Ted Hoffman

I am with Rod Greed on this: I think Detering was wrong.
This is because it is impossible that Mark could place Jesus in the time of Pilate and refer to another temple other than the temple of Herod - which is what was available at the time.

neilgodfrey

On the other hand historical knowledge or interest was not always the strong point with theologians.

Justin Martyr, for example, in 150 believed that Rome invaded Judea (apparently for the first time) immediately after the crucifixion of Christ in order to fulfil the prophecy that the Jews would always never be without a ruler of some sort -- Moses, then Christ, then Rome:

Justin Martyr's First Apology:
"CHAPTER XXXII -- CHRIST PREDICTED BY MOSES. Moses then, who was the first of the prophets, spoke in these very words: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the nations, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." It is yours to make accurate inquiry, and ascertain up to whose time the Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own. Up to the time of Jesus Christ, who taught us, and interpreted the prophecies which were not yet understood, [they had a lawgiver] as was foretold by the holy and divine Spirit of prophecy through Moses, "that a ruler would not fail the Jews until He should come for whom the kingdom was reserved" (for Judah was the forefather of the Jews, from whom also they have their name of Jews); and after He (i.e., Christ) appeared, you began to rule the Jews, and gained possession of all their territory. And the prophecy, "He shall be the expectation of the nations," signified that there would be some of all nations who should look for Him to come again. And this indeed you can see for yourselves, and be convinced of by fact. For of all races of men there are some who look for Him who was crucified in Judaea, and after whose crucifixion the land was straightway surrendered to you as spoil of war."


Then a little later we have Clement of Alexandria declaring that Christ actually ruled in Jerusalem and that Nero placed the abomination of desolation there:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book 1. ed. A.Roberts and J. Donaldson, 4.0 ed., The Ante-Nicean Fathers, Vol. 1, vol. 1), p. 307.]

rlogan

The famous "not one stone left standing" seems to be used by apologists as a terminus for dating when it is the opposite. Anytime after 70 CE, like 100 or 150, and not the year 71 CE.

Josephus circa 90 CE still is not writing about Christians. (He does not do so until Christians stick a pen in his long dead hand). References to extant gospels are not until much, much later.

Papias on Mark is just drivel.


I think it is very likely that Mark is an oral tradition that took a long time to develop into its final form. Even if parts were late 1st century that does not mean the entire work was first century.

So observations seemingly descriptive of 135 and 70 CE can blend together in a story that isn't strictly history to begin with.


Dewey argues the oral tradition here:

Dewey, J., “The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?�, JBL 123.3 (2004) 495-507.

http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1233.pdf


But I disagree with her on the dating to 70 CE of course.

Vorkosigan

But even if he is referring to the 135 ruins, it is still the Temple of Herod.

Vorkosigan

S.C.Carlson

I think it's very difficult, on external grounds, to fit the time of composition of Mark 1-16 into a post-135 time frame because of the chain reaction it would have on other documents:

Relative chronological indicators:

1. Luke is dependent on Mark.
2. John has knowledge of Luke.
3. Mark 16:9-20 is dependent on Luke, maybe John too.

Absolute chronological indicators:

4. P52, a manuscript of John, dates to 125-150.
5. Marcion edits Luke, rejects other gospels (140s).
6. Justin, mid 150s, knows Mark, Luke, probably John, and possibly Mark 16:9-20.

Fifteen to twenty years is an awfully compressed period for these writings to be composed in the right sequence (I haven't touched the less datable witnesses of Papias, Ignatius, and Polycarp, not to mention my (minority) view that John was written against Cerinthus, who was already using Mark in Asia, c. 100).

Of course, this argument loses its force if (a) Griesbach was correct and Mark is the last of the synoptics; (b) Mark 13 had been redacted in light of 135; (c) I'm dreaming that John has knowledge of Luke; OR (d) some other assumption of mine is wrong.

FWIW, I tend to date Mark=c. 70, Matt=80s, Luke=early 90s, John=c. 100, Mark 16:9-20=130s(?), and Q=1832. I know, a pretty boring assignment of dates (except for Q).

neilgodfrey

One might expect that leaning to a post 135 date for Mark would encourage favourable acceptance of the arguments of:

1. Matson and co who argue that Luke knew John, (with John having known Mark).

2. Bellinzoni's scepticism over Justin's referencing the synoptic gospels

3. Hoffmann (et al?) when they warn against assuming Tertullian reflects an accurate account of Marcion's gospel; and that Marcion's gospel probably looked more like our Mark than our Luke.

Wonder how much our broader paradigms influence our assumptions and final judgments in the textual analyses involved to settle such questions.

S.C.Carlson

That's an interesting angle--exploring what would have to change with a post-135 date for Mark.

Barbara Shellard is another one arguing this.

I thought the skepticism was over the directness of Justin's use of the synoptics; didn't Bellinzoni argue that Justin's preferred means of access was some kind of gospel harmony. This position assumes the prior existence of the synoptics.

This sounds interesting--does anyone have a fuller cite?

Hugely. The best critics are the ones who are able to identify and articulate these assumptions.

Vorkosigan

1. Other exegetes have independently concluded Luke is late.
2. This relationship is backwards, it's Luke that knows John.
3. No problem there.

4. P52 redated in 1987, more probably after 150
5. Marcion's gospel is Mark, not Luke.
6. No problem as 135 date gives Justin 15 years to know these gospels.

Papias, Ignatius, and 1 Clem all forgeries, as independently identified by others. Polycarp too late to be worth anything. 15 years is good time frame, as good idea of Mark causes everyone to get on bandwagon.

Possible but unlikely.

Possibly. But Mark 13 is forward-linked into Arrest & Trial sequences hence integral to Gospel.

What evidence suggests that John knows Luke beats Luke knows John?

Doesn't this cover the first three possibilities?

<edit>

neilgodfrey

Hoffmann, R. Joseph. 'Marcion: On the Resitution of Christianity.' Chico: Scholars Press, 1984.

After outlining problems with Irenaeus as a source for Macionism Hoffmann continues (pp191-192):

"Similarly, it cannot be assumed that Tertullian, for all his extravagance in refuting Marcion's errors, possessed more than second-hand knowledge of his doctrines. His 'statements' are frequently suppositional: 'Secundum vero Marcionem nescio . . .' (AM 5.16.4); or inferential: 'Hic erit argumentatio haeretici . . .' (AM 5.14.7); 'Haec si Marcion de industria erasit' (5.14.9); (cf. 5.12.6: 'Si et pseudapostolos dicit, etc.'); conditional: 'Si quid tale Marcionis deus edidit vel edixit' (5.11.2); or merely interrogative: 'Aut si nihil de creatoris traditum est ei a patre, ecquomodo hominem creatoris sibi vindicat?' (4.25.8). Only at peril does one transform Tertullian's interlocution into a marcionite 'system'; and the number of antitheses and editorial emendations to the gospel that can be assigned with any confidence to Marcion is much smaller than Harnack imagined. Nor is Tertullian especially secretive about his method. In the midst of the crucial discussion of Marcion's ditheism in relation to 2 Cor 1-4, he cuts short his explanation of Paul's use of the phrase 'Ho Theos tou aionos', 'in order to prevent it from being of advantage to my opponent -- satisfied to have won my case: I am even in a postition entirely to bypass this argument'. (AM 5.11.10)

"But the extent of Tertullian's direct knowledge of Marcion's writings is not only called into question by rhetorical evidence -- the discursive, inquisitorial, and often conjectural nature of the polemic; the tendency to sidestep questions, and to reduce the opponent's argument to rubble on spurious textual grounds. It is also doubtful on the basis of Tertullian's own comment at the beginning of Book 1. There he claims to have produced a 'first edition' of the text too hurriedly, and that a revised edition was 'stolen' from him by an apostate (AM 1.1.1). The literary sources for the third edition, therefore, are the first and second. Tertullian does not mention having had access to Marcion's writings at any stage in the revision, and the quantity of authentically marcionite doctrine that can be distilled from his books is not significantly greater than that contained in Irenaeus' scattered references. In most respects the adversus Marcionem suggests an enlargement and elaboration of Irenaeus' material. . . . That Tertullian had access to the Antitheses, or to any other of the 'writings' mentioned by Irenaeus, is only a dim possibility."


Re Marcion's gospel possibly looking more like our Mark than our Luke (pp109-110):

'In Mark particularly -- which in some of its aspects may be closer to Marcion's evangelion than Luke -- the motif of the apostles' disbelief remains central' (p.148) and "Marcion does not use his gospel for the purpose of replicating the words of the Lord . . . On the contrary, the gospel bears witness within itself that the words of the Lord were beyond the comprehension of the original apostles, and that no teaching-consensus, let alone a teaching 'authority', had been established in their lifetime."

-- yep, this qualifies a bit my original statement, I know, -- my memory is not the best of citations.

rlogan

Hi Vork.

This appeared at the bottom of your post, and is certainly a stray left-over from our dear friend S.C. Carlson.


FWIW, I tend to date Mark=c. 70, Matt=80s, Luke=early 90s, John=c. 100, Mark 16:9-20=130s(?), and Q=1832. I know, a pretty boring assignment of dates (except for Q).[/QUOTE]

It has been removed now and does originally belong to S.C. Carlson.

I don't see how the "chain reaction" this has on other documents is a "problem". I think it more of a solution.

The more substantive problems arise in trying to date gospels to years like 70 or 80.

For one thing, you cannot very well make detailed stories out of whole cloth up within a lifetime of the purported event. It is too easy to discredit.

If in 70-90 CE you went with gospel in hand to towns where Jesus supposedly spoke to five thousand people and fed a coliseum on a twinkie and a couple of candy canes, then you'd be pretty damned hard pressed to come up with anyone alive at the time who heard anything about it. But there would be plenty who had not.

Two thousand pigs into the sea? Who are they kidding? It is absolute poppycock, and if you said something ridiculous like that had happened within the lifetime of someone around at the time, or even thier son then anyone with brains would have asked who owned the pigs. Because it sure as hell would have been a massive civil suit against Jesus or a major bankrupcy of the largest hog lot in Judea at the time.

You have to get at least a couple of generations beyond the events before you can get away with a pack of ludicrous stories such as these.

And it explains all the lack of evidence into the 2d cent.