Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 04-05-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm sure Christians can make their own decisions as to who qualifies as a Christian scholar.

I tend to accept a scholar's claim about his/her religious beliefs or affiliations but others are free to make a "No True Scotsman" appeal if they wish.

Quote:

As for the rest, you sound as if you want to challenge me to a duel or something!

Just calling a spade a spade. If I want a duel, I'll mail you a glove and ask you to slap yourself with it.

Larsguy47 · 04-05-2007, 11:20 AM

[QUOTE=hatsoff;4328696]Well, I had hoped you would have received a succinct answer by now, but surprisingly you have not. Perhaps I may be of service.

Quote:

The importance of the Little Apocalypse (Mk 13/Mt 24/Lk 21) in dating the Gospels must not be underestimated. Here we have a clear and extremely suspicious mention of the destruction of the temple, adjoined to a description of a troubled, war-torn period.

No. This is a common misunderstanding. Only Luke speaks of the temple, and likewise only Matthew and Mark speak of the "great tribulation" or mention Daniel. Key break in the text is at Luke 21:12, after relating a few of the signs of the "end times" it says, "But before all these things..." and then it relates about the temple. The temple destruction in no way is the one-time event called the "great tribulation" which occurs in the last days and just before the "end" of that present Jewish "system of things" meaning the world of the Jew under gentile control. The "end" comes when the Jews return from exile and are restored control over their homeland, which was on November 30, 1947.

Quote:

By far the most likely explanation for this is that the author of Mark (and therefore also those of Matthew and Luke) knew of the Jewish War and intended his apocalyptic discourse to conjure up its images.

No, as I said, Luke's specifics about the temple is unique and set "before" the events associated with the "last days." Matthew and Mark do not mention the temple. What Luke says is added detail to the overall conversation not included in Matthew and Mark.

Quote:

But, of course, what little additional clues we have usually point to a date at least nearly as late as 70. First, we have an argument from silence, in which all the Christian works dated probably prior to 70 fail to mention or quote any of the Gospels, as do the great majority of the writings which could even possibly date pre-70.

Again, it matters not since John and Paul were early eyewitnesses. Paul began writing his letters quite early. The gospels could have been recorded as well quite early and then circulated as a body of work until it epxanded to close to what we have today.

Quote:

Next, we have the implications of authorship by a non-eyewitness generation, namely that the need for written Gospels seems to have originated after the Apostles' retirement from active ministry.

John and Paul were eyewitnesses.

Quote:

Also (and I agree with Roger that this is hardly well-established enough to prove anything in its own right), as Chris mentioned, some of Luke's content bears uncanny resemblance to the work of Josephus, which suggests a date in the 90s or later.

That may be possible since both were Jewish and quite literate, but this is likely a general comparison.

Quote:

The only real piece of evidence pointing to a pre-70 date is the mysterious failure of Luke to document important events between 62 and 70, most notably the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul and the Jewish War.

Obviously, Paul's death was faked; likewise, those "surviving to the Lord's day" (1 Thess. 4:15) would have to live in secrecy so as not to be discovered. I have a theory that the Templars discovered some of them were still alive and maintaining original records and this was the basis of their search for the "holy grail", that is, for John himself and all those records. Which reminds me, that means some of the original documents must still exist and in which case all the speculations about the NT would be dismissed. Something to look forward to. After all, why preserve the texts unless one day they would be revealed? That was the sub-theme of "The DaVinci Code"; i.e. trying to suppress original documents linked with John, who got conveniently substituted for Mary Magdalene along the way, but still very clearly linked together (i.e. the "chalice" is either John or MM).

Quote:

In the end, though nothing is certain, the evidence is quite weighty for a post-70 date for all three Synoptics.

I hope that helps.

Even if they were "recorded" much later they still related to earlier events and the words of Jesus.

LG47

Roger Pearse · 04-05-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I tend to accept a scholar's claim about his/her religious beliefs or affiliations ...

Such faith...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Lugubert · 04-05-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Again, it matters not since John and Paul were early eyewitnesses. [...] John and Paul were eyewitnesses.

I don't recall having read any proof of their eyewitness status. For example, (the proposed) Paul seems to be very ignorant of (the proposed) Jesus' works. Please explain.

neilgodfrey · 04-05-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

The only real piece of evidence pointing to a pre-70 date is the mysterious failure of Luke to document important events between 62 and 70, most notably the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul and the Jewish War. However, this particular argument from silence is not quite as strong, in my opinion, as good Roger would have you believe. There are quite a number of alternative explanations to Luke's ending. For example, if memory serves, Luke and Acts are about the same number of lines, suggesting that they may have been written on twin-length scrolls; if true, he may simply have run out of space to finish his narrative. Another possibility is that he intended a third volume after Acts, just as he intended a second after finishing Luke. Or, it could be nothing more complex than that he didn't feel like the post-62 events were relevant or helpful; after all, if one was writing about previous decades, he would not necessarily be inclined to write about the intermediate decades, as well.

Another possible explanation for Acts ending with Paul in "benign captivity" in Rome is that the author was modeling his story in part on Israel's Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings), which has a similar conclusion -- the leader left in house arrest/home prison scheme:

2 Kings 25:
27 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;

28 And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon;

29 And changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life.

30 And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.

Another conclusion with favourable treatment of the leader in captivity -- pointing to hope for the future maybe, or encouragement to readers not to be disheartened by their less than top status in their community? Either way, the conclusion of Acts, seen in this context, need not be surprising or problematic.

(Compare the beginning of Acts with its miracle of languages and another counterpart in Genesis 11??)

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

hatsoff · 04-05-2007, 02:33 PM

Mods, please fix the quotation errors. I did not say "Again, it matters not since John and Paul were early eyewitnesses. [...] John and Paul were eyewitnesses."

Toto · 04-05-2007, 02:44 PM

Fixed. Larsguy is the only one who believes that Paul was an eyewitness.

Larsguy47 · 04-05-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders

I don't recall having read any proof of their eyewitness status. For example, (the proposed) Paul seems to be very ignorant of (the proposed) Jesus' works. Please explain.

Paul deals with different things, like the details of the resurrection and how all that works, which is right in line with Revelation. His focus is a little different, but there is no contradiction. Plus it's no secret Paul's stuff is more for the gentile Christians than the Jews.

LG47

Larsguy47 · 04-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Fixed. Larsguy is the only one who believes that Paul was an eyewitness.

Actually, an eyewitness to "what"? I thought we were talking about pre 70 CE? Things, in Acts. Paul's conversion and all that? Paul came onto the scene probably in 34, Jesus died in 33.

LG47

pharoah · 04-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Isn't the fact that the author ends by saying that Paul lived in his house for two years a good indication that he "knew" what happened to Paul after those two years?

Roger's argument from silence is very weak here. One could just as well argue that GLuke was written before the Day of Pentecost because he would have written about in that book if it had already occurred. What about GJohn's strange silence about that day? Surely that's an argument for a 30's date as well, eh?

Acts was written for theological, not historical reasons. And Hatsoff's suggestion of a possibly planned 3rd volume is very plausible.

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

04-05-2007, 02:33 PM	#36
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Mods, please fix the quotation errors. I did not say "Again, it matters not since John and Paul were early eyewitnesses. [...] John and Paul were eyewitnesses."

04-05-2007, 02:44 PM	#37
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Fixed. Larsguy is the only one who believes that Paul was an eyewitness.

04-05-2007, 02:55 PM	#40
pharoah Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,729	Isn't the fact that the author ends by saying that Paul lived in his house for two years a good indication that he "knew" what happened to Paul after those two years? Roger's argument from silence is very weak here. One could just as well argue that GLuke was written before the Day of Pentecost because he would have written about in that book if it had already occurred. What about GJohn's strange silence about that day? Surely that's an argument for a 30's date as well, eh? Acts was written for theological, not historical reasons. And Hatsoff's suggestion of a possibly planned 3rd volume is very plausible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.