S.C.Carlson

John 11:1-2 introduces Lazarus, Mary, and Martha for the first time, and identifies Mary with this sentence: "Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair."

This explanation indicates that John's audience knows of a woman who annointed Jesus's feet etc. and equates her to Mary. But John only relates the annointing later at 12:1-3, so where does the audience's knowledge come from?

Not from either Mark 14:3-9 or Matt 26:6-13 who only mention the anointing of Jesus's hair (no feet, no woman's hair) at the home of Simon the Leper. Luke 7:37-39, on the other hand, presents the account of an anonymous woman who did just what John 11:2 said. John 11:2 identifies a woman narrated by Luke.

Luke's account, however, is based on Mark's version, not John's, because Luke's characteristic fatigue later in the account at 7:40 (calling the host "Simon") shows that Luke was editing Mark's, which names the host as Simon, not John's, which does not.

Furthermore John 11:1 identifies Bethany as "the village of Mary and Martha." Of the synoptics, only Luke's readers know of a Mary and Martha, but not the name of their village, which Luke kept anonymous (Luke 10:38-39). John's explanatory comment explains an obscurity in Luke. The other direction is more difficult (i.e. the Luke's obscurity passage based on John's explanation).

Also, John 3:24 out of the blue tells us that John the Baptist had not yet been thrown in prison. Such a clarification is needed most for Luke's readers since Luke related the imprisonment of John (Luke 3:19-20) before telling us that Jesus did anything at all, even getting baptized. However, Luke 3:19-20 is not dependent on John 3:24, but a summarization of John's imprisonment told in Mark 6:17-18 = Matt 14:3-4.

Luke is needed to make sense of John's parenthetical comments, but John is not needed to understand Luke: Luke's normal redaction (and fatigue) of Mark is sufficient. On the other hand, the naming of anonymous actors is consistent with other passages of John, e.g. John's naming of both the disciple that chopped off the ear in the garden of Gethsemane and servant whose ear was chopped off (Peter and Malchus, respectively).

Streeter treats this issue in more detail in chapter 14 of his Four gospels.

Mark Matson's work arguing the other direction is focused on the passion narrative. If Matson's argument is accepted, then Luke and John need only share a common source for the passion.

Barbara Shellard (p. 244 n.162) does not address 3:24 and 11:1 and deals with 11:2 by suggesting that it is a "later addition" because "one assumes that neither evangelist would have wished there to be an identification of Mary of Bethany and the sinner of Luke 7." Shellard's suggestion in fact concedes the whole issue, and the pious assumption of not wishing the identification actually makes it harder to attribute it to later scribes.

neilgodfrey

If so would not this imply that we must accept Mark's ending at 16:8 -- or at least infer an ending that where Jesus reminds his disciples they are all total losers?

andrewcriddle

One problem with dating Mark c 135 and having Luke dependent on Mark is the evidence that Basilides writing and teaching in the reign of Hadrian knew Luke.

Hippolytus in the Refutation of All Heresies book VII chapter XIV has Basilides refer to Luke 1:35 Hegemonius Acta Archelai LXVII 4-11 (according to Metzger 'Canon of the New Testament') claims that the 13th book of the Exegetica of Basilides discussed the Rich Man and Lazarus from Luke 16.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

It assumes that Matthew and Luke (and probably Mark) have been in existence long enough for someone to have prepared a harmony of them which has subsequently become available to Justin.

IMO this is nearly impossible with all the synoptics dated 135 or later.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

In P52 and John I discussed why IMHO a date before 150 CE maybe c 140 CE is likely for P52.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

IMO it is difficult to regard Polycarp 'To the Philippians' as authentic and regard all the Ignatian letters as spurious.

To the Philippians chapter 13 refers to various letters of Ignatius which Polycarp is sending to the Philippians.

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman

Have a look at this

Vorkosigan

A third century writer and apologist? C'mon. It looks like Hoppolytus has used the words of Luke in a completely different context. Or perhaps Luke borrowed them from Basilides discourses. or perhaps Hippolytus is clueless, for as Peter's site notes:

"Other early and descriptive patristic refutations of Basilides' teachings are known. One is found in an extant herisiology by Hippolytus of Rome (first half of the 3d century; Haer. 7:20-27). But Hippolytus' report is not in tandem with the descriptions and quotations of Basilides' system which we find in the summaries and quotations in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (see discussion in Layton 1987:418 n. 2; Rudolph 1977:310). Another is the now lost Refutation of Basilides by the heresiologist Agrippa Castor (ca. 135) mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 4.7.6-8) at the beginning of the 4th century (Rudolph 1977:309-10)."

All in all, this isn't very probative. So far, the late date of Mark seems to depend largely on one's assumptions about the authenticity of certain other documents. Is there any concrete item that can rule out a later date?

Yes. They do not name which ones nor the contents. Nor does it mean that there is any relationship between the letters of Ignatius we have and the ones that Polycarp has. Indeed, the Ignatia might well have been inspired by just such a remark, just as Paul's 3rd Corinthians was, and the half dozen fraudulent Pauline letters.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I don't know. I believe that Mark did not end at 16:8. Beyond that I cannot say..

andrewcriddle

It's an interesting argument but it involves conjectural emendation eg that Syria in chapter 13 was originally Psyria

Andrew Criddle