proudfootz

Yes, but that's not in the Ten commandments. Nothing in there forbidding divorce in any versions I have read.

Cheating on one's spouse may be 'adultery' but after divorce your 'ex' isn't your spouse anymore.

It's extra, apparently.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Yes, I think that we really cannot say much about what the situation regarding the 10 Commandments was in the Second century. We simply don't have enough historical evidence to know very much about what life was like in Judea in the Second Century. We have Josephus to tell us at least a little about Jewish life in the First Century, but who do we have from the Second century to give us some kind of picture?

The only time marker we can be sure about is the destruction of the Temple, but are we talking about the first destruction in 70 or the second destruction around 135?

One can point to the "this generation shall not pass" phrase as a marker for 70, or one can point to the "not a stone upon stone" phrase as a marker for 135. Neither of these or any other internal evidence makes me willing to bet the farm.

The lack of any real quotations and references to the Gospels before the late Second or possibly Early Third centuries makes me believe that a Second century date is more probable, but I would love to have something more solid/definite to go on.

Keep digging, ye archaeologists.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

sorry brushing my sons teeth

aa5874

Reference to The Ten Commandments is not evidence that gMark was written in the 1st century.

The Commandments are found in Hebrew Scripture or the Sepuagint and was the most likely source employed by the author of gMark.

Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint was used in the 2nd century by apologetic sources like Justin Martyr, and Tertullian.

stephan huller

adultery ban is part of the ten

proudfootz

Yep. I noticed.

But divorce isn't mentioned yea or nay.

stephan huller

but you understand that this has nothing to do with my premise.

aa5874

How does castration help your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 1st century??

stephan huller

I am not sure Jay and Michael are understanding what I am saying. The narrative was written for an audience. If we assume that Mark chapter 10 was not a historical event but something Mark or someone else made up, it makes very little sense to imagine that Mark strove for such realism that he created a realistic Jewish subtext for a Gentile audience. After all none of this actually ever happened.

Indeed I can't see why Mark would need to have the narrative read that way. Why mention the outdated conception that Moses wrote all the commandments beside those 'God given ones' at Sinai? Clearly this must have been Mark's own conviction or that of his audience. The underlying point is very serious. The Law of Moses was no longer valid. How does this fit in the second century cultural milieu?

A comparable event is described in the rabbinic literature. There is a Jewish sect which says that with the destruction of the temple they can't consume wine or eat meat. This is very Marcionite.

stephan huller

It isn't an argument for dating the text only for explaining the chapter. Clement never says it but how is someone supposed to stop lust. It is never directly referenced. "Thou shalt not lust" is a frighteningly impossible demand.