How late might the gospels be?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:31 pm to Ben,
So you are basically pitting one part of Matthew against another part of Matthew. The way he treats the Pharisees suggests a late date to you, so you use that late date to (re)interpret the generational prophecy, even if you have to make up rules ad hoc as you go. I think I understand you now, at least. Hard pass, thanks.
So when do you put the situation of the Pharisees & scribes as becoming leaders of the Jews?
I am willing to stipulate whatever date you prefer. My point is that it does not affect my reading of the generational prophecy, because Matthew does not connect the two in any way.
I already said the case of 'tote' in 5:1 is odd. It is because it introduces one parable which comes after another one. The other cases are about an action (with verb in the future tense) following by another one (with verb in the future tense).
For Mt 24:21, the NIV, NET, & ISV did not substitute "then" by "at that time".
You are missing the point. The translations I gave only go to show that "at that time" is not at all awkward, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. My reading is based on the Greek, and the "rules" you are making up are tendentious and just plain wrong. The primary definition of "then" is "at that time" in English, so to base your interpretation on which option the translators picked is a strategy guaranteed to mislead you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
I am willing to stipulate whatever date you prefer. My point is that it does not affect my reading of the generational prophecy, because Matthew does not connect the two in any way.
I think you are atomizing and not looking at the whole picture (that is the whole of gMatthew).
You are missing the point. The translations I gave only go to show that "at that time" is not at all awkward, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. My reading is based on the Greek, and the "rules" you are making up are tendentious and just plain wrong. The primary definition of "then" is "at that time" in English, so to base your interpretation on which option the translators picked is a strategy guaranteed to mislead you.
Are you sure the so-called primary definition of 'then" also applies when "then" is followed by an action in the future, such as "I am in Paris. Then I will go to London"? And according to my observations on gMatthew, here 'tote', when followed by a verb in the future tense, has a primary definition of "next".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:37 pmAre you sure the so-called primary definition of 'then" also applies when "then" is followed by an action in the future...?
The tense does not matter:

then
at that time (in the past or in the future):
She was then sixteen years old.
Soon the sun will go down, and then it will be time to go.

[Link: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/then.]

What matters is the context.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
I have another argument about what I wrote before:
Let's notice "Matthew" did not repeat "those days" in 24:21, most likely for not linking his great tribulation with the events of 70:

Mk 13:17-19
And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Pray that it may not happen in winter.
For (in) those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.


To be compared with Mt 24:19-21
And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath.
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
"(in) those days" is equivalent to "at that time". But "Matthew" did not repeat these words from gMark. Instead he replaced them by "then" ('tote'), which certainly can mean "next", as you did mention "By NT times τότε could mean "then" in the sense of "next" or "thereupon" or "thereafter,"" (and, in gMatthew, 'tote' means "next" in most cases when it is followed by a verb in the future tense).

Essentially, in 24:21, "Matthew" got rid of the equivalent of "at that time" in order to have it replaced by 'tote', which certainly can mean "next".
What matters is the context.
For me the context includes the Pharisees becoming leaders, and that before the great tribulation is over (because that tribulation is followed immediately by the end: 24:29).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by rakovsky »

rakovsky wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:21 am
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:19 pm 66-70 is a basement dating for Mark by most historians, religious and not, who interpret Mark 13 as a reference to events in 66-70.

Papias says that Mark wrote it after Peter's death, so this is significant evidence for it being written after c. 63 AD.
It turns out that my information was wrong about this. Papias doesn't say in what I found that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death. And Eusebius claims that Mark was writing his gospel while Peter was still preaching:
Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
...
“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:

“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is ... tle-peter/

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rakovsky wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:59 pm
rakovsky wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:21 am
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:19 pm 66-70 is a basement dating for Mark by most historians, religious and not, who interpret Mark 13 as a reference to events in 66-70.

Papias says that Mark wrote it after Peter's death, so this is significant evidence for it being written after c. 63 AD.
It turns out that my information was wrong about this. Papias doesn't say in what I found that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death.
Irenaeus does.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by rakovsky »

Irenaeus doesn't appear to specify that Mark composed the writings after Peter's death, only that it was handed down after his departure (Against Heresies 3.1.1): “Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”.

The full idea is that Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were alive and preaching, and that after their death Mark handed on the preaching in writing. This would suggest that Matthew was written before Peter and Paul's death, and that Mark's gospel is the preaching done by Peter and Paul while they were alive. This does not contradict other claims in patristics that Mark was writing his gospel based on Peter's preaching while Peter was still preaching.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rakovsky wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:15 pm Irenaeus doesn't appear to specify that Mark composed the writings after Peter's death, only that it was handed down after his departure (Against Heresies 3.1.1): “Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”.

The full idea is that Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were alive and preaching, and that after their death Mark handed on the preaching in writing. This would suggest that Matthew was written before Peter and Paul's death, and that Mark's gospel is the preaching done by Peter and Paul while they were alive. This does not contradict other claims in patristics that Mark was writing his gospel based on Peter's preaching while Peter was still preaching.
I actually agree that this harmonization is possible. I was trying to help you find the passage you may have confused with Papias.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by rakovsky »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:18 pm I was trying to help you find the passage you may have confused with Papias.
Some scholars claim that Papias, in the earlier statement that I quoted, sees Mark's gospel as post-dating Peter.

Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences, Michael F. Bird, ‎Joel Willitts - 2013 -
"We can note a further dissimilarity since Papias implies that Mark wrote after Peter's death, whereas subsequent traditions..."

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by andrewcriddle »

rakovsky wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:59 pm

It turns out that my information was wrong about this. Papias doesn't say in what I found that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death. And Eusebius claims that Mark was writing his gospel while Peter was still preaching:
Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
...
“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:

“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is ... tle-peter/
The fact that Papias is writing out from memory what Peter said, implies that Peter is either dead or gone away somewhere.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply