rlogan

I think Toto was being quite fair. I see it is a touchy subject, that's all.

With respect to GMark 14:58 speaking to the destruction of the temple, we place ourselves in context at the "trial" of Jesus:


57: And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58: We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59: But neither so did their witness agree together.
60: And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

How is this evidence of anything at all, really? In the first place, it says it is false witness.


As far as 13:1-2 goes, that really requires a reading all the way to the end of the chapter. The desciples ask when this will come to pass, and Jesus gives a 34 verse answer. Among them:

"10: And the gospel must first be published among all nations."

"26: And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory"

Still waiting on that last one.


My goodness - is this really the evidence upon which we rest the case that they refer to destruction of the temple?

Clement? Last time I looked into that I was met with the usual swirling cloud of apologetic fabrication.


I have learned so much on this forum. Thank you everyone.

Vinnie

Unfortunately if Justin Quotes portions of a harmony of Matthew and Luke at 150 C.E. , you cannot use uber-skepticism and posit 149 as the latest possible date for Matthew and Luke. That is uncritical skepticism.

You have to deal with this scenario:

Matthew is written.
Luke is written.

These possibly occur at the same time, possibly they do not.

These works become popular enough to actually be harmonized together.

If Martyr inherited this material, rather than harmonized it himself, you have to at least posit some time for the popularity of the harmonized material to get popular and reach JM. No exact dates are given by this but as I stated, the harmonized Matthean and Lukan Material evidences by JM show us that Matthew and Luke can date NO later than very early in the second century--as there are AT LEAST two two three time stages involved in this process.

One may posit 120 if they wish. But a full evaluation of how long we must give depends upon the provenance of Matthew, Luke and JM. Given certain theological differences I do not think Matthew and Luke were given to the same community. This is why I opt more for 110 C.E. I think ample time must be given for this material to spread, and become popular enough to harmonize.

I think Martyr was conencted with Rome?

Most place Luke either in Greece or Syraia. Matthew in Antioch. Let this stand just for a moment for arguments sake: Matthew and Luke were then written 200 to 400 miles away from one another, if not more.

How long do we grant for a text written in communities so far awar from one another to become popular enough to be harmonized? A long while must be granted. There was no internet back in the day and Matthew and Luke couldn't submit their works for all Christians to see on Early Christian Writings.com

So a full evaluation needs to discuss the provenance of all three but I stand by my comment of no later than early 2d century, and I mean very early. That is the latest possible dating.

Now what authors fail to mention the Gospels at this time? Where were the Gospels written? Where did these authors spend most of their time? Why should or should they not have mentioned these works?

So Matthew and Luke date no later than ca 110 in my estimation. Mark prredates both of them. Mark, we have very good reasons for placing ca 70 C.E. In fact, I would call this practically factual. The statement bout "some standing here" before the transfiguration and the progression of the urgent eschatology I demonstrated here through the various stratums demonstrates this.

I've only seen two reasons for dating Mark late:

It mentions synagogues and a rolling stone.

Both of these fail. It isn't even certain Mark shows knowledge of the temple destruction. Scholarship is well divided on this issue as I demonstrated in the gospel reliability thread.

Thus I date Mt and Lk 80-110. That is on external attestation alone. Next come internal clues. For example, as E.P. Sanders would tell you, the synoptic Gospels show no knowledge of events after 90 C.E. and one cannot readily supose authors would have suppressed knowledge of ecent events. Thus some would tend to date a Gospel closer to its earliest possible date, rather than its latest. This is very general and has some serious pitfalss (e.g. Acts and Paul's death). Still though, if do expect an author to mention somthing and they do not, we should, on internal grounds date them a little earlier. Some have found Luke fails to mention or allude to events occuring ca 95 C.E. that he might mentioned.

At any rate, this is one ara where the communis opinio does hold up to scrutiny. Critical datings of the Gospels are, for the most part accurate, uber-conservatism and uber-skepticism not withstanding.

Vinnie

spin

Before discussing the issue, Vinnie, would you please put your cards on the table? Please cite the Justin passage(s) that you feel evinces this "harmony".

Once we ascertain that there is such a "harmony", then we might consider alternative proposals.


spin

Vorkosigan

That is not what Toto is doing!

At the earliest Luke cannot have been earlier than Josephus' Antiquities and probably not earlier than his Vita either. I think Luke, coming last and aware of John, must have been written just prior to about 140, perhaps late in the reign of Hadrian. Your dates strike me as much too early for Luke. I personally believe that Luke drew her history from one of the Roman historians writing in the 120s, either Suetonius or Tacitus. That would put her after 120.

Not at all. The underlying assumptions here are that these communities are using these documents in a very innocent way, developing "organically" over time. But the people who wrote and edited these documents were very much aware of what they were doing and were well aware of the charged theopolitical atmosphere of their writing. The minimum time for spreading this stuff was very short, and rewrites and polemics would have appeared immediately. Don't picture communities of believers living in isolation like hermits in the desert. Picture heavily networked writers of texts all talking to one another at several months' delay, editing and interpreting the reality they were building.

There is a kind of orientalization of history going on here under which when we look back at the ancients, they appear more sincere and more under the domination of their cultural ideals than we are now. That is nonsense. They were every bit as subversive, insightful, and goal-oriented as we are. The communal ideas posited by scholars in understanding early Christian behavior are romantic fictions designed to serve apologetic views of early Christian history by denying early Christians their full measure of humanity.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I find your dating of Luke impossible, in whole and in part. It defies all evidence. Your mass conspiracy theory that all Christians were so connected at this time is also completely without merit. We have evidence of a host of sects of Christianity. They were not all connected. They rivaled one another. Luke implicitly critiques Markan Christianity of which Matthew heavily reprints without as many alterations as Luke. Thus, its partly transferrable.

Luke knowing a text of Josephus (Antiq 93 C.E.) is consistent with my time frame but what is your evidence for Luke's dependence on these works? Similarity of material or wording in a spot here or there will not cut it. Since it is possible a common source may have been used by both or ths was a common history. If we need tutorials on determining direct literary dependence I'll be happy to post some comments. Otherwise, can you cite any specific Josephan or Tacitean redactional elements in Luke?

You also have apparently adopted the sensationalist view that Luke was written by a woman. The evidence?

Vinnie

rlogan

Cunning phrase here Vork.

Stop victimizing these poor people Vinnie.

20 miles a day marching is not extraordinary.

Vinnie

Uberskepticism.

Vinnie

rlogan

Been reading too much from spin.



There is one interesting argument you brought up Vinnie -

It is an argument from silence. (irony meter "on")

If Mark is silent on the destruction of the Temple - then it was written before that date.

Have to think about that.

Vinnie

Bernard, I just skimmed your piece on dating.

There are a few spots I disagree with you on. For instance, I think Papias preserves an "independnent" account of Judas' death (Brown, Crossan et al). His account looks just as contadictory to Lukes as does Matthews if we take the full details into account. There are also two forms of Papias on this (long and short form). Most importantly, there is a popular imagination of horrible endings for infamous lives in antiquity. Maccabbees, Nadan in the Legend of Ahiqar, et al.

I also think Martyr did know a harmony of some form (Sanders, Koester).

I also think some of your parallels are very tenuous. For instance, the "endless genealogies" in 1 Timothy reflecting knowlede of Matthew and Luke's contradictory genealogies?

The meaning of geneaology there largely is uncertain. I would say its possible you are ciorrect, but it may possibly be a reference to gnostic views as well or something entirely unknown to us. I would say the meaining is largely unknown and it cannot serve as valid evidence 1 Tim knows GLuke and GMatthew.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Crossan finds tri-indepdnent attestation in Thomas, Mark and John about a temple saying of Jesus. Plus, Mark's prophecy was not actually fulfilled. If writing after the fact and creating (like Mark's other prophecies which are precisely fulfilled) we would epect the same here. Yet it is also noted that Mark may have been written outside Palestine and only heard about the temple. THus he may have created an after the fact prohecy based uopon these stories so its not definitve either way. But we still do have tri-independnent attestation from the first century on a "temple saying" if Crosan is correct. Source and form as well ( narrative Gospel and sayings Gospel ( and Dialogue=John??? )

At any rate, this certainly shows Mark's statement need not presuppose the temple was going or necessarily even that its destruction was imminent. Other parts of Mark do that, however.

Yet I've seen no proof Mark does or does not mention the temple destruction. Most scholars like to take up one of the positions and write using it without explaining why.

Vinnie