How late might the gospels be?

[Ben C. Smith]

?????? The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple was not a pretty big event??????

The destruction of the Jewish power and polity of Moses leaving "the people of the new temple" as "THE Temple" etc ... was not a pretty big event?

I already commented on that. You are trying to get the destruction of the temple to be both the tribulation and the 'coming of the son of man' after.

Plus, you have a switch from a literal destruction to a non-literal 'coming', in the middle of a passage.

That is how the relevant passages from the Hebrew scriptures do it: a nonliteral coming (of Yahweh, often riding a cloud) to a nation means a very literal destruction or upheaval for that nation.

Plus we have early christians apparently expecting a big event.

This is relevant. We have Paul (before Mark) expecting the resurrection of the dead along with the cloud riding Lord. It may be possible to notice that an explicit resurrection is absent from Mark 13, the reason being that no resurrection happened in or around 70, so Mark included only the bits that could be fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem, eschewing the resurrection of the dead. (I have some issues with this line of reasoning, but they can wait.)

I personally have no problem interpreting Mark 13 by those Hebrew oracles and their symbolism. The son of man coming = vindication (not a literal coming); the stars falling = human governments falling. That all makes perfect sense from the kind of symbolism employed in the Hebrew scriptures. It is straight up Milton Terry (among others).

However, there are problems with the application of some of the symbolism in Mark 13, by which I mean that, once one traces back what the symbol is supposed to mean (from the scriptures), it is still hard to figure out what the symbol might be applied to, even if only in Mark's brain.

Also, there is the issue, which you already broached, that Christians expected more than just the destruction of Jerusalem; they made elaborate adjustments and excuses and apologies for the delay of what they thought was going to come. This cannot be brushed aside at a stroke, since we have to decide: was Mark privy to the heavy Hebrew symbolism by which most of what is predicted in Mark 13 can have been fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem, or was Mark more like Paul, who expected a resurrection of the dead (which he makes clear is literal), or like later Christians who failed to grasp the intricate Hebrew symbolism going on and who therefore expected Jesus to literally descend from heaven?

[archibald]

Do you understand that Isaiah 13, for example, in depicting the fall of Babylon in terms of the heavens collapsing, turning dark, etc, is using metaphorical language to depict the fall of the great city and empire?

That's symbolism. Not necessarily metaphor.

[archibald]

The new kingdom of God is represented by a Man as opposed to the earlier gentile kingdoms represented by wild beasts.

Yes. A man. But you are saying Mark isn't talking about a man (or one like a man) coming, after the destruction of the temple. So I'm wondering why you're citing Daniel.

[archibald]

it is still hard to figure out what the symbol might be applied to, even if only in Mark's brain.

One who is like a son of man, apparently. As per Daniel.

[archibald]

Also, there is the issue, which you already broached, that Christians expected more than just the destruction of Jerusalem; they made elaborate adjustments and excuses and apologies for the delay of what they thought was going to come.

Yes. So, if a writer is writing 100 years or more after events rather than close to them, these somewhat embarrassing excuses and adjustments would have been backwritten.

I think it's fair to say and reasonable to think it likely that at some probably early point, followers, at least in the diaspora, did have expectations about one like a son of man turning up (soon) and that these not being met led to gradual postponements. Otherwise, we have 'Mark' as a much later writer, deliberately writing about an unfulfilled prophecy, where no one like a son of man turns up. In other words, 'Mark' would be offering us Jesus as a false prophet.

[Giuseppe]

Otherwise we have a later writer deliberately writing in an unfulfilled prophecy.

This is possible for the particular reasons described here by Tertullian (in short, the shame for the failed prophecy of Jesus is best than the shame for a Jesus embarrassed by the total blindness of the his same followers: in the first case you have at least the promise that the followers will ''see'' something).

[archibald]

We're not talking about the crucifixion though, we're talking about prophecies/expectations made by someone speaking to his chums at the Mount of Olives, about the coming of a 'him' like a son of man after certain dreadful events in Judea (and elsewhere in the world in fact).

[archibald]

" 'Mark 13:24-26 –
But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.'

Read through the literary tropes above, what can this possibly mean other than the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans?"

https://vridar.org/2008/10/19/when-they ... he-clouds/

One big problem with this, imo, is that it appears to show a willingness to do dodgy hermeneutics. Why do I say this? Is it because I am being too modern-minded, literal and/or silly?

Or is it because the verses quoted are explicitly about an event (in v26) which is the culmination of a series of other events (starting twenty verses back at verse 5) supposedly due to follow on from after the destruction of the temple (or even Jerusalem) and after the ensuing tribulations? Where are the predicted nations rising up against nations, the (metaphorical?) earthquakes in various places, and the (metaphorical?) famines and troubles, which come before verses 24-26?

And yet neil, in that article, tries to get these three later verses, including verse 26, to be about the destruction itself. In fact, he is so sure (I'm not going to say dogmatic necessarily, lol) he asks how could they possibly be anything else? This is his concluding remark, what his whole article has led up to. And he's plainly shoehorning the wrong verses into his conclusion.

Go figure.

Talk about backwriting. Sheesh.

[archibald]

What I am saying here is the Jews in John's Gospel are in fact stand-ins for Jewish Christians, that is those who accept the OT and the Davidic Jesus, who oppose John's own "Gentile" Christian sects version of Jesus, who rejects the Jewish God. This is a mid to late 2nd century debate, not a 1st century debate.

It arguably originates in something that is at the heart of the disagreement between 'Paul' and the Jewish 'christians' he references.

Or do you also place 'Paul' in the 2nd C? If so, still before the gospels? Or what? I'm guessing yes, to both? I'm not asking for a long answer.

[Bernard Muller]

At about the same time than Papias and Marcion, Basilides (& Valentinus) were aware of the gospels, including the nativity story according to gLuke:

Basilides (120-140), as reported by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', I, 24, 4 "[Basilides thought] He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead, so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."

Note: Gnostic "teacher" Basilides, because he thought Christ could not die, used the synoptic gospels mention of 'Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross' to have the same Simon crucified on it, instead of Jesus.

According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book)
- Basilides knew about GJohn:
Chapter X "The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he [Basilides] says, from nonentities; the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."[words in italics are as in Jn1:9]" and
Chapter XV "And that each thing, says [Basilides], has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient [witness] when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come." [words in italics are as in Jn2:4]"
- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; "and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]"
- Basilides knew about GMatthew:
Chapter XV "And the Magi [afford similar testimony] when they gaze wistfully upon the star [according to Mt2:1-2,9-10]. For [Jesus] Himself was, he [Basilides] says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars,"

Valentinus (120-160) also knew about Luke's gospel, according to Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' III, XIV, 3-4 and Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VI:
Chapter XXX "[Valentinus says] Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration, "The Holy Ghost will come upon thee"--Sophia is the Spirit--"and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee"--the Highest is the Demiurge,--"wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy."" (bolded italics as in Lk1:35)

Cordially, Bernard