List of arguments to date Mark after Hadrian

[Diogenes the Cynic]

On the other hand, re the name of the Gospel -- someone (was it Markus Vinzent?) pointed out that the gospels have always been known by the names we assign to them so it seems reasonable to think that they were assigned those titles/names from their beginning. But I'm not going to bet my house on it.

Bart Ehrman says they are never quoted by those names until after Irenaeus assigned those names to them c. 180 CE. They are all quoted by Patristics before then but never by those names, or any names, except the vague "memoirs of the Apostles." Irenaeus based his identification of Mark based solely on his own interpretation of Papias' description of a Petrine memoir supposedly collected by Mark, but as I'm sure you're aware, Papias' described a work that does not match Canonical Mark in virtually any detail given. It's the same with Matthew, also unattested by that name before Irenaeus. . Irenaeus is the source of all four authorship traditions. There is no instance of any of those Gospels being called by those names before 180 CE.

It's true there aren't any competing traditions, but that's because they were anonymous. Scholars are being a little bit slippery when they say things like that. There are no competing traditions for Mother Goose either. A lack of competing traditions is not evidence that the tradition is true.

One thing in favor of the Papian identification is that the first couple of chapters of Mark do sort of look like an un-chronical collection of unconnected anecdotes (mostly healing and exorcism stories in Galilee), which is what Papias describes. I'm willing to consider a hypothesis that possibly some genuine collection of anecdotes got expanded into Canonical Mark but even then the author is using the material in a highly literary manner, not so much transmitting it as tearing it apart and rearranging it for his narrative, like a rapper using samples.

If the book described by Papias ever existed, it's not Canonical Mark, but it might possibly be embedded in Canonical Mark.

Papias is a pretty shaky source, though.

[MrMacSon]

Bart Ehrman says they are never quoted by those names until after Irenaeus assigned those names to them c. 180 CE. They are all quoted by Patristics before then but never by those names, or any names, except the vague "memoirs of the Apostles." Irenaeus based his identification of Mark based solely on his own interpretation of Papias' description of a Petrine memoir supposedly collected by Mark, but as I'm sure you're aware, Papias' described a work that does not match Canonical Mark in virtually any detail given. It's the same with Matthew, also unattested by that name before Irenaeus ...

Papias is a pretty shaky source, though.

Yep, Papias is a pretty shaky source (mostly via Eusebius, but also via the prologues to the gospels, especially the Prologue to G.John.

Markus Vinzent and Dennis MacDonald are planning a discussion on Papias on the History Valley YouTube Channel next year

I'm not sure any of the gospels are properly or adequately quoted by Patristics before Irenaeus (and it'd be interesting to know how well and how much Irenaeus actually quoted them, too). There are a few passages in Justin Martyr which are sort of similar to some passages in, say, Matthew +/- other synoptic gospels +/- John(?) but, iiuc, those passages still do not fully align with what they're similar to or the full context


For posterity:

One thing in favor of the Papian identification is that the first couple of chapters of Mark do sort of look like an un-chronical collection of unconnected anecdotes (mostly healing and exorcism stories in Galilee), which is what Papias describes. I'm willing to consider a hypothesis that possibly some genuine collection of anecdotes got expanded into Canonical Mark but even then the author is using the material in a highly literary manner, not so much transmitting it as tearing it apart and rearranging it for his narrative, like a rapper using samples.

If the book described by Papias ever existed, it's not Canonical Mark, but it might possibly be embedded in Canonical Mark.

[neilgodfrey]

On the other hand, re the name of the Gospel -- someone (was it Markus Vinzent?) pointed out that the gospels have always been known by the names we assign to them so it seems reasonable to think that they were assigned those titles/names from their beginning. But I'm not going to bet my house on it.

Bart Ehrman says they are never quoted by those names until after Irenaeus assigned those names to them c. 180 CE. They are all quoted by Patristics before then but never by those names, or any names, except the vague "memoirs of the Apostles." Irenaeus based his identification of Mark based solely on his own interpretation of Papias' description of a Petrine memoir supposedly collected by Mark, but as I'm sure you're aware, Papias' described a work that does not match Canonical Mark in virtually any detail given. It's the same with Matthew, also unattested by that name before Irenaeus. . Irenaeus is the source of all four authorship traditions. There is no instance of any of those Gospels being called by those names before 180 CE.

It's true there aren't any competing traditions, but that's because they were anonymous. Scholars are being a little bit slippery when they say things like that. There are no competing traditions for Mother Goose either. A lack of competing traditions is not evidence that the tradition is true.

One thing in favor of the Papian identification is that the first couple of chapters of Mark do sort of look like an un-chronical collection of unconnected anecdotes (mostly healing and exorcism stories in Galilee), which is what Papias describes. I'm willing to consider a hypothesis that possibly some genuine collection of anecdotes got expanded into Canonical Mark but even then the author is using the material in a highly literary manner, not so much transmitting it as tearing it apart and rearranging it for his narrative, like a rapper using samples.

If the book described by Papias ever existed, it's not Canonical Mark, but it might possibly be embedded in Canonical Mark.

Papias is a pretty shaky source, though.

Forgive my cynicism but I don't consider Ehrman much of an authority in any area of biblical studies ..... but that's me.

I know that it is standard to say that the gospels are quoted or cited in some way by various authors prior to Irenaeus, especially Justin, but I have lots of difficulties accepting those claims. Yes, there are references to sayings and events we find in the gospels, but usually in contexts (I think, anyway) that point to sources other than the gospels. Papias -- yes, he adds to the confusion.

I won't argue that the gospels were known by their "author names" from the moment of their "publication", but I won't discount the possibility, either.

[mlinssen]

On the other hand, re the name of the Gospel -- someone (was it Markus Vinzent?) pointed out that the gospels have always been known by the names we assign to them so it seems reasonable to think that they were assigned those titles/names from their beginning. But I'm not going to bet my house on it.

Bart Ehrman says they are never quoted by those names until after Irenaeus assigned those names to them c. 180 CE. They are all quoted by Patristics before then but never by those names, or any names, except the vague "memoirs of the Apostles." Irenaeus based his identification of Mark based solely on his own interpretation of Papias' description of a Petrine memoir supposedly collected by Mark, but as I'm sure you're aware, Papias' described a work that does not match Canonical Mark in virtually any detail given. It's the same with Matthew, also unattested by that name before Irenaeus. . Irenaeus is the source of all four authorship traditions. There is no instance of any of those Gospels being called by those names before 180 CE.

It's true there aren't any competing traditions, but that's because they were anonymous. Scholars are being a little bit slippery when they say things like that. There are no competing traditions for Mother Goose either. A lack of competing traditions is not evidence that the tradition is true.

One thing in favor of the Papian identification is that the first couple of chapters of Mark do sort of look like an un-chronical collection of unconnected anecdotes (mostly healing and exorcism stories in Galilee), which is what Papias describes. I'm willing to consider a hypothesis that possibly some genuine collection of anecdotes got expanded into Canonical Mark but even then the author is using the material in a highly literary manner, not so much transmitting it as tearing it apart and rearranging it for his narrative, like a rapper using samples.

If the book described by Papias ever existed, it's not Canonical Mark, but it might possibly be embedded in Canonical Mark.

Papias is a pretty shaky source, though.

Forgive my cynicism but I don't consider Ehrman much of an authority in any area of biblical studies ..... but that's me.

I know that it is standard to say that the gospels are quoted or cited in some way by various authors prior to Irenaeus, especially Justin, but I have lots of difficulties accepting those claims. Yes, there are references to sayings and events we find in the gospels, but usually in contexts (I think, anyway) that point to sources other than the gospels. Papias -- yes, he adds to the confusion.

I won't argue that the gospels were known by their "author names" from the moment of their "publication", but I won't discount the possibility, either.

Neil is hopelessly wrong here, and Diogenes pretty right:

Irenaeus is the first to use the names and the starts in the canonical order but slips into John, Luke, Matthew, Mark in Adv. haer. III 11,8

viewtopic.php?p=140676#p140676

But then Neil is correct when he says that we can't know what was referred to via what unless specific parts are quoted with specific names

Papias and all those lies are fiction, of course, desperately needed to close the gaping void between the alleged original disciples and the texts - not the Chrestian texts, but the Christian ones

[neilgodfrey]

Irenaeus is the first to use the names

Maybe Irenaeus is our earliest witness to the existence of the canonical gospels. Is that possible?

(Keeping in mind what I said above about the various claims that Justin, for example, quotes or refers to sayings and passages from them.)

[mlinssen]

Irenaeus is the first to use the names

Maybe Irenaeus is our earliest witness to the existence of the canonical gospels. Is that possible?

(Keeping in mind what I said above about the various claims that Justin, for example, quotes or refers to sayings and passages from them.)

Precisely that, Neil, on both counts. Vinzent arrives at the same conclusion in his Christi Thora, which leads him to establishing the dates that he does - and that even presupposes the regular dating of the FF who solely testify to themselves by themselves

When I look at the earliest LXX's that we have, Sinaiticus, Bezae, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, we find ourselves in the 5th and perhaps 4th CE at best. I have come to associate the phenomenon with precisely that which distinguishes them from the Hebrew Tanakh: the mistranslations in Greek that support the Christian claims - I believe that to be its entire goal.
We have scraps in Greek from before that period, yet never more than one or two books at once, and none of them exhibit the typical Christian scribal signs ü, ï, apostrophe and line-ending superlinear replacing Nu which run like a red line through all the Coptic and Greek that connects the Chrestian tradition to the Christian one

So I place Matthew even later, around 4th CE, and when I then look at the papyri database from Duke I find myself with forms of xrhstos spelled out in "peripheral MSS" that slowly converge to xhristos precisely around that same 5th CE, and gaining the upper hand after that: The Interchange of ι and η in the Spelling of Χριστ- Words in Egyptian Papyri

https://www.academia.edu/36834026/The_I ... ian_Papyri

I would love to find Greek scraps that contain a contested passage, and to see what they say instead - but I haven't been able to find any, alas

[Diogenes the Cynic]

On the other hand, re the name of the Gospel -- someone (was it Markus Vinzent?) pointed out that the gospels have always been known by the names we assign to them so it seems reasonable to think that they were assigned those titles/names from their beginning. But I'm not going to bet my house on it.

Bart Ehrman says they are never quoted by those names until after Irenaeus assigned those names to them c. 180 CE. They are all quoted by Patristics before then but never by those names, or any names, except the vague "memoirs of the Apostles." Irenaeus based his identification of Mark based solely on his own interpretation of Papias' description of a Petrine memoir supposedly collected by Mark, but as I'm sure you're aware, Papias' described a work that does not match Canonical Mark in virtually any detail given. It's the same with Matthew, also unattested by that name before Irenaeus. . Irenaeus is the source of all four authorship traditions. There is no instance of any of those Gospels being called by those names before 180 CE.

It's true there aren't any competing traditions, but that's because they were anonymous. Scholars are being a little bit slippery when they say things like that. There are no competing traditions for Mother Goose either. A lack of competing traditions is not evidence that the tradition is true.

One thing in favor of the Papian identification is that the first couple of chapters of Mark do sort of look like an un-chronical collection of unconnected anecdotes (mostly healing and exorcism stories in Galilee), which is what Papias describes. I'm willing to consider a hypothesis that possibly some genuine collection of anecdotes got expanded into Canonical Mark but even then the author is using the material in a highly literary manner, not so much transmitting it as tearing it apart and rearranging it for his narrative, like a rapper using samples.

If the book described by Papias ever existed, it's not Canonical Mark, but it might possibly be embedded in Canonical Mark.

Papias is a pretty shaky source, though.

Forgive my cynicism but I don't consider Ehrman much of an authority in any area of biblical studies ..... but that's me.

I know that it is standard to say that the gospels are quoted or cited in some way by various authors prior to Irenaeus, especially Justin, but I have lots of difficulties accepting those claims. Yes, there are references to sayings and events we find in the gospels, but usually in contexts (I think, anyway) that point to sources other than the gospels. Papias -- yes, he adds to the confusion.

I won't argue that the gospels were known by their "author names" from the moment of their "publication", but I won't discount the possibility, either.

Well you don't have to take Ehrman's word for it that the Gospels are never cited by those names. I agree it may be questionable whether any canonical Gospels are being quoted at all - I'm not convinced they are - but those four names - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - only arise with Irenaeus.

Of course the author MIGHT have been named Mark, but he might have been named anything else as well. If the first Gospel ever had an original title it was "The Gospel of Jesus Christ," (the first line of the Gospel which often times is where a book title went). The whole idea of adding a kata ("according to") to a Gospel is something that only arose after there were competing Gospels. The authority of the author had zero significance before then (as it does with other 2TP writings such as the DDS or the Enochic literature).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Irenaeus is the first to use the names

Maybe Irenaeus is our earliest witness to the existence of the canonical gospels. Is that possible?

(Keeping in mind what I said above about the various claims that Justin, for example, quotes or refers to sayings and passages from them.)

Precisely that, Neil, on both counts. Vinzent arrives at the same conclusion in his Christi Thora, which leads him to establishing the dates that he does - and that even presupposes the regular dating of the FF who solely testify to themselves by themselves

When I look at the earliest LXX's that we have, Sinaiticus, Bezae, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, we find ourselves in the 5th and perhaps 4th CE at best. I have come to associate the phenomenon with precisely that which distinguishes them from the Hebrew Tanakh: the mistranslations in Greek that support the Christian claims - I believe that to be its entire goal.
We have scraps in Greek from before that period, yet never more than one or two books at once, and none of them exhibit the typical Christian scribal signs ü, ï, apostrophe and line-ending superlinear replacing Nu which run like a red line through all the Coptic and Greek that connects the Chrestian tradition to the Christian one

So I place Matthew even later, around 4th CE, and when I then look at the papyri database from Duke I find myself with forms of xrhstos spelled out in "peripheral MSS" that slowly converge to xhristos precisely around that same 5th CE, and gaining the upper hand after that: The Interchange of ι and η in the Spelling of Χριστ- Words in Egyptian Papyri

https://www.academia.edu/36834026/The_I ... ian_Papyri

I would love to find Greek scraps that contain a contested passage, and to see what they say instead - but I haven't been able to find any, alas

The truth is what don't really know what the New Testament looked like before Constantine. If it wasn't such a crazy theory, I'd really wonder about that Centurion at the cross.

[mlinssen]

The truth is what don't really know what the New Testament looked like before Constantine. If it wasn't such a crazy theory, I'd really wonder about that Centurion at the cross.

I can't relate to that statement; there is very little MS at all before 300 CE, but enough to get some impressions

The centurion - yes I wonder about that as well, and am certain that Mark started that: he needed a favourable witness to attest to the death of Jesus, and in this way the centurion gains the goodwill of the audience.
Why did Mark need it? Because he invented the resurrection, and the centurion really is the sole witness to the death of IS

https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_i ... ristianity