spin

The parallel was duly lost by you. Daniel continually supplies sixth century contextualisation throughout the book with known and unknown figures from that era, while actually being about the second century. We are lucky with Daniel that we know enough about Hasmonaean history to spot what the writer was doing. We have not spotted where the author of Mark is coming from.

The mini-apocalypse is a set piece within the construction of GMk written on the basis of Jewish apocalypse (if not directly taken from one). The writer has merely glued it into place with a few sentences 13:1-2. Using that glue for dating purposes seems quite inappropriate. You cannot use it in Daniel.

There is almost no external evidence called up by you from the 100 years between the reputed time of Jesus and the appearance of the first gospel materials. You apparently accept the wishful datings of source that I cannot. You indulge in accepting information from Eusebius at face value (eg the Papias material) and using material culled from exrtemely late sources (such as Oecumenius bishop of Trikka circa 1000 CE and Theophylact even later).

Incidentally do you know who Aristion and presbyter John were or when they lived?

The point was: you cannot use solely internal means for your dating purposes. And the external means that you attempt to use are not apparently very relevant.

Josephus's agenda is relatively transparent: he was a historical apologist for his own nation. He was trying to convince his Roman audience that he knew what he was talking about by giving material laced with enough facts to convince his audience.

This is your take on the material. Of course it wasn't the writer using old materials as the Jews often did rehashing the exodus a thousand years and the exile hundreds of years after the fact.


I did mention the notion of liturgical material for a purpose in my previous post. The gospels incorporated liturgical material into themselves -- along with other material that was not homegrown. It does not mean that this material originated from the gospels. It means that the gospels also knew about them. I don't think either borrowed from the other, but how would you show that the Didache didn't supply GMt??

If you accept the notion of Q then you accept that it was earlier than either GMt or GLk. As I also pointed out about the Didache that there were itinerant preachers who made their living from plying their wares to xian communities throughout the Roman world. This was a source for the spread of theological ideas.

When I used the term "Memoir" I wasn't implying that it came from the lips of Peter, but that it loosely reflected recollection type material.

You still don't deal with that material in which Peter was not present and to which he had no access.

Well, someone's got to know otherwise we couldn't have mention of them. This is pure literary device.

You got it. The writer is writing a story, not being a dictaphone. When it suits him they can be plain dumb. There is no real coherence in these disciples. They are foils for the presentation of Jesus. Jesus has to exlain his parables to his disciples in private. After having seen all the miracles, they still don't understand what is going on. Peter still denies Jesus after having seen.

We are dealing with literature not recollection. Just look at the look at the start of Mk 14, where we find the prefiguring of the betrayal with the chief priests and the scribes looking for a way to arrest Jesus. Did those clever disciples know about it then, or was the information added in for a literary effect? I fear that you are trying to convert literature into crypto-history.


spin

rlogan

Bernard, I was the one who had mentioned the Didache dating being generous.

But spin has pinch hit for me there. let's go back to the dating though:


This is just one of those cases of the infinately malleable prophesy lifted out of context.

here is a little more of it:

16:8 And then} the world-deceiver {shall appear} as a son of God;
16:9 {and shall work signs and wonders,} and the earth shall be delivered into his hands;
16:10 and he shall do unholy things, which have never been since the world began.
16:11 Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many shall be offended and perish;


Well, these requirements of all of mankind and unholy things never been since the dawn of man and such disqualify Domitian.

On the other hand, we can qualify just about anyone if we want to be absurd enough.

besides, this whole section is talking about the things to pass in the "hour" of the lord coming.

Still waiting on that...

Bernard Muller

Spin:
Exact parallels with GMark: 6th century BC --> 25-35 AD, 165 BC --> 70 CE
For the later dates, the Kingdom was supposed to come soon after but did not:
Conclusion: Daniel was written soon after 165, GMark was written soon after the summer of 70, when the big buildings of Jerusalem were destroyed stone by stone (as allegedly prophesied by Jesus):
Mk13:1-2 "As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."

Why would a Christian author around 140-160 write his gospel with Jesus saying the second coming would happen soon after 70?
Why do you mean by "spotted where the author of Mark is coming from"?
The author of daniel lived around 165 BC. The author of GMark lived around 70 AD. What evidence do you have he lived around 140-160?
All of the events described in the mini apocalypse are known to have happened between 30 and 70, none of them is unique to the period after that. And 'the abomination that causes desolation' (Mk13:14) is used in 'Daniel' relative to the destructions in Jerusalem caused by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC. "Mark" is definitively talking about the destructions in 70, with the second coming expected to happen soon after.

Maybe, but that did not prevent "Mark" to use the genre to serve his own agenda: prevent his Christians to leave the flock and make them believe the Kingdom is near, with the earthly events prior to its arrival all predicted by Jesus: "I have told you everything ahead of time" (Mk13:23). If written in 150, why would the author "forget" to have Jesus predicting specific events between 70 and 150?

I think there are plenty, Q, GLuke, GMatthew, GLuke, GJohn (all of those using GMark). GLuke and GMatthew are dated through the internal evidence and GMatthew is tracked closely by the external evidence. More later. And I went on quite a bit on where 1Clement, the Didache and 'Barnabas" fitted into that.
Eusebius quoted Papias when there was many copies of his works. As I recall, Papias' works survived up to the 17th century and then disappeared. Oecumenus and Theophylact reported what they read from Papias' works. I used that on peripheral matters.

According to my analysis, Aristion and presbyter John lived in Asia Minor in the 80's to 100's (Aristion died earlier). I got a lot on presbyter John on one page of mine:
Revelation

He was a priest in the temple of Jerusalem, managed to survive the holocaust of 70, went to Antioch, wrote soon afterwards the Jewish (original)Revelation, then became a Christian and went to Asia (likely Ephesus) where he pretended to have been an eyewitness of Jesus. Around 95, in hiding, he added up Christian stuff on his original Revelation and had it published. He is also the one rumored to be the disciple Jesus loved best in GJohn (and then was claimed, after his death, to be the author of the gospel!). He died during the rule of Trajan. His death caused a lot of commotion among Christians (as the last known (alleged) disciple, he was supposed to stay alive for the second coming. See Mk9:1).

This is the take of most of critical scholars also. GMark described the whole thing with emotion & urgency, not laconically as others do for rehashed Exodus or other biblical stories. Sometimes the author is so exited he goes out of character and has Jesus addressing the readers of GMark or all the Christians (in Italics). I quote now the whole passage:
Mark 13:1-31:
As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately,
4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"
5 And Jesus began to say to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.
6 "Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He!' and will mislead many.
7 "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end.
8 "For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9 "But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them.
10 "The gospel must first be preached to all the nations.
11 "When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.
12 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.
13 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
14 "But when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
15 "The one who is on the housetop must not go down, or go in to get anything out of his house;
16 and the one who is in the field must not turn back to get his coat.
17 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
18 "But pray that it may not happen in the winter. [that happen in summer! The prayers were listened to above!]
19 "For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. [Notice 'NOW'. Jesus, 40 years before, would have say 'THEN']
20 "Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days.
21 "And then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ'; or, 'Behold, He is there'; do not believe him;
22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
23 "But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT,
25 AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.
26 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN CLOUDS with great power and glory.
27 "And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.
28 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
29 "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."

"Mark" was not laconic when writing these lines. It was a big issue then and a pressing matter. The destruction of Jerusalem signalled the arrival of the Kingdom, finally!
And there are other things towards the end of GMark alluding to 70:
The parable of the tenants, where the son is killed by temple/jerusalem people but avenged later by the father.
Barabas, a fictitious revolutionist, is saved by Jews of Jerusalem (consequently bringing Jesus to the cross) through some stupid/unknown imagined custom, just to explain the holocaust of 70, Mk14:58. Of course, it's not very clear, "Mark" did not want to be obvious: after all, he was dealing with prophecies and parables, not things learned after the fact . And you still will have to explain why an author around 150 would be so exited about an event happening two/three generations earlier.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Spin:
You would have to explain to me about the logistics involved about very late gospelers (with Marcion the first one and missing all the GMatthew-like material!) compiling what had been written before about an earthly Jesus, And then later, why so many, so quickly, and with so many flaws. And it is very hard to explain how GMark could be derived from Marcion's. Texts analysis showed GMark was first, then the others (GMatthew & GLuke having knowledge of GMark. GJohn also, but it is disputed). Furthermore you are assuming one thing, which is not realistic:
The gospels were written just before they were quoted extensively. But according to your criteria, many ancient works, just like the ones of Josephus, in view of the few quotes up to the 4th century, would have to be pushed back for the dating. Even Eusebius' use of them (including spurious items) might not be enough according to your criteria. About Josephus' biography? Are you sure it is authentic? After all, someone wrote a book about saying the works are all forgeries.
I think there are many other ancients texts in that category, with even less external evidence in their favor. Among them, some can only be dated through the internal evidence only. External evidence, on ancient works, in view of the few surviving manuscripts, the little amount of writings done then (relative to modern times), is very hard to come by.
I think you are thinking modern times, when external evidence tracks (even precedes!) any publishing.
And then the gospels had another problems. With all their flaws, conflicts, unhistorical elements, unnamed, anonymous, they were not adopted whole right away. More, they were critized as tales & fables, and therefore best avoided.
That took a step by step process along generations, first using material from them (1Clement) to full acceptance (for 4 of them only) by Irenaeus.
All these factors have to be considered.

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

I think there is one significant difference Bernard - so much of the internal "evidence" in the Bible relies on an interpretation to begin with.

For example - people make references that they believe refer to the destruction of the temple.

But the passages do not say "the temple was destroyed". There are very,very few places where we see typical historical references like "in the 15th year of the reign of tiberius"...

Instead it's these muddled in the end times there will be "wars and rumours of wars"..."nation against nation"...signs in the heavens type of thing.

If we were dating a text that said "last year the Jews revolted and the Romans wiped them out, destroying their temple in the process" then we'd have a far more reliable internal dating.

spin

Cute but unconvincing as a parallel. We establish approximately 165 BCE due to a very full crypto-history in Daniel in ch 11 with its continuous references to the relations between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (along with three other major parallels). Your Marcan parallel is made up of your personal opinions cribbed together.

I don't make the sorts of vain guesses you are prepared to make. I have already commented that traditions get used and used and used again. We cannot hope to know all the motivations. The onus is on you to show that your position has more weight than mere opinion.

I mean no convincing background has been supplied for when Mark was written in Rome.

Certainly. The evidence for this dating is long and overwhelming.

But this is guesswork. Short and underwhelming.

I haven't supplied any definite date. I have said that the first written gospel we know anything about is that of Marcion.

The knowable events in Tobit place it around 700 BCE, yet no scholar would date it before 200 BCE. The indications from Judith are from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but again not prior to 200 BCE. Just because you cannot see a context other than the one that has caught your eye doesn't mean that there isn't one. The general view of the old dating of Daniel was held for many centuries before the revised dating of 165 BCE came to gain ascendency.

The reasoning behind such texts can quite easily be lost and never be datable. Because we can see a few indications in a book that its dating doesn't reflect the period it refers to you should be wary of attributing certain new datings based on little to no historical data.

Why ask vain questions? Mk 13:1-2 is the glue to hold what follows to the preceding section. You then proceed to use it for dating purposes. Good work.

It's endemic of a lack of historical methodology. Not all roads lead to Rome.

External, ie historically datable, sources are so few and far between I'm amazed at your certainties.

As Aristion first appears in the pages of that trustworthy of sources Eusebius, I'm impressed with your dating accuracy.

[QUOTE=Bernard Muller]I got a lot on presbyter John on one page of mine:
Revelation

Quote: "The most reliable piece of evidence about the existence of presbyter John comes from Eusebius . . ." Need I say more?

How many Johns have you conflated to get this history? Was the Presbyter John who was related to Papias according to Eusebius the same person you think wrote Revelation? It may be your best guess, but we shouldn't be guessing.

It is not wise to use a person writing a few hundred years after the facts as though he were a usable source.

Do you vote about the validity of historical data?

Yeah, just look at the was the Daniel writer gloats over Nebuchadnezzar or at Judith's defeat of Nebuchadnezzar's man.

Remember: "Wail ye; for the day of Yahweh is at hand; as destruction from the Almighty shall it come. . . and they shall be dismayed; pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman in travail: they shall look in amazement one at another; their faces shall be faces of flame." Isa 13:6,8

The apocalypse is always at hand. That is one of its characteristics.

As it always is for the apocalypsist.

But this passage was not written by the Marcan writer. It was basically a Jewish apocalypse borrowed for the occasion. Even the fig tree comes straight out of Jer 8:13, and there note the urgency of the passage.

This could have been written at any time after the fall of the temple. You merely have a terminus a quo.

I'm glad you can turn this cryptic little sentence into history.

Perhaps he was less obvious than you think.

I guess you are asking who is Hecuba to him and he to Hecuba, that he should get so excited. Yet Hamlet could get as excited as the actor he was referring to, even knowing that his uncle had killed his father. One of the interesting things about writing is that you can get excited about things that never even happened.

History requires historical evidence.


spin

Bernard Muller

rlogan:
The whole things is presented as prophecies. You cannot expect "Mark" to be cristal clear as for a historian reporting overtly after the facts (as Josephus).
Even so, "Mark" is undoubtably referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. There are just too many clues pointing in the same direction, some clues very graphic and accurate.
You would not expect "Mark" to positively date his gospel as written after the alleged prophecies of Jesus?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Spin:
I did not say GMark was written in Rome.


The evidence is not as overwhelming as in 'Daniel', but there is plenty enough for the dating.

Maybe you should. It is easy to criticize. Much harder to reconstruct. I also said that Marcion's gospel is known late and we do not have an ancient manuscript on it. His content involves some guess work. And just because from 175, Church fathers are against it, that does not make it the first gospel.

Yes, but I do not think these books say the end of the world will come after the last events mentioned. That's the main point.

Why didn't you answer my last question, vain or no vain?

That's why internal evidence has to be considered. Furthermore external evidence for GMark, certainly not overwhelming, are still existing.

Actually Aristion is first reported by Papias, and then Papias' books (extracts of them only) are reported by Eusebius, when Papias' writings were still in existence. Aristion is not important in the scope of thing, just he was known to be one of the last alleged eyewitness of Jesus.
Irenaeus, before Eusebius, also mentioned Papias and a few quotes from him, as I recall.

Only one, because John the fisherman never came close of 'Revelation', GJohn or the Johannine epistles. Ya for your question. Actually Papias reported on him no more than 20 years after the presbyter John (PJ)'s death and likely knew of him when he was still alive.
You are always sayings Eusebius invented the writings of Papias. Can you prove it?
However I do not think that Papias got the "info" about Mark's writing through PJ: it is likely Papias used PJ, a dead man then, to explain the apparent disorder in the gospel.

But 'Daniel' or 'Judith' did not say that the end will come right after Neb' related tales. That's the point you are missing.

Exactly, when these "prophets" were writting these things, they wanted to convey a sense of urgency in a time of crisis, to prevent the Jews to leave their faith. That why they were saying the end is near, stay with us and you'll be the benificiary of the new world order, instead of going through suffering or death. This call got repeated along generations by others, also John the Baptist, and even today by Christian cultist. Remember David Koresh? And despite the repeated failures in the past, suckers still believe that when someone of note would claim the end is near, the Kingdom will come soon, etc, that will happen.
Your cite is against Babylon, the main threat at the time, NOT the big End, and not representative of what I just said . Other parts of Isaiah (more so the last chapters) do mention a blend of God's wrath on the bad ones plus rewards for the faithful. So is 'Daniel'. So is GMark. So some TV preachers today.

"Mark" made quite a use of OT passages (that would include 'Daniel'). It was his advantage to have Jesus describing the apocalypse in the same words as it was described before (& Jesus had all the smarts from the Holy Spirit!). Christians/Jews will tell you, because failure of prophecy is not an option, every prophecied apocalypses in the OT are about the same one, which is still to come. I do not see it that way of course because I think in the historical context. Furthermore, in the OT, the end (or new beginning) is often stated to happen soon after the prophecy is claimed. And that's what the author wanted the folks to believe. "Mark" used the same artifice, very much used before, so also later the author of 'Revelation', and the Didache, and 'Barnabas', always betting the flock will believe the previous call for the end were not meant to be realised soon after. And it is still working!

Yes, but the Marcan text calls for the second coming to happen very soon after. That's the whole point.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Spin:
I am glad you noticed that too.

The father of Nero was not deified. But the one of Domitian was. So "son of god".
Domitian's successors, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius did not have a father deified, not even one who had been emperor. Only Titus, whose reign was short, had a father (Vespasian) he deified himself. But Titus was considered a good guy, unlikely to be the great deceiver.

Best regards, Bernard

Attonitus

Bernard, the hard is to prove the opposite. Eusebius is the more false and more disloyal historian than it has never existed, most of what writes are only lies. What evidences have you of Papias writings without Eusebius?