No Historical Proof Gospel of Mark Was Written in 70 CE (Isaiah, prophets)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody is making the effort to make you look bad. That's of your own doing.
Thoreau "doesn't care" when Mark was written. So I'm not exactly sure as to why he continues to post in the thread.
As for me, I would think that 30 years or so of "word of mouth" gospel would certainly be enough to cause inaccuracy in the story. Two or three hundred years could make the true story unrecognizable.
Thoreau "doesn't care" when Mark was written. So I'm not exactly sure as to why he continues to post in the thread.
As for me, I would think that 30 years or so of "word of mouth" gospel would certainly be enough to cause inaccuracy in the story. Two or three hundred years could make the true story unrecognizable.
its that simple ...
I didn't realize my dad didn't win ww2 all by himself until I actually learned about ww2. There was no need for me to be any less proud.
Thoreau "doesn't care" when Mark was written. So I'm not exactly sure as to why he continues to post in the thread.
As for me, I would think that 30 years or so of "word of mouth" gospel would certainly be enough to cause inaccuracy in the story. Two or three hundred years could make the true story unrecognizable.
Exactly, particularly your second paragraph. I happen to be Buddhist, and this is exactly one of the criticisms I have of the silly notion that many Buddhists have that several hundred years of memorizing and verbally expounding Buddha's words have resulted in a perfect recitation of his original words. It's just laughable. People who believe that have never played the rumor game.
New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace on the authorship and dating of the Gospel of Mark;
Excerpt:
2. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
“So strong was the early Christian testimony that Mark was the author of this gospel that we need do little more than mention this attestation.”2 It is cited by Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon (most likely), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome. Further, this testimony is universal in connecting this gospel with Peter. Papias, for example, writes:3
And the elder said this: “Mark became an interpreter of Peter; as many things as he remembered he wrote down accurately (though certainly not in order4) the things said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but he came later—as he said with reference to Peter who taught whenever the need arose,5 but he did not [teach] according to the arrangement of the oracles of the Lord,6 with the result that Mark did not err7 when he thus wrote certain things as he recalled them. For he planned out one goal ahead of time,8 namely, to leave out nothing which he heard and not to falsify any [of the words of Peter].”9
What is most remarkable about this external testimony is that Mark was by no means a major player in the NT. It is doubtful, therefore, that his name was picked out of thin air as it were. If this were the case, there would certainly be less than universal attestation. Further, as strong as the desire was to attach this gospel to an apostle, the patristic writers refrained from saying that this was Peter’s Gospel. Such restraint speaks volumes for the rest of the NT where they do affirm apostolic authorship.10 One simply cannot say that because these patristic writers surely wanted apostolic authorship they therefore invented such at their own convenience. Mark’s gospel flies in the face of that supposition.
B. Date
The issue of the date of this gospel also revolves around external and internal evidence.
1. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Not only does the early patristic evidence argue for Markan authorship, but it also makes a connection between Mark and Peter. As we have seen, Papias was the first to make this connection, and it is important to note certain features of his report. (1) He claimed to have received his information from “the elder.” In the preceding context (Fragments of Papias 2:4) the only individual called “the elder” in the singular is John. Whether this is John the apostle or a disciple of his is quite debatable; but suffice it to say that Papias’ source of information was at most one generation removed from the apostles themselves. (2) Papias also says that Mark recorded Peter’s sermons while Peter was still alive.
“So strong was the early Christian testimony that Mark was the author of this gospel that we need do little more than mention this attestation.”
This is strong on Wallace's personal opinion and extremely short on supporting evidence. The statement first of all doesn't make sense. If it was common knowledge that Mark was the author the gospel then it would have been named Gospel of Mark right from the beginning long before Irenaeus affixed Mark's name to it in the late 2nd century. What were they calling this gospel prior to Irenaeus affixing Mark's name to it in the latter part of the 2nd century some 130 years later?
Secondly, If the evidence was really that strong then there would be no reason for the majority of Biblical scholars to have determined the gospel is by an anonymous writer. Please explain why the majority of scholars have determined it is written by an anonymous writer if the evidence was so strong that Mark was the author.
Third, where is some written evidence that the gospel we are talking about is the same gospel sitting in the Codex Sinaiticus? We have absolutely nothing in writing from anyone earlier than the Codex that I am aware of that gives some samples of the gospel's contents with which to compare to the Codex. You know, Mike that there were hundreds of "gospels" floating around in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We know of at least 70 that have survived today from the Nag Hammadi dig in 1945 in Egypt. How many more were lost to time? Please give us some writings by any church father earlier than Irenaeus that includes excerpts from the gospel itself in their writings.
Thoreau "doesn't care" when Mark was written. So I'm not exactly sure as to why he continues to post in the thread.
As for me, I would think that 30 years or so of "word of mouth" gospel would certainly be enough to cause inaccuracy in the story. Two or three hundred years could make the true story unrecognizable.
Did Roswell take 30 years to become full-blown literally out of the picture? From obvious aluminum and sticks to a real flying saucer (mixing in related stories) which grey bug-eyed aliens inside.
This is strong on Wallace's personal opinion and extremely short on supporting evidence. The statement first of all doesn't make sense. If it was common knowledge that Mark was the author the gospel then it would have been named Gospel of Mark right from the beginning long before Irenaeus affixed Mark's name to it in the late 2nd century. What were they calling this gospel prior to Irenaeus affixing Mark's name to it in the latter part of the 2nd century some 130 years later?
Secondly, If the evidence was really that strong then there would be no reason for the majority of Biblical scholars to have determined the gospel is by an anonymous writer. Please explain why the majority of scholars have determined it is written by an anonymous writer if the evidence was so strong that Mark was the author.
Third, where is some written evidence that the gospel we are talking about is the same gospel sitting in the Codex Sinaiticus? We have absolutely nothing in writing from anyone earlier than the Codex that I am aware of that gives some samples of the gospel's contents with which to compare to the Codex. You know, Mike that there were hundreds of "gospels" floating around in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We know of at least 70 that have survived today from the Nag Hammadi dig in 1945 in Egypt. How many more were lost to time? Please give us some writings by any church father earlier than Irenaeus that includes excerpts from the gospel itself in their writings.
How is the testimony of the early church Wallace's opinion? Scholars have no valid reason to ignore the external evidence of the early church leaders who were in a much better position to know who wrote the Gospels.
No, there were not hundreds of gospels floating around in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. That is a vastly exaggerated number. According to Dr. John Dickson (PhD in ancient history from Macquarie University, and a Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University (2004-17)), we have direct evidence of only twenty non-canonical gospels which were written after the first century.
There were never ''more than eighty'' additional Gospels written about Jesus. In the centuries after Christ there were possibly as many as fifty such works (though we have direct evidence for just twenty). And none of them can be confidently dated to the first century.
The Christ files, Dickson, p.29
Dickson's comment concerning ''more than eighty'' additional Gospels concerns the statement in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code in which Brown has Sir Leigh Teabing say, ''More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament . . .'' The Da Vinci Code is a fictional work.
And none of the twenty additional gospels were written early enough, or have the orthodox character to have been considered by the church to have been included in the New Testament. One of the requirements for canonicity was that it had to have been written either by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. This is borne out in the Muritorian fragment;
4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,³⁷ and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public³⁸ in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. Of the writings of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those are rejected too who wrote the new Book of Psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides and the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians. [Bolding mine]
The Shepherd of Hermas was written to late to be a part of the New Testament Canon because it was written after the apostolic era. On the other hand, the four canonical Gospels were recognized by the church as canonical.
You asked for a writing from an early church father earlier than Irenaeus that includes excerpts from the gospel itself in their writings. Clement of Rome will do.
Clement of Rome (AD 35-99) quotes Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42.
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that
man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that
at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that
a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than
that he should pervert one of Mine elect.
Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
The early church fathers often didn't make exact quotations of the Biblical writers but more of a paraphrase.
Here's another quotation from Mark by Clement.
1Clem 15:2
For He saith in a certain place This people honoreth Me with their
lips, but their heart is far from Me,
Mark 7:6 Jesus replied, "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Clement of Rome who died c. 99 quoted the Gospels of Matthew and Mark which places both Gospels squarely in the first century.
Most scholars think that Mark was written before Matthew, so a quote by Polycarp (AD 69-155) of Matthew will answer your request as well.
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP
Polycarp 2:3
but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge
not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are
the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of God.
Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
You're so obsessed with trying to discredit Christianity that you don't even bother to do any actual and honest research, and you grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to do so.
Oh yes. Since we don't have the original Gospel manuscripts there is no basis for assuming that the writers names weren't attached to the Gospels from the beginning. Had the names been attached late, there most likely would have been competing traditions concerning the authorship of the Gospels. But there isn't. Without exception, every reference in the early church is to Matthew ,Mark, Luke and John.
At any rate, you've just been shown that early church fathers, before Irenaeus, quoted the Gospel of Mark.
You asked for a writing from an early church father earlier than Irenaeus that includes excerpts from the gospel itself in their writings. Clement of Rome will do.
Clement of Rome (AD 35-99) quotes Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42.
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that
man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that
at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that
a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than
that he should pervert one of Mine elect.
Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
The early church fathers often didn't make exact quotations of the Biblical writers but more of a paraphrase.
Which is you presuming it was a paraphrase of Mark. Both Mark and Clement could have been referring to an earlier saying associated with Jesus, or the author of Mark could have been using Clement.
It also spoils the flow of the passages on either side, so may be a marginal gloss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Here's another quotation from Mark by Clement.
1Clem 15:2
For He saith in a certain place This people honoreth Me with their
lips, but their heart is far from Me,
Mark 7:6 Jesus replied, "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Clement of Rome who died c. 99 quoted the Gospels of Matthew and Mark which places both Gospels squarely in the first century.
Except here, Clement was talking about the OT god, and here he was quoting Isaiah 29:13.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Oh yes. Since we don't have the original Gospel manuscripts there is no basis for assuming that the writers names weren't attached to the Gospels from the beginning. Had the names been attached late, there most likely would have been competing traditions concerning the authorship of the Gospels. But there isn't. Without exception, every reference in the early church is to Matthew ,Mark, Luke and John.
Except the strange title that all four gospels begin with, which tells us they were all given their titles at the same time, and by the same authority. This argues for their names being assigned when the Canon was first thrown together, which the evidence suggests was around 150 - 170 AD.
Which is you presuming it was a paraphrase of Mark. Both Mark and Clement could have been referring to an earlier saying associated with Jesus, or the author of Mark could have been using Clement.
It also spoils the flow of the passages on either side, so may be a marginal gloss.
Whatever earlier source Mark may have been referring to is irrelevant. The question that was asked was did any early church father quote Mark. It is far more likely that Clement would be quoting one of the Biblical writers than for one of the Biblical writers to be quoting one of the church fathers.
And no, it does not spoil the flow of the passage on either side. Clement was writing about divisions and factions within the church. The quotation of Mark concerning not offending one of the elect fits right in.
Quote:
Except here, Clement was talking about the OT god, and here he was quoting Isaiah 29:13.
You could be right about that.
Then let's take Clement 13:1 in which Clement specifcally writes about remembering the words of Jesus which he then quoted in Clement 13:2
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
1Clem 13:1
Let us therefore be lowly minded, brethren, laying aside all
arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let us do that which
is written. For the Holy Ghost saith, Let not the wise man boast in
his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, neither the rich in his
riches; but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, that he may
seek Him out, and do judgment and righteousness most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching
forbearance and long-suffering:
1Clem 13:2
for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive,
that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to
you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so
shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be
showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
withal to you.[Bolding mine]
That last statement - ''With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you'' is a quote of Matthew 7:2.
Matthew 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Quote:
Except the strange title that all four gospels begin with, which tells us they were all given their titles at the same time, and by the same authority. This argues for their names being assigned when the Canon was first thrown together, which the evidence suggests was around 150 - 170 AD.
I find nothing strange about the title - '' According to_____.'' There's nothing implausible about the title being given to the first of the Gospels to be written as soon as it was written. Then when the other Gospels were written, the same format was used. Again, the fact that there were no competing traditions in the early church concerning the authors of the Gospels argues for the titles being used, even from the beginning. It is highly unlikely that the church didn't know who wrote the Gospels from the beginning. And why, in the case of Mark and Luke, use those names instead of other names which would have lend more authority to those Gospels unless Mark and Luke actually did write the Gospels which bear their name?
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-11-2019 at 11:01 AM..
Even that isn't true. You guys are either lousy at actually reading what people say, or are so bent on putting your own spin on other's comments that you constantly get it wrong. I'd bet it's both.
I said that many Christians don't care when exactly it was written. Since you need everything spoon-fed to you to understand, 70 AD, 61 AD, 102 AD, etc. wouldn't be relevant. Since Christians believe God inspires and directs the writing of scripture, God would be intimately involved in the transfer of information from him to the scribes. The timing of the writing is never implied or delineated, or meant to be dwelled on. And there is no I, Joe Smith, wrote this in Year 070 in any of the books. You make the false premise that it is implied, to then argue against it.
The books of scriptures weren't even originally named (Mark, Luke, etc.) They also did not have chapters or verses. All of that was added by man, for man's convenience. Maybe it was a dumb idea, but it's not worth haggling or bitching over.
Christians aren't going to recognize this obsession over dates and authors, so you're not going to change any of their minds. Maybe you all are just preaching to choir of atheists and seeking pats on the back of approval, but it's a waste of time on this particular area of the forum. It would be more applicable to the Atheism section.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 11:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
