Toto

Papias is known from previous writers (See textexcavation) unless you think that Eusebius also authored Irenaeus and others (which is always a possibility.)

mountainman

(And not as historically unlikely as many might think.)

JoeWallack

JW:
External evidence in general is more objective and specific than Internal evidence and therefore normally has more weight. Here though all the useful External evidence is indirect:

1) The direct claims of orthodox Christianity are varied and probably all wrong.

2) We are left with references to varied content in "Mark" at various times.

The usual weakness with arguments from silence is diluted here because:

1) The original Gospel narrative would be of more importance to Christians than anything else.

2) We have lots of evidence for 2nd century recognition of "Mark" and none for 1st century. Relative to 20 centuries there's not much difference here.

3) The geographical link between the likely place of composition, Rome, and extant early interest, Marcion and Justin, makes a shorter discovery period likely.

4) The significance of the geographical location and extant early interest, Marcion and Justin, makes a shorter discovery period likely.

5) We can trace the timeline for discovery of subsequent Gospels in the 2nd century and see that it's a matter of decades and not centuries. Justin knows the Synoptics but not "John" or Acts. Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") knows all of them.

The External evidence is weak because there are no believable direct references and the interested institution asserts the opposite of what the evidence indicates. But the External evidence is consistent that "Mark" is 2nd century.

Due to the weakness of the External evidence here, Internal evidence could potentially outweigh it but here there is no direct Internal evidence. There is no claim by the author as to date of composition or even any indication of who the author was or when the Gospel was written. Also, this Gospel is highly stylized and contrived with large amounts of irony and a text vs. sub-text structure. It is a l--o--n--g way from a straight-forward account. Internal evidence is weak here in general and is not going to be able to overturn the External evidence.

The internal evidence also indicates a 2nd century date:

1) References to Josephus.

2) Anachronisms.

As far as choosing between the 1st or 2nd revolt as a setting, the 2nd was more traumatic (for Israel and Rome) and had the clear false Messiah. Related to this all the External evidence appears shortly after the 2nd revolt (Marcion, Justin el-all).

As far as "Mark" having an expectation that his Jesus would return shortly after the destruction of the Temple:

1) The original Gospel says there would be no sign for Jesus' generation.

2) Jesus' la-la is for the Reader (the reader's generation). I know because it says so.

3) "Mark" clearly shows Jesus as a failure at the Text level. He failed to make his disciples believe that he would be resurrected. Did "Mark" also intend to show that Jesus was a failure at the sub-text level? I'm not sure but I think he did. The combination of the Greek Tragedy style of "Mark" and a Gospel with a supposed primary purpose of convincing people that Jesus was resurrected ending by showing that no one believed Jesus was resurrected makes me think that this is primarily literature and not theology. If it's not theology than there is no problem with "Mark" showing that the Jesus' Mission failed.

In summary there's really no quality evidence for 1st century dating of "Mark", only the weakness of the evidence for 2nd century dating. But at least there's some evidence for that.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

the_cave

Recall though the series on Vridar's blog (aka Neil Godfrey) about an early date for Marcion:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/...e-for-marcion/

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/...rcion-early-2/

That still wouldn't establish a first-century date, but it would considerably narrow the window of opportunity for a second-century Mark...

andrewcriddle

Hi Joseph

IIUC your most plausible references to Josephus by Mark come from the Jewish War rather than from the Antiqiuties.

Assuming FTSOA that Mark did reference the Jewish War I don't think this would in itself indicate a 2nd century date.

Andrew Criddle

JohnB

I would not advise accepting any of the external evidence as reliable. Church history is based on Tradition, not historicity. Tradition is just a polite word for gossip.

Somebody believing in the divine and more particularly, divine men and miracles, does not need science (until they need to fly somewhere and then they find that a flying carpet is not as good as an aeroplane).

This thread discusses knowledge, when in terms of faith, knowledge has an entirely different meaning.

If the biblical Jesus existed, then all is possible and rational discussion is pointless.

In the world I inhabit, he could not have existed. I therefore suggest a variation on the original question: at what point in history does this biblical Jesus first appear? Answer please with a reliable external source.

Though I have asked this question of myself for quite a while, I cannot provide even a half-decent answer. My follow-up question would therefore be, why is that so - how is it that this question is virtually never asked, let alone answered?

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ypsepeter.html

JW:
This range of dating suggests that the Apocalypse of Peter has evidence that it was written before the Gospels and has evidence that it was written after the Gospels. How can this be? By having an original written before the Gospels and having an edited version after the Gospels of course. This looks to be the case with the Apocalypse of Peter.

Verses:

JW:
Looking at THE AKHMIM FRAGMENT I see nothing indicating a knowledge of "Mark". What I do see is a knowledge of Daniel and Revelation. The simple answer is that this author, c. 100, has never heard of "Mark". Looking at THE ETHIOPIC TEXT I see references to "Mark". The simple answer is that this author, c. 150, has heard of "Mark".

As to the Fathers, Clement of Alexandria is the first extant reference, late 2nd century.

Going back to the dating range of ECW, 100-150, if I take original Apocalypse of Peter as 1/3 through the range, I get c. 117. If I take forged Apocalypse of Peter 2/3 through the range, I get c. 134. That date, c. 134, keeps coming up here. Marcion is the first attributed user of a Gospel at this time and the Bar Kochba conquest is raging. The Apocalypse of Peter looks like more evidence for a post 125 date for "Mark". I think the Ignatian Epistles are the same type of evidence for a post 125 date.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

the_cave

But this is an artificial dating range. It's just shorthand for "first half of the second century". Year 100 does not serve as the terminus post quem, and year 150 does not serve as the terminus ante quem. It just means "In some period arbitrarily centered on 125CE, with the probabilities falling away from there". In fact it doesn't even mean that; it just means "More likely than not falling somewhere in the range of approximately 112.5-137.5CE." (i.e. not "around the turn of the century" nor "around the middle of the century".)

Again, if you're looking for a suitable period, the Kitos War would seem to fit better--reports of faraway wars, possibly also reports of magical phenomena (read Dio Cassius for an example related to the Parthian wars), possibly multiple messiahs (Lukuas from Cyrenaica, plus maybe the brothers Julian and Pappos) etc. (But then, I'm not arguing for the Kitos War as a date for anything--I'm just saying if you're looking for one, it's a good example.)

maryhelena

Hi, John

Well, now, that is a question after my own heart!

From another thread on this forum “Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?” - which referenced Neil Godfrey’ webpage, it appears that the first mention that Josephus had made reference to, a claimed historical, Jesus, appeared in the writings of Eusebius around 324 CE. That appears to be the earliest historical record - and to top it all appears to have been a forgery.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/


When was ‘Mark’ written? At least, to my mind, after 70 CE. How far after is not really that relevant - interesting though - as the further away one gets from the claimed events of around 30 CE things start to generate problems. Memories so easily become confused with their retelling. No doubt there were earlier ‘saying’ - but perhaps collected, remembered, from various wise men. Tradition, gossip, hearsay, urban legends, lots of possible ‘sources’ upon which to build up a story line.

If its the mythological position one upholds then any actual historical dating within the gospels needs to be viewed from that perspective i.e. as relating to the gospels mythology - not with any real relevance historically. Just because the mythological Jesus is set down around 29 CE - it does not follow that that dating has any relevance for a historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings.

In fact, Luke, when he makes his dating for Jesus of Nazareth, is clearly indicating that the 15th year of Tiberius, in 29 CE, has relevance in relationship to 40 BC, the rule of Lysanias of Abilene - thereby pushing backwards, by 70 years, the roots of the Jesus Mythology - hence also the time frame for an understanding of Christian history.

(Its popular practice of course to accuse Luke of being in error about Lysanias - that position is necessary for a historical Jesus - it is not a necessary position for the mythicist viewpoint.)

What does frustrate me at times is why the mythicist position seems so tied up with the gospels claimed time frame for Jesus of Nazareth. Surely, once a mythological Jesus is decided upon, the gospel’ claimed time frame should be discarded; discarded as having any specific historical relevance for the beginnings of Christianity. After all, the possibly 3 years that the gospels give to the ministry of Jesus, is just, in a historical sense, a blink of an eye. Whatever were the strands of theology, mythology and prophecy, that gave rise to the gospel story line - they were long in the making - but short in their retelling...

bacht

hi MaryH

I'm sitting in the mythicist camp these days (former Evangelical)

I have nothing to offer about dating Mark other than to observe that tradition and contemporary apologists want to date every NT text as early as possible. The only external evidence seems to be a few mss fragments no earlier than 2nd C.

As far as dating the ministry of Jesus the most obvious explanation for a date around 30 CE is simply counting backwards from the fall of the temple 40 years (ie one biblical generation).
Or this could've been the time when John the Baptist was active.
Or this could've been the time when apostles like James and Peter began a public career.
Or this could've been the time when the first Christian writings appeared, like the Christological hymns.
Or there was some eschatalogical significance to this date for contemporaries.
Or...?