aa5874

But, any sect that is suicidal would wipe themselves out if they carry out such weird beliefs. They simply would not survive.

And further there is no evidence that there were any mass suicide of Jesus believers.

Vinnie

Spin, I'd guess that every intro to the NT and commentary on Mark mentions latin loan words and such when discussing provenance. Some ague most are of military connotation but I don't think this is true. At any rate, these terms would travel with Rome.

I think their evidence is significant for Rome but places like Syria are still a possibility. It is also possible Mark was sending out copies of his gospel to different places. The issue is far more complex and uncertain than it is made out to be.

Syro distinguishes the Phonecia in the province of Syria from Libophoenicia around Carthage so I am not sure why, if you are suggesting it, that the usage rules out Syria?

Vinnie

spamandham

Pfft. The Gospel author could easily get away with claiming the temple curtain had been torn even if the temple was still standing with an untorn curtain at the time , because people back then were too stupid to see an untorn curtain with their own eyes and realize the author was making crap up.

...and never mind that the term rabbi, used repeatedly in the Gospels, is not found outside the Gospels prior to ca. 200 CE, and is known to derive from the post temple rise of Rabbinic Judaism. Surely, the Gospel authors invented this title and later Rabbinical Jews simply stole it from the Gospels.

...and the same thing with Jesus' excoriation of Jewish religious scribes - a job that essentially did not exist until after the temple was destroyed and Rabbinic Judaism arose focusing on written rather than oral traditions.

spamandham

Here's how ordinary (non Biblical) historical analysis works.

1. Mark mentions the destruction of the temple in a detailed way (no stone will be left upon another), even though it's phrased as a prophecy. The temple was destroyed in 70CE and the Romans really did tear it apart stone by stone. Therefor Mark was written some time after 70 CE.

2. Mark mentions Christian persecution because of Jesus (even though it's phrased as a prophecy) and lashes out against Pharisees. During the Bar Kochba revolt of 130-135 CE, Christians were persecuted by Pharisees because of their belief in Jesus (the questionable persecution by Nero is not because of Jesus, but because the Christians were supposedly viewed as anti-Roman). Therefor, Mark was written after 130 CE.

3. Mark 12:9, The Parable fo the Wicked Husbandman, only has relevant historical meaning after the fall of the temple. The last verse of the parable is understood by scholars to refer to the slaughter and exile of Jews from Jerusalem. Again, this happened in 135 CE, therefor Mark was written post 135 CE.

...and on and on and on

The following is invalid historical approach, but it's what has been used to date Mark.

1. Mark mentions the fall of the Temple, therefor Mark was written prior to the fall of the Temple. (yes folks, you read that right and it really is the asinine argument used by those who are trying to force an early date for Mark)

2. In the late 2nd century, a veritable cottage industry of Acts type documents was born that are exactly like the canonical Acts. Let's just totally ignore that, and instead find some textual triviality that allows us to declare that Acts was written around 60 CE. Then, we'll show that Luke was written by the same author as Acts, and that Luke is dependent on Mark, and we can derive a no later than date of ~60 CE for Mark. What fun!

3. We found a papyrus fragment in a cave. By adding letters to it that are not actually on the fragment - a practice widely scorned by our papyrologist peers, we are able to declare it must have been from Mark, and we are able to derive a no-later-than date of 68 CE.

Honestly, these people should have their credentials stripped.

Vinnie

It is not at all obvious that Mark mentions the destruction of the Temple. There are very intelligent arguments both for and against this supposition and the ones for it usually place Mark very clear to the events. One of the best short treatments is the one by Kloppenborg I mentioned above.

Paul mentions Christian persecution before Mark! Your arguments do not hold water.

Justin used harmonies of Matthew and Luke by 150 C.E. You must posit that Mark wrote. His work became popular and circulated. Mathew and Luke both obtained copies and decided to write their own gospels using Mark and a shared sayings source. Next the gospels of Matthew and Luke circulated and became popular and were harmonized by the School Justin belonged to. That is a VASTLY improbable suggestion and I doubt any competent historian would make such a claim today. Marcion's use of Luke which was depdendent upon Mark in 140 also rules this out.

At best this passage indicates Mark was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. But there are a number of internal evidences restricting us from a date past 75 C.E.

The mistaken parousia (some standing here) does not fit with a time of composition around 2 Peter and should not be placed significantly past 70 C.E. when most of Jesus' followers would be dead. Mark is clearly locatable by its eschatological contents. In addition the details mentioned in my quote by Kloppenborg: "Likewise, details such as the explicit naming of Alexander and Rufus as the sons of Simon of Cyrene (15:21) or Mark's unelaborated references to "the high priest" (14:53) and Pilate (15:2), in contrast to Matthew and Luke, who identify the high priest as Caiaphas (Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2) and Pilate as "the governor" (Matt 27:11; Luke 3:1), presuppose an audience that does not need explanations for these persons.7 Or again, Mark's presentation of Jesus' opponents, , unlike Matthew's account, distinguishes between scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:15) and, unlike Matthew (3:7; 16:1), restricts the Sadducees to the environs of Jerusalem, reflects a greater awareness of the religious topography of Judea prior to the first revolt. Kloppenborg,EVOCATIO DEORUM AND THE DATE OF MARK, JBL 124/3 (2005) 419-450

In addition, Papias writes ca 105 and reference the gospel of Mark.

The best historical reconstruction is that Mark was written in 68 C.E. (+/- 5).

Vinnie

Vinnie

No, the argument is that the details predicted by Jesus would more closely match what actually happened if Mark was attaching a post-Temple destruction prophecy onto the lips of Jesus--along with careful and balanced exegetical interpretations of Mark 13.

Luke dates after Mark and Luke-Acts is most likely one work by the same author. The argument is that Acts does not narrate the death of Paul so it did not occur. Its the same type of argument from silence used on this message board a thousand times over. Also the attribution of Luke to Luke and not an actual apostle favors the attribution. Luke-Acts most likely dates to the late first century, however.

7Q5 has not been shown to be the text of Mark and the majority of scholars agree.

As should anyone who dates Mark to 130 C.E. or later.

Vinnie

spin

What exactly does the torn curtain indicate?



(Just to make you think a little on the matter, what was the purpose of the curtain?)


spin

Elijah

It’s not like when you finish the book you go nail yourself up on a tree. It’s about being willing to face your death in the struggle for our freedom.

It’s not mass suicide it’s a line of martyrs where each one’s death helps to carry the message of Christ’s self-sacrifice and creates believers. Imagine the psychological impact on Roman citizens seeing people in the coliseum who were embracing their deaths instead of fearing it. It’s going to have an impact and give credibility to whatever it is they are selling, even if it’s a Jewish guy who came back from the dead. It’s the same impact on Paul seeing Stephen do the same.

Vinnie

That is precicely how religion is best spread, positive rank and file missionary action and behavior, and not by academic tomes which convince everyone of the truth.

Vinnie

Elijah

1. I asked you in post #59 where the stone by stone statement originates from.
2. Maybe the followers of Christ had the same problems with the Pharisees and the Pharisees had the same problem with the Christians as they did with Christ, which should be expected.
3. I’m not sure how you are interpreting that parable but taking it as a prophecy of a specific destruction to use for dating is nonsense to me. Maybe if the parable was about Rome destroying them and not God then maybe you would have something.

1. This isn’t me. I don’t have a problem with a post 70 dating, I have a problem with using predictable or vague prophesies as a dating guide.
2. Didn’t follow the other two.