jgreen44

How about....

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Mark 13:30)

Clarified in Matthew as...

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

If Mark were written after all of the people who allegedly personally knew or met Jesus of Nazareth had died, why would the author include this obviously failed prophecy?

stephan huller

andrewcriddle wrote: That relationship you point to might well be true but that doesn't exclude my suggestion. We might be feeling too different parts of the proverbial elephant (i.e. the development of Western text over the centuries). The real question is did the second century ancestor of Bezae's Mark look like? Is Clement referencing it in To Theodore? Josep Rius-Camps presented a paper in SBL International Meeting in Rome 2009 with a title "Reading the Secret Gospel of Mark in Codex Bezae". The abstract (http://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Con...x?MeetingId=14) is as follows:

"The Secret Gospel of Mark is currently regarded by the majority of scholars as an sophisticated hoax on the part of Morton Smith who claimed to have ‘discovered’ it. Others, however, find the arguments for the hoax as unconvincing as the supposed hoax itself. Working on the text of Mark’s Gospel in Codex Bezae, I was struck by the evidence for the possible authenticity of the document that emerges in the high number of its readings found elsewhere only in the Bezan text of Mark. These are orthographical, lexical and grammatical variants that it would be not only difficult but also unreasonable to imitate. Furthermore, according to an analysis of the structure of Mark’s Gospel that I have carried out following the text of Codex Bezae, the Secret Gospel fits well into the arrangement of the pericopes, not only from a linguistic point of view but also from a theological perspective. Indeed, the episodes it contains contribute significantly to the depiction of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and his relationship with his disciples before his death. The proposed paper sets out the detailed evidence, which tip the balance in favour of the authenticity of the Secret Gospel. It also discusses its implications for the study of the Gospel of Mark."

You and I might both be right. Origen is of course earlier than Bezae and specifically Alexandrian. The Western text of Mark seems to lead us back to Alexandria (many of Clement's Markan readings too especially in Quis Dives Salvetur).

aa5874

Our present day Gospels "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appear to be copies of 4TH century texts.

It would appear the "Memoirs of the Apostles" preceded all four Gospels.

Justin Martyr writing in the middle of the 2nd century in making reference to the "Memoirs of the apostles" claimed Jesus was born in a CAVE and even Origen also wrote that it was claimed Jesus was born in a CAVE.

Now, using "Against Celsus", texts of gMark that implied Jesus was a carpenter are AFTER Origen or the 3rd century.

Using "Against Praxeas", texts of gJohn with chapter 21 are AFTER Tertullian or the end of the 2nd century.

Using "Dialogue with Trypho" and "Against Celsus", texts of gMatthew without the CAVE birth are AFTER Origen or the 3rd century.

The author of gLuke ADMITTED that there were Jesus stories BEFORE he wrote his Gospel. At least Theophilus knew something about Jesus BEFORE gLuke was written.

Justin Martyr was probably the first to IDENTIFY and QUOTE multiple passages from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and that it was READ in the churches in the middle of the 2nd century..

There is simply no evidence even from apologetic sources that gMark was witten before the "Memoirs of the Apostles" or before it was claimed or believed Jesus was born of a virgin in a CAVE using Isaiah 7.14 and 33.16.

stephan huller

It is interesting that Hegesippus is call Memoirs too. Are they the same?

jgreen44

OK. I'm not saying there is evidence of an early composition. I am just wondering why the false prophecy of Jesus' eminent return is found in gMark, if gMark was written well after 70 AD.

Maybe parts of gMark (the false prophecy, for example) were borrowed from the Memoirs of the Apostles?

stephan huller

AA,

I have answered in another thread (that I developed so as not to get this one too distracted) that Clement's Letter to Theodore allows for the idea that υπομνηματα came first (but that these υπομνηματα are not likely taken to be our canonical gospels) but nevertheless Mark's gospel so perfectly represented Jesus's original εὐαγγέλιον that it was identified as Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εὐαγγέλιον [Origen Contra Celsum 2:13].

Why was it so identified? I think it was that it was because as jdgreen argues that among all the competing υπομνηματα on Jesus's original proclamation only Mark got it right (at least from the perspective of those living in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. This accuracy transformed Mark's narrative from being another υπομνημα into the very Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εὐαγγέλιον for the Alexandrian community.

vid

Thanks to all. I meant First Jewish war, of course. It only wasn't clear to me why to date it during the war, eg. why is dating of several (like 3+) years after it refused. However after careful rereading of Mark 13, I must admit it really sounds as if the "Coming of Son of a Man" will happen during the desolation described, as (literal) Deus Ex Machina for believers.

What are arguments against dating Mark during this war (Eg. such that offer some kind of explanations for Mark 13)?

Stephen Huller: I have read your argument, but I am afraid it would be too long discussion to be held here. I find some of steps in your chain of reasoning somewhat far-fetched, though. You pick one out of many possible options, take it as granted in next step, and then repeat this several times. You know what it means for final result probability-wise. But still, there was lot of new raw information for me in your post, thanks.

aa5874

But, the story in gMark clealy stated AFTER the tribulation.

Mark 13.24-26
If gMark was written BEFORE the Fall of the Temple then there would have been no fulfilled prohecy in gMark that could be confirmed even the anonymous author of gMark did not confirm that Jesus was resurrected in his original story.

The Fall of the Temple is the only confirmed fulfilled prophecy in gMark and that was known to have occurred through out the entire Roman Empire.

It would seem that the anonymous author used the Fall of the Temple as fulifilled prophecy to make people believe that his prediction (using the mouth of Jesus) of the end of heaven and earth was to happen very soon.


Mark 13.30-31

vid

Yes, I agree with you. I meant very soon after the fall of the temple, while the war and atrocities are still going on.

However, in the Earl Doherty article (answer to question in fact) that bacht posted in this thread, I have read that fall of the temple effectively meant end of war and atrocities. That's not what we find in Mark. Doherty used this as argument against ~70 CE dating (for 90s CE dating), but IMO he failed to convincingly explain "this generation" problem. Of course this was just a relatively short answer, and I didn't have a chance to read any his book that would discuss dating of Mark, I expect he does have a fuller argument.

How about Doherty's claim that "by the time the Romans have conquered Jerusalem and desecrated the Temple, the campaign would essentially be over, the country overrun. There would be no thought of a man being “on his roof” or out “in his field” attending to normal chores, with still time to flee to the mountains"? Temple fell in 70 AD, and end of war is usually given as 73 CE fall of Masada.

stephan huller

Another interesting argument in the Marcionite gospel exegesis is that the 'final edition' of the gospel corrected an earlier MISunderstanding - promoted by wicked men like Peter - that Jesus claimed to be the Christ.

From Tertullian Against Marcion iv.39:

As touching the propriety of His names, it has already been seen that both of them are suitable to Him who was the first both to announce His Christ to mankind, and to give Him the further name of Jesus. The impudence, therefore, of Marcion’s Christ will be evident, when he says that many will come in his name, whereas this name does not at all belong to him, since he [Jesus] is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom these names do properly appertain; and more especially when he prohibits those to be received whose very equal in imposture he is, inasmuch as he (equally with them) comes in a name which belongs to another—unless it was his business to warn off from a mendaciously assumed name the disciples (of One) who, by reason of His name being properly given to Him, possessed also the verity thereof. But when “they shall by and by come and say I am Christ,” they [i.e. at least some of those who come after Jesus and claim to be Jesus's Christ] will be received by you, who have already received one altogether like them. [I say] however [that] Christ comes in His own name. What will you do, then, when He Himself comes who is the very Proprietor of these names, the Creator’s Christ and Jesus? Will you reject Him? But how iniquitous, how unjust and disrespectful to the good God, that you should not receive Him who comes in His own name, when you [Marcionites] have received another in His name! Now, let us see what are the signs which He ascribes to the times. “Wars,” I observe, “and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation, and pestilence, and famines, and earthquakes, and fearful sights, and great signs from heaven”

Who is this guy that the Marcionites have accepted as the Christ besides Jesus? Tertullian makes absolutely clear over and over again - it is 'Marcion' himself. It is impossible then to escape the underlying idea albeit never expressed in explicit terms that Marcion's emendations of earlier gospel material is related to the central Marcionite argument that the founder of their sect is the 'Christ' NOT Jesus.

Scholarship on the beliefs of the Marcionites is so pathetically inadequate that it frustrates those of us who have an intimate acquaintance with the subject matter.

Here we have one of COUNTLESS references in the Church Fathers to the CENTRAL BELIEF of the Marcionites that JESUS WAS NOT THE CHRIST. This understanding permeates every aspect of their exegesis of the gospel. One could write a book on the subject (but who would publish or buy it for that matter).

Nevertheless we have yet another strange wrinkle in the paradigm developed by the Letter to Theodore AGAIN supported by understanding a connection between the Marcionite gospel and the Alexandrian gospel of Mark (not surprising when the Marcionite canon had a Pauline letter to the Alexandrians).

Tertullian develops an original argument (from Justin?) that the Marcionite gospel appeared AFTER other gospels. 'Marcion' is always accused of being an emendator (Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.3.4; Iren. Haer. 3.1. 1 where the specific accusation is that of being an emendatores apostolorum). But this dispute as to who is a proper philologist, grammarian, editor, "Marcion also apparently presented himself in the guise of a Greek literary critic (kritikos), and Alexandrian editorial techniques provided the models for the Marcionite prologue and chapter headings." [http://books.google.com/books?id=MQs...tly%22&f=false] *

The point again is that most critics of To Theodore argue that its understanding of a secret gospel of Mark is unprecedented especially the idea of the Gospel of Mark as being written after other υπομνηματα were established in the name of the apostles.

The reality is however that the same accusation was made with respect to the gospel of the Marcionites (a name I have taken great pains to note means 'those of Mark' in Aramaic). This understanding dovetails perfectly with the testimony of the Philosophumena which rejects a contemporary claim that the Marcionite gospel was the gospel of Mark. Of course this Marcionite 'gospel of Mark' can't be our canonical gospel. It has to be a recension which had other material 'added to it' when compared with the surviving Catholic narrative, one which included a number of narrative from Luke and so like the gospel of Mark used by Clement in Quis Dives Salvetur which MUST necessarily had included the Zacchaeus for his argument to make any sense (secret Mark may well have included Zacchaeus when we compare the STRUCTURE of the second addition referenced in To Theodore with the way Zacchaeus is 'inserted' into Mark 10:46 in the Diatessaron).

In other words, both the Marcionite gospel and the Alexandrian 'secret' Gospel of Mark were understood to have been created AFTER other gospels or υπομνηματα (so Justin) which according to the Marcionites WRONGLY identified Jesus as the Christ.

Was the little apocalypse the core of this subsequent 'layering' over previous υπομνηματα where Christ is now identified as emerging in 66 CE rather than at the time of Jesus's ministry?

Yes I think so.

To this end, Mark must have been the first to 'know' the outcome of the Jewish War and introduce Daniel 9:24 - 27 as not only proof of that Jesus had divine foreknowledge of historical events BUT AS THE TIME WHEN THE CHRIST - i.e. the Son of Man - would reveal himself. This suggests a late date for the composition of his gospel to me at least.

* Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (or via: amazon.co.uk) By David Dawson