Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-19-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Sorry Stephan I'm confused here. If we count 490 years "from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" (by Cyrus?) we're ca 48 bce; if the dating starts with Darius I we're still in Herod's era

[oddly enough the fall of the temple is approx seventy weeks after Ezra, weird]

I don't believe in this nonsense. What's important is 'tradition.' Tradition can and usually is stupid. My mother for instance told me from the day I was born that we were related to BOTH Karl Marx and Groucho Marx (interestingly the tradition wasn't 'the Marx brothers'). Is there a grain of truth that we might be related to some famous Marx (incidentally when I was doing research a long time ago I came across that the family that own Marks and Spencer in the UK knew of this stupid story so maybe I am also related to those rich people).

There is some way that the Jews tried to justify this stupid tradition. I never paid much attention because I thought it was stupid to begin with but there is a way it all seems to work.

My interest is that the tradition does exist and from such an early date (third century CE) and the most surprising of all sources - Alexandrian Christianity.

avi · 08-19-2010, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Can someone please explain me reasons for (quite common) dating Mark to times during Jewish War, and not some years after it?

In my opinion, this myth arises from "Papias", as interpreted by the two stalwarts: Irenaeus and Eusebius.

There are no extant documents from Papias.

avi

aa5874 · 08-19-2010, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Can someone please explain me reasons for (quite common) dating Mark to times during Jewish War, and not some years after it?

In my opinion, this myth arises from "Papias", as interpreted by the two stalwarts: Irenaeus and Eusebius.

There are no extant documents from Papias.

avi

Eusebius dates gMark during the time of Philo of Alexandria or BEFORE the Jewish War c70 CE.

"Church History" 2.16

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.

Of course when the writings of Philo are examined NOT a single word is mentioned about any character called Mark, NOT a thing on any gospel called "according to Mark, NOT one thing about Jesus of Nazareth, NOTHING on churches that "Mark" started and NOTHING about Jesus believers.

Justin Martyr clearly stated that during his time that it was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the churches on Sundays there is no mention of a gospel "according to Mark".

Now, in gMark 6.3 it is implied that Jesus was a carpenter but Origen supposedly in the 3rd century claimed there was NO gospel current in the churches where Jesus was a carpenter.

This is Origen in "Against Celsus" 6.16

Quote:

....in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter...

And it is even more interesting to note that Origen knew of more than one VERSION of gMark.

"Against Celsus 1.

Quote:

...The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel.

It would seem that present KJV Mark is a late writing, that there were many versions in the third century based on Origen and that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" was possibly the earliest Jesus story.

stephan huller · 08-19-2010, 07:34 PM

AA,

This is very mportant:

...The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. [Origen Celsus 1.62]

I have been looking for clues like this for quite a while. It was very nice to make your acquaintance!

Clement also seems to have knowledge of a similar textual variant in Mark when he notes in Quis Dives Salvetur "But further, the Lord Himself is a guest with Zacchaeus d and Levi and Matthew/ wealthy men and tax-gatherers, and He does not bid them give up their riches."

All of this strengthens, little by little the existence of an Alexandrian variant gospel of Mark like 'secret Mark' of the Mar Saba document. There are other clues too/

Thanks again I could never find this one.

bacht · 08-20-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Can someone please explain me reasons for (quite common) dating Mark to times during Jewish War, and not some years after it?

Another dating possibility is the reign of Domitian (81-96) as proposed by Doherty, who quotes Wells quoting Haenchen:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset28.htm#Ben

The argument is based on the intention of Domitian to force Jews into emperor worship. Revelation would be referring to the same crisis.

andrewcriddle · 08-21-2010, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

AA,

This is very mportant:

...The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. [Origen Celsus 1.62]

I have been looking for clues like this for quite a while. It was very nice to make your acquaintance!

I suspect this is the Western text (Bezae et al) variant in Mark 3:18 Lebbaeus instead of Thaddeus. (Lebes is presumably Lebbaeus)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-21-2010, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

AA,

This is very mportant:

...The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. [Origen Celsus 1.62]

I have been looking for clues like this for quite a while. It was very nice to make your acquaintance!

I suspect this is the Western text (Bezae et al) variant in Mark 3:18 Lebbaeus instead of Thaddeus. (Lebes is presumably Lebbaeus)

Andrew Criddle

And which text of gMark did not have Mark 6.3 where it is implied Jesus was a carpenter?

According to Origen who seems to be aware of more than one version of the Gospel according to Mark claimed that there was NO current gospel in the Church where it was taught the Jesus was a carpenter.

Origen statement tends to indicate that gMatthew's Jesus story where Joseph was a carpenter was BEFORE gMark.

"Against Celsus" 6.16

Quote:

...that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter...

jgreen44 · 08-21-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin Martyr clearly stated that during his time that it was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the churches on Sundays there is no mention of a gospel "according to Mark".

But...

"Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3)."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Brian63 · 08-21-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Can someone please explain me reasons for (quite common) dating Mark to times during Jewish War, and not some years after it?

People tend to be more attractive when they are younger, and so Mark would have gotten more action earlier on in his life than some years after.

Brian

(P.S. Homage to Boro Nut.)

aa5874 · 08-21-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin Martyr clearly stated that during his time that it was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the churches on Sundays there is no mention of a gospel "according to Mark".

But...

"Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3)."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

That is not so at all. Justin Martyr refers to "HE", "HIS", "HIM" and "HIMSELF" with respect to Jesus not Peter. Justin did NOT write a single thing about any character called MARK.

Examine the "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.

And further there is NO apologetic claim from any Church writer that Peter wrote gMark.

Justin Martyr was simply NOT referring to Peter or MARK.

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

08-19-2010, 07:34 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	AA, This is very mportant: ...The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. [Origen Celsus 1.62] I have been looking for clues like this for quite a while. It was very nice to make your acquaintance! Clement also seems to have knowledge of a similar textual variant in Mark when he notes in Quis Dives Salvetur "But further, the Lord Himself is a guest with Zacchaeus d and Levi and Matthew/ wealthy men and tax-gatherers, and He does not bid them give up their riches." All of this strengthens, little by little the existence of an Alexandrian variant gospel of Mark like 'secret Mark' of the Mar Saba document. There are other clues too/ Thanks again I could never find this one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.