Vinnie

I think that is an important observation that deserves some serious consideration.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

it seems to me that Matt himself dealt with the problem of delayed parousia in Matt 25 with the parable of the 10 virgins, which answers the problems posed in chaps. 24, 10, and 16 about Christ's return.

Now the kingdom of heaven may be compared to ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. But at midnight there was a shout, "Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him." Then all these virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. Now the foolish said to the prudent, "Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out." But the prudent answered saying, "No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves." Now while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, "Lord, Lord, open up for us." But he answered them and said, "Truly I say to you, I do not know you." Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.

Note that not only do we "not know the day nor the hour," but even more crucially, the bridegroom is delayed, which strikes me as a clear reference to recognition of the problem cause by Jesus non-appearance (naturally!) and thither to a much later date for Matthew. I personally place the lot, Ma, Mt, Jn, and Lk all after 110.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Now you are talking.

Rick Sumner

Paul wrote, as far as we can ascertain, a handful of letters over a span of over a decade. It's ridiculous to presume that he was known primarily as a letter writer based on that. What we know about Paul survives primarily in his letters, that doesn't mean that being a letter writer was terribly important in identying him. This is Doherty's argument, and it's senseless.

Does Paul begin his epistles with "Paul, a letter writer and servant of Jesus Christ?" Why would those contemporary with Paul think that the fact he wrote letters defined his character? Wouldn't they be more concerned with his dramatic conversion? With the fact that he established churches and preached? What about the fact that he wrote letters makes it a uniquely identifying feature? In fact, it would argue for a later date for Acts if they mentioned Paul's letters--it would exhibit a concern with "scriptural" documents we shouldn't expect to find until those documents became recognized as scripture.

To use other examples, do you remember Jefferson as a letter writer? Adams? Mark Twain?

Again, why would the fact that Paul wrote letters stand out more than what he accomplished to those than knew him? Or even those who knew of him?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

And everyone thinks the end is coming in their generation. This argument works against you, not for. "Some will not taste death." This implies that, when Matthew was written, some had not tasted death. If they were all dead, Matthew would have changed it to "their children" or something to that effect.

You need to explain why Matthew would attribute a false prophecy to Jesus, because that is what a late dating requires.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant to when the gospels were written.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gregor

It certainly appears the authors of the gospels thought the second coming was (i) to happen soon and (ii) was already late by the time the writers were writing. Similarly, the Apocalypse of John is chock full of "soon" references, and 2 Peter 3 is an exhortation to the faithful that "we know all the first tier hearers of Jesus are dead, and he promised to return - or the gospel writers promised his return - but don't lose faith, Jesus is returning soon."

Amaleq13

Exactly and you can find plentiful examples of preachers teaching that message to congregations today but nobody in the audience seems at all perturbed by the false prophecy Jesus is speaking if one reads the story literally. Likewise, I see no reason to assume that the "audience" for the Gospels of Matthew or Luke would be bothered by this implication either.

Amaleq13

It is only "patently false" if we assume the author was writing a history book and intended his audience to understand it as such. I think that is an entirely mistaken assumption. Neither the author nor the audience considered the story to be teaching history but to be theologically relevant to them. I think it is reasonable to assume that specific passages of the text were read on Sunday just as they are today. And, just as they are today, these specific passages were read with a specific message intended to be conveyed to the audience. When the leader/reader spoke aloud Jesus' clearly false prophecy, do you think he was embarrassed or felt it necessary to stop and explain or do you think he simply gazed meaningfully at his audience and actually stressed THIS GENERATION?

You are correct that, taken literally and without faith, this prophecy by Jesus is patently unfulfilled. But I don't think that is how the story was written, taught, or understood.

Please provide the specifics of the context to which you are referring. Matthew has one of Jesus' "imminent prophecies" refer to his transfiguration while he follows others with sayings empasizing the uncertainty fo the timing.

rlogan

Hi Rick.

In a time of literacy rates something on the order of 3% (IIRC) or less, and among them a writer corresponding on theological matters across regions I would think it of extraordinary note.

Absolutely, for the first two. I study these with relish. Twain, as a writer of fiction, is not in my area of competence so I couldn't say.

I think that Amaleq13 has addressed the question well regarding the purpose of placing the words of imminence in jesus' mouth. It is meant to inspire the current generation. Vork also addressed the issue of lateness.

Christians cannot be addressed with the presumption of logic and reason. They operate on the basis of faith. So we just have to drop that as a strict methodological proof on dating the gospels.


I do think it pertinent whether Jesus existed. We cannot fabricate the existence of Jesus until enough time has passed to preclude contradictory claims by contemporaries.

With three generations passing, just about any story can be invented with no need for producing witnesses, sons of witnesses, or even grandsons of witnesses.


And - we're still waiting on that positive evidence of first century authorship.

Rick Sumner

Really? Do you know of any others, contemporary with Paul, known primarily as letter writers among their peers?

Do you think of them as letter writers first? It seems to me that if they weren't who they were, you wouldn't think of them at all, regardless of how many letters they wrote.

I'm not. It's one thing not to see the problem with it 2000 years later. It's quite another not to see it a few generations later. It's also entirely different to hear or read something you regard as divinely inspired scripture than it is to write something with absolutely no idea what it would become.

You can't retroject twenty-first century Christians to a first century gospel author. It's a heinous anachronism.

Why does Matthew so frequently add the extra generation--as in "His blood on us and our children," among several other examples, several of which he redacts from a Markan original that did not include the added generation?

Why consistently *one* generation? If it didn't matter, why not two? Or ten? Why always *one*?

That is consistent with a time in which only "some" have not tasted death. It's not consistent with a time after that.

I'm afraid we won't, actually. See above.

I'm not claiming that he existed or he didn't.

This argument only holds if we presume the story was invented. Your argument, as just presented, runs as follows:

1) The story is an invention, 2) Therefore they wanted to avoid needing witnesses 3) Therefore it is late, 4) The late dating indicates that the story is an invention.

And round and round we go. You can't presume your conclusions.

I believe there might be a confusion between "positive evidence" and "external evidence." The outlines presented suggest that what is being requested is the latter. There is none.

Regards,
Rick Sumner