Doug Shaver

Irenaeus said John wrote it. I am aware of no other reason to think so.

Julian

This will tell you all you want to know and then some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works

michael wellenberg

The answer is : we do not know the reason for Mark´s geographical errors, and we, too, do not know, in general, where Mark´s concern for historical data prevails his theological intent and where it is the reverse, and to what extent Mark is interested in historical details, at all.

Agreed. Inaccurate geographic/historical details may discredit Mark as a historian though ...

... not as religious thinker who tries to convey his Christological concept.

Michael

andrewcriddle

We have various pieces of evidence that Peter
a/ was martyred: John 21, 1 Clement, Ignatius to the Romans.
b/ was in Rome: 1 Peter, possibly Clement and Ignatius, the memorial to Peter and Paul in Rome set up by Roman Christians 150-160 CE. (1 Peter 5:13 as evidence for Peter in Rome does not depend on whether or not it is pseudonymous.)

We have an explicit claim that Peter suffered under Nero in the Acts of Peter c 200 CE but this is pretty late.

However the reference to Nero killing one of the 12 apostles in the Ascension of Isaiah chapter 4 is highly likely to mean Peter.

If so then on the standard dating of the development of this work this would bring the tradition back to 150 CE or before.

(Also If Peter was martyred in Rome then Nero is anyway the most likely Emperor to be responsible.)



Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

Would you please quote the passages from Clement and Ignatius that you think prove he was martyred?

yalla

D.Nineham in a footnote p.39 in "Mark" Pelican 1963 on the authorship of the gospel of "Mark" and the patristic tradition:

"...the testimony of early Christian writers subsequent to Papias, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., Origen and Jerome...it is not clear that these writers had any trustworthy source of information other than the Papias tradition. Where they add to it their statements frequently conflict and are often clearly influenced by their desire to associate the gospel as completely as possible with Peter. Thus Irenaeus [like Papias] seems to think Mark wrote after Peter's death; later however the composition of the Gospel is placed in Peter's lifetime - without his sanction [Clement], with his approval [Eusebius], at his dictation [Jerome]."

Eusebius "H.E." 2.15.2 "It is said that, on learning by the revelation of the spirit [about Mark's gospel] the apostle [Peter] was delighted and authorized the reading of the book in the churches....Clement quotes the story in "Outlines" Bk.VI...."
Note that Peter is dead when he finds out.

Do these qualify as credible sources?
cheers
yalla

yalla

There are other reasons, in addition to the above, for placing the writing of Mark after 70CE.
See "Mark" 7.3 and 12.1-10.

michael wellenberg

What do you mean with "(the reasons) above" ?

Mark 7:3 as evidence for a date after 70 ? How do you manage to read this verse this way ?
And 12:1-10 is a parable, which implies that the vineyard is still worth anything when the owner gives it to other tenants. But if it represents Jerusalem or the temple (or both) the parable cannot refer to the temple´s destruction, as there is nothing left being worth anything after this event.

Michael

yalla

"The reasons above" is reference to Julian's X Fretensis/Legion link.

Mark 7.3 has "the Pharisees and ALL THE JEWS do not eat unless they wash their hands...."
"According to Jewish experts in these matters, the evidence of the Talmud is that in the time of Jesus ritual washing of hands was obligatory only on the priests....the ordinary layman - including the Pharisees and the scribe was not concerned with such questions of religious defilement...it is agreed by everyone that at about A.D.100, or a little later, ritual washing did begin to become obligatory on all...." Nineham "Mark" page 193.

The key point, whether or not the Talmud evidence is accepted, is that such hand washing for ALL Jews began at 100CE. According to Nineham anyway.
So that is very suggestive that the author of "Mark" was writing at, about or later than 100CE.
I'll leave 12.1-10 for later..
cheers
yalla

andrewcriddle

Clement chapter 5 Ignatius to the Romans chapter 4 Opinions may differ as to whether this is evidence that Ignatius believed Peter and Paul to have been martyrs. IMHO Ignatius' claim that only by suffering and death can he attain any remotely comparable status to those two apostles, implies that he regarded them as having suffered as he expected to suffer. (This passage in a letter addressed to the church in Rome may also possibly provide evidence that Ignatius believed that Peter and Paul had been active in Rome)

In my previous post I should probably have mentioned as evidence for Peter in Rome Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 c 180 CE and as evidence for Peters' martyrdom Dionysius of Corinth c 170 CE according to Eusebius Andrew Criddle