Thank you for this Kunigunde!Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
If I noticed it right, then you share more traditonal positions in the understanding of the gospel. Based on this, it seems to me that the name Decapolis is the best indication against an early dating.
There is a growing consensus among modern German historians that the name Decapolis may have originated only from the middle of the 1st century (AD). Until the end of the 1st century, the name Coele-Syria was used in official documents and inscriptions. It seems that the name Decapolis was a creation of the inhabitants of the area, to emphasize their Greek culture and probably also to distance themselves from Judea. Besides GMark the earliest sources for the name Decapolis are Josephus (Bellum III 9,7; Vita 65) and Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 5,16,74).
I read books on the subject by "real" historians (not biblical scholars) whose interest were only the Decapolis and not the Gospels. I was very convinced of the late origin of the name Decapolis. German historian Robert Wenning argued for a date between the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) and the beginning of the Jewish war (to emphasize loyal support of Rome).
Can you help me, please. I don't follow your logic, here. the name Decapolis is the best indication against an early dating , no disagreement, but, then, German historian Robert Wenning argued for a date between the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) and the beginning of the Jewish war (to emphasize loyal support of Rome), in other words, if I have understood you, Wenning argues for a date betwen 44 CE, and 70 CE? How is that not an early date?
It seems that the name Decapolis was a creation of the inhabitants of the area, to emphasize their Greek culture and probably also to distance themselves from Judea.
Can you furnish a link to a bit of text to support this claim?
Again, if Pliny Elder had already noted the name Decapolis, would that not reinforce, rather than repudiate, the argument favoring an early date for gMark? I simply do not follow your idea.