Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 01-11-2010, 06:57 AM

JW:
Continuing with the assault on a 1st century "Mark":

From Super Skeptic Neil Godfree's sight:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/12/...spel/#comments

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuff

8. “YOU WILL BE BEATEN IN SYNAGOGUES”

“Mark” 13.9ff

1. Wiki ‘History of Early Christianity”
“There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of “heretics” in general, or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135.”

2.Review of the book below in Christian Century, June 14, 2005 by Mark A. Chancey:
The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited.By John Howard Yoder Edited by Michael G. Cartwright and Peter Ochs. Eerdmans
“….Judaism did not reject Christianity, according to Yoder, at least in the first century. The parting of the ways between the two traditions did not begin until the Bar Kochba war (132-135 CE) …”
3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...wrestling.html
[a] An important milestone will be the emergence of the word “Christianity.” This word appears for the first time in the writings of a church thinker of the early 2nd century of our era named Ignatius,… around the year 110 or 120 [Shaye I.D Cohen]
[b] The one thing that does happen in the second revolt….. And at that point we really see the full-fledged separation of Jewish tradition and Christian tradition becoming clear. [L. Michael White]

Late in the first century synagogues as a place of worship in Palestine developed in lieu of the destroyed temple.
History, or legend, has it that c 90 CE the Jews instituted a new element in the daily prayer directed against the Christians [minim/Nazoreans], the birkat-ha-minim, and this some suggest, despite the claims in some of Paul’s writings, marks the beginnings of trouble between Jews and Christians now identified as a heretical sect.

It’s a theme present in “John” at 9.22 where the author has this editorial
“…for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be the Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue”

John Marsh in his Pelican NT Commentary “Saint John” has this to say [page 383] re 9.22:
“It is highly doubtful, as learned commentators remark, whether the authorities had at this stage, or ever during the earthly ministry of Jesus, decided upon excommunication from the Jewish religion for any sort of adherence to or confession of Jesus Christ”. Marsh seems to suggest ‘John”’s words are some sort of anachronism without suggesting the time gap.

So when did the split occur between the two groups, the Jews and whoever comprised those we believe “Mark” to be addressing?
Was it in the era of Paul, whenever that may have been, or later, much later, even as far as the post second revolt period?

JW:

As usual, this anachronism is probably better placed in the 2nd century than the first.

Josephus

ErrancyWiki

spin · 01-11-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's a single tomb.

Is this clear, without the references in Matthew Luke and John to this being a new and/or previously unused tomb ?

I'd say it is, talking of it hewn out of rock with a stone to close it. (And so do Matthew and Luke which used Mark.)

spin

andrewcriddle · 01-11-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Is this clear, without the references in Matthew Luke and John to this being a new and/or previously unused tomb ?

I'd say it is, talking of it hewn out of rock with a stone to close it. (And so do Matthew and Luke which used Mark.)

spin

You may be right in using the agreements here of Matthew and Luke as evidence for what Mark was implying.

On the whole, though. the way in which Matthew and Luke develop Mark's account of the burial seems to involve them both being influenced by post-Markan sensibilities concerning what it was appropriate to have happened.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 01-12-2010, 08:03 AM

JW:
Continuing with the assault on a 1st century "Mark":

From Super Skeptic Neil Godfree's sight:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/12/...spel/#comments

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuff

Well thats my list Neil, I said about 10, its actually 9, but I didn’t bother with the ‘ not one stone left upon the other’ temple destruction ‘prophecy’ because its been done to death and I regard it as a slam dunk case for post 70ce anyway.

JW:

Mark 13

Quote:

1 And as he went forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Teacher, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!

2 And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.

Christian Bible scholarship generally accepts that this is an anachronism but uses this as support for a close to 70 CE dating. Looking at the letters of Paul though we see no conception of the destruction of the Temple and even Fake Paul, after the destruction, does not seem interested. This interest in the supposed theological significance of the destruction of the Temple seems to be a 2nd century Christian idea. So making it a major theme and irony of "Mark" (Jesus is the "replacement" Temple) may be support for 2nd century here.

Josephus

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-14-2010, 07:40 AM

JW:
Outline of the argument for a 2nd century dating of the original Gospel "Mark":

External evidence:

1) Physical manuscripts

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

Note that 2) puts pressure on 1)

2) Patristic references

Marcion evidences a version of "Luke".c. 135.

Note that Papias, traditionally taken by Christianity as evidence of when "Mark" was written by is actually evidence of when "Mark" was not written by.
It's clear that Papias has no knowledge of a canonical Gospel. Papias is quoted as referring to Hadrian, who ruled 117-138. So this is evidence that "Mark" was written after Papias' reference to Hadrian and is consistent with 1).

Note the related Christian apology for this lack of direct 1st century evidence for a Gospel. Supposedly this extant evidence sometime after the supposed event is typical and specifically even better here than it usually is for non-Christian writings. The difference here though is:

1) We have extant copies of Christian writings from the 1st century.

2) Christianity was already institutionaliesed in the 1st century.

3) This institution was looking for 1st century writings.

4) Extant copies of 2nd century writings refer to 1st century writings.

5) 2nd century Christianity is specifically looking for the earliest evidence of a Gospel.

The likely conclusion here is that 2nd century Christianity could not find any 1st century evidence for a Gospel because it did not exist.

Internal evidence:

Anachronisms:

1) Use of Josephus

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

2) Parable of the Wicked Husandmen

Quote:

“Mark” 12. 1-9. “the allegory of the vineyard” aka the parable of the wicked husbandmen

The owner [god] of a vineyard [Israel] sends servants [the prophets] to the tenants [Jews] of the vineyard to collect rent. The Jews kill the prophets so god sends his son [JC] and the Jews kill him also. God destroys the tenants [Roman Jewish War] and gives the vineyard to others [non Jews and Christians].

3) Synagogues in Galilee

Quote:

General Reasons

1) I think everyone would agree that synagogues became more common in Israel after the destruction of the Temple.

2) The destruction of the (Temple/Jerusalem) would have caused a religious migration to Galilee (especially after Bar Kochba).

Specific Reasons

1) There is little archeological evidence for synagogues in 1st century Galilee. The best book I've seen on ancient synagogues is The Ancient Synagogue (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Lee Levine (2000). Page 8:

4) Use of "Rabbi" as a title:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin
This position sees correct, being fairly standard understanding of the situation from Jewish literature. The title "rabbi" (my master) wasn't used to refer to anyone prior to the end of the first century according to rabbinical texts. The term wasn't used in respect for earlier figures either. None of the Pharisaic figures starting from the "great sanhedrin" had the title and not even the great Hillel received the title. The first in the literature to receive such a tittle seems to be rabban Gamaliel (II), so we have a strong indication that "rabbi" reflects historical usage and would be anachronistic in the first part of the first century.

This is another indicator that at least some of the gospel material was written late and has overtly questionable historical value.

5) Use of linen shrouds:

Quote:

3.Shroud.
“This caused R. Gamaliel, about fifty years after the destruction of the Temple, to inaugurate the custom of using a simple linen shroud for rich and poor alike (M. Ḳ. 27b).”

So, according to the JE, about c120ce the custom was started of burial in a linen shroud thus suggesting this anachronism was written sometime after that date.

6. The Rolling Stone:

Quote:

And I’ll simply quote Richard Carrier.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../indef/4e.html

“Amos Kloner, in “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that “more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones” (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, “the Second Temple period…ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common” (p. 25).

7) Ritual Hand Washing:

Quote:

1) The Talmud indicates the Eighteen Measures were well after the supposed time of Jesus.

2) The Eighteen Measures would have been primarily motivating to Bet Hillel and Shammai and not all the Jews per 7:3.

3) In general The Jewish Bible supports Ritual washing for the Priests and the Talmud supports transfer of Rituals from the Priesthood to the Household after the destruction of the Temple.

4) 1)-3) above probably appealed to "Mark" as subject matter because of the Ritual, Temple and Destruction issues.

8) Synagogue Beatings:

Quote:

1. Wiki ‘History of Early Christianity”
“There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of “heretics” in general, or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135.”

9) Prediction of Temple destruction:

Quote:

Christian Bible scholarship generally accepts that this is an anachronism but uses this as support for a close to 70 CE dating. Looking at the letters of Paul though we see no conception of the destruction of the Temple and even Fake Paul, after the destruction, does not seem interested. This interest in the supposed theological significance of the destruction of the Temple seems to be a 2nd century Christian idea. So making it a major theme and irony of "Mark" (Jesus is the "replacement" Temple) may be support for 2nd century here.

10) Pharisees in Galilee:

Honorary contribution from Neil Godfree

Regarding the anachronisms, some are better placed in 1st century and some are better placed 2nd century, which together, means that they support 2nd century. Also remember the key as to a scenario for authorship. Going with the irony that the destruction of the Temple is destroying the historicity of the Christian Bible by demonstrating anachronisms, the f-a-r-t-h-e-r one is from c. 70 the more likely the anachronism as there is gradually loss of memory and evidence for the pre-70 setting. For those who need points sharply explained = A mature author writing shortly after 70 CE would remember the setting pre-70 and not have the anachronisms. Remember this point when considering the cumulative anachronisms.

Note the co-ordination than of the External and Internal evidence for 2nd century. This is also compatible with the gradual evidence from the Patristic for chronological identification of "Matthew"/"Luke" and "John" later in the 2nd century.

Thus we have it on good authority that "Mark" is likely 2nd century and a more definite conclusion that there is no quality evidence for a 1st century "Mark". Word.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin · 01-14-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'd say it is, talking of it hewn out of rock with a stone to close it. (And so do Matthew and Luke which used Mark.)

You may be right in using the agreements here of Matthew and Luke as evidence for what Mark was implying.

On the whole, though. the way in which Matthew and Luke develop Mark's account of the burial seems to involve them both being influenced by post-Markan sensibilities concerning what it was appropriate to have happened.

Cheap burial was a hole in the ground, sink a shaft, insert the body, add a few stone slabs to cover the corpse and fill. Mark is clear that we have an individual tomb above ground whose entrance could be covered with a large rock-hewn stone, ie an expensive tomb.

spin

JoeWallack · 03-04-2010, 07:43 AM

JW:
Samuel Lachs points out in A Rabbinic Commentary On The New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) that the common Passover dish of Mark 14:20:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Quote:

Mark 14:20 And he said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish.

is an anachronism based on the Mishnah:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/etm/etm068.htm

Quote:

§ 3. Herbs and vegetables are then to be brought: the lettuce is to be immersed, and part eaten thereof, until the eating of the unleavened-bread; then ‏מצה‎, or unleavened cakes, are to be placed before him, as also lettuce, ‏חרוסת‎ 1 and two kinds of cooked food, although the ‏חרוסת‎ is not strictly obligatory; but R. Eleazar bar Zadok says it is obligatory. During the existence of the Holy Temple, the paschal sacrifice was then also placed before him.

While the Temple existed than, everything was to be placed before an individual with the implication that there would be no common dish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.