JoeWallack

JW:
I wasn't sure what to do with the Apocalypse of Peter when looking at potential External evidence for dating "Mark" in The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter. I tried to reduce my bias by using the mid-range date from ECW and for the Apocalypse of Peter that would be:

"Estimated Range of Dating: 100-150 C.E." = 125.

On the one hand I do not see any clear references in it to "Mark". On the other hand it is logical to think that this apocalypse assumes an earlier basic narrative such as "Mark". Both of these need to be demonstrated though. You have the complications here of:

1) Wide range of dating

2) Significant textual variation

3) Significant missing text

4) Clearly forged/psuedofed (claims to be dictated by Peter)

Does it refer to "Mark's" la-la?:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...r-mrjames.html

I think it's unclear if this shows evidence of "Mark". Too many differences.
There's a lot of work to be done here just to make an indirect argument that
the Apocalypse of Peter, mid-range c. 125, is evidence that "Mark" existed at the time and it only evidences c. 125. You voted "70-100". What else do you have?

There is a potentially better category of evidence for an earlier dating of "Mark" and that is usage of Canonical/near Canonical Gospels by Gnostics. Marcion is the earliest attributed user of a Canonical Gospel c. 135. Per the orthodox, he apparently did not originate it and the orthodox want to attribute his usage as late as possible. And if Marcion was already using "Luke" c. 135 than "Mark" was earlier.

OCD (orthodox Christian dogma) does not want to go here because it concedes that the Canonical Gospels start with the Gnostics. But it explains many things. "Mark" is written in Rome so Marcion finds/creates a version of it ("Luke") in Rome. "Mark" is clearly Separationist and anti-historical witness so OCD considers it Gnostic and avoids it. As a reaction, OCD gradually asserts that Peter was a historical and documented witness. When the forged ending is added to "Mark" flipping witness from Revelation to Historical and the other Canonical Gospels are written so that OCD can claim "Mark" is coordinated with them, than OCD can claim "Mark" as it's own. I think this is the argument that needs to made to date "Mark" earlier. But who has made it? Jeffrey?

You know what they say, just like cops have the best dope, counter-missionaries have the best Apologies.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

There seems to be confusion about what Marcion used for his gospel. Tertullian claimed that Marcion seemed to mutilate Luke, yet Tertullian referred to events only found in gMatthew.

Tertullian Against Marcion 4

.

The claim by the orthodox may be bogus. Marcion probably knew only about the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

andrewcriddle

IIUC many of the positive arguments for dating Mark late involve associating Mark with the Bar Kokhba revolt.

If we can firmly establish that Mark has to be earlier than that, then dates shortly after 70 CE become much more attractive IMO than later ones. Luke (almost certainly) and Matthew (probably) have redacted their material so as to deal with the delay of the return of Christ after the fall of Jerusalem. I can find nothing in Mark to indicate that he is faced with this problem.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

There is virtually nothing in gMark to date it early. The writing is really anonymous and nothing about the character Jesus or the disciples can be shown to be true.

Now based on the incredible information found in gMark, it is reasonable to assume that these impausible and fictitious events were written very late in order to make them appear more believable.

In gMark, the supposed Jesus claimed he would rise from the dead after three days, and based on the author of gMark, Jesus did die and was raised from the dead.

For the resurrection story to be believable it must have been written very late to avoid the detection of the falsity of the event.

And further, the claim that gMark was the first written gospel is problematic, since since one must assume that a character called Jesus did exist or that there was some oral tradition of Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist, then there would not have been any oral tradition, yet gMark is written as though the reader already is aware of a character called Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist then gMark was not the first Jesus story to be written, since the author wrote as though Jesus was already known to have existed and introduced the character as Jesus Christ, the son of God, in the very first verse without any other pertinent details of the character.

the_cave

But then how do you explain the similarities?

You just made it yourself (and I have long seen it that way--indeed, I stated above that I saw the Kitos War as a much more likely millieu than the Second Revolt). So why do you keep claiming Mark was written after the Bar Kokhba revolt?

the_cave

Aren't you ignoring Andrew's claim--that if gMark were written much later than 70-100CE, it should be more worried about the delay of the Messiah's return? (The way that Matthew and Luke seem to worry about it.)

If gMark were written in, say, 100CE (which would fall within the range of "70-100CE"), why wouldn't that be late enough to meet your criteria?

I think all of this is quite right. And the conclusion you draw from all this is...what exactly?

Shouldn't it be either

--There was a historical Jesus

or

--There were Jesus stories that predated gMark

(or both)

?

aa5874

I am trying to tell you that it cannot be ascertained when gMark, as it is found today, was written based on the extant inromation that is now available.



The point is that there is just not available information to date gMark with any certainty before the Diatessaron by Tatian.

Justin Martyr did mention a passage only found in gMark but Justin did not mention any author or disciple of Peter called Mark.

The full contents of the Memoirs of the Apostles are unknown. The actual names of the writers are not known.

And it should be noted that because gMark does not contain its own peculiar birth narrative and many events and dialogue are similar to gMatthew as found today, it makes the dating of gMark even more difficult.

So, if it is accepted that Jesus did not exist and that there were no stories about him, gMark as found today, may have been written after gMatthew, that is, from after the writings of Josephus ( circa 93 CE)to the Diatessaron by Tatian. ( circa 170 CE).
,

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Since the Diatessaron of Tatian is lost, how can we be sure that Mark's gospel was included in it?

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=aa5874;5829842]

aa5874

My analysis was based on the reconstructed version of the Diatesaron. Now, if the reconsruction of Diatessaron is erroneous, it will further complicate the dating of gMark as we have it today.

rlogan

Hi PhilosopherJay -

Generally your stuff on BC&H is quite good.

Stick with what you know. I try to avoid analogies for a lot of reasons. This is one of them. Excellent potential to draw away from, instead of to your point. As a practicing economist I just can't conscience this characterization and won't detail because it is a derail -

other than to say "ouch".

But to the OP - count me solidly in the Detering camp.

There are a lot of other associated dating issues of course, along with positions on the Pauline corpus & etc.

But we have nothing whatever through the first decade of the 2d century, not even a whisper of an oral tradition being remarked upon by anyone.