Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 05-22-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I need labels of some sort in order to make the points that I want to make. I know that labels aren't necessary for the points that you want me to make, but ideologies and patterns of thinking are central to the way that I make sense of the world. Without a word or phrase to denote the kind of argumentation that discourages all conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence, then of course I can not criticize it. I know that you would prefer that I don't criticize such thinking, which is a downer, but to be honest I have greater priorities than what you would prefer. Please be aware that I am not trying to be offensive. If you can think of a better label than "highly skeptical," then I will use it.

Well said. As far as the dating of Mark is concerned Justin Martyr references a "memoir of Peter" which may be referring to the Gospel of Mark. Since Justin Marty wrote sometime in the middle of the second century then this may help to date the Gospel of Mark.

Quote:

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

Unless I'm mistaken only the Gospel of Mark mentions Boaneges which Justin refers to.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-22-2010, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

As far as the dating of Mark is concerned, Justin Martyr references a "memoir of Peter" which may be referring to the Gospel of Mark. Since Justin Martyr wrote sometime in the middle of the second century then this may help to date the Gospel of Mark.

What date do you suggest for the composition of Mark?

Toto · 05-22-2010, 08:44 AM

arnoldo: I am puzzled. Your comment has nothing to do with the quote from Abe. And it really does not relate to this discussion - a reference to Mark's gospel in Justin Martyr's writings would only show that Mark wrote before the mid second century, which is generally taken as the latest possible date for Mark's composition. It doesn't give us a clue about Mark's sources.

[I am ignoring mountainman's theories, which hold that both Justin Martyr and Mark's gospel were forged in the 4th century.]

aa5874 · 05-22-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

[...Well said. As far as the dating of Mark is concerned Justin Martyr references a "memoir of Peter" which may be referring to the Gospel of Mark. Since Justin Marty wrote sometime in the middle of the second century then this may help to date the Gospel of Mark.

But, what you state is MIS-LEADING.

You know that you CANNOT find the words "Memoirs of Peter" anywhere in the writings of Justin Martyr.

And, if what you attempt to claim is even true there is no gospel called the gospel according to Peter, or the memoirs of Peter in the NT Canon and no Church writer claimed Peter wrote a memoir.

Now, the supposed MARK was not even called an apostle so the "MEMOIRS of HIS Apostles" was not written by Mark.

Quote:

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder..

Now, you should have noticed that "Him" is in capital implying that "Him" referred to Jesus. It must be noted that in the very passage whenever "Him" is in capital it refers ONLY to Jesus.

Dialogue with Trypho CVI

Quote:

"The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.

The words are the following: 'I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

andrewcriddle · 05-23-2010, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IF the Apostle Peter was one of Mark's sources then his information was first hand.

If we reject this then we are left with speculation. However, on the traditlonal dating of Mark's Gospel, it would not have been difficult for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

What date of composition do you suggest for Mark? ?

By the traditional dating of Mark's Gospel I meant dates c 75 CE. IMHO the date could be a little later, but any date before the death of Domitian would make it quite practicable for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 05-23-2010, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What date of composition do you suggest for Mark? ?

By the traditional dating of Mark's Gospel I meant dates c 75 CE. IMHO the date could be a little later, but any date before the death of Domitian would make it quite practicable for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Andrew Criddle

The traditional dating of Mark's Gospel is NOT c 75 CE.

Since the 4th century gMark was TRADITIONALLY dated during time of Philo of Alexandria.

This is found in "Church History"

Quote:

...1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.

So for hundreds of years the Church propagated the ERRONEOUS TRADITION that gMark was written since the time of Philo or about at least 20 years before the Fall of the Temple.

It was SCHOLARS who DISCARDED the ERRONEOUS tradition of the Church and have placed gMark AFTER the Fall of the Temple or AFTER 70 CE.

It must be noted that the KJV version of gMark may have been written after the middle of the 2nd or beyond. The KJV version of gMark contains the LONG-LATE version of gMark.

By the way, Philo wrote nothing about Jesus, Mark or Peter.

Doug Shaver · 05-24-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

but any date before the death of Domitian would make it quite practicable for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Sure . . . that is, assuming that there was a ministry for there to be any eyewitnesses to.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-24-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Any date before the death of Domitian would make it quite practicable for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Domitian died in 96 A.D., or about 60 years after Jesus died. What evidence suggests to you that Mark was written before 96 A.D.?

andrewcriddle · 05-24-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Any date before the death of Domitian would make it quite practicable for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Domitian died in 96 A.D., or about 60 years after Jesus died. What evidence suggests to you that Mark was written before 96 A.D.?

Assuming Markan priority (ie that Matthew and Luke knew Mark) then dates after the death of Domitian for Mark become difficult.

eg Luke particularly in Acts is too familiar with procedure in the early Roman Empire to make a date after the death of Trajan plausible. Ignatius (generally dated towards the end of Trajan's reign IMHO early in Hadrian's reign) seems to know Matthew, Basilides in Hadrian's reign seems to know Luke etc.

If you question Markan priority then later dates for Mark become quite possible.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 05-24-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Domitian died in 96 A.D., or about 60 years after Jesus died. What evidence suggests to you that Mark was written before 96 A.D.?

Assuming Markan priority (ie that Matthew and Luke knew Mark) then dates after the death of Domitian for Mark become difficult.

eg Luke particularly in Acts is too familiar with procedure in the early Roman Empire to make a date after the death of Trajan plausible. Ignatius (generally dated towards the end of Trajan's reign IMHO early in Hadrian's reign) seems to know Matthew, Basilides in Hadrian's reign seems to know Luke etc.

If you question Markan priority then later dates for Mark become quite possible.

Andrew Criddle

But, it is EVIDENCE that was asked for, not assumptions.

This is the question, ..."What evidence suggests to you that Mark was written before 96 A.D.?

Assuming Markan priority ONLY means gMark was written before gMatthew and gLuke not when gMark was written.

You have NO EVIDENCE that gMark was written before the Memoirs of the Apostles as mentioned by Justin Martyr.

And further when gMark is examined it would appear that there was some other source about the origin of Jesus available in order to FULLY understand the JESUS of Mark.

It is NOT realistic or credible that the author of gMark wrote the first Jesus story and that his audience WAS totally unaware of the ORIGIN of the Jesus which would have been the very first question that his readers or audience would have WANTED to be ANSWERED.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2010, 08:44 AM	#123
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	arnoldo: I am puzzled. Your comment has nothing to do with the quote from Abe. And it really does not relate to this discussion - a reference to Mark's gospel in Justin Martyr's writings would only show that Mark wrote before the mid second century, which is generally taken as the latest possible date for Mark's composition. It doesn't give us a clue about Mark's sources. [I am ignoring mountainman's theories, which hold that both Justin Martyr and Mark's gospel were forged in the 4th century.]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.