Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
View Poll Results: When Was "Mark" Written Based On The External Evidence? | |||
Pre 70 | 3 | 8.11% | |
70 - 100 | 14 | 37.84% | |
100-125 | 4 | 10.81% | |
Post 125 | 16 | 43.24% | |
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
03-12-2009, 02:05 PM | #61 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
|
Is there an earliest possible date? If we strip out references to xyz historical people or events and for argument say they are later additions, do we have anything like camel trains happening before they were invented?
Might it be a BCE document? |
03-12-2009, 02:50 PM | #62 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
|
Well, considering that he quotes from the LXX, it can't be earlier than that :/
|
03-12-2009, 02:55 PM | #63 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
|
|
03-12-2009, 02:56 PM | #64 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
|
03-12-2009, 03:01 PM | #65 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
|
|
03-12-2009, 03:21 PM | #66 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
You can add a </sarcasm> tag if you need to. We get enough wild stuff here that is posted in earnest (at least seemingly.)
|
03-12-2009, 05:10 PM | #67 | ||||||||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
More to the point, who's to say that it didn't sit quietly on John Mark's desk for decades, until someone came across it and decided to disseminate it? The writer may simply have died before showing it to anyone. Existence does not imply circulation. Quote:
Quote:
Are you referring to the parenthetical remark: "let the reader understand"? How do we know this isn't marginal gloss? |
||||||||||
03-13-2009, 02:18 AM | #68 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
bacht wrote:
Quote:
Welcome to the camp! I’ve been sitting in the mythicist camp a good 25 years now. First got started on this road with John Hick’s ‘The Myth of God Incarnate’. Since then I’ve not read anything nor heard any argument to change my mind..... My main point in the above post is: Quote:
The gospel writers found 29/30 CE to be significant in regard to a prophetic interpretation of the OT. However, it does not follow that what they 'saw', what they inferred, as happening in that year is in anyway a historical, a real, happening. What they 'saw', or inferred, is not simply about a mythological man who they sat down in 29/30 CE - it is about a much longer time frame in Jewish history - a much longer time frame that has been given a prophetic interpretation. Indeed, as you wrote, 29/30 CE can be viewed as a counting backwards 40 years from 70 CE. Indicating, of course, a backdating element in the gospel story. (Mark 13:1,2.) This in itself, does not work negatively for the historical Jesus position. But, if we can see in the gospels a backward dating element from 70 CE - why stop there? Why not also view 29/30 CE in a similar fashion? As a date from which to work backwards - in this case Luke' 70 years backward dating to Lysanias of Abilene. From this perspective one can, even using the gospel accounts themselves, widen out the time frame in which to look for the early beginnings of Christianity. Confining the search to the few very years around 29/30 CE is, in my view, one that is too confining. In regard to the dating of the gospel of Mark: Indeed, most likely it was written after 70 AD i.e. that is complied into some sort of finished product. However, the early 'sayings' can well have a history going back way beyond 29/30CE - way back in fact, as a reading of Luke can indicate, to 40 BC - and even beyond that. And surely, at the end of the day, does it not make more sense to have a wider canvas upon which to draw? In my view, the mythicist camp is selling itself short here i.e. by playing the historical Jesus 'game' in relationship to the gospel story time line - and not speaking out of the box, so to speak, and look at the very real possibility that the earlier ‘saying’, Mark for example, could be dated far earlier than the consensus, Jesus historical, position, of 29/30 CE. Such an approach could well remove the popular Jesus historical position i.e. the one that removes the mythological clothes but keeps the normal, historical, human man functioning during the gospel time frame. The wider the gospel canvas can be stretched - the notion of a historical human Jesus begins to collapse under the strain. |
||
03-13-2009, 01:19 PM | #69 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
Sometimes it seems as if they didn't really care much - "oh, some time in the recent-ish past" seems to be about the size of it. I wonder if we can find any evidence of any more "punts" by early Christian writers into their relative past, as to when their Messiah lived? When did a consensus about 0-30 CE evolve, and how? |
|
03-13-2009, 02:54 PM | #70 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
/edit And by "crucifixion," I mean "alleged crucifixion," or "allegorical crucifixion," or whatever your preference might be. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|