spin

There is no tangible reason to date Mark then.

Or possibly totally wrong.


spin

gurugeorge

What that does is make it unlikely that "Mark" knew historical details about his cultic god-man - it doesn't preclude him thinking that his "superhero" figure was historical.

It could be that he thought he was historical, but nevertheless, due to a paucity of known facts, he made stuff up about him.

I think we need to distinguish between two senses of "fiction" here. In terms of "fiction" in the abstract, sure, the NT is fiction, but in terms of being deliberately made up either to decieve or written with no historical or religious intent (like a novel), that seems unlikely. People then didn't have the historical sense we have now (or it was rarer), and seem to have felt that if they were strongly inspired that something happened in the past, or experienced a vision about something that happened in the past, then it must have happened.

andrewcriddle

I too find the use of the term "fiction" in discussions on this forum confusing.

IMO it should be used when suggesting that Mark etc should be understood as being the same genre as works like Chaereas and Callirhoe. (Something I find highly unlikely).

However it seems to be being used in a much wider sense, eg to mean what I would call legend.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, the evidence points to the author writing deliberate fiction. My KJV Bible states "Mark" wrote gMark between 50-60 AD, now if this is true, then "Mark" should have known that, for example, the 3-hr darkness, as written in gMark 15.33, was entirely fictitious. No-one ever witnessed such an event, it appears to be deliberate fiction.

If "Mark" wrote as early as 50-60 AD, then he should have known that the feeding of the 5000 men with 2 fishes and 5 loaves and, in another instance, feeding 4000 men with 7 loaves, was most likely to be false, yet he wrote about these events to give the false impression that Jesus of Nazareth was a God with supernatural powers.

The story of the drowning of the 2000 pigs appears to be deliberate fiction, "Mark" should have known that this event was most likely false, but this event was included to give the false inclination that Jesus had supernatural powers to control and destroy devils.

If "Mark" was a Jew, he should have known that it was not the custom of Jews to annoint a dead body after it was buried for at least 2 days, (Mk 16.1), the author called John showed that "Mark's" rendition was false in John 19.40.

And if a person reads Justin Martyr's extant writings, it would appear that up to the 2nd century, Justin Martyr did not know of any writer named "Mark" or the names of any gospel writer including "Paul".

Or if a person reads the writings of Philo, claimed to be alive during the entire life of the so-called Jesus, this writer recorded no event about any Jesus of Nazareth, his followers or doctrine as described by "Mark".

The information about Jesus of Nazareth in gMark appears to be deliberate, the author seems to want his readers to believe that a God was on earth during the days of Tiberius, but today, it can be deduced that this is far from the truth.

schilling.klaus

i don't accept such a naive assumption

that's an absurd argument,
as Mark's gospel is deliberately simplified for doctrinal purpose
in many occasions.
It's usually not the only argument used, though.
Only wishful positivist euhemerist thinking makes
the most primitive gospel the first one.

no, that's impossible. only Irenaeus mentions mark gospel,
thus it can't predate mid second century.

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus

of course not, Irenaeus and his henchmen around 100 years past that
naive dating of Mark's gospel were the first to see it.
and should be supposed to have invented it.

those are to be understood allegorically,
not literally as falwell does.

like everyone else


Justin Martyr never uses Mark's gospel.

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

Who were Irenaeus' "henchmen" -- and what is your evidence that he had any?

Why? Because you say so?

And is there any reason why when posting here that you can't observe the ordinary conventions of capitalization?

Jeffrey

spin

You've made this claim before, but with just as much evidence behind it. (None.) Your claim may be right, but how would we know? How would you know?

"Irenaeus and his henchmen" is such an uncool expression which brings to mind gangsters of the 1920's. What makes you think that Irenaeus had any "henchmen" and why did you happen on them as your culprits for Mark?


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

Really? What exactly was "the doctrine" that Mark's Gospel simplified and on what "occasions" in Mark in particular do you see as being a simplification of this pre Markan doctrine?

When -- i.e., exactly how long before the production of the Gospel of Mark -- was this doctrine established, and by whom? What was their motive for establishing it? And how did they go about doing so?

And what actual evidence -- not appeals to authority, but actual evidence -- can you produce that establishes the validity of the answers that you think are answers these questions?

Jeffrey

patcleaver

I think your wrong.

If the Catholic Church substantially revised Eusebius then the book was no longer "written by Eusebius". Since the Catholic Church was an infamous forgery mill, we have no reason to think that any document we have was written by Eusebius. We only know that the Catholic Church claims that we have a book by Eusebius.

I obviously meant nobody before Eusebius. If you know of anyone who identifies and cites Irenaeus before 330 CE then please provide a references.

Apollinarius of Laodicea is late 4th century claims he knows a quote from the fourth book of Exegeses of the Words of the Lord about the later life of Judas. He may just be making it up or he may just be repeating a rumor or he may have been quoting Eusebius or someone else, there is no way to verify that he had a copy of Papias or that Papias said those things.

Philip Sidetes, is 5th century and claims that Papias said that those resurrected by Christ lived until the time of Hadrian. He may just be making it up or he may just be repeating a rumor or he may have been quoting Eusebius or someone else, there is no way to verify that he had a copy of Papias or that Papias said those things.

Maximus the Confessor, is 7th century claims that the fourth book of Exegeses of the Words of the Lord said various things, but he does not seem to be quoting from the book. He may just be making it up or he may just be repeating a rumor or he may have been quoting Eusebius or someone else, there is no way to verify that he had a copy of Papias or that Papias said those things.

Anastasius of Sinai, was 7th Century, in Considerations on the Hexaemeron 1 wrote that "Papias the Hierapolitan, the illustrious, a follower of him who leaned on the bosom, and Clemens, Pantaenus the priest of the Alexandrians, and Ammonius the most wise, the ancient and first exegetes, who agreed with one another, who understood the six days as referring to Christ and the whole church" which just seems like popycock. He may just be making it up or he may just be repeating a rumor or he may have been quoting Eusebius or someone else, there is no way to verify that he had a copy of Papias or that Papias said those things.

Andrew of Caesarea was 14th century and in On the Apocalypse, he quotes Papias, but does not provide any reference of tell us where he got the quote. He may just be making it up or he may just be repeating a rumor or he may have been quoting Eusebius or someone else, there is no way to verify that he had a copy of Papias or that Papias said those things.

Have you verified that what the above claim that Papius wrote did not come from Eusebius? If so, how do you know that they are not just repeating something that someone told them or someone else wrote?

I obviously meant nobody before Irenaeus. If you know of anyone besides Irenaeus who cites Papias before 330 CE then please proved references.

Eusebius does not say where he got his quotes or claim to have access to the books of Papias, and if he said it, then I would not believe him. He may just be making it up or repeating a rumor or he may have been quoting Irenaeus or someone else, there is no way to verify that he had a copy of Papias or that Papias said those things.

Most of your information and my responses are from your website textexcavations which, by the way, is excellent. One problem with your website, and in fact most Christian websites, is that they do not discuss the reliability of the material. No secular scholar would present dubious information without at least commenting on what indications of reliability we had for the information.