spamandham

How would it affect your thinking if significant aspects of Mark were dated to 70 BCE, or to 170 CE?

stephan huller

I have heard this argument before from my friend Hermann Detering. I would argue that the Jewish and Christian traditions strangely agree with regards to the use of Daniel chapter 9 and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. This is what Mark has in mind, in my opinion. I think when we take a wider lens the shared interpretation of Daniel 9 is decisive especially at Alexandria. But that's just my opinion.

spamandham

From a 70CE perspective, what does 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand— mean?

The author is clearly referring to something that has already happened, else it would be impossible for the reader to understand.


edit:
One other point on Mark 13, You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues....does this not seem an anachronism from a 70 CE perspective?

stephan huller

I agree with the last part of your analysis. There may have been additions which reference a later period. I can't tell you that I know what the abomination that causes desolation is. I don't know if I have to know the answer. My guess - and it is only a guess - is that the existing Josephan narrative borrowed its account of the destruction of the Jewish temple mostly from Justus of Tiberias's lost account. I think that Justus's narrative was highly theological and developed as a kind of interpretation of Daniel chapter 9. I would speculate that Josephus's interest in the crosses which were arranged around the walled city of Jerusalem with crucified rebels had some connection with the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 9. Even if Justus isn't the source, I think the fact that early rabbinic interpretation (Eleazar of Worms) also interprets the cross in this way goes back to some early source. Nachmanides's reference to 'sages' from the first century who engaged in speculative interpretation of Daniel 9 (to apply to Marcus Agrippa) I think means Justin of Tiberias was the ultimate source. It can't be proven, but I think Justus was far more influential in the period than people realize. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Juststeve

Spam:

Answering your question, if the Gospels were dated by the majority of reputable scholars to 70 B.C.E. I would no longer regard them as evidence for the HJ. If they were dated to 170 C.E. by the same scholars their evidential value would be much diminished. That however is not the case. Most critical scholars agree on the second half of the first century for all of the Gospels, 60-70 for Mark. The exceptions are fringe folk on either end of the spectrum.

Steve

Steve Weiss

I agree that the task of determining the historical record is an obligation of historians, as impossible to do so as it may be. The truth is important to investigate. My view is philosophical rather than historical. The biblical story is false and misleading, and an attempt to validate it is both unnecessary and impossible. If one wants to pursue the issue of who told what lies for what purposes, be my guest. That would be important in setting the record straight, though it is unlikely to convince the faithful who will deny and evade.

Steve Weiss

Are you asserting that the Gospels, no matter when they were written, are self-validating and that the fantastic stories in the OT and NT can be taken as factual? On what basis would that be true?

Juststeve

Steven Weiss:

No. I'm not asserting that "the Gospels, no matter when they were written, are self-validating and that the fantastic stories in the OT and NT can be taken as factual?" In fact I have repeatedly said that I don't accept the fantastic stories as true.

I do not however disregard everything in the Gospels because some materials are obviously false. If that were my general practice I don't know how I could study any historical source, or even read a news paper.

Steve

Steve Weiss

The idea that a myth is popular does not validate it. Zeus, Thor, Osiris and other gods have had their followers as well, but that does not mean that there is something of substance behind these myths. The something behind these lies is faith and fear.

Toto

How do you know this? Have you read the reasons these supposedly critical scholars give for this particular dating? Are you aware of how insubstantial the reasons are?