Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 10-10-2008, 07:01 AM

JW:
Previously:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown

Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Fourth "Mark"

Source: Jerome

Date: c. 400

Author: Peter

Description of "Mark": Scribe

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Fifth "Mark"

Source: Hippolytus/Fake Hippolytus

Date: c. 202 - c. 19th century (We'll see how the Assertian fits the timelieon at the end)

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Jesus

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Now on to Sixth "Mark":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602102.htm

Quote:

But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life of men. Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer. For in his narrative he gives nothing in concert with John apart from the others: by himself separately, he has little to record; in conjunction with Luke, as distinguished from the rest, he has still less; but in concord with Matthew, he has a very large number of passages. Much, too, he narrates in words almost numerically and identically the same as those used byMatthew, where the agreement is either with that evangelist alone, or with him in connection with the rest.

JW:
Well this looks like a different "Mark" because this "Mark" is primarily dependent on "Matthew".

So:

Sixth "Mark"

Source: Augustine

Date: c. 400

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote after "Matthew" and before "Luke"

Author Source: "Matthew"

Authority: ?

Location: ?

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 10-11-2008, 07:42 AM

JW:
Previously:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown

Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Fourth "Mark"

Source: Jerome

Date: c. 400

Author: Peter

Description of "Mark": Scribe

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Fifth "Mark"

Source: Hippolytus/Fake Hippolytus

Date: c. 202 - c. 19th century (We'll see how the Assertian fits the timelieon at the end)

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Jesus

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome

Sixth "Mark"

Source: Augustine

Date: c. 400

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote after "Matthew" and before "Luke"

Author Source: "Matthew"

Authority: ?

Location: ?

Hmmmm, Six "Marks". Maybe it is the Mark of the Beast. Or, as the Marxist said in Top Secret, "How do we know "Mark" was not written by Mel Torme?".

Here is another related attribution, not necessarily for who wrote "Mark", but for who did not write "Mark":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....vii.xvii.html

Clement of Alexandria

Stromata

Quote:

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

JW:
Here we have the orthodox confessing to us that Basilides claimed authority through Peter of an interpreter named NotMark (Glaucias). Note that the fool and knave orthodox translator has added the interpretation "(as they boast)" to try and move the claim from Basilides to his followers. Understand how the game is played Dear Readers?

Consider for a moment that what Christians like Bauckwards can try to get out of references to "Mark, the interpreter of Peter" is more overworked than Arnold Swarzenegger's muscles and smile and the comPeting gnostic claim of "Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter", is harder to even find than (Mc)Cain's campaign strategy or Palin's qualifications.

Once again we have a Marcion moment. Instead of the question here being who had original "Luke", it's who had the correct interpreter of Peter. Having two claimed interpreters of Peter strengthens the theory that they are theology interpreters and not language interpreters.

Note that the key to the orthodox (Clement) argument here as to who had the real witness is time period. The orthodox claim their witness is pre-Hadrian and the Gnostics are Hadrian. The first supposed orthodox written claim is Papias, but we have seen that he did not write before Hadrian. Basilides wrote during Hadrian. So whose interpreter of Peter claim came first and who was Reacting to the other's claim?

Next, Seventh "MarK", Anon A. Muse. A timelion up to Papias.

Joseph

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

andrewcriddle · 10-11-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Here is another related attribution, not necessarily for who wrote "Mark", but for who did not write "Mark":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....vii.xvii.html

Clement of Alexandria

Stromata

Quote:

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

JW:
Here we have the orthodox confessing to us that Basilides claimed authority through Peter of an interpreter named NotMark (Glaucias). Note that the fool and knave orthodox translator has added the interpretation "(as they boast)" to try and move the claim from Basilides to his followers. Understand how the game is played Dear Readers?

The Greek text of the passage from Clement is conveniently online at papias
"as they boast" seems a valid translation of hWS AUChOUSIN AUTOI

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 10-13-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Here is another related attribution, not necessarily for who wrote "Mark", but for who did not write "Mark":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....vii.xvii.html

Clement of Alexandria

Stromata

Quote:

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

JW:
Here we have the orthodox confessing to us that Basilides claimed authority through Peter of an interpreter named NotMark (Glaucias). Note that the fool and knave orthodox translator has added the interpretation "(as they boast)" to try and move the claim from Basilides to his followers. Understand how the game is played Dear Readers?

The Greek text of the passage from Clement is conveniently online at papias
"as they boast" seems a valid translation of hWS AUChOUSIN AUTOI

Andrew Criddle

JW:
Hmmm, I didn't think anyone was reading this. If only you had been around when Eusebius wrote. The offending verse:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....vii.xvii.html

Quote:

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

"(as they boast)" is in parentheses and not brackets. Brackets indicate Editorial comment in translations while parentheses communicate the original author clarifying or setting aside part of what was written by the original author (part of the translation).

BDAG (it' my BDAG baby) confirms AUChOUSIN as "boast" and on page 1105 (3rd) gives a meaning of WS of "focus on a conclusion existing only in someone's imagination or based solely on someone's assertion." They than give examples of the questionable assertion presented in parentheses. Doh!

Perhaps all is not lost though. While looking at the above I now notice:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....vii.xvii.html

Quote:

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

JW:
Basilides was early 2nd century and we have an orthodox Christianity assertian here that Marcion was older while Basilides was younger, pushing Marcion's witness to the 1st century.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 10-14-2008, 06:53 AM

JW:
Let's put together a timelion now for Attribution of authorship to "Mark". From:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

JW:
There is no physical evidence for a 1st century "Mark". Are there 1st century assertions for a 1st century "Mark"?

The earliest known Christian author is Paul c. 50. Paul shows no evidence that he is aware of any Canonical Gospel and is anti-historical witness in attitude.

The next earliest known Christian author is Forged Paul:

Quote:

Now on to the next Evil and Wicked Early Christian Writing, the Forged 2 Thessalonians. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, that ECW dates c. 90

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...nians-asv.html

2 Thessalonians. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians

Quote:

...

2:1Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; 2:2to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand; 2:3let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 2:4he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. 2:5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 2:6And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. 2:7For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. 2:8And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming; 2:9even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2:10and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2:11And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: 2:12that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2:13But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2:15So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours. 2:16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, 2:17comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
...

JW:
Again it's clear that the Author shows no evidence of knowledge of the Canonical Gospels. All information comes Directly or indirectly from Paul or the Jewish Bible. Specifically, "Gospel" for this author means an oral message. The message is Explicitly anti-historical witness as it claims knowledge through Revelation.

JW:
Thus we have it on good authority that in the 1st century it is likely that orthodox Christianity was unaware of "Mark" or if it was aware, did not consider it authoritative.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 10-16-2008, 07:32 AM

JW:
Putting together a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" let's consider the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 10-17-2008, 07:53 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

As a side note, the commentary on the destruction of the Temple is interesting:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.xvi.html

Quote:

Chapter XVI.—The spiritual temple of God.

Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: “Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I? “Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest? Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, “Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.” It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction.” And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

JW:
Note that this author is Explicitly aware that the Temple was destroyed and places all predictions that it would be destroyed in the Jewish Bible. There is no mention that any contemporary historical witness such as Jesus or a Gospel predicted that the Temple would be destroyed. This author has no knowledge of Jesus' supposed prediction of the destruction of the Temple in the Canonical Gospels. The Epistle of Barnabas c. 100 than is not only evidence that there was no "Mark" at the time but is also evidence that it is a source for a subsequent "Mark" as "Mark" takes the Jewish Bible predictions of the destruction of the Temple here and attributes them to Jesus.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 10-18-2008, 06:52 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Quote:

5:1 But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time.
5:2 Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation.
5:3 By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
5:4 Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
5:5 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.
...
42:1 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ;
42:2 Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
42:3 So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ.
42:4 Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.
42:5 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost,
42:6 they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
42:7 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
42:8 And this they did in no new fashion;
42:9 for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times;
42:10 for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, {I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith}.

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. This appears to be a Transition time here, c.110. Claimed Revelation is toned down. The author is still unaware of any Canonical Gospel and never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but he does mention Peter. We also see the start of a transition to a Historical witness claim as we now have an implication of a claim that there was historical witness from Jesus to the Apostles:

"42:5 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost,"

This implies a claim that the Apostles (as 1 Clement boasts) knew Jesus before he was resurrected. So c. 110 is the start of claimed historical witness to Jesus but not including anything written by contemporaries.

As a side note to the question of the offending "this Generation" Assertian, note that 1 Clement, c. 110 has no problem referring to Peter as belonging to his generation.

Joseph

aa5874 · 10-18-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Putting together a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" let's consider the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

This is quite interesting. You are using another multiple character called "Paul" to try to sort out the identity of some other multiple character called "Mark".

The Revelation Paul wrote that he was aware that Peter was preaching the gospel, that there were churches in Christ, and that he persecuted those who believed the gospel. See Romans, Corinthians and Galations . And if the gospels were canonised sometime in the 4th century, the Revelation Paul would not be aware of the Canonical Gospels.

Now, the Revelation Paul quoted passages that are found only in gLuke, he claimed it was a revelation, that is hardly likely to be true, it is more likely that he was aware of the Jesus stories.

Justin Martyr was aware of the Jesus stories, yet was unaware of the Canonical Gospel.

Justin used the memoirs of the apostles.

Did the Revelation Paul use the memoirs of the apostles, too? It is almost certain nothing was really revealed but was either read or heard by the Revelation Paul before he wrote.

JoeWallack · 10-19-2008, 09:01 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Quote:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus [This is one of the authentic ones?]
...
Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles;

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

Joseph

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

10-16-2008, 07:32 AM	#16
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Putting together a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" let's consider the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness: c. 50 Paul Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus. c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31 Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. c. 90 Forged Paul - Ephesians http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31 Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time. Joseph

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.