Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-12-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The scholarly consensus on this is that Acts was written closer to 110 CE.

It is? I know there is a move on the part of Tyson and my friend and sometime teacher Richard Pervo and a few other scholars to get others in the guild to see that the date of Acts is around 120 CE. But this is --as they themselves admit -- against the present consensus.

Jeffrey

Toto · 08-12-2008, 10:32 AM

I haven't actually taken a survey. earlychristianwritings gives Acts a range of 80-130, and notes the reasons for the author not to have mentioned the death of Paul, although he alludes to it in Acts 20:25-38.

In any case, there is no good reason to date Acts to 62.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-12-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I haven't actually taken a survey. earlychristianwritings gives Acts a range of 80-130, and notes the reasons for the author not to have mentioned the death of Paul, although he alludes to it in Acts 20:25-38.

No need to take a survey. Just have a look at some of the recent standard intros to the NT (Brown, Schenke, etc.), the introductions to critical commentaries on Acts such as those by Barrett (ICC), Fitzmyer (Anchor), etc., or the entries on Acts in some up to date Biblical reference works like the Anchor Bible Dictionary, The Dictionary of The Later New Testament & It's Development, or the New Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible.

Quote:

In any case, there is no good reason to date Acts to 62.

On this, we agree.

Jeffrey

thentian · 08-12-2008, 03:19 PM

One thing that always puzzled me about gMark is the unusual ending (Mark 16 1-8). Mary Magdalene (& friends) find the stone rolled away from the grave, talk to a brightly clad man inside, and run away without telling anyone. Nothing really miraculous like angels (unless we assume the brightly clad man is one) or the risen Jesus himself or even a gardener.

Recently, however, I noticed that the ending of gPeter is strikingly similar:

Quote:

NAS:
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Quote:

gPeter, transl R Brown
Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things. [53] But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? [54] For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let us throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'

[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.

[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...

Clearly we are hearing two different voices here since there is no word-for-word retelling, but the elements of the story are exactly the same and come in the same order, so I think it is safe to say that gPeter and gMark are walking in step here. Of course, I have noticed that they are dissimilar earlier on, but... is it possible to draw some conclusions from this? Like that the one may have had access to the other, or that both had access to a common source? (Commentators date gPeter from 50AD - 200AD)

Cheers!

BTW: Is it terribly bad form to use smileys? If so, why?

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-12-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

One thing that always puzzled me about gMark is the unusual ending (Mark 16 1-8). Mary Magdalene (& friends) find the stone rolled away from the grave, talk to a brightly clad man inside, and run away without telling anyone. Nothing really miraculous like angels (unless we assume the brightly clad man is one) or the risen Jesus himself or even a gardener.

Recently, however, I noticed that the ending of gPeter is strikingly similar:

Quote:

NAS:
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Quote:

gPeter, transl R Brown
Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things. [53] But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? [54] For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let us throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'

[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.

[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...

Clearly we are hearing two different voices here since there is no word-for-word retelling, but the elements of the story are exactly the same and come in the same order, so I think it is safe to say that gPeter and gMark are walking in step here. Of course, I have noticed that they are dissimilar earlier on, but... is it possible to draw some conclusions from this? Like that the one may have had access to the other, or that both had access to a common source? (Commentators date gPeter from 50AD - 200AD)

Cheers!

BTW: Is it terribly bad form to use smileys? If so, why?

The apparent relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mark has been explored at some length by John Dominick Crossan in his The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1988)

You'd also do well to explore his thesis -- set out in his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (or via: amazon.co.uk) -- that the women at the tomb are examples of unfaithfulness.

Jeffrey

thentian · 08-12-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The apparent relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mark has been explored at some length by John Dominick Crossan in his The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (1988)

You'd also do well to explore his thesis -- set out in his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography -- that the women at the tomb are examples of unfaithfulness.

Jeffrey

Thanks! I'll try to get my hands on those, then!

Cheers!

DaBuster · 08-12-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

BTW: Is it terribly bad form to use smileys? If so, why?

I assume you’re referring to my earlier comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBuster

Next time I’ll have to add – the horror, the horror – emoticons to make my intentions clearer.

Pay no attention to me – I’m just a curmudgeonly old luddite who doesn’t like to use them.

Ben C Smith · 08-12-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBuster

Pay no attention to me – I’m just a curmudgeonly old luddite who doesn’t like to use them.

Here, let me make up for your curmudgeonliness (not to mention your ludditity).

:huh::notworthy:

:wave::Cheeky::banghead:

:wor ried::funny:

Ben.

PS: I never knew there was a limit of 10 emoticons per post. Guess it never came up for me before.

thentian · 08-12-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBuster

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

BTW: Is it terribly bad form to use smileys? If so, why?

I assume you’re referring to my earlier comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBuster

Next time I’ll have to add – the horror, the horror – emoticons to make my intentions clearer.

Pay no attention to me – I’m just a curmudgeonly old luddite who doesn’t like to use them.

Yup! That was it!

I got a bit worried because I like to hide that I'm just a crotchety old schooner!

(And also there was that time someone took me for being terribly sarcastic when I was really being friendly.)

Cheers!

spamandham · 08-12-2008, 10:10 PM

Is there any reason to presuppose that Mark is an unedited single work written at one sitting?

If not, then parts of Mark could date hundreds of years earlier than tradition, and parts could date as late as the 4th century.

IMHO, it's time to move past the naive idea of dating these works with a single date. We need to recognize they are documents created over time, and attempt to date the various layers appropriately just as is done in archaeology.

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

08-12-2008, 10:32 AM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I haven't actually taken a survey. earlychristianwritings gives Acts a range of 80-130, and notes the reasons for the author not to have mentioned the death of Paul, although he alludes to it in Acts 20:25-38. In any case, there is no good reason to date Acts to 62.

08-12-2008, 10:10 PM	#30
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Is there any reason to presuppose that Mark is an unedited single work written at one sitting? If not, then parts of Mark could date hundreds of years earlier than tradition, and parts could date as late as the 4th century. IMHO, it's time to move past the naive idea of dating these works with a single date. We need to recognize they are documents created over time, and attempt to date the various layers appropriately just as is done in archaeology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.