Peter Kirby

Layman writes: And I thought Doherty dated the Gospels from 70-100, which is a few generations earlier than the "130s," rather than "just in" the same period.

Have you gotten hold of a copy of Doherty's book yet? It contains plenty of important stuff for understanding his views, including an insert with a timeline of books in Doherty's dating.

The insert shows Mark at approximately 85-90, Matthew at approximately 100, and Luke and John at approximately 125. There are question marks next to Matthew, Luke, and John to indicate a degree of doubt (allowing dates either earlier or later by a few years).

If you know of any good arguments to show that the Gospel of Mark was written before 100 CE, there are plenty of people who would be interested in hearing them.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I do, but I'm stretched a little thing right now. I should be getting my copy of the Proof of the Gospel today. So I hope to pick up the Josephus thread soon (are those groans I hear?). Then I hope was planning on exploring Knox's theories in more depth.

Speaking of dates, did you ever read JAT Robinson's book that redated the entire New Testament before 70 CE?

Peter Kirby

Please share your arguments on gospel dating whenever you like.

Layman writes: Speaking of dates, did you ever read JAT Robinson's book that redated the entire New Testament before 70 CE?

I got a hold of Redating the New Testament at a library once and read the introduction and selected portions that were interesting at the time. At some point it would be nice to revisit the book cover to cover and also read some of the reviews put out in the scholarly journals, one of which is mentioned by Raymond Brown in The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (Brown disagreeing sharply with Robinson).

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I vaguely remember Brown disagreeing with Robinson when I read The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. I generally follow the consensus (or close to it) of dating Mark around 65 CE and Luke and Matthew 75 - 85 CE, and John in the nineties.

But I do find it very interesting that Matthew -- who throughout his gospel explicitly states, "and this prophecy was fulfilled" or something akin to that -- never explains that Jesus' prophecy regarding the Temple was fulfilled.

Family Man

For someone who laments alleged hyperbole in Doherty, Radoth seems to enjoy wallowing in his own. However, each of his questions, while striking me as naive, would be interesting questions if worded more reasonably (e.g. without the condescension and charges of "conspiracy" and "lying"), each with a thread of their own.

I'd like to see these questions discussed. I have neither the time or the requisite expertise, but I would like to follow the discussion. Anyone up to it?

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: But I do find it very interesting that Matthew -- who throughout his gospel explicitly states, "and this prophecy was fulfilled" or something akin to that -- never explains that Jesus' prophecy regarding the Temple was fulfilled.

Mention of a statement by Jesus about the temple's destruction without a statement of its fulfillment would not be without parallel.

In the Gospel of Thomas 71: Jesus said, "I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it [...]." There are about eight letters missing at the end of the page in the Coptic ms., but it is doubtful that a statement about fulfillment was crammed into that space.

The saying "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;" is found in the Longer Recension of Ignatius (fourth century?), where its fulfillment is mentioned as follows: "The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all men to Himself for their eternal salvation."

However, the more important point is that Matthew may not have seen this as a prophecy-fufillment example that suited his literary aims. All the examples of fulfillment statements in Matthew, which are reproduced below, are examples of statements in the Old Testament that came to completion in Jesus. The prophecy is from the prophets of old, which traditionally ended a few centuries before Christ (with whom I do not recall - Zechariah? Malachi? were there twenty-four?). It is possible that Matthew saw John the Baptist, Elijah redivivus, as a prophet. But to say that Jesus was a prophet and that he made prophecies that were not fulfilled in his lifetime could suggest that Jesus was not the fulfillment of all prophecy. It is doubtful to assert that Matthew would wish to point such a thing out to the reader. At least, it need not be assumed that the author of Matthew would have seen the statement in Matthew 24:2 as being of the same type and as demanding a reference to its fulfillment (if writing after 70).

best,
Peter Kirby

Matthew 1:22
Now all this came to pass that that might be fulfilled which was spoken by [the] Lord, through the prophet, saying,

Matthew 2:15
And he was there until the death of Herod, that that might be fulfilled which was spoken by [the] Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Matthew 2:17
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 2:23
and came and dwelt in a town called Nazareth; so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaraean.

Matthew 3:15
But Jesus answering said to him, Suffer [it] now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him.

Matthew 4:14
that that might be fulfilled which was spoken through Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

Matthew 8:17
so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bore our diseases.

Matthew 12:17
that that might be fulfilled which was spoken through Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 13:35
so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from [the] world's foundation.

Matthew 21:4
But all this came to pass, that that might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying,

Matthew 26:54
How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?

Matthew 26:56
But all this is come to pass that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled.

Matthew 27:9
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremias the prophet, saying, And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was set a price on, whom [they who were] of the sons of Israel had set a price on,
[/b]

Steven Carr

2 Thessalonians 2 'Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.'

Jayhawker Soule

Out of curiosity: It is "considered a reasonable representation" by whom, and how would s/he know?

Radorth

Argument from authority. "Hey Mom, how come you slap my hand when I do that, but not the skeptics?"

I've read over some pro and con essays on II Peter being a forgery, and it is just the same old stuff. No real proof either way. In fact the con's (no pun intended) rely heavily on evidence like the number of time words are used, and the fact that some canon assemblers had doubts. Then they say the author is trying too hard to make us believe he is Peter. (Another conspiracy, eh?) There are all sorts of reasonable explanations made by the pro's (no pun intended). If it was a forgery, it hardly negates the rest of my case which have not been addressed with much more than sweeping statememts about MY faults. (Except Kirby to a degree- whom I respond ot below.)

Now we find even Marcion does not fit my request for a true believer who recanted and said it was all a concoction. Hopefully we can move on from that handy little diversion.

Radorth

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Re Kirby

I completely agree he does not use the word in Part 1 to indicate a conspiracy as I have. But I am completely mystified, how, after several skeptics here have called the early disciples charlatans and liars, they can now say "Nobody really said that." And if there is no other possible conclusion from ED's "facts" what am I supposed to believe, besides some legalistic nonsense?

I repeat ED's own statement

"They are constructing careful and elaborate pieces of symbolism, and story lines will be crafted, details invented, sources altered, to create that theological or educational statement. It is important to make ourselves aware of this, and to counter the naivete that is regularly brought to these documents which appeals to an analysis of their content as though they represent a log of actual happenings, down to the smallest detail."

Excuse me. Where I come from, crafting stories, and inventing details is called LYING.

Now either you and Familyman just blew it off, or you have a different definition of what LYING is. And I might say it is not unusual for a someone in deep do-do to resort to such hairsplitting. Nothing personal, but it reminds me of the Pharisees saying, "Well we didn't really steal from any widows. We gave the money to the temple," or some such nonsense.

Well OK, let me stipulate that the writers were not VERY TECHNICALLY SPEAKING called liars by ED, and lets hear some hard evidence they are constructing careful and elaborate pieces of symbolism, and story lines will be crafted, details invented, sources altered, to create that theological or educational statement.

He makes some extraordinary claims for which there is no proof a skeptic might demand, and there is much hyperbole and "if you don't believe this amazing claim, go read so and so's book," statements. Such hyperbole combined with clear innuendo may be the reason so few scholars have answered him- not those suggested.

He raises a great question, then starts slandering people for all practical and ingenuous purposes. The burden of proof is NOT on the slandered person and I think an honest jury would nail ED to the cross, er, so to speak.

Radorth

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>