Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

the 90CE dating is a fraud of liberal and secular mainliners.
none of these epistles predate mid second century.

Klaus Schilling

Originally Posted by eheffa

I understand some of the rationale for this position, but can you give a brief summary of why you believe this to be the case?

Originally Posted by eheffa

Hi Klaus,

I understand some of the rationale for this position, but can you give a brief summary of why you believe this to be the case? i.e. What evidence can you give to support the assertion that the Pauline epistles were written in the mid 2nd century rather than the mid first century as Acts & orthodox scholars would have us believe?

-evan

Originally Posted by Andrew Bernhard

Dating Early Christian Gospels

While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely when early gospels (and parts of them) were written, it is impossible to determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely lacking from the time period when the gospels were written.

Terminus post quem. Only two known events are helpful for determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64 C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus’ siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event.[15] John 21 must have been written after Peter’s death,[16] but the final chapter may have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written.[17] There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John 1-20.[18] The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels.[19]

On the basis of literary relationships, only one gospel must have been written after Matthew, Luke, or the datable portion of John: the Gospel of the Ebionites presupposes Matthew and Luke.[20] The remainder lack the extensive verbal correspondence necessary to establish a literary relationship. It is not at all clear that the Gospel of Thomas,[21] Gospel of Peter,[22] or “Unknown Gospel” of P.Egerton 2[23] is dependent upon the canonical gospels for their material. The accusations of the church fathers do not establish that Marcion actually abridged (“mutilated”) Luke.[24] Too few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazareans and Gospel of the Hebrews have been preserved to allow for a definitive judgment of their sources.[25] It is not even possible to determine which came first: Mark or Secret Mark.[26]

Terminus ante quem. Trying to determine the latest possible dates for gospel origins is also a difficult task. Certainly, all early gospels were completed before the end of the second century, but how much earlier is unclear. On the basis of manuscript evidence alone, it is only possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle of the second century, one non-canonical gospel (“Unknown Gospel,” P.Egerton 2)[27] and one canonical gospel (John, ‰52).[28] All additional information about which gospels were in use by the early decades of the second century comes from ambiguous patristic testimonies.

There are two writers who at first glance appear to be potentially useful for determining which (canonical)[29] gospels were in circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel, although he does not mention it explicitly.[30] Most of these passages, however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral tradition.[31] Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics.[32] This excessive familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.[33]

Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. However, his comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His brief description of a writing of Matthew as “logia in the Hebrew dialect” is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).[34] Further ambiguity surrounds Papias’ comments about Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peter’s preaching (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). Yet, it is difficult to believe that so carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere chaotic collection of unordered notes.[35] Further, Papias does not actually state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply that he did).[36] Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.

All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody’s guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody’s guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing more concrete than each scholar’s impression of precisely when small stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences of opinion with such subjective analysis.[39]

Originally Posted by McDuff

“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].

Suggested date:
Post 70CE. Perhaps post Second Jewish War.
Comment.
I’ve seen this described as an allegory in several books [eg D.E Nineham "Saint Mark" Pelican] where the various elements are I/D as above, often with reservations.

Originally Posted by 1

11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

Originally Posted by 2

15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves;

Originally Posted by 3

27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders;

Originally Posted by McDuff

Synagogues.

As in synogogues with a religious function, existing ‘everywhere’ [to exaggerate slightly] in Galilee at the alleged time of JC who is described specifically as using them in a religious sense frequently [well at least three times from memory] by “Mark”.

As a sweeping statement to get the ball rushing downhill try this:
Despite exhaustive archaeological research, and contrary to the claims of some apologists, no religiously oriented synagogues have been identified in the Judean/Galilee area prior to the Roman–Jewish War of 66-73 CE.

I begin to back that statement up with:
-”Mark’s presumption that there were synagogues throughout Galilee during Jesus Christ’s time [M 1.21,1.39, 3.1], an assumption that archaeologists and historians have not been able to substantiate”
Mack “Who Wrote the NT” p.159

-”Only during and after the first century CE does literary and archaeological appear for Palestine ….Whilst prayer appears to have been an integral part of the religious services in the Diaspora, its presence in Palestinian synagogues before 70CE is unattested….As for the Roman Diaspora references before then are practically nonexistent [and what does exist refers to the Disaspora]. ” Oxford Companion to the Bible” Eds Metzger and Coogan page 721

And there are others.

I have limited access to books in general, this area of interest in particular, and nil access to journals. I am envious of people who have access. So I realize I am a real amateur particularly re synogogues.

Looking at Donald Binder’s website I came to a tentative conclusion that:
1 Evidence exists for one religiously oriented synagogue in Palestine pre First Jewish War [Gamla].
2. All other evidence cited is contraversial and subject to apologetics.

So, I suggest that “Mark”’s references to religiously oriented synogogues in Palestine is an anachronism that points to a post 70ce date, at the extreme earliest, and more likely the latter part of the first century and even later.
cheers.

Originally Posted by McDuff

#3 “RABBI”
“Mark” 10.51 [and other]

1.Jewish Encyclopedia entry “rabbi”

“Sherira’s statement shows clearly that at the time of Jesus there were no titles; and Grätz (“Gesch.” iv. 431), therefore, regards as anachronisms the title “Rabbi” as given in the gospels to John the Baptist and Jesus, ..”

2. Geza Vermes p. 26 of “The changing faces of Jesus”

“Nor was he a “rabbi” in the technical sense despite being repeatedly addressed as such….It is even questionable whether the term ‘rabbi’ in the specialized meaning was current in the early decades of the first century AD. The great Jewish masters who lived in the age of Jesus, Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel, are all called “elders’ not ‘rabbis’.”

3.Hyam Macoby ‘The Mythmaker’ p 21

“Thus the assembly of sages [as the Pharisee leaders were called before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70; after which they became known as 'rabbis' ....."

Date suggested:
Post 70, ce stretching to the time when calling Jewish sages "rabbi' became common enough for the author of "Mark" to [incorrectly] and anachronistically place it in the earlier purported era of JC. Ah but when did it become common? Some time after the turn of the century?
Which thus suggests a second century date for the writing of g”Mark”.

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.

Originally Posted by McDuff

#4 SHROUDS
“Mark” 15.46
“And he bought a linen shroud, and …wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb … and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

Jewish Encyclopedia [see headings]
1.Gamaliel
“Gamaliel insured the perpetuation of his memory by his order to be buried in simple linen garments, for the example which he thus set put an end to the heavy burial expenses which had come to be almost unbearable …(Ket. 8b).”

2.Mo’ed Katan
“It was not until after Rabban Gamaliel had been buried in simple linen garments that this custom became general.”

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.