Originally Posted by stephan huller

But what is the most compelling argument for a second century attribution? As I see it chapter 13 has Jesus use Daniel 9:24 - 27 as a prophecy pertaining to the destruction of the Jewish temple. In all surviving interpretations of this prophetic utterance - among both Jews and Christians - it is connected with the first Jewish War. How on earth is this related to the second Jewish War. There was no temple, all reports about the conflict have the Jewish rebels as ignoring the traditional holiness of the Law. For instance Lamentations Rabba says that the rebels cut off their 'finger' instead of wearing tefillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin). The story about the feeding of wafers and playing ball at Tur Simon cited in another recent thread is clearly similarly grounded - i.e. a rejection of traditional religious values.

One would expect a conservative religious backlash against the events of the bar Kochba revolt because it was certainly remembered as a rebellion fueled by religious novelties rather than traditional religious piety. How could antinomian Christianity have been inspired by a rejection of that revolt? This I have to hear.

Moreover I don't see how the bar Kochba revolt at all fits the traditional application of Daniel 9:24 - 27 which is also certainly a part of Mark's worldview. Indeed how could Jesus have emerged in 30 CE and prophesied about the 'end times' in the second century. Are you suggesting that the destruction of the temple in 70 CE had no theological significance in early Christianity? or that Mark wrote a narrative set twenty eight years before the actual destruction of the temple, planted many clues that Jesus originally said "I am able" or "I will destroy the temple" and applied this to a rebellion where there was no temple because it had already been destroyed at the culmination of the war of 66 - 70 CE.

I don't see how any of this is possible or even believable. The simple answer is that the tradition of the Church Fathers is right - the narrative was written in the first century, set twenty eight years before the destruction of the temple, and centrally concerned about Jesus's warning about the coming destruction of the temple 'caused' by the iniquity of the Jews.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at this forum I would merely argue that Detering's position (and those who share it with him) that the gospel was written in the second century at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt simply doesn't fit this literary framework. The Sadducees had already disappeared. The only people holding on to this view were the Samaritans. This is indeed the most powerful follow up argument to the little apocalypse in chapter 13 of Mark that the text was written at the time of the destruction of the temple.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Some thoughts as I go through it over the next couple of days.

1) Use of Josephus

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

I acknowledge the use of Josephus and/or Justus of Tiberias as a source in the synoptic texts as preserved by the Catholic tradition. But there is a consistent tradition in the Patristic sources that 'according to Mark' is based on something earlier which was (a hypomnema or less polished text) according to Peter. If 'according to Mark' was written shortly after 70 CE it is possible that Mark incorporated EITHER Josephus or Justus of Tiberias's for its/their historical narrative. I don't see Josephus as conclusively proving a late date for the gospel, especially the original text which was later corrected by Matthew, Luke etc.

The use of Josephus existings IMO but it is specifically associated with the Catholic recension. The Marcionite text is unlikely to have included many of the same narratives chosen from Josephus (Philosophumena 7:18; Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.11.7). The Catholic editor used Josephus to counter implicit claims associated with the heretical text. I also happen to think that Josephus and the second century gospels were corrupted together - an example here would be the enigmatic 'Egyptian' referenced in Acts and Josephus. One would expect someone to know a little more about this figure.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Except that the proof for provenance from the second century is no stronger than proof of provenance from the first century beyond the insistence that the gospels HAD to have been written in the second centuey...

Originally Posted by aa5874

You really don't know what you are talking about. You imagine your own history.

What evidence do you have for proof of provenance for the 4th and 5th century??

Again, if you cannot accept that there are actual recovered dated manuscripts of the Jesus story in the 2nd-3rd century then your claims are obsolete.

Now, there is ZERO actual evidence that gMark is an historical account.

The actual internal evidence in Both Gospels "according to Mark" show virtually 100% fictional accounts of Jesus.

The mere fact that the Entire NT, including Both Gospels called gMark, are fictional accounts of Jesus suggest they were composed extremely late to AVOID Detection of their falsehood.

It makes ZERO sense for an author to have composed a Pack of Lies about Jesus shortly after his death when the people who knew Jesus would have immediately detected the fiction.