Layman

Toto certainly seemed to think the manuscript date was important to dating. Which is why I quoted him. If you disagree with him too, glad to have you aboard.

Layman

I was not responding to historians, I was responding to a comment by an internet skeptic. I would hope that historians are not so naive.

Layman

Regarding the prediction of the destruction of the Temple, Craig Evans argues at length that as a purely historical matter, "in all probability Jesus did prophecy the destruction of the Jewish Temple and that he did so in response to his quarrel with the religious authorities." You can find the article here:

C.A. Evans, "Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Scrolls, and Related Texts," JSP 10 (1992) 89-147.

He surveys a number of early Jewish writings and their predictions, premonitions, and prophecies of the dstruction of the Herodian Temple.

A smaller treatment is available in Excursus Three of Evans' book, Jesus and His Contemporaries, pages 367-80.

Vorkosigan

Yes, there was a whole slew of Second Temple Haters in Second Temple Judaism. Margaret Barker has also written on this topic as well. But that tells us nothing about whether Jesus did so. If it was a common theme, then either saying Jesus probably did so amounts to asserting a triviality like saying "Toto once said that Bush sucked" or else it is impossible to get a vector on what Jesus said.

In any case, Evans assumes as an underlying axiom that Mark's fiction represents something that Jesus did, rather than what Mark represented him doing. If the presentation in Mark 13 is fiction (and of course it is) then Mark invented it, period. Anything is simply erudition supporting wishful thinking.

Vorkosigan

Toto had two arguments, only one of which you responded to, which you then treated as if it were Toto's whole argument, which was certainly not the whole case. Toto also pointed out that there is "no mention in other literature before the mid second century, as I understand."

Toto also asked for some concrete reason to date Mark prior to 70. None exists.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Hi Layman. Up to your old tricks, I see. My question was what evidence existed to date Mark before 70. As an aside, I noted that there was a lack of manuscript evidence for an early date. And you removed the rest of the post:

You will notice that I never suggested that the earliest manuscript evidence would fix the date of Mark's composition.

Since you refused to answer my question about positive reasons for dating Mark to 70 and misdirected attention to another issue, may I assume that you have no valid reason to date Mark to 70?

As far as Josephus' Antiquities, some of the early church fathers quoted from the work, and there are many other reasons to date that work to around 93 CE. Although that lack of a manuscript means that any particular passage in Josephus might have been inserted at a later date, does it not?

Layman

I did not treat it as his whole argument. I wanted to deal with one particular argument and show how silly it was.

You guys are pretty insecure about your readers if you think no one can remember what you wrote in your post and realize I was dealing with one of the arguments contained therein. It is not a "trick" and it does not make Toto's entire argument, such as it is, disappear. It allows us to focus on one particularly silly argument and discuss that one. And succesfully so since everyone now seems to agree that it was as silly argument.

Now, if I had gone ahead and said, "therefore Mark must be dated to 70 AD" then you might have a point. But I did no such thing. So best I can tell you just don't like the fact that I nailed a fallacious argument about dating Mark.

Layman

You've read Evan's article?

Amaleq13

I completely agree that, if that phrase had been presented as an argument on its own, it would worthy of criticism. However, it was clearly offered as part of a list of considerations and, as such, is entirely appropriate.

Early manuscript evidence is relevant to establishing the date of an original. Lacking early manuscript evidence removes one possible way of obtaining an early date. Simple as that.

These meta-argument tangents really serve no purpose relevant to the OP.

Peter Kirby

Irrelevant unless the third century manuscripts of Mark are used as evidence of a 70 CE date. Even then, that wouldn't be an argument for a later date; it would be a rebuttal for an argument for a 70 CE date. But has anyone used the date of the extant manuscripts of Mark to date Mark to 70 CE? Not that I am aware.

Layman made a cogent point; am I the only one to recognize that here?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby