, is it your view that GMark was composed between 117 and 138 CE (and its author omitted sabbath observance among others from a character's remark about the commandments) or is it your view that GMark was composed earlier than that, but some copyists-or-editors durng those years removed the author's reference to sabbath observance (and no earlier physical text survives this "bottleneck" in the transmission of GMark)?

I am expecting a book (by a historicist, proponent of a seditious historical Jesus) where the case is made enough fully, to date Mark under Hadrian, 130-135 CE.

So I can't decide still. At the moment, my future readings will include also another author (I can't name him at the moment) who has argued for some form of proto-Matthew preceding Mark (even assuming Mark's priority over our Matthew). This has been also the view of the mythicist Prosper Alfaric. Note that Alfaric's argument is that Justin appears to know what seem to be judaizing gospels preceding the our gospels, and possibly even more old than the same Evangelion of Marcion.

For example, the epistle of Clement appears to mention one of those lost judaizing gospels. We know that they are judaizing gospels since "Clement" and Justin are clearly judaizing figures.

I am interested about the real measure of the midrash in those lost judaizing gospels.

What is sure is that hardly a gospel could have been written before the 100 CE, because otherwise Josephus would have written a work titled Contra Christianos just as he had written a book titled Contra Apionem.

[Giuseppe]

If of interest, some grandson of Marco Treves had already published online some his writings, in particular this quote:

Domata l'insurrezione, Adriano volle dare una soluzione finale al problema ebraico. Proibì, pena la morte, lo studio della Legge, l'osservanza del Sabato e della Pasqua, la circoncisione ecc. Alcuni celebri rabbini subirono il martirio. I Cristiani non parteciparono all'insurrezione, poiché il loro futuro sovrano era il Figlio dell'Uomo che stava per discendere dalle nuvole, e non Bar Kocheba. Perciò furono trattati con relativa mitezza dall'imperatore, ma dovettero industriarsi di dimostrare in tutti i modi che non erano ebrei. Un cristiano, Marcione, propose la sua teoria dei due Dei: II Creatore del mondo, Dio del Vecchio Testamento, giusto ma severo, era diverso dal Padre di Cristo, perdonatore dei peccati. Marcione fondò una chiesa che durò alcuni secoli. Ma i Cattolici respinsero questa teoria e preferirono conservare l'unità di Dio padre e la riverenza per il Vecchio Testamento. Ma per distinguersi dagli Ebrei ed evitare la persecuzione d'Adriano, interpretarono la Bibbia allegoricamente. Le acque del Mar Rosso, secondo l'Epistola di Bamaba, non sarebbero che un simbolo dell'acqua del battesimo. La vacca rossa rappresenterebbe Gesù. Il bambino Emanuele del Libro d'Isaia sarebbe Gesù sotto altro nome (Matteo, I, 23). I personaggi dei Salmi II, XLV e CX (che veramente sono Jannai, Achab e il sacerdote Simone) sono tutti identificati con Gesù (Epistola agli Ebrei). La rupe dell'Horeb non è una rupe, è Cristo (I Corinzi X, 4)xiii. I Cristiani trattavano gli Ebrei da stolti perché non accettavano queste strambe interpretazioni. Quei riti ebraici che erano rimasti dopo la distruzione del Tempio furono abbandonati dai Cristiani. Fu forse allora che dalla lista dei comandamenti in Marco X, 19 fu omesso quello del Sabato, proibito da Adriano. Fu forse allora che il racconto del processo fu rimaneggiato per discolpare Pilato e dare tutta la colpa agli Ebrei. Si inserì l'episodio di Barabba, incompatibile col diritto romano, e la seduta del Sinedrio, incompatibile con la procedura ebraica e che non esisteva nella redazione primitiva dei Sinottici utilizzata dal Quarto Vangelo.

(my bold) https://marcotreves.blogspot.com/search?q=adriano

The last proposition assumes that the Fourth Gospel was based on a pre-Hadrian version of the Synoptics where there was not Barabbas and not a Jewish trial.

[John2]

What is sure is that hardly a gospel could have been written before the 100 CE, because otherwise Josephus would have written a work titled Contra Christianos just as he had written a book titled Contra Apionem.

I think Josephus did exactly this by writing against Fourth Philosophic Judaism, since in my view Christianity is a version of Fourth Philosophic Judaism.

[John2]

Mark isn't "failing" to do anything here.

put it in this way: isn't the expression "the son of man is master of the sabbath" sufficient to raise the suspicion, even only the suspicion, that the observance of the sabbath is put in discussion? What better occasion than one when the commandment could be mentioned, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy", to exorcize the suspicion once for all?

Well: a missed occasion is what we see. And this is strange (=unexpected, = improbable).

Unless the Mark's fear of Hadrian was too much great.

As I said, Jesus doesn't break the Sabbath in Mark, he just has a more flexible interpretation of what constitutes work than the Pharisees did and he says outright, "The Sabbath was made for man."

[Giuseppe]

As I said, Jesus doesn't break the Sabbath in Mark, he just has a more flexible interpretation of what constitutes work than the Pharisees did and he says outright, "The Sabbath was made for man."

do you think that not even the suspicion is raised, in Mark, about the risk of a possible radical gentilizing anti-Sabbath misunderstanding of the Mark's words?

[John2]

do you think that not even the suspicion is raised, in Mark, about the risk of a possible radical gentilizing anti-Sabbath misunderstanding of the Mark's words?

I don't have any suspicion of it is all I can say.