The member "real life," a fundamentalist propagandist of the first water, alleges that the "gospel" of Mark dates to 50 CE. This is, of course, a disingenuous response to criticisms about the canonical texts, as it ignores the criticism that the texts were copied, "corrected" and "edited" repeatedly in the centuries which followed, until the modern canon was adoped at Nicea in 325 CE. The member "real life" acknowledges himself that texts were lost, and that they were copied. He contradicts himself. He makes a critical and disparaging assertion about modern scholarship on these texts, but provides no source for his criticism--which is typical of his style.
The "gospel" of Mark dates no earlier than 65 CE, according to
the Wikipedia article, which writes:
Quote:The Gospel of Mark is traditionally the second of the New Testament Gospels. It narrates the life of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his resurrection, but it concentrates particularly on the last week of his life. Usually dated around AD 65-80, it is regarded by most modern scholars as the earliest of the canonical gospels, contrary to the traditional view of the Augustinian hypothesis. (emphasis added)
--which is nearly two generations after the death of the putative Jesus--although "real life" may assert that it dates to an earlier period, he provides no evidence to that effect.
According to the
Catholic Encyclopedia article:
Quote:From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts, xiv, 26; xv, 3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.
So, although the "gospel" may date to as early as 50 CE, "real life" willfully ignores
that no physical copy from that date exitsts, and he disingenuous sidesteps the issue of reliability of surviving texts and the effects of "correction" and "editing." Papias, who asserts the validity of the document, also states that he never met any of the alleged apostles nor any of the evangelists. Papias is, nevertheless, a source for the authenticity of that "gospel"--again, the Catholic Encyclopedia (article linked above):
Quote:All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time.
Scholars frequently use Papias as a source for the antiquity of scripture and scriptural doctrine, while relying upon Eusebius for the authenticity of the texts. Eusebius, however, relied upon the library compiled by Pamphilus at Caesarea, to which Origen had repaired upon being exiled from Alexandria. (The reader is free to "google" any of these names for more information.) It cannot be denied that Origen "corrected" and "edited" these documents--hes states as much in his own writings; nor can it be ignored that Pamphilus comes of age, and begins to compile his library at the time that Origen arrives in Caesarea and before the death of Origen. Origen is the source for the authenticity of scripture both for modern scholars, and, significantly, for Pamphilus and Eusebius. Eusebius considered Pamphilus so important to his own learning and scholarship, that he named himself Eusebius Pamphili.
It cannot be avoided that there is a direct line for the canonical scriptures which leads from Papias to Origen, and through Origen and Pamphilus ot Eusebius--who, as Bishop of Caesarea, was agreed upon by all the church authorities at Nicea as the final arbitror for the text and authenticity of the canonical scripture. As the council was convened by Constantine, who then, for civil and political reasons, insisted upon its conclusions being taken as definitive for all christian communities whcih would enjoy the imperial protection, any allegations about other sources is bootless.
The member "real life" protests too much, provides no sources, and intends, apparently, to be taken for an oracular source, one to be believed simply upon the basis of his own bald assertion. More than any other source of doubt about the reliability of the canonical gospels is the
lacuna between the end of the career of Papias (
circa 130 CE) and that of Origen, who was not born before 187 CE. What might have transpired in that period--particularly as the strife between Petrine and Pauline christians continued unabated from before the earliest alleged dates of the writing of the "gospel" of Mark to the beginning of the third century CE when Origen began his career as a catechist--can never be known. The assertions of "real life" are without foundation, unless and until he provides reliable sources for his contentions.
