2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by DCHindley »

According to the index to Irenaeus in volume 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers, the following passages in Mark are either quoted or alluded to: 1:1,2,24; 3:27; 4:28; 5:22,31; 6:41,44; 8:31; 9:2,23; 10:17,38; 13:32,33; 14:21; 16:17,18,19.

I took the time to find them in AH itself to cite them by ET chapter & verse:

ANF vol 1
AH bk.ch.sec
Mark
319 1.3.3 5.31
338 1.14.6 9.2
345 1.20.3 10.17
345 1.21.2 10.38
388 2.20.3 16.17-18
389 2.20.5 14.21
395 2.24.4 6.41, 44
401 2.28.6 13.32
425 3.10.5 1.2
426 3.10.5 16.19
441 3.16.3 1.1
442 3.16.5 8.31
469 4.6.6 1.24
486 4.18.4 4.28
520 4.27.5 9.23
536 5.10.1 13.33
539 5.13.1 5.22
550 5.21.3 3.27


Not sure which of these are direct quotes, or allusions, or whether these passages were part of one of Irenaeus' apparent conflations of Matthew, Mark & Luke.

The index to Harvey adds or expands a few more but this may have only related to his commentary, and he doesn't cite Mk 4:28.

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by DCHindley »

arnoldo wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:46 pm This may be a depiction of Mark.
So, maybe he is a Vulcan (Star Trek)!

Or perhaps time travel is real, to transport the meme of a fictional space alien's hand greeting back to the time this fresco was painted (I don't know by whom or when, painted art is not my thing)!

DCH
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

But we should always distinguish between

1. the citation of Markan material (i.e. material known to us from the 'Mark-part' of the four gospel canonical set)

and

2. explicit citation that the material in question comes from a gospel named Mark according to the early Patristic witness

Justin, for example, cites Markan material from what is almost certainly his 'gospel harmony.' There is no evidence he ever know of a gospel 'according to' someone named Mark or cited from that text.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by lsayre »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:07 am Justin, for example, cites Markan material from what is almost certainly his 'gospel harmony.'
Would Justin have recognized his own source as a 'gospel harmony'?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by John2 »

I was thinking of starting another thread on this but maybe I can squeeze it in here (and feel free to ignore it if it seems off track).

I think 1 Peter is genuine. I think it is in keeping with the Peter/Cephas of Galatians 2 (if they are the same person), a Jewish Christian influenced to some extent by Paul. For example, while I take 1 Peter as being addressed to Jewish Christians (as some argue), and it seems similar in some respects to the Dead Sea Scrolls (namely the ideas of suffering and "being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices"), on the other hand other things about it do seem "Pauline" to me (and to others). For example, it was ostensibly written with the help of Silvanus, who is mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Thes. 1:1 and (since I'm presently considering the idea that 2 Thes. is genuine) 2 Thes. 1:1 (and which some say is why 1 Peter was written in good Greek).

1 Peter 5:12:
Through Silvanus, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is to be the true grace of God in which you are to stand firm!
And 1 Peter 2:13-17 reminds me of Paul's position in Rom. 13.
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
Rom. 13:1-5:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
At the same time, I'm getting more impressed with Papias as time goes on. What he says about there being an original Hebrew Matthew that was translated into Greek holds water to me, and since he is also the first to mention the gospel of Mark by name I'm taking another look at what he says about it.

First, I think it's interesting that 1 Peter is addressed to "Jews from Asia" (to use Acts' terminology), which is where Papias was from (not to imply that I think he was Jewish). Papias also used Revelation (which I think is Jewish Christian too and is addressed to "the seven churches in the province of Asia"), so, at least geographically speaking, Papias was in a position to know something about Peter. And he is said to have known 1 Peter and something from the Jewish Christian Gospel of the Hebrews in EH 3.39.16:
And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
And this is what he says about Mark in EH 3.39.15:
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
And 1 Peter 5:13 mentions someone named Mark (and some argue that this is the gospel writer):
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
And the word "son" is defined as, "properly, a son (by birth or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28)."

http://biblehub.com/greek/5207.htm

So it doesn't necessarily mean that this Mark was literally Peter's son.

And while the gospel of Mark does seem "Pauline" to me in some respects, it is knowledgeable about Judaism (e.g., Mk. 7:3-4: "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles"), which is something I've previously ascribed to Mark knowing Paul or people who knew Paul, but now, in light of Papias, maybe he learned about it from Peter. And that could place Mark in the first century CE.

After having reservations about this for twenty years, I'm now willing to consider that perhaps there could be something to Papias' account after all. In any event, Papias is someone from the second century CE who mentions Mark, and since he is the first person to do so I think his account is worth taking another look at.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:11 pm, edited 4 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

I have found that until now the only author to date Mark after the 135 CE is Couchoud (proponent of Marcionite priority) and a date after 120 CE William Farmer (proponent of Matthew priority). So it is very surprising the reluctance of the scholars to push Mark after bar-Kokhba. Frankly, I believed that there were more scholars to place Mark after the 135. It seems that there is not even a debate about that question.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Would Justin have recognized his own source as a 'gospel harmony'?
Certainly not. Even modern scholars see the "harmonization" of Deuteronomy and Exodus in Qumran fragments and Samaritan Exodus as "harmonization." Our collective or inherited version of things is always "the right" version of things. It's the fans of "rock" music cant explain why young people find their music so amateurist and awful.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

JoeWallack wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:14 am
JW:
I've mentioned this before, it's clear that "Mark's" (author) primary source for The Jesus Donkey Story is The Saul Donkey Story:

Donkey King by Intendo. Saul/Jesus King Parallels.
A popular comparison in Polemics is David/Jesus. Both sides have ammunition to play with. Fundamentalists claim that the supposed parallels are evidence that Jesus was planned/foreshadowed in The Jewish Bible. Skeptics claim that the parallels are evidence that The Jewish Bible (as opposed to history) was the source to some extent. [understatement]A less popular comparison[/understatement] is Saul/Jesus. An obvious parallel is that Saul was a literal King while Jesus was occasionally shown as some type of King (albeit unorthodox). Another obvious parallel is that with GMark both are shown as failed Kings. This is so obvious that as far as I know no one else has ever identified it. I have faith that because of the latter, I've never seen anyone do a serious analysis of the parallels.
The many parallels between the two, both important and trivial, indicate that "Mark" wanted the source known. Saul was a failed King of Israel, physically. Exactly how "Mark" wanted to show Jesus, a failed King of Israel. Physically. Did "Mark" intend to show Jesus as a failed King period (so to speak)? A question which has not received the proper attention. Again, considering The Extremely Difficult Reading Principle, any original text which implied or explicited may likewise not have survived.

Joseph

The New Porphyry
Cheers. Joe. I've often wondered what role the books of Samuel have played in the formation of various NT books.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:15 am Another possible point of contact:

The parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29) is unique to the Gospel of Mark.

Irenaeus at Adv. Haer. 4.18.4 references the same phrase used in that parable.
But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear."
Cheers Peter.
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:04 pm
There's at least one more explicit reference to Mark in Irenaeus.

Adv. Haer. 4.6.1.
For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]; "and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.
There also happen to be loads of references in Irenaeus to gospel material in Mark, which are common to Matthew and/or Luke.
Cheers. A lot of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are common to each other. What is wheat, and what is chaff?

or, as DCH subsequently notes, "Irenaeus' 'apparent conflations of Matthew', Mark & Luke."

As Ben notes -
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:27 am
This one^ is most interesting because it is either a mistake on Irenaeus' part or an indicator of a fluctuating Marcan text; our extant Mark bears no such passage.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2nd Century Mentions of Mark

Post by MrMacSon »

deleted
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply