Elijah

Is martyrdom for your beliefs really considered weird? It happens fairly often. You could say using his death like that was original at the time but even that is debatable. Now compared to normal people it could be considered weird but not within religious zealots, especially a zealot that believe the end times were imminent and they would be resurrected again.

What you consider the usual pattern of interpolation is an unsupported assumption that is generally based on personal beliefs not evidence. It seems like circular reasoning, in that you are saying that calling something an interpolation is justified by how many other statements are claimed to be interpolations elsewhere without producing actual evidence for hardly any of it.
His death, betrayal, wars, earthquakes, famines, conflict and a new day are all super vague and inevitable. What do the exceptions look like of prophecy that came true you consider possible for a regular Joe (with awareness of the cycles/history) could predict? What are the exceptions of failed prophecies that you think were added later?
This isn’t a simple exaltation by followers here at all. They have failed to understand who Jesus was talking about. I had previously thought you were suggesting that at a later date when they felt too much time had passed or too much prophecy had been fulfilled and still no “son of man” they changed their understanding to that he was talking about himself not someone else in the future out of what they felt was necessary.

But what you are suggesting seems to be that even the initial followers didn’t understand what he was saying and that you are sure of that 2000 years later because a religious mystic speaks of the son of man in the third person. If the synoptic writers thought he was the son of man why write it in third person? Why would there even be need to interpolate that he was the Christ if the original writers already thought he was?

spin

What is referred to in the fragment of Papias certainly bears no relation to the book we call Matthew, so that the Papias Matthew's relationship with a prior Mark cannot be established.

(Then again the Papias material is not particularly testable for veracity.)

Were there many Pharisees in Rome where Mark was apparently written??


spin

Vinnie

I tend to think Papias referred to an early form of Q or some such document. But I still date Matthew in the first century regardless of Papias based upon internal arguments. Eternal attestation puts the terminus ad quem in the early second century on the basis of Justin (and Polycarp?) and just at the turn of the century if 'fulfill all righteousness' in Ignatius ca. 110 is dependent on Matthew, indirectly or directly, which I think it is as this is a Matthean redactional element of Mark's baptismal material. But the embarrassment of the baptism would likely lead to the formulation of similar apologetics so this is uncertain.

I'm not willing to grant Roman provenance for Mark but you raise a good point but its not very weighted since conflict stories are abundant regardless of the place of origin. In addition to the information I mentioned (some standing here, temple material, etc.) we have the following:

That is actually a great article even though I disagree with its conclusion. He places Mark after the temple's destruction.

Vinnie

spin

I'm out of battery but one point...
Perhaps you might expound on why Marcan explanations were sometimes given with Greek translations of Latin forms both technical terms such as "praetorium" and "denarius", and grammatical forms such as the "id est" translation o estin which doesn't represent a Greek idiom. Perhaps you might explain why Mark uses "Syrophoenician", a form which was superfluous to a Levantine who would have happily understood the simpler "Phoenician" and didn't have the contrast with Lebophoenicians that Rome did. Why are there so many Latin loan words and even a few other translated idioms?

Battery's gone.


spin

IamJoseph

Can one self sacrifice himself in the midst of a decree of heresy hovering? Over a million other Jews could not. Makes no sense at all.

It could not spread to any followers either - they were awaiting one who would confront Rome and save them - nothing else had to be done. It appears this story spread only in Europe: the Jews didn't buy a bar of it - nor does Islam - both deny any sacrifice occured here. All we have are stories from Romans, totally bereft of any historical back-up.

IamJoseph

On what basis would that dating hold? There is no proof a Mathew [strange name for a Judean] ever existed.

spamandham

We can say that all the anachronisms are either just really good guesses or later interpolations, or we can recognize that the Gospels as we know them were initially penned after the events, and the authors made up all the quotes attributed to Jesus.

Which of these is the simpler explanation?

Elijah

I have no idea what you are suggesting or think I’m suggesting.
I don’t know what each individual was awaiting but to think it was uniform or without exception is ridicules. The Greek influence on Judaism was going to create some new variations in thinking by introducing new ideas.

Yea people have been skeptical of the accuracy of the story.

Elijah

If I thought at all they were really good guesses and not the complete opposite; being vague easy predictions to make then it would make some senses to use it as a dating method. But as it stands now it would be like dating the Muslim extremist who today predicts the downfall of America to the date in the future that it actually falls because there is no way they could know now. Taking it a step further, it’s like trying to say the Jesus story wasn’t created until sometime in the far distant future, after a woman king actually does rise up or modern science figures out the key to eternal life or the resurrection of the dead.

Vinnie

The Gospels are enough evidence to infer the mere historicity of a follower of Jesus named Matthew in the first third of the first century.

External arguments put Matthew no later than the turn of the century. Mark puts him no earlier than 75 C.E. depending on where you date Mark.

Internal arguments show Matthew comes post 70 C.E. as well and are also used to close the gap between 75 and 105 C.E. (e.g. conflicts) but exactly when during this period the text was written to me is not a big deal as it does not serve as an independent witness to Jesus. The double tradition material is what is important and special M sources. Do you dispute the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem I have provided based upon the external attestation of Justin and Ignatius?

Vinnie