Self-Mutation

Under the theory of Markan priority, it is assumed that Mark was the first Gospel written. On a side note, Markan priority theory is just as valid as Matthean priority theory.

For example, those who propose Mark was written first give a reason such as "Mark gives no birth narrative. This can be evidence Mark was written first and then Matthew and Luke added on the birth of Jesus story to give Jesus an earthly birth."

However, if one believes Matthew was written first, the reason can be just as valid: "Matthew starts his Gospel with the birth narrative. Mark, seeing as how there was already a birth narrative in place, saw no need to be redundant and just started with Jesus' earthly life."

BOTH of these theories are believable and have the same amount of evidence for each theory.

But, if we assume Mark was written first, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple if Mark was written circa 65 and the temple was destroyed until 70.

But, there's another HUGE BUT, if Mark was written AFTER 70, then Jesus' prophecy can be explained away. But, this is troubling when we examine Luke.

The author of Luke is said to be the SAME AUTHOR as The Book Of Acts. In Luke's gospel, Jesus makes the same prediction. "So, it was written after the fact!" claims the skeptic. But, how valid is this?

If we then examine the book of Acts, it shows Paul going to trial. It does NOT talk about Paul's death even though Paul died sometime in the 60's. Why would the book of Acts speak of Paul going to trial and completely ignore his death if Acts and Luke were written around the years 80-100? if Luke and Acts were written very late as scholars say, there';s a HUGE MYSTERY why talk of Paul's death is left out.

If we allow ourselves to realize that the book of Acts only speaks of Paul going to trial and does not speak about his death, and that the Gospel of Luke contains Jesus' prediction about the destruction of the temple, we must then have no choice but to conclude that Luke AND Acts were completed sometime BEFORE Paul himself had passed away!

But, if this is the truth, then that means Jesus made a prediction that came true!

So once again in summary, if Luke and Acts were written in 80-100, why didn't they talk about the death of Paul? Because both books were written BEFORE Paul died and BEFORE the destruction of the temple.

Keith&Co.

so, you're okay with some details being left out of the litany because the author felt it was okay, but you base some significant speculation on other details being left out.

Huh.

There were a lot of gospels being circulated in the first couple of centuries. Many were suppressed for being of suspicious provenance, or being gnostic, or otherwise offending the authorities.
Maybe one of these had a description of Paul's death, and the later author thought he didn't need to include it, much like Jesus' birth in your example?

Martian Astronomer

Couple of points from a non-bible-scholar type:

1. First, is the absence of the mention of Paul's death the only evidence you have that Acts and Luke were written before the death of Paul? There are any number of reasons why the author of Luke could have omitted Paul's death from the story. Maybe, along the line of your "Matthean Priority" theory Paul's death was already well-known, and he wanted to end on an upbeat note. Paul may have died an inglorious death from old age and "Luke" didn't want to depict a religious leader like Paul in a bad light. It's even possible that the author did not know how Paul died - there are no records, and all traditions pertaining to the death of Paul come from at least a century later. To use the omission of Paul's death to try and place the writing of Acts and Luke is a stretch at best.

2. Even if Mark was somehow written before the destruction of Jerusalem, does that mean that Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple was somehow supernatural? Jesus (or 'Mark') could have simply looked at the political climate, and predicted that eventually the Jews would rebel, and Rome would crush them. It could have simply been a condemnation of a perceived spiritual weakness. It could have even been a good guess - and if it hadn't come true, Mark might not have been regarded as prophetic, and might not have been canonized.

3. There are a number of other textual reasons why Luke is dated pretty late (such as the works of Josephus) and Matthew placed after Mark (addition of details, evolving characters, and evolving theology, in addition to copied text.) Others are probably about to give you more references than you could ever want.

aa5874

But that is if we assume Jesus did exist and assume he made a prediction about the destruction of the temple.

This is not rocket science, you have merely assumed what you wanted to prove.

But, there are other options, if it is assumed Paul died BEFORE Luke and Acts were written or it is assumed that Paul did not exist.

Again you cannot assume what you want to prove. You must prove or show within reason that Paul did first exist and did die when you assumed he did.

spamandham

It's extremely valid...conclusively so really. There is no doubt that the predictions of the destruction of the Temple *must* have been added after the fact. This idea is also consistent with main stream ranges for the dates of the canonical gospels.

It's not much of a mystery once you start to also peruse non-canonical 'acts' type documents. There seems to have been quite the cottage industry in the late 2nd century of people just making shit up. It's laughable how easily Christians discount the idea that *not everyone on the planet is honorable*.

Roland

Following such logic - that Acts must have been written before Paul's death because otherwise it would have mentioned it - to its ultimate conclusion, then Matthew, Luke and John must have been written in the first month after Jesus' resurrection since none of them make reference to his ascension into heaven, and Mark must have been written ON EASTER MORNING because it fails to note any of Jesus' appearances to the disciples later that day.

PaulK

The very prophecy under discussion gives reason to think that Luke was written after 70 AD. The version found in Luke is considerably different from that found in Mark and Matthew. The changes appear to have been made to better fit the actual events. For this reason I believe that the version in Mark and Matthew predates the events - it is too inaccurate to have been written after the fact.

Doug Shaver

No, it is not assumed. It is inferred.

If it were only an assumption, that could be so. But it is not.

That reasoning would lead us to expect Mark to include no incident that Matthew mentioned. Is that what we find? If not -- if Mark mentions anything that Matthew also mentions -- then your argument doesn't work very well.

It's only a mystery to people who assume there can be no error either in the Bible or in Christian tradition. We have no reliable evidence regarding the time, place, or manner of Paul's death. It is entirely credible, to anyone not committed to the truth of Christian dogma, that the author of Acts knew absolutely nothing about when, where, or how Paul died.

spamandham

In my mind, it's unreasonably unlikely that anyone in 30-40CE forsaw the emminent destruction of the Temple. The events that led to that destruction had not yet taken place, and the entire history of the Hebrew people (and all people really) is one of conflict. 30 CE was not unusual in that sense.

...and if we accept the traditional view that Jesus' ministry is placed in 30 CE, where he predicts the fall within 'this generation' (a generation being 40 years), then this strongly implies that the entire ministry was retrojected to exactly 40 years prior to the events for theological reasons. This could not have taken place unless his ministry was essentially fictional/mythical/mystical/allegorical (this could be the case even if there is some vague historical core to the Jesus character...sort of like St. Nicholaus and Santa).

It's a certainty that the 'prophecies' are retrojections....which suggests they were inserted well after the events of 70CE, since enough time needed to pass for people to forget that Jesus *had not* predicted those events.

You couldn't sit down in October 2001 and claim guru X had predicted 9/11 40 years earlier, unless at least a few people remembered it. But you could sit down and do that in 2050, because no-one would be around to remember that guru X *hadn't* predicted it back in 1961.

Toto

This assumes that there is some way of independently determining what happened in the first century, so you can judge the accuracy of the version in Luke versus Mark. What would this be? In what way is Mark inaccurate?

The changes to Mark's narrative that the author made in Luke-Acts appear to be designed for purposes of theology, not historical accuracy. Acts has a clear literary structure, in which events unfold smoothly to fit the author's purposes. One purpose was to demonstrate that Christianity started in Jerusalem, and worked its way to Rome as Jews rejected Paul and gentiles favored him. Another was to show a harmony of purpose between Paul and Peter, which is not reflected in the letters that bear Paul's name. Another was to depict various high status citizens of the Roman empire favoring Christianity.

Any resemblance to actual historical events would be a mere coincidence.

Depicting the martyrdom of Paul would add nothing to the author's purpose, and would end the story on a downer.

Besides, the character of Saul-Paul in Acts might have some basis in fact, but appears to be highly fictionalized. I suspect that if there is a historical person at the core of the story, this person never got to Rome and was not martyred for his faith.