Toto

Trajan died in 117. Why would this require Mark to have been written before, e.g., 110?

Ignatius has been so heavily interpolated by later editors that it is hard to use as evidence, especially since Ignatius does not refer to the gospels by name.

aa5874

It is most bizarre to assume Ignatius was aware of gMark.

Ignatius did NOT even mention a writer called MARK or that there was a gospel according to Mark in any of his Epistles under the name of Ignatius.

Toto

aa- andrewcriddle did not claim that Ignatius knew Mark - he said that Ignatius appears to know Matthew, based on some apparent quotes from the gospel according to Matthew (which might have been anonymous in the first half of the second century in any case.) Most readers conclude that Matthew knew Mark.

Please read more carefully.

Johnny Skeptic

Does that have anything to do with where Mark's sources got their information from?

aa5874

Sorry for the error.

But the same stands.

Ignatius did not mention a writer called Matthew and did not claim that there was a Gospel called "according to Matthew.

Justin Martyr mentioned a writing called the "Memoirs of the Apostles" which may be the first ANONYMOUS writing about Jesus.

It must first be ascertained when the Memoirs of the Apostles were written.

No passage in any writing supposedly before Justin Martyr can be said to be from gMatthew, gMark, gLuke or gJohn when it may very well be from the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Johnny Skeptic

In one of my previous posts, I showed that there is not sufficient evidence that Peter wrote Luke and Acts.

What evidence suggests to you that Peter was one of Mark's sources?

What did Peter see? There is not sufficient evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

DCHindley

This is not an issue. No one ever stated this in ancient times.

I thought this was covered in post 6382270. Five sources are given for this tradition, ranging from the early 2nd through thre early 4th century CE.

Now you are becoming circular. If Peter was Mark's primary source, and Peter was a disciple of Jesus, then Peter's information would be first-hand, and Mark's would be second-hand. If Peter told Mark that he saw Jesus perform miracles, then that would be evidence that Jesus performed apparent miracles. Judging whether this testimony is "sufficient" or not is to add a value judgement.

Your question should be whether Mark actually used a real life disciple of Jesus named Peter as a direct source.

The later writers could also be mistaken about Mark's source being Peter.

Maybe Mark created the character Peter (and maybe even all the characters not plucked from actual history) as a character in a morality play later called a gospel. Then later generations may have come to believe a fiction such as this as actual fact.

But, there is not sufficient evidence that Mark wrote fiction ... oh, there I go adding value judgements!

DCH

aa5874

And who created the character called Mark? There is no evidence external of apologetics that there was an original gospel called "according to Mark".

And which supposed disciple of Jesus would have truthfully told anyone that they saw Jesus walking on water, saw him transfigure with two Resurrected prophets , and that Jesus was seen alive three days after he was supposed to have been dead and buried?

Now, it is obvious the author of Mark wrote FICTION and that there is sufficient evidence since we have a Gospel called according to Mark.

The following is FICTION in gMark.

1. The descending of the Holy Spirit like a dove when Jesus was supposedly baptised. See Mark 1.10

2. The curing of leprosy with a touch from Jesus. See Mark 1.41-42

3. The curing of palsy by the words of Jesus. See Mark 2.11-12

4. The healing of a man with a withered hand by the words of Jesus. See Mark 3.5

5. The calming of a storm at sea by the words of Jesus. See mark 4.39

6. The drowning of the 2000 pigs filled with demons. See Mark 5.1-17

7. The raising of a dead girl with the words of Jesus (the dead cannot even hear). See Mark 5.41

8. The feeding of the 5000. See Mark 6. 37-44.

9. The walking on the sea by Jesus. See Mark 6.49

10. The curing of the deaf with a speech impediment by a touch and spit. See Mark 7.33

11. The feeding of the 4000. See Mark 8.9

12. The healing of a blind with spit. See Mark 8.23

13. The transfiguration with resurrected prophets Moses and Elias. See Mark 9.2-4.

14. The talking cloud. Mark 9.7

15. The curing of an epileptic. See Mark 9.20-29

16. The killing of a tree by the words of Jesus. See Mark 11.13-20

17. The resurrection of Jesus. See Mark 16.6.

The gospel according to Mark was essentially a work of FICTION from beginning to end, from the 1st chapter to the last.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, that is my question.

andrewcriddle

Formally speaking it is possible for Mark to be written in 115 and used by Matthew as a source in 116 and Matthew itself to be alluded to by Ignatius in 117.

However I would not regard it as plausible. There is an interesting issue here as to how much time in the Ancient World should we expect between the writing of a work and its first surviving attestation.

Andrew Criddle