Toto

DH - this is not a real time discussion, so instead of announcing that you're going to reread Mark and find something - just go reread Mark and come back and tell us what you found. We can wait.

Gnostics believed a lot of different things. The Gnostic heretic Marcion thought Paul was the only true disciple, because the 12 described in Mark so clearly didn't get what he was talking about.

Are you willing to read anything besides the Bible or what your Bible study teacher approves?

Vorkosigan

I don't think that you can put any of the 4 gospels after 130, unless you decide that John was finished first. The earliest manuscript dates to 130, at least that is the earliest that I know of. That manuscript is in egypt, so you have to allow time for john to have been written, then traveled from patmos to egypt. [/b]

Well, p52 is dated 125-150, so that means John could have been written as late as 150.
I read an argument the other day that Mark was written as late as 135, and the events it refers to are not the Fall of Jerusalem in 70, but the Bar Kochba revolt in 135. I believe that all the gospels, gnostic and canonical are at least second century.

Michael

Deathscyth Hell

John could not have been as late as 150ad, because p52 is just a manuscript. You would have to allow time for John to have spread from Patmos in greece to Egypt. That would take a very long time. And you would have to allow for the time to have written it.

Deathscyth Hell

Sure I'll read just about any book. Could you tell me some good ones? And please, I would like some that are not incredibly biased.

Vorkosigan

You would have to allow time for John to have spread from Patmos in greece to Egypt.That would take a very long time.

Two weeks, tops. For all we know, we have the only manuscript that was taken to Egypt!


And you would have to allow for the time to have written it.

Several hours, tops. Even allowing several years, that still gives a date of 145 as a reasonable possibility.

Michael

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

Nomad

Hello Michael

As we have been around this track a good number of times, and you have yet to offer anything beyond mere assertion for your unusually late dating of the Gospels, could you at least TRY and make one?

Start with Mark, and explain why it must be after 70AD. Then explain why it may well be 135AD or later. I would certainly like to see the evidence upon which you base your beliefs.

Nomad

Nomad

A couple of clarifications on this point. First, Marcion did only accept some of the letters of Paul (but not the Pastorals, go figure), as well as the Gospel of Luke. Since the Gospel of Luke clearly portrays Jesus' resurrection as being physical, it is not a good example of how a gnostic may have rejected such a thing.

As to the question of dating the Gospels, since most scholars accept that Luke was using Mark as one of his sources, then Mark must have also existed at the time of Marcion, yet Marcion obviously rejected it (IOW, so much for trying to date it to a ridiculously late 135AD).

Finally, Mark cannot be used to demonstrate a purely spiritual resurrection, as such a thing would not have necessitated an absent body/empty tomb. That was the point of the original post from the Emperor, and he is quite right in his assumption. A purely spiritual resurrection does not need a body at all, so the question of an empty tomb would be moot here. Since Mark tells us that Jesus is not here in 16:6 (not just that His body is not there), then we are safe in assuming Mark connects the empty tomb to a physical resurrection.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

Let's see -- we've discussed Mark before, and we both know why it should be dated to after 70.

As for it being after 135, I simply noted that some had argued that. I did not adopt that position myself.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Finally, Mark cannot be used to demonstrate a purely spiritual resurrection, as such a thing would not have necessitated an absent body/empty tomb. That was the point of the original post from the Emperor, and he is quite right in his assumption. A purely spiritual resurrection does not need a body at all, so the question of an empty tomb would be moot here.

C'mon, nowhere in Mark does it say where the body is. For all we know, jesus has annihilated it and is appearing in Galilee as a spirit. The empty tomb -- assuming it is empty, the man does not specify that it is -- simply signifies that the Resurrection has occurred. There is nothing in Mark that rules out a spiritual resurrection. You can interpret it either way. That's why the Gnostics also prized this gospel.

Michael

Nomad

No Michael. I have discussed this issue at length, and shown why it should be dated pre-70. As this is the position of at least a good percentage of scholars, if you wish to dispute it, and make statements like it should be dated to any time, then it is incumbent upon you to offer your evidence. All I have asked for is what you have, and why you find it convincing.

Yes, well, people adopt all sorts of strange dates. The most common date range is 65-75, with an additional leway of +/- 10 years. Outside of this one is in very speculative territory. In the past, I have argued for a date range of 55-60. Thus far no one on these boards has offered to challenge it.

Your assertions are noted. But my own interest is in discussing evidence.

Nomad