jakejonesiv

The P52 fragment is too small to define a precise date.


Jake Jones IV

hatsoff

First of all, I'm sorry for any rudeness on my part. Please understand, it's *very* frustrating to have someone accuse you of doing/saying something you did not do/say. However, I respect your opinions otherwise (and I hope you feel the same about mine). Let's get on with the discussion, shall we?

I disagree. I don't see Peter having the same prominence in other Gospel accounts. Have I missed something, with that regard?

It was not sloppy writing. On the contrary, I stand by it completely: Peter's prominence is only something we'd expect if Peter had a hand in Mark's writings. There are possible exceptions of course, just like you mentioned above, but so far I have seen nothing to indicate any of them apply.

Whoa, that's not what I said. Taken by itself, Peter's prominence means very little. In conjunction with Papias' claim, however, the concept gains more weight.

Reliability is not absolute. No source is ever 100% reliable, or 100% unreliable. This is a matter of degree. Papias' statements should be treated with suspicion--I grant you that. But you shouldn't ignore everything he wrote just because he was wrong about a few key points.

How about we use the word "convincing" instead of "reliable"? I do not believe Papias to be convincing. But just like I have strong suspicions he was mistaken, I likewise have equally strong suspicions that he was reporting at least somewhat accurately.

We sure do have evidence: Papias' claim, Mark 2:23-3:6 and chronological inconsistency with John (and to a lesser degree Matthew and Luke). Now, does that *prove* GMark is out of order? No. There's a difference between evidence, convincing evidence, and proof.

Amaleq13

Apology accepted but you need to understand that I am not reading anything into your words. I'm taking them as they are written. That you meant them to convey something other than the apparent meaning is not a problem on this end of the communication channel. I considered your confusion genuine enough that I checked with others to see if I was the one who is confused. Nobody seemed to feel you've been terribly clear in exactly what it is you are and are not claiming.

Agreed. I intend to focus on what you say from here on rather than anything you've said before.

Please point to specific passages you believe support this conclusion.

He is just as prominent in both Mt and Lk but, given that they used Mark as their primary source, that is to be expected. John, however, is generally considered to be independent of Mark and Peter is clearly a primary character in the story. Jesus gives him his special nickname and is mentioned by name more often than any other disciple. The addition of the anonymous "Beloved Disciple" does not change that fact of Peter's prominence in the story.

As I already mentioned, Paul clearly describes Peter as prominent in the story of Christianity's beginnings. He is, after all, the first identified witness to the risen Christ according to Paul.

In addition, every one of those church fathers tell us that Peter was prominent from the very beginning and not just because Mark's story depicts him as such.

What we have is an overwhelming amount of evidence that, regardless of who chooses to tell the story, Peter is a prominent character.

This is a generic fact that would only be surprising if it is missing from the story.

What I've described is not an "exception". It is an observation that completely negates your initial assertion. By all accounts, Peter was prominent in the story of the beginnings of the movement. Whether you define that movement as followers of a messianic claimant or as apostles of a risen Christ, all the evidence points to Peter as a prominent figure.

Peter's prominence is just as consistent with any other claim of authorship because we would expect it from any author. It is illogical to claim that a generic fact makes any specific claim more likely.

We're only concerned about two points here and neither can be shown to be true of canonical Mark. There appears to be no good reason to assume his two claims apply to the extant text.

I'm not what difference it makes. They go hand-in-hand. You can't have one without the other.

We agree! I reached my conclusion by finding no reason to consider his claims reliable. How did you reach yours?

That is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. It is illogical to consider the claim, itself, as evidence for itself.

Given that Papias only mentions one other author, that is the only comparison supported by the evidence. That said, I'm not sure those few passages can support the full weight of Papias' conclusion. I'll have to read them over and think about it.

Given Papias' stated views on written texts versus oral traditions, it seems more likely that he would favor an oral version of the story that somehow differed in order. That, of course, brings us back to your earlier "unverifiable" conclusion which still leaves Papias' claim without support.

youngalexander

"Hats off, gentlemen. A genius!" :rolling:

hatsoff

It sure is. How you can interpret my statements so erroneously I may never know.

That's probably because I'm "claiming" very little.

They used Mark as their primary source? Now who's making unverifyable claims? Oh, wait...you're using the same language I did--how perfect! So, using your logic, if we are to "expect" Matthew and Luke to feature Peter prominently, they must then draw from Mark, right?

That seems to be true, and thus evidence against direct Petrine influence.

At this juncture it might be best to note that the identity of the author is not what this thread is about (as I have noted several times, and as you seem to be ignoring). This is about date.

Ignatius quotes various NT Scriptures in c. 110 CE. That alone is enough to suggest 1st-century dates for Gospel traditions. Papias references Scriptures again in c.130, Justin in c.150 and Irenaeus in c. 170. Eusebius confirms all of this in the fourth century. Ignoring this collection of evidence would be unwise.

Amaleq13

The fact that I am not alone in my alleged misinterpretation should, at the very least, cause you to question the clarity with which you have expressed yourself.

I'm clearly relying on the majority view of scholars both Christian and non. Why should I rely on a minority view on this issue?

No, the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark is based on a comparison of the texts using the same techniques applied to all other ancient texts. The results of that comparison indicate that, between the two, around 90% of Mark is duplicated. From that conclusion, it is only logical that we should expect the same general plot and the same prominence given to the same characters. Their apparent dependence means that we should not consider them independent versions of the story.

Frankly, I'm a little confused why would object to this conclusion apart from the fact that it is shared by the vast majority of scholars. If we consider Matthew and Luke to be independent accounts, your argument from Petrine prominence is weakened to the point of non-existence!! After all, we clearly have Peter depicted just as prominently in those two texts as in Mark so, by your reasoning, we would be forced to conclude that all three involved Peter's direct involvement despite the fact that the same church tradition you feel should be accepted does not support such a claim.

Could you be more specific about what it is you are accepting as true? The evidence of John and the evidence of Paul clearly argue against your assumption that Petrine prominence in the story suggests direct involvement by Peter in the writing.

I am fully aware of the primary topic of the thread but, as you are well aware, I have been focusing on one aspect of your argument that I feel your are continuing to use despite failing to support it elsewhere. That you continue to have difficulty supporting it here certainly justifies my effort.

Again, if you do not understand how claiming direct Petrine involvement in the writing of a text is related to dating the text, I question your grasp of the argument.

If you wish to, IMO wisely, drop this line of argument, you need only indicate that to be the case.

I think it is enough to suggest the existence of anonymous, 1st century texts that were worded similarly to the canonical texts.

No, Papias mentions some oral "traditions" of unknown reliability which identify two authors of two texts that cannot be reliably identified as the canonical texts that acquired the same author attributions some time in the mid to late 2nd century.

Yes, the existence of the canonical texts is fairly secure by the latter half of the 2nd century.

Eusebius repeats all of this in the 4th century.

I agree. It is at least as unwise as attributing greater reliability to it than a rational consideration of the evidence warrants.

hatsoff

As far as I know, you're the only one who has pressed this issue. Even if others join you, though, that doesn't validate your attacks. My posts aren't perfect, I know, but I am quite sure of what I did and did not say.

Are you? How do you know it's not the minority view? Or that even those who have proposed the hypothesis treat it as anything other than speculation?

You missed my point, which was that you used the same language I did. You know: you called it "sloppy writing."

Here's a run down of what I think regarding this discussion...
1) The synoptics were probably written late in the first century.
2) GJohn may have been written in the first century, or possibly the second.
3) Mark may have written GMark, and he may have done so with Peter's help.
4) Luke may have written GLuke.
5) Matthew probably didn't write GMatthew.
6) The sky is green.
7) John probably didn't write GJohn.
8) The synoptics obviously drew from common sources and/or eachother.
9) The authors of GMatthew and GLuke may have drawn from GMark for material.
10) Papias was probably talking about GMark as quoted by Eusebius.

There ya go. Please note the distinction between "may" and "probably."

I have indeed had difficulty convincing you, sure. I don't take that to mean I'm mistaken about it.

I have made no such claim since early in the other thread (after seeing new evidence and changing my mind).

I'm aware that the texts as they survive today are not *exactly* the same as when originally written, but they're still the same general texts.

Julian

He may be the only one who has pressed it, but he is not alone in his opinion. I didn't add my voice to his because I considered his claims obvious. :wave:

Julian

hatsoff

I'm sorry to hear that, but, like I said, just because a few people disagree with me doesn't mean I'm mistaken.

robto

Since this thread is about dates, I thought it should be pointed out that the 200 CE date for the Muratorian canon is pretty doubtful. See Hahneman's book and the summary in McDonald. The fourth century is much more likely.

Unless I missed it, no one has yet addressed Andrew Criddle's comments on the relative order of Mt and Mk.