On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

I don't follow how this can be understood as a description of a post 70 reform of Judaism by the Pharisees.

That was not my main point in quoting this passage from Josephus and making my prior claim:
"And gMatthew was written when Pharisees were turning into rabbis and well esteemed by Jews, allowing them to reform Judaism and end the time of distress which originated with the fall of Jerusalem. That happened way before the 140's, before 93-94 according to Josephus' Antiquities."

Reform of Judaism was, in part, getting away from the temple cult (destroyed then) and doing sacrifices locally, also about the souls of good men "shall have power to revive and live again" as written by Josephus (see later on this post).

Anyway "reforming Judaism" was not the main part of my argument and probably I should not have mentioned it. What's important is that the Pharisees were held in high esteem by Jews for their teaching that "Matthew" acknowledged in. . . .

Josephus tells us that a good number of Jews did respect the Pharisees but he also admits he is trying to make the Jewish factions look like a counterpart to Greek philosophies. He is tendentiously presenting one view of Judaism to his Roman readers that he believes will earn respect. It is evident from other Jewish writings from the same era (first and second centuries) that not all Jews followed the Pharisees.

Yes Matthew does testify to rivalry between Pharisees/rabbis and Christians in the late first century but we cannot extrapolate from that that the Pharisees were as early as that turning "Judaism" into something akin to what we understand by "rabbinic Judaism". "Judaism" remained quite divided and chaotic through the second century.

[neilgodfrey]

I studied in great details Revelation and Daniel. I am also aware of other prophetic apocalyptic literature.
But do not avoid my questions:

There are many references to apocalyptic literature. I cannot off-hand single out any one. But it is widely understood that apocalyptic literature is an attempt to give meaning to past events known to readers/hearers and it does this by creating prophetic scenarios prior to those events.

The Book of Daniel, for example, was not written in Babylonian or Persian times but was set in those times; prophecies of events that were known to the book's audience were put in the mouths of angels coming to Daniel way back in the days of earlier kings (Nebuchadnezzar and Darius). The events were narrated in vague mysterious ways as befits a divine prophecy (and avoids risking accusations of disloyalty to political powers of the day) but the readers/hearers knew exactly what they were referring to.

These prophecies set in earlier times made sense of the world as it had been experienced by the audiences. They could be assured that God was in charge and working things out after all.

The Book of Isaiah was not written before the fall of Babylon but it did "prophecy" the fall of Babylon accompanied by chaos in the heavens and the earth thrown out of its place and surviving humans being "rarer than fine gold" (all "future tense", as you like to stress). None of those things happened literally. These are standard apocalyptic metaphors to depict the fall of kingdoms.

David tells us that God came down from heaven in thick clouds and with his breath laid bare the foundations of earth and picked him up and rescued him from his enemies. So God has already come to earth and delivered his favorite saint. Perhaps he will do it the same way again -- as Daniel and Mark imply.

No-one dates Daniel or Isaiah on the basis of apocalyptic signs in the heavens not having happened at the time they wrote. Why date Mark that way?

And Mark, we know, made abundant use of Daniel and Isaiah -- probably more than any other books of the OT, quoting and alluding to them abundantly. So it is reasonable to think that when Mark spoke of heavenly signs he was continuing to follow the usage of these images in Daniel and Isaiah, too.

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

Yes Matthew does testify to rivalry between Pharisees/rabbis and Christians in the late first century but we cannot extrapolate from that that the Pharisees were as early as that turning "Judaism" into something akin to what we understand by "rabbinic Judaism". "Judaism" remained quite divided and chaotic through the second century.

According to Josephus, Pharisees were changing some rites & beliefs and that makes them popular among Jews (plus their teachings & righteousness). I do not care if these reforms were part or not part of what will be called rabbinic Judaism. That's not the point.
But thanks for your approval:
"Yes Matthew does testify to rivalry between Pharisees/rabbis and Christians in the late first century"
Cordially. Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday theomise,

In any case, my compilation of your rejoinders:

Gday theomise,
1) Oh it's not that bad surely - the academy has evidence for it's view so I felt it had to be there.
2) IIUC Temple destruction plus end of the world soon to come means low 70s.
3) The evidence was there in the Greek, further back on the thread. It's found on Bernard's site - search for "Chapter 15" http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
4) The interconnected web of dependencies seems to work best for 1st C. Gospels. Although I will explore other theories too maybe.
5) The Didache knows the Lord's Prayer from a 'gospel'.
6) What is that evidence please ?
7) Everything has to happen in a very short space of time - the 130-150s - Papias, Aristides, 1 Clement, Apoc.Peter, Ignatius, the Marcionites etc. Not much time for documents to spread.
8) You're right that it doesn't mean a first century gospel - I'll take that one out.
9) The argument is that no critic crowed that the Gospel was RECENT, when they could have if it was that late.
10) It was an argument of Bernard IIRC, I'll try and track down the full context...."And gMatthew was written when Pharisees were turning into rabbis and well esteemed by Jews, allowing them to reform Judaism and end the time of distress which originated with the fall of Jerusalem. That happened way before the 140's, before 93-94 according to Josephus' Antiquities."

And my responses:
1) The "academy" is brilliant when the goal is the (secular/scientific) pursuit of truth. Not so much when confessional interests are calling the shots.
2) We should not confuse "here's a guess that could work" with "this must be the case".
3) Except, that's all nonsense.
4) Yeah, nothing implies 1st century.
5) [[Just to clarify, are you referring to Didache 15:5?]]
6) [[Good question - this would require a separate lengthy post]]
7) No, not really.
8) Yaay... I made a point, cheers!
9) And which such "critics" of the 1st and 2nd centuries produced writings that have even SURVIVED?
10) Weak sauce.

Well, here are my answers :

1. OK, I'll take out the "consensus". It IS a bad argument.

2. Both you and Neil Godfrey are critical of this one - I'll take it out.

3. Again, you two disagree completely with this one - removed.

4. No, in the experiment, ALL the Gospels could be late - removed

5. Ch.8 and Ch. 11 (Chapter 15 mentions the Gospel too)
Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray thus: " [the Lord's prayer, very close to GMatthew version (6:9-13)] ..."
Ch.11 "But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel."
(thanks Bernard)

6. Let me know

7. I think that's a valid reason still then

8. Yes, even if Marcion is early, I see no reason for a Eugelikon to be this early

9. Well, there was Celsus, and we know some of his criticisms

10. Both you and Neil think it's a bad argument - removed

This leaves 3 :

Arguments AGAINST a late dating of G.Mark
1. Didache places it early (arguable)
2. A late date allows not much time for many to receive the Gospels and comment and redact
3. Not a single witness even among the 'haters' who can come up with a reference to the effect - 'this was invented only yesterday.' - (arguable)


The Didache reference is not so clear if we imagine the term 'Gospel' still meant the teachings and included an early Lord's Prayer.

Argument 3 is weak - we don't have many critics that survived anyway.

So, after examination these reasons against the late Gospel are not so many. But we still have no really good reason FOR a late dating.

Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

There are many references to apocalyptic literature. I cannot off-hand single out any one. But it is widely understood that apocalyptic literature is an attempt to give meaning to past events known to readers/hearers and it does this by creating prophetic scenarios prior to those events.

Yes, that's what "Mark" did about the events of 70 but he did create the other prophetic scenario (celestial and second coming) to happen in the near future (after the events of 70).

The Book of Daniel, for example, was not written in Babylonian or Persian times but was set in those times; prophecies of events that were known to the book's audience were put in the mouths of angels coming to Daniel way back in the days of earlier kings (Nebuchadnezzar and Darius). The events were narrated in vague mysterious ways as befits a divine prophecy (and avoids risking accusations of disloyalty to political powers of the day) but the readers/hearers knew exactly what they were referring to.

Yes that's what "Mark" did: he vaguely narrated events leading to (and including) the fall of Jerusalem. When? After that happened. And that was enough for the hearers to know exactly what they were referring to.

These prophecies set in earlier times made sense of the world as it had been experienced by the audiences. They could be assured that God was in charge and working things out after all.

Yes that's what "Mark" did, more so through the parable of the tenants.

The Book of Isaiah was not written before the fall of Babylon but it did "prophecy" the fall of Babylon accompanied by chaos in the heavens and the earth thrown out of its place and surviving humans being "rarer than fine gold" (all "future tense", as you like to stress). None of those things happened literally. These are standard apocalyptic metaphors to depict the fall of kingdoms.

The book of Isaiah was written over a long period of time by different authors who added up their stuff to the end (at that time) of the book. The first part was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the second part (by stages) during the Persian rule but before the temple was rebuilt.
In ch. 13, "Isaiah" has a prophecy against Babylon, using the future tense, but that prophecy is genuine (that is not made after the facts) but ultimately wrong: he predicted Babylon will be conquered by the Medes (not the Persians) and then become inhabited (that did not happen for a very long time). And that's when "The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light." (13:10) duly copied by "Mark".
That, and the circumstances and consequences of the fall of Babylon evidently did not occur. The same for the second coming and the heavenly chaos as predicted by Jesus (allegedly) in gMark.
So I do not see how it serves your theory. The only difference is "Isaiah" predicted the fall of Babylon (with the celestial events) before it happened, and "Mark did so for the fall of Jerusalem (but after it happened) with the celestial events to occur soon afterwards.

David tells us that God came down from heaven in thick clouds and with his breath laid bare the foundations of earth and picked him up and rescued him from his enemies. So God has already come to earth and delivered his favorite saint. Perhaps he will do it the same way again -- as Daniel and Mark imply.

Well, David had invented a story (allegedly happening in the past) to make him look good (for propaganda purpose). But that's not relevant: this is not a prophecy about future events. I do not see the connection between "Mark" second coming to happen in the future and God having come down for David in the past. This kind of second coming is also in 1 Thessalonians (with the future tense), which is probably where "Mark" got it (or from the Ps 18, I don't care). "Perhaps he will do it the same way again". Why not? But what does that have to do with the issue of prophecy about future events?

No-one dates Daniel or Isaiah on the basis of apocalyptic signs in the heavens not having happened at the time they wrote. Why date Mark that way?

And the second coming for gMark. And not at the time they wrote but after, and for "Mark" SOON after the fall of Jerusalem, that "Mark" knew about.
I am quite sure there are scholars who put gMark soon after the fall of Jerusalem because the celestial events and the second coming did not come in "those days".

And Mark, we know, made abundant use of Daniel and Isaiah -- probably more than any other books of the OT, quoting and alluding to them abundantly. So it is reasonable to think that when Mark spoke of heavenly signs he was continuing to follow the usage of these images in Daniel and Isaiah, too.

Sure, it might be so, but that does not change the fact "Mark" used these images in a prophecy to happen in the near future, relative to the fall of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Sure, it might be so, but that does not change the fact "Mark" used these images in a prophecy to happen in the near future, relative to the fall of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

"Fact". No room for any doubt in anything you have worked out years ago and written in stone on your website.

So Mark who quotes and alludes to Isaiah and Daniel throughout suddenly takes their metaphors and tribulation imagery and declares that they will no longer be metaphors but literal events. And this is because you continue your usual habit of begging the question and interpreting prepositional phrases according to your presumptions.

I know nothing will change a mind made up but no, it is not at all evident that "Mark used the images in a prophecy to happen in the near future" to his own time. He is putting those words into the mouth of a character who declares them before 70 -- just as is typically done in apocalyptic literature. The fall of Jerusalem and end of the Temple was interpreted as the sign that God had moved his base from the Jews to the Church.

You tell people to go and read your website coz you have not moved an inch since you decided what's what years ago; if I had the energy I'd look up some books for you to read so you can see that your way of thinking is not necessarily the end of the matter after all but I know that would be a waste of time and effort.

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,
This is ridiculous.

2. Both you and Neil Godfrey are critical of this one - I'll take it out.

So Neil and theomise, in a few words disagree with me, with some so-called evidence or none, two against one, and then you flip flop.
Why don't you put that in a poll.
People will vote according to their agenda and because of the make up of the members of that forum, the late gospels option will win big. Case close. You'll be happy, most here will be happy. Happy ending.
But stop that charade.
As for me, I am stopping to contribute on that thread.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Regarding the late written Gospel hypothesis, considering how the early dating reasons turn out to be not so good, I've changed my position on Clement and the Didache and Revelation - I think there was an early Oral phase and that these early documents draw on those early traditions, not on an early written Gospel.

Under the Late Gospel Dating hypothesis, there are two phases :
1. Oral Gospel - Gospel still means 'Good News', meaning Stories and Sayings of Jesus
2. Written Gospel - the Stories and Sayings are finally written down in the masterpiece of literature G.Mark, quickly copied and spread.

So, in this new chronology, this latest attempt at a Late Gospel Dating, I have placed the following EARLY - Clement, Didache, Barnabas, Revelation - arguing they have tapped into the evolving 'good news', not a written Gospel.


Late Gospel Chronology of NT

Oral Gospel era :
50s Paul : 1Thess., 1&2 Cor., Gal., Rom., Phill., Phil. - Jesus Stories
54-66 Hebrews, mentions some Jesus Stories
80s Colossians, 1 John, James - some Jesus Stories
90s Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1 Peter - some Jesus Stories
90s Revelation, knows phrases similar to Gospel
90s 1 Clement, knows some Jesus Sayings
94 Josephus AJ
100s Jude
100s Didache, knows a Lord's prayer
100s Barnabas, knows a few Stories about Jesus
120s 2&3 John, Preaching of Peter, Quadratus - knows some Jesus stories
120s Pastorals
Written Gospel Era :
120-130s Proposed first Gospel G.Mark (& Hebrew Matthew?)
117-138 Aristides cites an un-named singular Gospel that is recently preached
130s Papias' clues of written Gospels come from Eusebius
130s Apocalypse of Peter knows G.Mark or G.Matthew
125-145 Ignatius, knows some Stories of Jesus
130-140s Proposed G.Matthew and G.Luke
140s Epistles of the Apostles talks about writing Gospels
140-150s Marcionites redact Euagelikon and Apostolikon
140s-150s Proposed G.John & Acts
140s Basilides knows several Gospels
150s Justin mentions memoirs called Gospels - no names of authors
140-160 Ptolemy knows G.John by text
150-200 Acts of Peter knows a written Gospel
170 Heracleon knows G.John by text
170-200 The Treatise on the Resurrection knows a written Gospel
170s The diaTessaron has four (un-named?) Gospels
180s Irenaeus quotes four Gospels by name

Dating this way does least violence to the evidence, leaving most books where they are traditionally dated, moving only the Gospels and Acts (which is often considered late anyway.)


Kapyong

[andrewcriddle]

If we opt for Mark 1:9's reference to Nazareth as original then we have reasons to believe that the gospel was written quite some time after 70 CE. We would need to allow time for the village to be established and then to be associated with Jesus and for this association to become a by-word that came to be known and understood to an author probably in Rome or maybe Syria.

This argument requires two controversial claims.
a/ That a village named Nazareth in Galilee did not exist c 50 CE.
b/ However such a village did exist c 100 CE.

IIUC most of those who accept claim a/ would doubt claim b/ e.g. they would date the founding of Nazareth after the Bar Kochba revolt.

Andrew Criddle

[Bernard Muller]

"Fact". No room for any doubt in anything you have worked out years ago and written in stone on your website.

So Mark who quotes and alludes to Isaiah and Daniel throughout suddenly takes their metaphors and tribulation imagery and declares that they will no longer be metaphors but literal events. And this is because you continue your usual habit of begging the question and interpreting prepositional phrases according to your presumptions.

I know nothing will change a mind made up but no, it is not at all evident that "Mark used the images in a prophecy to happen in the near future" to his own time. He is putting those words into the mouth of a character who declares them before 70 -- just as is typically done in apocalyptic literature. The fall of Jerusalem and end of the Temple was interpreted as the sign that God had moved his base from the Jews to the Church.

You tell people to go and read your website coz you have not moved an inch since you decided what's what years ago; if I had the energy I'd look up some books for you to read so you can see that your way of thinking is not necessarily the end of the matter after all but I know that would be a waste of time and effort.

It's a far-fetched counter-explanation but many here will believe you. Read the passage of gMark. It does not matter where "Mark" got his imagery from, he still put that as real events to happen in the near future (relative to Jerusalem destruction), and that did not happen. Period.

He is putting those words into the mouth of a character who declares them before 70 -- just as is typically done in apocalyptic literature

Yes, I agree, but this is not the issue.

The fall of Jerusalem and end of the Temple was interpreted as the sign that God had moved his base from the Jews to the Church

Possibly, but this is not the issue.

So Mark who quotes and alludes to Isaiah and Daniel throughout suddenly takes their metaphors and tribulation imagery

I do not see why the prophecies in 'Isaiah' and 'Daniel' should be considered as metaphors and tribulations. They are certainly presented as events to happen in the future.
Daniel 12:1-4 NRSV “At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. 2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be running back and forth, and evil shall increase.”

Cordially, Bernard