Jayrok

JW,

I don't have any external evidence other than what people have already presented, which I'm sure you are familiar with. I honestly don't know and I'm open to evidence for any dating whether it be post AD 70 or Post AD 130. I'm fascinated to see evidence either way.

I don't know what weight the first fragment found has on this issue. If the first fragment is found mid second century I guess I'd say "so what?" Who says that fragement found in the mid second century is the original document? Maybe it was a copy of the original which could have been composed in, say, AD 71, which has since been lost. How can we know for sure?

As far as Papias not mentioning, or the mention he has not being Biblical Mark, again... so what? To say something didn't exist because someone didn't mention any reference to a work doesn't mean it didn't exist in his time. Maybe it was circulated in communities unfamiliar to Papias?

I don't know. Not sure if we'll ever have concrete evidence either way.

Jayrok

And for Detering's article, I agree it seems to fit the Bar Kochba revolt post 130. But it could also fit into the Roman/Jewish War of 66-70 just as well.

One piece of evidence I think has bearing is the mention of Jesus casting the demons (Legion) into the herd of Pigs and forcing them down to their deaths into the sea. I believe this is a literary reference to the Roman 10th Legion (Legio X Fretensis) as they had occupied Judea and it was symbolic of Jesus returning and casting out these specific Roman occupants who were oppressing the Jews. This unit's symbol was a Boar or Pig. They've found images of a pig on buildings and the like which must have been humiliating for the Jews, of course.

So the issue is when was the Legio X Fretensis stationed in Jerusalem or Judea? They were there for the War of the Jews in 66-70 and stayed on afterward. However they were also used in the Simon Bar Kochba revolt 50 years later. They were expelled from Jerusalem at the beginning of that revolt (which would fulfill Mark 5:11-13). But later returned to take part in the crushing of Bar Kochba's rule.

After the ransacking of Jerusalem the Romans set up pagan statues and monuments, including a marble statue of a pig, the symbol of Legio X Fretensis.

So it seems it could fit into both events, the Jewish War of 66 or the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 132. If post 130 I could see how they would want to remove the invaders since there were statues of Pigs in the holy capital of Judaism.

X Fretensis Link

It seems likely that Mark could have included this scene if he was writing post 132 since it was around that time that this unit helped crush the Bar Kochba uprising and reign in Jerusalem.

However, there is no mention in Mark of any person like Simon Bar Kochba in his gospel who expelled the Romans at any point. His writing seems to indicate the Jews wanted someone (Jesus!) to expel the Romans who were in rule.

It seems to fit the Jewish Roman War in the late first century. It also could fit the time frame Detering proposes. But is it likely, if the latter is true, that the author of Mark would have included some type of blurb of a "false messiah" such as Simon who tried but failed to defeat the Romans for good... and that this is why the Jews misunderstood the Scriptures of their messiah? I mean, since Simon failed, it is really Jesus who is the true messiah who will once and for all uproot and destroy evil (such as the Roman Legion X Fretenis). It could be that the lack of mention of the temporary victory of Simon showing that the true messiah is Jesus, is evidence that Mark was written prior to the Bar Kochba revolt.

JoeWallack

JW:
The External evidence indicates that OCD (orthodox Christian dogma) is promoting "Mark" after Papias, c. 125, and before Justin, c. 155. Regarding Papias, because of the traditional Christian assertian that Papias is evidence of "Mark", scholarship, including Skeptical scholarship, has gotten into the bad habit of starting/only presenting Papias' supposed evidence for "Mark".

Looking at the related Wiki page for Papias, Papias of Hierapolis, we see the familiar word "fragments" ("quoted in later writers"). It would seem that there is no Papias without "fragments". They apparently go together like Obama and hope, Obermann and hype and Osama and hide. Only problem is, there are no fragments. Obviously OCD did not preserve Papias because it disapproved of it in total. OCD diapproved of Papias in total because it did not agree to the Canonical Gospels. It did not agree to the Canonical Gospels because they did not exist at the time.

To a lesser degree we see the assertian that Irenaeus quotes Papias. We have no such extant beastie. What we do have is Eusebius referring to Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons") referring to Papias. More on that later. What we normally do not see is what we can see regarding extant Irenaeus on the subject of supposedly identifying "Mark":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html

Note that every single assertian above is probably wrong:

1) The character Matthew did not write "Matthew".

2) "Matthew" was not composed in Hebrew/Aramaic.

3) Peter and Paul never preached together at Rome.

4) "Mark" was written before "Matthew".

5) "Mark" does not credit Peter.

6) "Luke" was not written by a companion of Paul.

7) "Luke" is not based on Paul.

The issue of Irenaeus' time is Source. Who has the real source that goes back to Jesus. Irenaeus sure sounds like he is working backwards starting with the assertian that OCD has the chain going back to Jesus and than making the argument. That's why none of the steps in his argument work, because he has the wrong conclusion.

Note that Irenaeus, an agent of Rome, always claims that the source goes back to Rome in some way. The Bishops go back to Peter and Paul in Rome and the Gospels go back to Matthew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

Also of note is that when Irenaeus identifies users of individual Gospels:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html

"Mark" is the only one that Irenaeus does not confine to an individual group indicating that there was no community that created and preserved it because it was the original. Irenaeus also confesses to us that "Mark" was clearly understood in his time as Separationist. In addition, Irenaeus supports Marcion's "Luke" as first since it is the community that is only using "Luke".



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

the_cave

FWIW I find it far more likely that canonical Mark could date to the time of the Kitos war, rather than the second revolt. Detering doesn't even really seem to consider this possibility. The "desolating sacrilege" was IMO the X legion and their standards.

JoeWallack

JW:
Bringing Josephus into the picture is also Internal evidence but while we are on the subject it looks to me like "Mark" was familiar with Josephus c. 94:

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

And last, and least, not from Shirley Markowitz but from Skeptical critic DC Hindley:



Josephus

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

IamJoseph

The term christianity and christ did not emerge till post-174 CE. There is no record of that statement by Barchochba, nor does it appear historical or contextual: the war at this time was with Rome and an existential one. In fact what is accused of the jews - was strictly a Roman, then a Roman Catholic doctrine: mass murdering Jews exiled in Europe for not accepting the Gospels, while all ancesters of today's christians were horrifically enforced to accept the Gospels.

It is extremely implausable that any Jewish figure, as purported and subscribed to jesus - would call such alledged disbelief in him as blasphemy. The only blasphemy in Judaism would be strictly alligned and limited with the Hebrew bible's laws - else it is very clear this could never be a Jewish person, and only a pre-christian European fits the texts.

In fact, not long after this point, European christianity rejected Mohammed, making its own criteria of judging a far older and sustained belief as blasphemy incredible: how can one be called blasphemous for observing what was a 2000 year belief - and rejecting a new, contradicting one - would you - could you!? I ask how can a scripture touting revelation not mention the sacrifice of 1.2 Million Jews who upheld their belief against Rome's decree of heresy in the war of 70 CE - and can this ever allign with the premise of disbelief? I see this as a terrible lie-by-omission.

Islam does the same thing, pushing its own totally contradicting belief from the NT. It means the Jews would have been blasphemous whichever way they turned - and a double whammy applies if they stood still and remained as Jews! Fair go!

Logic says a Plan B should apply: while both the NT & Quran cannot be correct, there is every plausable premise only the Hebrew bible and its Jewish interpretation can be right - which is now seen as a disdained truth. But Islam inclines more with the Hebrew bible than with the Gospels, while the figure of Moses is believed by a greater cencus than both Jesus or Mohammed [2 B Christians, 1.2 B Muslims, 14 M Jews].

It seems then that the christian belief was strictly ushered as a mysterious compulsion for Europeans - alligning with their own cultural beliefs of the past. Which is fine - all peoples are subject to this syndrome. The Gospels never needed to insert all those ficticious charges against Jews to legitimise itself - this has damaged Christianity and otherwise genuine believers by incurring it a most horrific history, and one which was totally and abjectly without any truth or historical veracity. It culminated in antisemtisim, blood libels, the Protocols and the Holocaust. Obviously, not everything in the NT is holy writ - and it has no mandated law, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT - its only exit clause to free itself of such false baggage.

'A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER'

JoeWallack

JW:
What I get from your response is that we do not have quality evidence to date "Mark" which I agree with. However, you still need to evaluate what the existing evidence indicates. I called you out on your dating of 70-100, what was your support for that, and you have not provided anything specific above.

Generally, support for an earlier dating is Christian tradition which asserts that an acquaintance of Peter was the author. I've demonstrated that this is unlikely as a key, if not primary, purpose of "Mark" is to discredit Peter as witness to Jesus. This is supported by all the different Christian traditions I have presented in The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter identifying different people as "Mark". This is consistent with the traditional Christian assertion not being historical. The traditions as to just who was the Mark that was behind "Mark" are different because there was no such historical person to identify. We even know how Christianity misidentified the author of "Mark", because of what Papias wrote. We are therefore left with no meaningful evidence to date "Mark" 1st century.

On the other side, dating "Mark" second century, we also lack quality evidence. No first-hand, second hand, any hand or even foot witness as to when "Mark" was written. What we do have though here is some indirect evidence:

1) Lack of any reference to "Mark" or any Canonical Gospel until Marcion c. 135 and no clear references until Justin c. 155. The cumulative failure of Christian authors to refer to something they would have such enormous interest in gives some weight here to second century dating.

2) The apparent familiarity with Josephus supports 1). By itself, this is weak as "Mark" may just be referring to the same history.

3) The extant manuscript evidence also supports 1) but by itself is very weak.

Comparing the evidence on either side we see that the traditional evidence to date "Mark" 1st century is wrong, leaving no apparent meaningful evidence to support "Mark" as 1st century. The evidence for 2nd century is weak, but it's there, and is certainly greater than the evidence for 1st century dating.

You can save the "so what" comments for Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is substituted for research.

Okay, the Jayrocky had his chance to explain why he chose a date of 70-100 for "Mark". I can't help thinking of the classic "confrontation" in the classic The Breakfast Club between Mr. Dick and Bender when Mr. Dick concludes with "That's what I thought." I'll open it up to anyone, including Christians, as to what evidence they have that "Mark" was 1st century. Someone, anyone, Bueller? If no one repsonds than I'll assume that Stephen Colbert also supports a 2nd century date.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

andrewcriddle

One problem with a very late date of Mark is that the Apocalypse of Peter appears a/ to have been written during the Bar Kokhba revolt and b/ to make use of the Synoptic Apocalypse found in Mark 13 and parallels.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You must mean that the Apocalypse of Peter could not have been written earlier than the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Once the Apocalpse of Peter contains information that can be reasonably assumed to be about the revolt, then this would only give a no earlier than date of writing.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Yes, I think a post-135 date conforms to the latest evidence. We may take Detering's arguments plus the fact that there are insufficient external references/evidences to place it earlier. As Joe Wallack points out,there is no First century evidence. The evidence only starts to be significant as we head towards the latter part of the Second century.

This makes sense from another point of view. It is only after the Bar Kokhba revolt that Christians would need an Anointed Messiah named Jesus from Nazareth.

Let us say that the Christians before the Bar kokhba only have a vague idea of Jesus Christ, as Paul and the writers of the Apostle letters do. He is primarily a name given to a future Messiah. He will have the same name, Jeshua, as the man who God/Moses annointed to liberate Israel from the Canaanites.

The Christians have been predicting the coming of Jesus to liberate them from the Romans from the time of John the Baptist. Bar Kokhba persecutes these Christians because they refuse to recognize him as their predicted Messiah/Son of David.

After the war, the Christians would be seen by the followers as traitors who refused the true Messiah - Bar Kokhba, and went over to the side of the Romans. The position of the followers of Bar Kokhba towards the Jesus Christ worshipping Christians would be something like, "The true Messiah came and you Christians did not recognize and worship him. Because of you faithless Christians, we Jews were defeated and our Christ crucified by the Romans." The first Christian response would be, "But he was not the true Messiah, he was the false Messiah. God will send the Messiah in the future and his name will be Jeshua/Jesus." The Jewish response must have been something like, "If God did not send a Messiah to avert this incredible disaster involving the destruction of nearly all his people and his holy city of Jerusalem, then he will never send a Messiah, and even if he did, after all the signs that Bar KoKhba did, and you still did not recognize him, how would you recognize him in the future.

The Christians needed to prove two things: 1)God would send a Messiah and 2)it was the faithless Jews, not the Christians who would not recognize him. But how can we know that this will happen? The ancient farming communities had a cyclical view of nature. We can only know things in the future because they happened in the past.

The Solution was the invention of Jesus of Nazareth and the gospels.

The solution was to go back to the time of the last great prophet, John the Baptist, in the previous Century. It turns out that there was a little known Messiah, little known because he was from a small town named Nazareth in Galilee and only preached for about a year. The Jews did not recognize him and in fact, on one faithful passover, they turned him over to the Romans for execution.

The Christians needed to come up with an historical figure to match Bar Kochba's popularity. They had none, so they invented one. They had no histories of him, so they created the gospels.

This is the basic explanation of why the mythic Jesus was invented. It explains how Christianity came about. It is a theory that the historicists claim the mythicists do not have.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay