• Jimmy Akin Twitter

. Neil, have you previously blogged on dating Mark—post Antiquities and as a source?:db wrote: So what date range do you find likely for the composition of Gospel of Mark?Post-date of Antiquities, mid-90s CE terminus a quo.I know it is not common to see Antiquities as a source used in the composition of GMark, but Brad McAdon outlines an argument for this in Alpha 1 (2017): 92-93 (“Josephus and Mark”).

McAdon’s summary: “The number of specific details within these similarities between themes of Antiquities’s Antipas/JohnB and GMark are striking, and suggest dependence. Moreover, the fact that Josephus’s Antiquities 18 is the only extant source that includes narrative material on the Herodian family, a Philip, Herod Antipas, Herod Antipas and Herodias’s relationship, John’s criticism of this relationship, John’s baptism, arrest, imprisonment, and death strongly suggest dependence one way or the other. If, for example, Mark did not know and use Antiquities 18, this would mean that he must have had access to and used some other source material for these narrative components of John’s baptism and death including specific details about the Herodian family–including ambiguity about a Philip–and John’s baptism, arrest, and death that is extremely similar in content to, if not identical to, Antiquities 18. So far, we know of no such source.”.

Yes, I saw that comment exchange, thanks. I have posted before on dating GMark in the second century and I have at times wondered about a post Josephan Antiquities date. There are some things here and there that make me wonder, but the ideas are too insubstantial for me to post further about them or to comment.My understanding of the McAdon’s statement was that it was more of a discussion starter than a settled argument as such.Is it not likely that the event of the John the Baptist arrest and execution was known more widely than merely from Josephus? I suspect such an event would be more widely known. But then we have Ted Weeden’s observation of the similarities between the Jesus son of Ananias and the gospel Jesus; and other overlaps here and there (someone mentioned Banus as another instance).

And the focus on crucifixions. Lots of questions.I’m also in two minds over the historicity of John the Baptist (or was it Hyrcanus — I will wait to read Greg’s article).I simply don’t know enough about the evidence — I’d want to do a very detailed analysis of the various texts (not only Josephus and Mark) but even then I suspect I would be as unsure as when I started.— And how confident can we be that the death of John the Baptist story in Mark was part of the original composition of the gospel anyway? (& despite my posts on Noam’s book I would need to do my study before I am really confident that the passage was a Josephan interpolation.). I’m not sure if by “ If Domitian (81 to 96) was responsible for restoring and enforcing the imperial cult” you’re referring to the supposed Domitian persecution, but –, by Catholic author Jimmy Akin, about –by Mark Wilson, in turn based on Brian W.

Home; Luther, 'Exposing the Myth'.

Jones’ The Emperor Domitian (New York: Routledge, 1992) –“No convincing evidence exists for a Domitianic persecution of the Christians.” (p. 117)And Mark Wilson notes –Leonard Thompson also noted that a more critical reading of Eusebius raises doubts about a widespread persecution of Christians under Domitian. He concluded that “most modern commentators no longer accept a Domitianic persecution of Christians.”Leonard L.

Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990), p. I think we tend to have a bias for simple solutions and that is not on the whole a bad thing. But we do see some works that attempt to explain a text as we have it as being created just so by a single author from the start, yet such a simple explanation does sometimes require a little more imagination to make it work than a hypothesis that accepts a document has come to us through various stages of redaction.The best approach all round is humility, always being prepared to revise one’s opinion or judgement and being open to discussing and addressing new and old evidence and arguments and requiring them to justify themselves.

Kok, Michael J. The Gospel on the Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 220.Braun conjectures that the patristic ambivalence over Mark may be a clue that it initially gained a receptive audience on the wrong side in the rivalry between Christian factions. By the means of scribal redactions and patristic traditions superimposed on Mark, the text was taken back by the eventual winners of the contest. Braun reckons that Mark was amenable to radical Paulinists yet stamped with a Petrine imprimatur to make it safe for the canon. To wrest Mark from the control of their adversaries, the patristic authorities credited the text to Peter as the symbolic figurehead of their communities, irrespective of what little regard they had for Mark’s literary merits on its own terms.

Braun does not back up his hypothesis that Mark received a more favorable reception among rival Christian groups with much textual evidence, though he flags up the interest in mystic Mark by an “Alexandrian secrecy group” and the so-called “anti-Marcionite” prologues in some Gospel manuscripts as potentially fruitful lines of inquiry.Cf. Braun, Willi (2010). “The First Shall be Last: The Gospel of Mark after the First Century”. In Pachis, Panayotis; Wiebe, Donald.

Chasing Down Religion: In the Sights of History and the Cognitive Sciences: Essays in Honor of Luther H. Barbounakis Publications.

ISBN 535.See: ““. RelWis Hannover. 4 July 2013. Braun asserts that gMark has no value as a 1st century historical source. “Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion.

Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on.”—, –.

Jimmy Akin Twitter

Few write with the precision and clarity of Jimmy (James) Akin regarding Catholic matters. Akin's work in Catholic apologetics is thorough and through his writings he presents and articulates ideas and concepts with an understandable expertise. He is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers and is heard frequently on the Catholic Answers radio program. More of his writings may be found at Catholic.com, as well as his own blog, Day of AshesBy James AkinAsh Wednesday, the day Lent begins, occurs forty days before Good Friday. Some Fundamentalists claim Ash Wednesday is based on a pagan festival, but it originated in the A.D. 900s, long after Europe had been Christianized and the pagan cults stamped out.Ash Wednesday is actually a colloquial name. The official name is the Day of Ashes, because on that day the faithful have their foreheads marked with ashes in the shape of a cross.In the Bible, a mark on the forehead is a symbol of ownership.

By having his forehead marked with the sign of a cross, a person symbolizes that he belongs to Jesus Christ, who died on a cross. This is in imitation of the spiritual mark or seal that is put on a Christian in baptism, when he is delivered from slavery to sin and the devil and made a slave of righteousness and Christ (Rom. It also imitates the way the righteous are described in the book of Revelation: 'Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads' (Rev.7:3). Or again, 'Then I looked, and, lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads' (Rev. This is in contrast to the followers of the beast, who have the number 666 on their foreheads or hands.This reference to the sealing of the servants of God for their protection has a parallel passage in Ezekiel: 'And the Lord said to him one of the four cherubim, 'Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark literally, a tav upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.'

And to the others he said in my hearing, 'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one upon whom is the mark' (Ezek. 9:4-6).Like most modern translations, the Revised Standard Version quoted above is not sufficiently literal here. What it actually says is to place a tav on the foreheads of the righteous inhabitants of Jerusalem. Tav is one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in ancient script it looked like the Greek letter chi-two crossed lines like an x. It is also the first letter in the Greek word for Christ ( christos).

The Jewish rabbis commented on the connection between tav and chi. This is undoubtedly the mark Revelation has in mind when the servants of God are sealed with it.The Church Fathers expounded on this tav- chi-cross- christos connection in their homilies, seeing in Ezekiel a prophetic foreshadowing of the sealing of Christians as servants of Christ. It is also part of the background of the Catholic practice of making the sign of the cross, which in the early centuries (as can be documented from the second century on) consisted of using one's thumb to trace a small sign of the cross on one's forehead-like Catholic do today at the reading of the Gospel during Mass.On the first day of Lent, this signing is done with ashes because they are a biblical symbol of mourning and penance. In Bible times the custom was to fast, wear sackcloth, sit in dust and ashes, and put dust and ashes on one's head (cf. 1:20, 13:19, 15:32).

Ashes also symbolize death and so remind us of our mortality. When the priest uses his thumb to sign one of the faithful with the ashes and says, 'Remember, man, that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return,' he is echoing God's address to Adam (Gen. Job 34:15; Ps.

90:3, 104:29; Eccles. This phrase also echoes the words at a Catholic burial, 'Ashes to ashes; dust to dust,' which is based on God's words to Adam in Genesis 3 and Abraham's confession, 'I am nothing but dust and ashes' (Gen. 18:27).Catholics are not required to have their foreheads signed with ashes. It is, though, strongly advised as a visible spiritual reminder that encourages us to adopt an attitude of prayer, repentance, and humility.Neither is Ash Wednesday a holy day of obligation. Holy days are either commemorations of particular events (such as the birth of Christ), particular people (such as Jesus' earthly father, Joseph), or important theological concepts (such as the Kingship of Christ). Ash Wednesday does not commemorate any event and could be said only indirectly to commemorate a Person (Christ), since it is the beginning of preparation for the greater celebrations of Christ's saving work that follow.

However, attending Mass is a fitting way to mark the beginning of penitential season of Lent. Also, it is a day of fast and abstinence.

11 Retrieved from on February 18, 2010, 'This Rock' magazine, Vol. 12, Number 4 - April 2001 IssueFor more information please refer to www.Catholic.com.