STUDY ARCHIVE
Main Page
EARLY CHURCH
Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St.
Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus
HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus
David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce
Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards
E.B.
Elliott
Heinrich Ewald Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull Johann Lange
Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther
James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink
Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius
Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John
Smith
C.H. Spurgeon Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield
Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright
John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig
MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke
Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas
Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert
Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P.
Warren Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st
C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any
Particular Eschatology)
Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm.
Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd E.B. Elliott
G.S.
Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice
Benjamin Jowett John N.D. Kelly
Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce Eduard Reuss
J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith
Norman Snaith
"Televangelists" Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord
Quakers :
George Fox |
Margaret Fell (Fox) |
Isaac Penington
PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM |
MODERN PRETERISM |
PRETERIST IDEALISM
|
|
The Gospel of Mark
DATING OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK
Mark Goodacre: Dating the
Crucial Sources in Early Christianity
(2008 PDF)
Mark Goodacre (2008)
"One of the standard arguments against the idea that Mark shows
knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem is the reassertion of the
text’s own character here as prediction. In his
Introduction to the New Testament,
David A. DeSilva suggests that “The primary reason many scholars tend to
date Mark’s Gospel after 70 CE is the presupposition that Jesus could
not foresee the destruction of Jerusalem – an ideological conviction
clearly not shared by all.” But this kind of appeal, while popular,
tends not to take seriously the literary function of predictions in
narrative texts like Mark. Successful predictions play a major role in
the narrative, reinforcing the authority of the one making the
prediction and confirming the accuracy of the text’s theological view.
It is like reading Jeremiah. It works because the reader knows that the
prophecies of doom turned out to be correct. It is about “when prophecy
succeeds”. (The
Dating Game PDF, 31-32)
George Eldon Ladd (1975)
"Mark was written about A.D.60, Matthew and Luke possibly a little
later." (I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus; Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans; p. 35)
Dr. William L. Lane (1974) "The Gospel of Mark is generally
dated within the decade A.D.60-70." (The Gospel According to Mark;
gen. ed. F.F. Bruce; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; p. 17)
Thomas Newton
"But none of
our Saviour's prophecies are more remarkable than those relating to the
destruction of Jerusalem, as none are more proper and pertinent to the
design of these discourses: and we will consider them as they lie in the
twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew, taking in also what is superadded
by the other evangelists upon parallel occasions. These prophecies were
delivered by our Saviour about forty years, and were committed to
writing by St Matthew about thirty years, before they were to take
effect. St Matthew's is universally allowed to be the first of the four
Gospels;
[1] the
first in time, as it is always
was the first in order was written, as most writers affirm, in the
eighth year after the ascension of our Saviour.
[2] It must
have been written before the dispersion of the apostles, because St.
Bartholemew
[3] is said
to have taken it along with him into India, and to have left it there,
where it was found several years afterwards by Pantaenus. If the general
tradition of antiquity be true, that it was written originally in
Hebrew, it certainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem,
for there was no occasion for writing in that language after the
destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews into all
nations. It is asserted upon good authority,
[4] that
the Gospels of Mark and Luke were approved and confirmed, the one by St.
Peter the other by St. Paul. So Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and
Clemens Alexandrinus say expressly that the Gospel of St. Mark was
written at the desire of the new converts, and ratified by St. Peter. So
the learned Origen affirms, that the second Gospel is that of Mark, who
wrote as Peter dictated to him; and the third Gospel is that of Luke,
which is commended by Paul. So Tertullian saith, that Mark's Gospel is
affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was; and Luke's Gospel
they are wont to ascribe to Paul. So Jerome saith, that the Gospel
according to Mark, who was the disciple and the interpreter of Peter, is
said to be Peter's. These authorities are more than sufficient to weigh
down the single testimony of Irenaeus to the contrary; but besides
these, Gregory Nazienzen, Athanasius, and other fathers might be alleged
to prove, that the Gospels or Mark and Luke received
the approbation, the one of St. Peter, the other of St. Paul: and it is
very well known, that both these apostles suffered martyrdom under Nero.
" (Prophecy
of Matthew 24)
J. A. T. Robinson
"The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of
institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a
past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in
some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the
event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for
Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark." (Redating the New
Testament)
Will Ed Warren
"Mark's Gospel was written about A.D.65." ("Mark," in
New Testament Survey; p. 113)
"There are some of those who are standing here who shall not
taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom." (Matt. 16:28; cf. Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27)
"From now
on, you [Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders,
the whole Sanhedrin] shall be seeing the Son of Man sitting at
the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
(Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69)
"The kingdom of God
is at hand." (Mk. 1:15)
"What will the owner of the
vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will
give the vineyard to others. ....They [the chief priests,
scribes and elders] understood that He spoke the parable against
them." (Mk. 12:9,12)
"This generation will not pass away
until all these things take place.” (Mk. 13:30)
Mark 16
"Long Ending"
PROOF OF EARLY
CHRISTIAN PRETERISM?
"The
term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled"
New Revised Standard Version
Notes "..some manuscripts
include the following very interesting exchange: "And they excused
themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under
Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the
unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness
now' -- thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, '
The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other
terrible things draw near.. And for those who have sinned, I was
handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no
more..." (Inserted in Mark 16:14, NRSV)
WIKIPEDIA
Mark the Evangelist (Greek: Markos) (1st century) is
traditionally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark, drawing
much of his material from Peter. He is often identified with the John,
also named Mark, that accompanied Paul and Barnabas in the first journey
of Paul. After a sharp dispute, Barnabas separated from Paul, taking
Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:36-40). Later Paul calls on the services of
Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, and Mark is named as Paul's fellow worker.
He is also believed to be the first pope of Alexandria by both the
Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church. [edit]
Biblical and Traditional Information
Though it is possible
that the various uses of the name 'Mark' in the New Testament refer to
different people, it is far more likely that they are one and the same
person. So the John Mark in Acts (12:12, 25; 15:37) mentioned simply as
John in 13:5 and 13:13 and as Mark in 15:39 is the same person as the
Mark mentioned by Paul in (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy, 4:11; Philemon,
24) and by the author of 1 Peter 5:13. Mark of the Pauline Epistles is
specified as a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10); this would explain
Barnabas' special attachment to the Mark of Acts over whom he disputed
with Paul (Acts 15:37-40). Mark's mother was a prominent member of the
earliest group of Christians in Jerusalem; it was to her house that
Peter turned on his release from prison. The house was a meeting-place
for the brethren, "many" of whom were praying there the night Peter
arrived from prison (Acts 12:12-17). Evidence for Mark's authorship of
the Gospel that bears his name originates with Papias.
A number of traditions have built up around Mark, though none can be
verified from the New Testament. It is suggested that Mark was one of
the servants at the wedding feast at Cana who poured out the water that
Jesus turned to wine (John 2:1-11). Mark is also said to have been one
of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ (Luke 10); was the servant
who carried water to the house of Simon the Cyrenian, where the Last
Supper took place (Mark 14:13); was the young man who ran away naked
when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51-52); and was the one who hosted the
disciples in his house after the death of Jesus, and into whose house
the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20). These connections are
probably wishful thinking.
The tradition that he eventually went
to Alexandria and was the first to preach the Gospel there probably has
more basis in fact. He is said to have performed many miracles, and
established a church there, appointing a bishop, three priests, and
seven deacons.
When Mark returned to Alexandria, the people there
are said to have resented his efforts to turn them away from the worship
of their traditional Egyptian gods. In AD 68 they killed him, and tried
to burn his body. Afterwards, the Christians in Alexandria removed his
unburned body from the ashes, wrapped it and then buried it in the
easterly part of the church they had built. [edit]
Fate of his
remains
In 828, relics believed to be the body of St. Mark were stolen from
Alexandria by Italian sailors and were taken to Venice in Italy. A
basilica was built there to house the relics.
Copts believe that
the head of the saint remained in Alexandria. Every year, on the 30th
day of the month of Babah, the Coptic Orthodox Church celebrates the
commemoration of the consecration of the church of St. Mark, and the
appearance of the head of the saint in the city of Alexandria. This
takes place inside St Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, where
the saint's head is preserved.
In 1094, during the construction
of a new basilica in Venice, St. Mark's relics could not be found.
However, it is said that "the saint himself revealed the location of his
remains … by extending an arm from a pillar" The newfound remains were
placed in a sarcophagus in the basilica.
In June 1968, Pope Cyril
VI of Alexandria sent an official delegation to Rome to receive a relic
of St. Mark from Pope Paul VI. The delegation consisted of ten
metropolitans and bishops, seven of whom were Coptic and three
Ethiopian, and three prominent Coptic lay leaders. The relic was said to
be a small piece of bone that had been given to the Roman pope by
Giovanni Cardinal Urbani, Patriarch of Venice. Pope Paul, in an address
to the delegation, said that the rest of the relics of the saint
remained in Venice. The delegation received the relic on June 22, 1968.
The next day, the delegation celebrated a pontifical liturgy in the
church of St. Athanasius the Apostolic in Rome. The metropolitans,
bishops, and priests of the delegation all served in the liturgy.
Members of the Roman papal delegation, Copts who lived in Rome,
newspaper and news agency reporters, and many foreign dignitaries
attended the liturgy.
The Priority of Mark
This excerpt is taken from Carl S. Patton in
Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (London: The Macmillan Company
1915), pp. 13-16.
We add here a brief statement of the theory that
Mark's Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tho
this theory is no longer defended, it may be worth while to summarize
the more general considerations which have led to its abandonment.
1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for
the omission by Mark of so much of the material that stood before him in
Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He
has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much
is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No
reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting
from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not
only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive
character of either of its exemplars.
2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is
impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows, as
between Matthew and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative
is longer than either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of
the leper, for example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v,
12-16, without his introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In
the healing of the paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26)
Matthew has 125 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13;
Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk
viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the
interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii,
11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such
instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark
contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere
redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have
eliminated.
3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown
or unliterary words and phrases. For example,
scizomenous, i, 10; en pneumati akaqartw,
i, 23;
krabattoV, ii, 4, and in five other places;
epiraptei, ii, 21;
qugatrion, v, 23; vii, 25;
escatwV ecei, v, 23;
spekougatwr, vi, 27;
sumposia sumposia, vi, 39;
eisin tineV wde twn esthkotwn, ix, 1;
eis kata eis, xiv, 19;
ekperisswV, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been
replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use
instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for
those better expressions.
4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete
constructions; as in iii, 16+; iv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii,
38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49. Such constructions would be easily
corrected by Matthew and Luke; they would not easily be inserted into
the narratives of Matthew and Luke by Mark.
5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of
which Matthew has taken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes
another. Such instances may be found in Mark's Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv,
39; xi, 2; xii, 14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will
show their treatment of these redundancies.
6. Mark uses uniformly kai,
where Matthew and Luke have sometimes kai and
sometimes
de. Mark's use shows him to be nearer the
Hebrew or Aramaic. No explanation can be given for his substitution of
this monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by
Matthew and Luke. The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark's one
conjunction is entirely natural.
7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates
into the Greek; see especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It
would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of
Mark's material for Hellenistic readers; but very unnatural for Mark to
have inserted these Aramaic words into the Greek texts of Matthew and
luke.
8. Mark's narrative thruout is more spirited and
vivid than either Matthew's or Luke's. It would be much easier for these
graphic touches to be omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke,
even tho they found these before them in the Gospel of Mark, than for
Mark to have added these touches in copying the narratives of Matthew
and Luke. One may mention especially the details about the appearance
and dress of the Baptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter
(ii, 3); the statement, "He looked around upon them with wrath, being
grieved at the hardness of their hearts" (Mk iii, 5); the names of
persons, and their relatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the
description of the Gadarene demoniac, the additional details of the
conversation between Jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix,
20-24), and many similar items.
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security |