andrewcriddle

I don't think it is inconsistent with any undisputed fact (in the sense of a fact undisputed on this forum) but I think it does run into a number of problems. (The problems mainly come with the assumption of Markan priority but this is a claim generally accepted on this forum.)

With a late date of Mark one has either to date post-Markan material very shortly after Mark or date this material problematically late.

eg Ignatius seems to have known Matthew so for a 2nd century date of Mark one has either to date Ignatius problematically late or have a rapid (IMO improbably rapid) sequence, a/ Mark written, b/ Matthew written on the (partial) basis of Mark, c/ Ignatius alludes to Matthaean material on the assumption that his readers will pick up the reference.
Similarly, if Papias knew not only Matthew but an Aramaic paraphrase of Matthew and was confused about their relationship, (which is IMO the most plausible explanation of what Papias says about Matthew), this implies that Matthew dates from well before Papias' time.
Acts IMO has two much knowlege of the 1st century world to be written after the accession of Hadrian
etc....

Any of these arguments is likely to be disputed on this forum, but without substantial rewrites of our dating for later sources I find a post-Domitian date for Mark very difficult.

Another general issue is that although Mark may possibly have been written some years after the fall of Jerusalem it does seem on internal evidence much closer in time to this event than Luke (and to a lesser extent Matthew) are.

(on spamandham's post, I have commented in previous threads, that IMO dating Mark after Bar Kochba involves claims about what actually happened in the Bar Kochba revolt that have flimsy historical support.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

This could of course be taken as evidence that Paul knew of a developed tradition of the death of Jesus, similar to that in the common material shared by Mark and John.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

Not necessarily. He attributes some sayings to Jesus that Matthew also attributes to Jesus. We know Matthew had at least one source other than Mark. Why couldn't Ignatius have had access to that same source?

That a big if, in my judgment. In the first place, we don't have anything by Papias himself, just some quotes mined by Irenaeus and Eusebius. In the second place, although later Christians apparently assumed that the Matthean work mentioned by Papias was the gospel they knew and loved, I don't think we're justified in making that same assumption.

Could I trouble you for an example? What did the author of Acts know that we should not expect anyone writing in the mid-second century to have known? And just why would they probably not have known it?

JoeWallack

JW:
Of course. The parallels speak for themselves. But as Conan the Barbarian said in the classic Conan the Barbarian "But which way/door/path/road/hand/budget/election?". I do think the way of Paul from "Mark's" source is more over-developed than Arnold's muscles and smile and the alternative way from Paul to "Mark" is less developed than our exit strategy from Iraq.

To the extent that the parallel is figurative on one side and literal on the other, such as Passover being figurative to Paul and literal to "Mark", I think that supports the figurative one as the source. There are a number of such relationships between Paul and "Mark".

For someone who was familiar with Paul's writings but not the history of 1st century Israel, like I don't know, most of Paul's audience, don't you think they would notice the parallels between "Mark's" Passion and Paul?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

Ignatius (see his Epistle to the Ephesians) seems to have known about the account of the Star of Bethlehem. I doubt if this can be pre-Matthean
In theory a late writer could have written very carefully with a lot of research so as to avoid anachronisms. However, general practicalities and the examples of the 2nd century apocryphal literature tell against this.

One example of Acts getting right the general feel of things in the 1st century is the way in which being a Roman Citizen is both rare in the Eastern Mediterranean, brings with it a lot of priviledges and is something you either have or haven't. In the 2nd century Roman Citizenship becomes more widespread and more differentiated. More and more peoples are Roman Citizens 2nd grade (humiliores) but lack more and more of the priviledges of 1st grade Roman Citizens (honestiores). This culminates in the late 2nd century with nearly everyone (except slaves) becoming a 2nd grade Roman Citizen but the main priviledge being that of paying taxes. This process is clealy underway in the time of Hadrian.

Another issue is the way Luke-Acts seems to have a goal of convincing Theophilus and other readers that Christian are nice law abiding people who aren't any sort of threat to the authorities and sensible magistrates realise this. I have difficulties with this sort of agenda after Pliny's encounter with Christians c 112 CE by which time the illegality of Christians is taken for granted.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

It seems to me there is an implicit assumption here that the canonical gospels are the only texts that ever existed. Considering that multiple canonical gospels do in fact exist and are obvious reworks of other texts - as well as the existence of noncanonical gospel versions, this seems to me like the opposite of the correct assumption - the correct assumption is that many more gospels were written than what we have.

For Mark as we know it to have say, a mid 2nd century date, does not imply the absence of an earlier gospel story upon which Mark is based. Unless you propose something akin to mountainman's hypothesis, then it seems very very unlikely that the original gospel story has survived, since that presupposes it would have been revered while the ink was still fresh, in a society that equated antiquity with authority.

Doug Shaver

This is all he says: "A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of Which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment." No magi, and not even a mention of Bethlehem.

If we ASSUME that Matthew was written sometime before Ignatius, then it probably would be reasonable to construe this as an allusion thereto. However, I see nothing the least bit improbable about Matthew's having read (or heard about) this passage and been inspired by it to create the story he told.

I see no reason to suppose that Luke was not writing carefully and with a lot of research. The practical limitations on what sort of research he could have done would have depended on his situation -- where he lived and what sorts of people were among his acquaintances -- about which we know absolutely nothing. And I fail to see the relevance of the quality of other Christian writings from the same period. Christians of that time were not all alike, in either their beliefs or their scholastic abilities.

Your argument seems to presuppose that nobody post-Hadrian could have known anything about what citizenship entailed during the early first century. I see no justification for that presupposition.

For the sake of discussion, I'll stipulate the "taken for granted" business. So what? Maybe Luke was hoping (among other things) to convince somebody that it would be a good idea to repeal the sorts of laws that Pliny felt obliged to enforce? Plessy v Ferguson didn't stop civil-rights advocates from campaigning against Jim Crow. Why would second-century Christians have been any more passive than they were?

spin

Noting Doug's comment above, this is a further consideration on Andrew's comment...
You may doubt it, but do you have any evidence-based reason to do so?

Do you for some reason believe the Matthean writer was responsible for introducing the trope of the star into the christian tradition? If so, did he develop it from his own psyche somehow, or did he happen to be first to get it as breaking news? You may have some other possibility here, but I see those as the basic choice if you want Ignatius to have necessarily derived the star trope from Matthew. Otherwise, it may be seen as already a part of the christian tradition available even to Ignatius.


spi

andrewcriddle

Following Brown Birth of the Messiah I think that the star is later in the tradition than the story of the Magi itself, it intrudes into an earlier narrative in which people learn things in dreams sent by God. It could have been part of a written narrative which Matthew used in which the oral tradition had been heavily redacted, but I see no need to postulate such a written source.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

I think that Celsus also refers to the star story unless my memory is faulty which puts the story at the latest c. 170 CE.