How late might the gospels be?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

pavurcn wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:50 am Two points:

1. Hakeem seems to rule out the possibility of the miraculous. That is not scientifically tenable. We cannot say that we know all the "laws of nature." How can one possibly know that the miraculous or extraordinary cannot occur? Life out of dead matter is a miracle; consciousness is a miracle.
I have not claimed we know all the "laws of nature".

It is rather pointless whether or not you believe in the possibility of the miraculous since you still will not be able to show or provide any historical evidence that any event about Jesus in gMark did happen.

pavurcn wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:50 am People attest to "miraculous" cures and events all the time. (See, for example, Eben Alexander III. It is not scientific to disregard experience even if the event is beyond our current capacity for explanation. Science constantly points us towards the limitations of our knowledge and towards mystery.
You seem not to understand that the difference between unexplained events and known fiction.

Whether or not people attest to "miraculous " cures and events your claims are still pointless. You will never ever be able to show or provide historical evidence :

1. that Jesus walked on the sea.
2. that there was a voice from heaven when Jesus was baptized.
3. that Jesus instantly transfigured.
4. that there was a voice from heaven at the transfiguration.
5. that dead people came back to life at the transfiguration.
6. that Jesus instantly healed people by simply talking to them.
7. that Jesus fed thousands of people with a few bread and fish.
8. that Jesus was tempted by the devil.
9. that Jesus was crucified although it is claimed the witnesses gave false evidence.
10. that Jesus resurrected after he was dead for days.

The Jesus story in gMark is total non-historical non-contemporary propaganda written long after c 70 CE to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple.

The propaganda against the Jews was not intended to start a new religion but later became the fundamental belief of a new cult called Christians around the 2nd century.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Irish1975 »

hakeem wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:52 am First of all the so-called letters of Paul have no known actual time frame in the 1st century. All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts of letters under the name of Paul. People have assumed or speculated without a shred of historical evidence that the supposed letters of Paul were written in the 1st century.

The very chronology and dating of the so-called letters under the name of Paul cannot be attempted without using the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The version of the Jesus story in gMark must be earlier than the version of the Jesus story in the supposed letters of Paul.
2 Corinthians 11:32: "In Damascus, the governor under king Aretas guarded the city in order to seize me..."

Aretas IV ruled the Nabatean kingdom 9-40 CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

That's one of the clearest chronological pegs in the whole NT. Paul was definitely 1st century, and anyhow would not have traveled to Jerusalem several times to meet with James and Cephas after James was dead and the city was destroyed.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Irish1975 »

rakovsky wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:51 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:33 pm Longstanding consensus among NT scholars has it that Mark was written circa 70. Maybe 65-80 if you ask around. But although the Jewish-Roman war provides a clear basement for dating Mark,
Why is that a clear basement for dating Mark to after 65 AD?

Mark includes predictions about the destruction of the Temple, but so does the Book of Daniel, and probably even the book of Ezekiel, since that prophet speaks of a third temple. That doesn't mean that those books came after 65 AD. Likewise, Mark also predicts the destruction of the world, the general resurrection, and the Second Coming, but that doesn't mean that the book was written after those events occurred.
Does Daniel predict the destruction of the temple? I thought he just narrated the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes.

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. It isn't just that the Temple is invaded or sacked; "not one stone is left upon another."

Do you have a positive reason for dating Mark earlier than 66-70?
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:38 pm
hakeem wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:52 am First of all the so-called letters of Paul have no known actual time frame in the 1st century. All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts of letters under the name of Paul. People have assumed or speculated without a shred of historical evidence that the supposed letters of Paul were written in the 1st century.

The very chronology and dating of the so-called letters under the name of Paul cannot be attempted without using the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The version of the Jesus story in gMark must be earlier than the version of the Jesus story in the supposed letters of Paul.
2 Corinthians 11:32: "In Damascus, the governor under king Aretas guarded the city in order to seize me..."

Aretas IV ruled the Nabatean kingdom 9-40 CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

That's one of the clearest chronological pegs in the whole NT. Paul was definitely 1st century, and anyhow would not have traveled to Jerusalem several times to meet with James and Cephas after James was dead and the city was destroyed.
The claims in the Pauline writings cannot be assumed to be the actual time frame for the author.

You seem not to understand that in the Christian Bible even Ghosts were said to have lived in the time of King Herod. One Ghost impregnated a Virgin called Mary during the reign of Tiberius :banghead: .

The claim that a Pauline writer was in Damascus telling people to worship a crucified criminal as the Lord from heaven, God Creator and the firstborn of the dead is just as non-historical as the claim that Paul and over 500 persons were seen by the resurrected Jesus.

The character called Paul and letters were manufactured no earlier than the 2nd century in an attempt to historicise the fable called the resurrection.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by pavurcn »

hakeem wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:14 pm It is rather pointless whether or not you believe in the possibility of the miraculous since you still will not be able to show or provide any historical evidence that any event about Jesus in gMark did happen.

[...]

The Jesus story in gMark is total non-historical non-contemporary propaganda written long after c 70 CE to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple.

The propaganda against the Jews was not intended to start a new religion but later became the fundamental belief of a new cult called Christians around the 2nd century.
1. We all the time believe all kinds of things sensibly without being able to provide historical evidence. No one ever showed me historical evidence that Columbus sailed where he did in 1492, or that Caesar was assassinated in a political assembly, or that Alexander the Great was tutored by Aristotle. Evidence you provide could be claimed to have been forged for some special, self-interested, propagandistic purposes. We have the line of multiple trustworthy witnesses who stand up to refutation over time and whose stories cohere. And we have the visible effects. No one saw the Big Bang. But we see its effects.

2. Gratuitous assertions can be denied gratuitously. If you demand historical evidence as a precondition for belief, I wonder why you are so certain about your interpretation of Christian origins.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

archibald
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. It isn't just that the Temple is invaded or sacked; "not one stone is left upon another."
I wonder, do the non-religious fans of this theory defend daily newspaper horoscopes from Michael Shermer types who deny those forecasts' uncanny preternatural awesomeness? Or do the godless fans agree that transparently vacuous wordcraft is on display, but imagine that Mark was stupider than Michael Shermer?

Regardless, there is another lally pole in the basement.

Mark does seem to have read Paul's letters, and yet avoids any impression of active participation in the on-going tense interaction between the living Paul and the Jerusalem church. Since it is also popular to estimate Paul's death as occurring in the 60's, and hard for there to have been many letters for Mark to read before the mid-to-late 50's, 65 looks reasonable as a "rosy scenario" early feasible date.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by archibald »

Jax wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:25 pm Wait! Jesus wasn't gay? :wtf:

OK Mr. Wizard, then why was he snuggling with the disciple that he loved in 'John'? And the naked youth? And the fact that Jesus is "around 30" and apparently not married?

;)
I'm working on a new book already.....
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by archibald »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:42 am I wonder, do the non-religious fans of this theory defend daily newspaper horoscopes from Michael Shermer types who deny those forecasts' uncanny preternatural awesomeness? Or do the godless fans agree that transparently vacuous wordcraft is on display, but imagine that Mark was stupider than Michael Shermer?
I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. Not being argumentative here, just not understanding. If you mean 'was the prediction about the fall of the temple not likely put into the mouth of Jesus retrospectively and was thus not an actual prediction' I'd guess yes. Without being sure. I mean, it could have been imminent and therefore predictable at time of writing. But this seems a bit less likely as an explanation to me. I'd opt for retrospective, as a fairly strong preference.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:42 amMark does seem to have read Paul's letters....
Really? How would we know? Or I mean what would suggest it? Again, not being argumentative.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

archibald
I'm not sure what your point is.
You mentioned specifically the "not one stone" speech. That statement will someday be true of every vertical arrangement of stones whatsoever, without exception.

That is how newspaper horoscopes achieve the "wow, this is talking to me" effect for which they are justly famous.

Here's mine today from the Sydney Morning Herald:
You have a strong urge to change the world today for the better. There are so many areas in need of improvement! Your ideas are sure to be good ones, even if it's tough to convince others of that fact. If you know you want to help but don't know where to start, no problem. There are lots of local volunteer opportunities that are eager for people like you.
OMFG! Here it is, the one day that I don't feel a desultory inclination to change the world for the worse, and this guy nails it in the first sentence. Then, it's like he's reading this thread! Here I am trying to convince you of something, a good idea for once, and it's been tough so far. This guy's 2 for 2!

So, too: See that big pile of stones? The day will come when those stones won't be piled up anymore.

Could be, eh?

Compartmentalization is an interesting psychological phenomenon. While I appreciate that one needn't be a skeptic to be irreligious, I doubt that the two traits are completely independent, either. What I just did with a haphazardly selected horoscope is familiar to skeptics everywhere. You pointed to irreligious scholars who accept the stones speech as a valid forecast, leading them to a make a dating estimate.

Why should someone assume that what Michael Shermer can figure out about newspaper horoscopes eluded Mark who's writing in the same genre for his portayal of Jesus?

Seriously. Mark wasn't aiming for a realistic portrayal of how prophets speak, despite having achieved exactly that after twice having had characters remark on Jesus' perceived prophet-likeness? OK, then why not have Jesus say: You admire that big pile of stones? Within an ordinary lifetime, a foreign army will utterly destroy the Temple after a bitter siege of the city.

That is a different order of discourse from what Mark's Jesus says. That's a forecast, not a horoscope. That's how analysts talk, not prophets.
Really? How would we know? Or I mean what would suggest it? Again, not being argumentative.
Let's not go off on a whole new thread (unless you want to do that literally, which might be fun). The issue here was the bases for scholars to date Mark 65+, and that's one basis some scholars offer.

As it happens, I agree with that assessment of Mark's reading, but it's a long story, none of it bearing on how late the gospels might be.
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 »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:19 pm
rakovsky wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:51 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:33 pm Longstanding consensus among NT scholars has it that Mark was written circa 70. Maybe 65-80 if you ask around. But although the Jewish-Roman war provides a clear basement for dating Mark,
Why is that a clear basement for dating Mark to after 65 AD?

Mark includes predictions about the destruction of the Temple, but so does the Book of Daniel, and probably even the book of Ezekiel, since that prophet speaks of a third temple. That doesn't mean that those books came after 65 AD. Likewise, Mark also predicts the destruction of the world, the general resurrection, and the Second Coming, but that doesn't mean that the book was written after those events occurred.
Does Daniel predict the destruction of the temple? I thought he just narrated the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes.

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. It isn't just that the Temple is invaded or sacked; "not one stone is left upon another."

Do you have a positive reason for dating Mark earlier than 66-70?
Paul talks about preaching the gospel, and it's reasonable to think that he or the other apostles had a written text by which they could recount the important parts of Jesus' life and teaching in their evangelism. Also, Mark was a student of Paul, and so he reasonably could have written this while Paul was alive, before 66 AD.

Papias says that Mark wrote it after Peter's death, so this is significant evidence for it being written after c. 63 AD. But Papias is not fully reliable. He tries to explain the story of Judas' guts spilling out by claiming that Judas walked around being fat with worms and then having his stomache burst. But this is a misunderstanding of Acts, which I believe says in Greek that when Judas' head drooped forward ("drooping headfirst") in his death pose, he decomposed and his guts spilled out.

As for Daniel 9, many scholars think that this was about Antiochus, because Josephus matches the events up. However in fact Josephus also matches the events in Daniel 9 up with the temple's destruction in c.70 AD as their fulfillment. He sees two fulfillments. But the fulfillment under Antiochus cannot really be the correct one, since by Daniel's counting of "weeks", it's far too early. The only way to defend it is by proposing that Daniel drastically underestimated the number of "weeks" between the order to build the second temple and the time of Antiochus.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Post Reply