Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Post by Giuseppe »


If the earliest gospel, Mark, was written ca. 70 CE, then we have ample time for legends to have developed. However, if Mark is appreciably later, then the modification of history becomes even more plausible. An indication of a later dating of Mark not usually considered is the following. Neither Josephus nor the Qur’ān says anything about John the Baptizer’s beheading; for that matter, neither do Mandaean texts nor the Gospel of John. Only the synoptic gospels mention this detail. Matthew 14:1ff. tells the story of the beheading, derived from Mark 6:16ff. Luke omits the story, including only a brief mention of the beheading in 9:9 derived from Matthew and Mark. The passage on John the Baptizer in Josephus Antiquities 18.116-119 says nothing of a beheading. However, immediately before the John the Baptizer account, we read in 18.115 of Herod wanting the head of Aretas. In the lead-up to this we learn in 18.110 that Herod has fallen in love with Herodias and we read of Herodias demanding the divorce of Aretas’ daughter. In 18.112 Herod sends Herodias to Macherus, to keep her hidden from his wife. The affair leads to a defeat of Herod’s forces by those of Aretas. After 18.115, there follows in 18.116 the story of John the Baptizer’s arrest and execution, but no beheading is mentioned.
It seems as if Mark could have transferred Josephus’ mention of Herod’s desire to behead Aretas to Herodias’ daughter’s desire to have John the Baptizer beheaded, which may have been facilitated by the proximity of the two passages in Josephus (18.115; 18.116-119). The Jewish Antiquities was written between 92-94 CE,29 which would then mean that Mark could date to the mid-90s CE at the earliest, and easily probably somewhat later.

(Samuel Zinner, source, p. 9, my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Post by klewis »

This is more of an hypothesis stacked on a hypothesis with the assumption that all is known is all that we have written. There are probably plenty of "Off with your head" stories at the time that would not would not need Josephus. There are also plenty of Josephus stories that he tells in which was from from a prior source.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Post by MrMacSon »

Samuel Zinner quotes Steve Mason in support of the point that Giuseppe quotes in the OP^^.

First, the beginning and abstract of of Zinner's essay, -

ABSTRACT

There are good reasons for doubting the standard model that insists Mandaean beliefs and formulae that parallel Christian and Islamic traditions are basically derivative. Mandaeism’s focus on John the Baptizer ... reflects the religion’s origins in ancient Palestine as an independent group that developed at about the same time as the Jewish Jesus sect. Similarly, the parallels between some Mandaean texts and the Johannine gospel are not the result of Mandaean “borrowing”; each represents an independent trajectory based on John the Baptizer’s preaching, modified according to each group’s needs. Similarities between Islamic and Mandaean liturgies and prayer formulae are best explained as the result of Mandaean influence upon nascent Islam rather than the latter’s influence upon Mandaeism. Similarities between Mandaean and Jewish liturgies result from preservation of traditions (dynamically modified over time) from the era before Mandaeans parted ways from their Jewish or at least Jewish-related matrix.

[Article INTRODUCTION/BEGINNING]

Mandaeism is one of the few living religions of Gnosticism [The Yazidi religion is another]. As I will argue, similarities between Jewish and Mandaean liturgies are most parsimoniously explained if Mandaeism, which eventually became a theologically anti-Jewish religious group, originated as a Jewish or a somehow Jewish-related sect. A denial of Gnosticism’s origins in Judaism because of the former’s anti-Judaism is not a decisive argument, because as Lester L. Grabbe observes, Christianity grew into an anti-Jewish movement despite its Jewish origins.3

As Grabbe continues: “To get from Judaism to Gnosticism is not easy, but it is certainly not impossible. . . . One does not have to bridge the gap all in one go.”4 Regarding the era of Gnosticism’s origin/s, the fact that it appears already fully developed in the early second century CE arguably makes a first century origin probable, and as Grabble writes, “the situation in Judaism after 70 was not conducive to this sort of development; it seems likely that any Jewish proto-Gnosticism was already in existence before the 66–70 war.”5 Grabbe concludes with the following important observations: “Many of the pre-70 strands of Judaism were cut off by the 66–70 war or disappeared soon afterwards because of the changed circumstances. Others developed in their own way, leading away from Judaism itself: the Christians and perhaps the Gnostics.”6 I would be more specific here, for present purposes, and say, “the Christians and perhaps the Mandaeans.”


3 Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus (London/NY: T&T Clark, 2010), p. 123. However, Grabbe’s claim needs to be qualified. The original Jewish followers of Jesus did not become anti-Jewish. It was the Gentile movement founded by Paul, which was only indirectly rooted in Judaism by virtue of its founder Paul’s Jewish background, that became anti-Jewish.

4 Ibid., p. 123. Häberl informs me that, based on a personal meeting between him and the late Cyrus Gordon, that the latter should be added to the list of scholars who have suspected some measure of Jewish origins for Gnosticism. Incidentally, cf. Cyrus H. Gordon, “Gnostic Light on Genesis 1 and 2 via Maśśaʾ ,” in Cyrus H. Gordon; Gary A. Rendsburg, eds., Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language. Volume 4 (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 197-198.

5 Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, pp. 123-124.

6 ibid., p. 124

Zinner cites Mason in this context, immediately prior to the excerpt Giuseppe quotes above, -

.
A Christian scholar will not in a purportedly scholarly journal openly reject the Mandaean version on theological grounds. Instead, the rejection will be made on the basis of the claim that the gospels are “historical” while the Mandaean texts are [supposedly] not, because the gospels are [supposedly] “earlier” than the “late” Mandaean texts. However, even if we accept this reasoning, which really in some cases could just serve the purposes of theology and apologetics, it runs the risk of overlooking the fact that it doesn’t take long at all for legendary accretions to develop. Such can take place rapidly and do not require several years’ passage. Pertinent to these issues is Steve Mason’s following remarks:

.
... we see an obvious and major difference between Josephus and the Gospels in their respective portraits of the Baptist. To put it bluntly, Josephus does not [portray] John as a “figure in the Christian tradition.” ... Josephus presents him as a famous Jewish preacher with a message and a following of his own, neither of which is related to Jesus. This is a problem for the reader of the NT because the Gospels unanimously declare him to be essentially the forerunner of Jesus the Messiah.28

Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), p. 155.
.


User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

A different take on the beheading of John: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2522.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Post by MrMacSon »

Zinner notes that Jon Olav Ryen has said, in The Tree in the Lightworld, p. 308, -

... some of the striking parallels between Mandaeism and the Gospel of John may be due to a common Gnostic (Gnostic-Jewish) tradition or source ... the ideas found in both Johannine and Mandaean literature [could have been] more common in ancient thought than we have known so far.


Zinner points out, -

It is often overlooked that the vine traditions in John 15 attributed to Jesus are in fact just a transformation and reworking of traditions ascribed to John the Baptizer in Matthew 3.8, 10, 12 and Luke 3.8-9, 17. The Gospel of John omits this teaching of John the Baptizer and transfers it in transformed ways to Jesus in John 15. John 15.26’s teaching on the Spirit of truth likewise derives from John the Baptizer’s preaching about the Spirit in Matthew 3.11 and Luke 3.16, which the Gospel of John does manage to retain in 1.32-33. The synoptic promise by John the Baptizer of the coming of the baptism in the Spirit is transformed in John 15-16 to a promise by Jesus of the coming of the Spirit of truth. Consequently, John 15.6’s teaching on burning unfruitful branches with fire alludes to the synoptic baptism with fire foretold by John the Baptizer. [pp. 7-8]


Previously Zinner had commented, -

.
...mutatis mutandis, it would not contradict Mandaean theology to argue that Mandaeism experienced various special developments in the time of John the Baptizer, thanks in part to his spiritual leadership roles. [top of p. 5]
.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Further reason to date Mark after 90 CE (and probably somewhat later)

Post by andrewcriddle »

The names of Mandaean copyists are preserved in colophons The earliest named Copyist is apparently Slama daughter of Qidra at the end of the 2nd century CE.
Mandaeans
This tends to support a 2nd century CE origin for the Mandaeans in anything like their present form.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply