FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

View Poll Results: When Was "Mark" Written Based On The External Evidence?
Pre 70 3 8.11%
70 - 100 14 37.84%
100-125 4 10.81%
Post 125 16 43.24%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2009, 02:05 PM   #61
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Is there an earliest possible date? If we strip out references to xyz historical people or events and for argument say they are later additions, do we have anything like camel trains happening before they were invented?


Might it be a BCE document?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 02:50 PM   #62
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Is there an earliest possible date? If we strip out references to xyz historical people or events and for argument say they are later additions, do we have anything like camel trains happening before they were invented?


Might it be a BCE document?
Well, considering that he quotes from the LXX, it can't be earlier than that :/
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 02:55 PM   #63
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Well, considering that he quotes from the LXX, it can't be earlier than that :/
Negative. The LXX quotes from Mark.

/edit
I've changed my mind. Mark and the LXX share a common source... We'll call it "Q."
jon-eli is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 02:56 PM   #64
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon-eli View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Well, considering that he quotes from the LXX, it can't be earlier than that :/
Negative. The LXX quotes from Mark.
Please elaborate.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 03:01 PM   #65
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Please elaborate.
It was a lame attempt at humor.

/edit
Mainstream scholarship is even lamer than my attempt at humor, so I think the attempt was justified.
jon-eli is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 03:21 PM   #66
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

You can add a </sarcasm> tag if you need to. We get enough wild stuff here that is posted in earnest (at least seemingly.)
Toto is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 05:10 PM   #67
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
The term christianity and christ did not emerge till post-174 CE.
Then why does Tacitus use them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
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].
Truth isn't a popularity contest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
For the resurrection story to be believable it must have been written very late to avoid the detection of the falsity of the event.
This assumes that there were people with the ability and desire to investigate the event's truthfulness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
And further, the claim that gMark was the first written gospel is problematic, since since one must assume that a character called Jesus did exist or that there was some oral tradition of Jesus.
How is this a problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
The evidence only starts to be significant as we head towards the latter part of the Second century.
It takes time for people to become familiar with a work. It's prudent to assume that a work originated some time prior to its first blip on the historical radar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
Obviously OCD did not preserve Papias because it disapproved of it in total.
Obviously. And the OCD didn't preserve some dozen or so of Tertullian's works. Obviously they disapproved of them in total. This also explains the missing fragments of Juvenal's 16th satire. And why we have nothing written by Socrates. And why marshmellows are pink or white, but never green.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
1) The original Gospel narrative would be of more importance to Christians than anything else.
This is assumptive, and a generalization. Christians aren't a monolith, and even if they were, it can't really be deduced what was or was not the most important thing to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
3) The geographical link between the likely place of composition, Rome, and extant early interest, Marcion and Justin, makes a shorter discovery period likely.

4) The significance of the geographical location and extant early interest, Marcion and Justin, makes a shorter discovery period likely.
We don't know where Mark was written, or by whom. And even if we did, maybe it was like an art-house film, and simply didn't travel in the correct circles to be noticed by anyone important.

More to the point, who's to say that it didn't sit quietly on John Mark's desk for decades, until someone came across it and decided to disseminate it? The writer may simply have died before showing it to anyone. Existence does not imply circulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
5) We can trace the timeline for discovery of subsequent Gospels in the 2nd century and see that it's a matter of decades and not centuries.
And by a process of unjustified extrapolation and generalization, extend this to the case of Mark?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
The internal evidence also indicates a 2nd century date:

1) References to Josephus.
Can someone shine some light here? Most of the Josephan parralells with Mark don't seem to suggest a direction of dependence. It could go either way. And besides, many of the parallels, such as Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple, are clearly constructions based directly (and I mean directly) off the Old Testament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
2) Jesus' la-la is for the Reader (the reader's generation). I know because it says so.
Are you referring to the parenthetical remark: "let the reader understand"? How do we know this isn't marginal gloss?
jon-eli is offline  
Old 03-13-2009, 02:18 AM   #68
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

bacht wrote:
Quote:
hi MaryH

I'm sitting in the mythicist camp these days (former Evangelical)

I have nothing to offer about dating Mark other than to observe that tradition and contemporary apologists want to date every NT text as early as possible. The only external evidence seems to be a few mss fragments no earlier than 2nd C.

As far as dating the ministry of Jesus the most obvious explanation for a date around 30 CE is simply counting backwards from the fall of the temple 40 years (ie one biblical generation).
Or this could've been the time when John the Baptist was active.
Or this could've been the time when apostles like James and Peter began a public career.
Or this could've been the time when the first Christian writings appeared, like the Christological hymns.
Or there was some eschatalogical significance to this date for contemporaries.
Or...
Hi, bacht

Welcome to the camp! I’ve been sitting in the mythicist camp a good 25 years now. First got started on this road with John Hick’s ‘The Myth of God Incarnate’. Since then I’ve not read anything nor heard any argument to change my mind.....

My main point in the above post is:

Quote:
Just because the mythological Jesus is set down around 29 CE - it does not follow that that dating has any relevance for a historical
reconstruction of Christian beginnings.
The date 29/30CE was a historical date, i.e. the 14th year of Tiberius. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that because this date relates to the gospel’ mythological Jesus, that this year also relates to a historical reconstruction of Christian history. Particularly, when it is evident, from the gospels, that they are endeavoring to tell their story in relationship to OT prophecy.

The gospel writers found 29/30 CE to be significant in regard to a prophetic interpretation of the OT. However, it does not follow that what they 'saw', what they inferred, as happening in that year is in anyway a historical, a real, happening. What they 'saw', or inferred, is not simply about a mythological man who they sat down in 29/30 CE - it is about a much longer time frame in Jewish history - a much longer time frame that has been given a prophetic interpretation.

Indeed, as you wrote, 29/30 CE can be viewed as a counting backwards 40 years from 70 CE. Indicating, of course, a backdating element in the gospel story. (Mark 13:1,2.) This in itself, does not work negatively for the historical Jesus position. But, if we can see in the gospels a backward dating element from 70 CE - why stop there? Why not also view 29/30 CE in a similar fashion? As a date from which to work backwards - in this case Luke' 70 years backward dating to Lysanias of Abilene.

From this perspective one can, even using the gospel accounts themselves, widen out the time frame in which to look for the early beginnings of Christianity. Confining the search to the few very years around 29/30 CE is, in my view, one that is too confining.

In regard to the dating of the gospel of Mark: Indeed, most likely it was written after 70 AD i.e. that is complied into some sort of finished product. However, the early 'sayings' can well have a history going back way beyond 29/30CE - way back in fact, as a reading of Luke can indicate, to 40 BC - and even beyond that. And surely, at the end of the day, does it not make more sense to have a wider canvas upon which to draw?


In my view, the mythicist camp is selling itself short here i.e. by playing the historical Jesus 'game' in relationship to the gospel story time line - and not speaking out of the box, so to speak, and look at the very real possibility that the earlier ‘saying’, Mark for example, could be dated far earlier than the consensus, Jesus historical, position, of 29/30 CE.

Such an approach could well remove the popular Jesus historical position i.e. the one that removes the mythological clothes but keeps the normal, historical, human man functioning during the gospel time frame. The wider the gospel canvas can be stretched - the notion of a historical human Jesus begins to collapse under the strain.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 03-13-2009, 01:19 PM   #69
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post

[/SIZE][/FONT]In fact, Luke, when he makes his dating for Jesus of Nazareth, is clearly indicating that the 15th year of Tiberius, in 29 CE, has relevance in relationship to 40 BC, the rule of Lysanias of Abilene - thereby pushing backwards, by 70 years, the roots of the Jesus Mythology - hence also the time frame for an understanding of Christian history.

(Its popular practice of course to accuse Luke of being in error about Lysanias - that position is necessary for a historical Jesus - it is not a necessary position for the mythicist viewpoint.)
This is really interesting. One does get the impression that there's some "fuzziness" in early Christianity as to when, precisely the Messiah was supposed to have lived, and this seems to be an example of it.

Sometimes it seems as if they didn't really care much - "oh, some time in the recent-ish past" seems to be about the size of it. I wonder if we can find any evidence of any more "punts" by early Christian writers into their relative past, as to when their Messiah lived? When did a consensus about 0-30 CE evolve, and how?
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 03-13-2009, 02:54 PM   #70
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Mark for example, could be dated far earlier than the consensus, Jesus historical, position, of 29/30 CE.
I don't see how Mark can be dated earlier than Pilate's prefectship. If you'd like to date it to 26AD and insist that Mark wrote his gospel the day after the crucifixion, well go for it. But if any earlier than that, then I probably won't be the only one asking for an explanation.

/edit
And by "crucifixion," I mean "alleged crucifixion," or "allegorical crucifixion," or whatever your preference might be.
jon-eli is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.