PhilosopherJay

Hi Yalla,

I think this hand-washing argument is extremely important and helpful.

In my book "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (see EVOCC.COM)," I spend a lot of time on the dating of Mark.

I believe we can find two main layers of text in Mark's Little Apocalypse. In one layer Jesus gives a definite time period for the Apocalypse:

13.30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 13.31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

If people knew that Pilate killed Jesus, they would have assumed that Jesus is speaking no later than 37, (the last year of Pilate's rule in Judea -- the fifteenth year of Tiberius is a later Lukan/Marcion invention). A listener/reader would have seen that Jesus is predicting the Apocalypse for sometime in the 90's or early 100's, about 60-70 years after Pilate's time, when the last of "this generation" would have been dying off.

Apocalyptic preachers do not like to preach too far in advance. People think "Okay, the apocalyse is coming in twenty years so I'll have fun and wait nineteen more years to repent." Thus apocalyptic warnings are usually given within a very few years of the predicted event.

We can therefore suggest that this passage is likely to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's when a few 70 and 80 year olds would have been still around to talk about the times of Pilate. It would have been written when this older generation was about to die off and Jesus' prediction would have been on the edge of coming true.

However, note that Mark immediately makes Jesus' definite time prediction into an indefinite one.

13.32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Mark is actually negating the prediction that "the angel" or "son" Jesus has just made, or at least making it much more fuzzy. This makes the prediction meaningless. The only reason he would do this is because the time of the prediction had just passed. We may suppose that between the time of the prediction, circa 90, and the time of Mark's writing 100-110, all the remaining members of Jesus' generation had died off. If Mark was writing let us say in 120, he would either have ignored the prediction altogether or he would have changed it to something like, "I say two generations shall not pass away..." He would never have let Jesus deliver a totally failed prediction.

Thinking along these lines, we get a date around 95-110 for Mark's gospel. Anything earlier and there would have been no need to fuzz up the prediction. Anything later and the failed prediction would have been completely revised or ignored.

Now, if we take the handwashing evidence that the custom of the handwashing became universal around 100, this would suggest a minimum date of circa 110 for Mark, otherwise he would have remembered or known that it was not the universal custom of Jews in Jesus' time to wash their hands.

Combining the handwashing and prediction results, we get a date of circa 110 for Mark. Anything much earlier (more than ten years) and the handwashing analysis has to be wrong, anything much later (more than ten years) and the prediction anaylsis has to be wrong.

The evidence for this approximate date is much shakier than we would like, but it is the best we can do at the moment.

I am curious to hear your analysis of Mark's Little Apocalypse.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

yalla

Gidday PJ,
"I am curious to hear your analysis of Mark's Little Apocalypse"
Yes so am I. Curious to hear mine [and others].
I like yours above.

I have been through it [LA] a couple of times and reckon that it does not mean that the apocalypse [ oops I actually mean the return of JC, the 'end times'' if that is not the same thing] will occur in the lifetime of the generation of c30.
I stated that here some years ago and got badly burnt.
Maybe because I could be wrong, maybe because it fits in too well with the fundy position that seeks to explain the generation prophecy away because it obviously has not occurred.
Maybe my thinking is coloured by considering "Mark'' very late, c 100 at the earliest, and if he did mean apocalypse within the lifetime of the c30 generation then the time parameters are too restrictive for a 2nd century "Mark". A child in c30 would be a 100 plus years old in the 2C and surely "Mark" would not have envisaged that?

I like what you wrote above.

Give me some time to put pencil to paper [I'm a techno dinosaur] and go through the LA yet again.
I reckon a line by line, almost word by word, lock-step process is necessary.
When I presented my version here years ago I had my butt kicked and slunk off rapidly. But of course I still reckon I'm right..well maybe.

To me, these words, from your post, are the key..."all these things".
What exactly is "Mark" talking about?
What ''things'' will occur within the lifetime of '"this generation"?
I reckon its the destruction of the temple, the conflict with the synagogues etc..
Which fits into "Mark's" concocted scenario.
Someone who picked up this gospel hot off the press about 100CE could say "Jesus was right, he predicted the temple would be destroyed and it was. He predicted strife with the synagogue etc and [ dating birkhat ha-minim c90CE as part of that] and was right. The end times are here."
That's "Mark's" hook.
13.32 is his escape clause, it allows the indefinite delay of an imminent and always looming end time that will arrive like a thief in the night so as to keep the fish on the line.
1800 years later the fish are still stuggling.
The later gospelers added some more obsufcation, muddying of the waters, to give more wriggle room in answer to those who ask when is "it' going to happen?
"John'''s Ch 21 is an example when the rumour that the beloved disciple would still be alive had to be squashed because here it was well past the life span of any young person from c30 era and the end was not here. That dates "John'' Ch. 21 some time after the last of JC's alleged generation. Say a 100 years after c30 roundabout 130CE or a little later. I reckon it is no coincidence that the purported author of "John' is described as a very old man.

I would like to go through a detailed analysis of the LA.
I'm happy for you to direct the process.
cheers
yalla

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yalla,

One of the things that I do in my book is to separate out the original prediction from what Mark has added. I think this is perhaps a good starting point.

Here is that material (the Evolution of Christs and Christianities, Xlibris, pp. 297-298):

Here is the original prediction of the coming of man material separated from Mark’s additions:

Reconstruction of the Original Coming of Christ Material

7: And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet.
8: For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.

12: And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
14: "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
15: let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
16: and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
17: And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
18: Pray that it may not happen in winter.
19: For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.
20: And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved;

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 in the heavens will be shaken.
26: And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27: And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

30: Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
31: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Note how smoothly the text now flows as it describes the coming of the “Son of Man.”
Let us go back and examine the material that Mark has added to the apocalyptic John material to make it appear to be about the current period and his Christian movement. The following is the material that Mark added:

12. 5. Jesus said to them: Watch out that no-one deceives you.

6. Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.

9. You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.
10. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
11. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

13. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

21. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
22. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.
23. So be on your guard;

28. Now learn this lesson from the fig-tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
29. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.

32. No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
33. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.
34. It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
35. Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back--whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the cock crows, or at dawn.
36. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping.
37. What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'

Note first how Mark changes the time of the coming of the Apocalypse from the time immediately following the death and resurrection of the Son of Man when cataclysmic events are taking place to a time describing his own concrete situation: “You will be handed over to local councils” etc. Also note, he adds a weak apology at the end that nobody knows when the Messiah is coming. He is undermining the idea of the apocalypse in this generation, saying nobody knows when it will be.

The coming-of-Christ material is pretty generic, very much like Enoch and Revelation, perhaps written early in the period of War 66-70.
What Mark has added, the second text, is really describing his own time period. Apparently there are people claiming to be the Christ and Mark's group is losing people to them. On the other side, the Jews are cracking down on Christians in the synagogue, even flogging them. There apparently has not been a total separation of the two religions yet, as members of Mark's Christ group are part of the Jewish synagogue community.

At the same time Christians are being arrested and put on trial by the Romans. He is telling the people to hold out just a little longer and Christ will save them at any moment.

It is clear that Mark is very frightened. This is one of the most notable things about Mark's Gospel. He is constantly afraid and secretive. This strongly suggests that he was not out of the closet as a Christian when he wrote his gospel.

Line 10 about preaching the gospel to all nations is a later interpolation, almost certainly not from Mark, as it interupts the flow of the thought, and has nothing to do with the sentences before or after.

Those are some of my thoughts on the material.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Yuri Kuchinsky

robto,

You said earlier,

Why is it hard to understand on any other hypothesis?

IMHO it's just as likely that Mk copied some 'sandwiches' from Lk, and then added some more 'sandwiches' of his own.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Circa 110 sounds about right to me, Jay!

Best,

Yuri.

yalla

I would be interested in your reasons for this Yuri.
In particular what comments do you have on the ''handwashing" and chronology?
cheers
yalla

Doug Shaver

OK, Clement believed that Peter had been martyred. How is his mere belief evidence that Peter was in fact martyred? He doesn't say why he believed it. He doesn't say how he found out about Peter's martyrdom. He does not say where, or when, or how, or by whom Peter was killed.

As for Ignatius, it is a fact, not an opinion, that he does not say here that they were martyred. Even if it be granted that this cryptic remark could be reasonably interpreted as a reference to their martyrdom, such an interpretation assumes the conclusion.

That is evidence for the existence of a tradition about Peter having been in Rome. It's more than a hundred years after the alleged fact, and Irenaeus, like Clement, says nothing about his source of information. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It does mean that we have no good reason to suppose that it must be true. The only rationally defensible thing we can say about Peter's death is that we do not know when, where, or how it occurred.

robto

It sounds like you're assuming a model where Lk uses Mt and Mk uses Lk. So then what we have to assume is:
1) Lk preserves one of Mt's sandwiches and eliminates 2 others. But he also adds one new sandwich of his own. If he's not a fan of sandwiches, why would he do that?
2) Mk then copies Lk, keeping his two sandwiches and adding four more. Of those two, two happen to be in exactly the same place as Mt's two that were eliminated by Lk. That to me is an impossibility.

OTOH, you may be assuming Mk used BOTH Lk and Mt. In that case, (1) above is still true, but Mk copies Lk's 2 and Mt's 2 (there is one overlap), then adds 2 more of his own. This also seems an unlikely series of events, don't you think?

Julian

If memory serves, Yuri believes in Lukan priority.

Julian

andrewcriddle

Clement is writing about events c 40 years ago and which quite likely happened in his own city. This is prima facie credible evidence.
On reflection I agree that Ignatius is too ambiguous to be used as evidence for Peter's martyrdom.
Streeter in 'The Primitive Church (or via: amazon.co.uk)' Appendix D presents a strong argument (based on comparing the accounts of Roman Christian history in Hegesippus Irenaeus and Epiphanius) that Irenaeus' source is Hegesippus who (as quoted by Eusebius) investigated the subject in Rome in the early 160's.

I agree that this is still about a century after the alleged events occurred.

Andrew Criddle