No Historical Proof Gospel of Mark Was Written in 70 CE (hell, church)
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.
Ask an apologist "How do you date Mark to 70 CE and they will ALWAYS trot out that failsafe meaningless term, "Tradition". Tradition is about as useful to dating a historic document as a current New York city phone directory is at giving us the phone number of Alexander Graham Bell. What secular Biblical historians really want are artifacts i.e. manuscripts of the document itself, or ancient writings from recognized historians of the period that mention the gospel, or excerpts from the gospel found in early church writings of the period. Mark has NONE of this. So when does the evidence show Mark really emerging? Let's have a look:
1. Mark did NOT write the gospel. Again that convenient maxim, "tradition" is thrown out by the apologists to try to place Mark in the 1st century by claiming Mark the companion of Peter wrote the gospel but we have no historic proof that is true.
Quote:
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.
Sanders, E (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin UK.
2. The earliest church father we can link with the apostles, Papias of Hierapolis, (60-163 CE admits he NEVER SPOKE TO ANY OF THE APOSTLES and so he never got firsthand from John the Apostle ANY information regarding Jesus.
Quote:
Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was NOT himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles
4. Most importantly, we have NO historical document from the 1st or first-half of the 2nd Century that mentions the gospel of Mark. We do not even have any excerpts of it in any writings of either historians or church fathers with which to compare to the first complete copy of the gospel which dates to the Codex Sinaiticus assembled circa the middle of the 4th century. For all practical and historically provable points what we read in the Gospel of Mark dates to the 4th Century, not 70 CE as "TRADITION" asserts.
The earliest fragment of the gospel of Mark that survives is P45 dated to the early 3rd Century. This was true until a much hyped NEW fragment, P137 appeared from a mummy mask in 2012 that set the Biblical world abuzz because it supposedly dated from the 1st century. Turns out that minuscule fragment on closer examination actually dates to late 2nd-early 3rd century so the Biblical apologist scholars, Dan Wallace, Craig Evans, and Josh MacDowell who crowed about "sensational Biblical discovery" are right back at square one and have tucked tail and crawled back into their closets red-faced with embarrassment.
So as of Jan. 10, 2019 we have NOTHING-no writings, no excerpts from Mark proving historically what was in Mark prior to 360 CE (Codex Sinaiticus) or no mention of the gospel of Mark earlier than late 2nd Century which would prove Mark even existed prior to that date.
Just....ahem....TRADITION!
Last edited by thrillobyte; 01-10-2019 at 11:57 AM..
A lot of Christians don't give a rat's hiney of exactly when Mark was written. Maybe you're @nal about things like that, but most aren't. Another big waste of time trying to attack Christianity. Instead of rationale and plausible data, we just see anger, distortion, and instability (all those font changes like bolding and underling just add to it). That overshadows any points you're trying to make, and you're completely blind to it. I guess you just want to make atheists look like fools.
A lot of Christians don't give a rat's hiney of exactly when Mark was written. Maybe you're @nal about things like that, but most aren't. Another big waste of time trying to attack Christianity. Instead of rationale and plausible data, we just see anger, distortion, and instability (all those font changes like bolding and underling just add to it). That's the big wave and vibe you sent out.
So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if what is supposed to an eyewitness account isn't.
Christianity seems to be a shell game.
The bible was written by the hand of god (how many times have I heard that one?).
The bible was written by men who were influenced by god.
Everything in the bible is true.
Some stuff in the bible is true. Some stuff is allegorical. And we can't know which is which.
The bible is the greatest book in the world.
The bible isn't one book. It's a bunch of little books put together.
Those are eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.
Well, maybe those accounts were written decades after christ died...but that doesn't matter.
So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if what is supposed to an eyewitness account isn't.
I didn't say anything about it as a witness account. I only said others don't give a shyte of the exact year it was written. It's already been analyzed out the wazoo how much it aligns with the other gospels, and appears authentic. So yeah, if want to discuss that, it sure appears to be a witness account. There's nothing new or incriminating to report here, as the OP delusionally thinks. The data doesn't matter to him; any attack will suffice.
I didn't say anything about it as a witness account. I only said others don't give a shyte of the exact year it was written. It's already been analyzed out the wazoo how much it aligns with the other gospels, and appears authentic. So yeah, if want to discuss that, it sure appears to be a witness account. There's nothing new or earth-shattering to report here, as the OP delusionally thinks.
You christians have been reading and interpreting that book out the wazoo for years.
There's nothing new or earth shattering to report here? Yet you keep reporting on it?
Ask an apologist "How do you date Mark to 70 CE and they will ALWAYS trot out that failsafe meaningless term, "Tradition". Tradition is about as useful to dating a historic document as a current New York city phone directory is at giving us the phone number of Alexander Graham Bell. What secular Biblical historians really want are artifacts i.e. manuscripts of the document itself, or ancient writings from recognized historians of the period that mention the gospel, or excerpts from the gospel found in early church writings of the period. Mark has NONE of this. So when does the evidence show Mark really emerging? Let's have a look:
1. Mark did NOT write the gospel. Again that convenient maxim, "tradition" is thrown out by the apologists to try to place Mark in the 1st century by claiming Mark the companion of Peter wrote the gospel but we have no historic proof that is true.
Sanders, E (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin UK.
2. The earliest church father we can link with the apostles, Papias of Hierapolis, (60-163 CE admits he NEVER SPOKE TO ANY OF THE APOSTLES and so he never got firsthand from John the Apostle ANY information regarding Jesus.
4. Most importantly, we have NO historical document from the first or first-half of the 2nd Century that mentions the gospel of Mark. We do not even have any excerpts of it in any writings of either historians or church fathers with which to compare to the first complete copy of the gospel which dates to the Codex Sinaiticus assembled circa the middle of the 4th century. For all practical and historically provable points what we read in the Gospel of Mark dates to the 4th Century, not 70 CE as "TRADITION" asserts.
The earliest fragment of the gospel of Mark that survives is P45 dated to the early 3rd Century. This was true until a much hyped NEW fragment, P137 appeared from a mummy mask in 2012 that set the Biblical world abuzz because it supposedly dated from the 1st century. Turns out that minuscule fragment on closer examination actually dates to late 2nd-early 3rd century so the Biblical apologist scholars, Dan Wallace, Craig Evans, and Josh MacDowell who crowed about "sensational Biblical discovery" are right back at square one and have tucked tail and crawled back into their closets red-faced with embarrassment.
So as of Jan. 10, 2019 we have NOTHING-no writings, no excerpts from Mark proving historically what was in Mark prior to 360 CE (Codex Sinaiticus) or no mention of the gospel of Mark earlier than late 2nd Century which would prove Mark even existed prior to that date.
Just....ahem....TRADITION!
This not attacking Christianity but just sharing the information.
So if you go by historical records and documented history then you will open up an entire new door of discovery which in a sense supports your general perception of modern day Christianity but perhaps more importantly, it could get your closer to the possible truth.
This was a BBC Series and the researcher himself is a British Christian. From 5:40 to 6:05 is where he hits it.
4. Most importantly, we have NO historical document from the first or first-half of the 2nd Century that mentions the gospel of Mark. We do not even have any excerpts of it in any writings of either historians or church fathers with which to compare to the first complete copy of the gospel which dates to the Codex Sinaiticus assembled circa the middle of the 4th century. For all practical and historically provable points what we read in the Gospel of Mark dates to the 4th Century, not 70 CE as "TRADITION" asserts.
The earliest fragment of the gospel of Mark that survives is P45 dated to the early 3rd Century. This was true until a much hyped NEW fragment, P137 appeared from a mummy mask in 2012 that set the Biblical world abuzz because it supposedly dated from the 1st century. Turns out that minuscule fragment on closer examination actually dates to late 2nd-early 3rd century so the Biblical apologist scholars, Dan Wallace, Craig Evans, and Josh MacDowell who crowed about "sensational Biblical discovery" are right back at square one and have tucked tail and crawled back into their closets red-faced with embarrassment.
So as of Jan. 10, 2019 we have NOTHING-no writings, no excerpts from Mark proving historically what was in Mark prior to 360 CE (Codex Sinaiticus) or no mention of the gospel of Mark earlier than late 2nd Century which would prove Mark even existed prior to that date.
Just....ahem....TRADITION!
Justin Martyr may have known Mark's gospel. He certainly knew the other gospels that were derived from Mark. He does not seem to treat them as gospel (sorry for the pun) as his description of Jesus often conflicts with the gospel version. So that gives us the first half of the 2nd century AD for Mark at the latest.
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.
