S.C.Carlson

Which "predictions" do you think are "sufficiently specific"? The destruction stuff looks pretty generic to me. Mark 13:1-2 is not specific enough to exempt the foundational walls of the Temple, and Mark 13:14 reflects the events of the Caligula crisis (c. 40) better than 70. See Crossley's discussion in The Date of Mark's Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) (JSNTSS 266; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 19-43.

Ted Weeden has been arguing that. It seems to me that it is just as easy (and just as underdetermined by the data) to argue that Josephus is parodying Mark's Jesus with this incident.

Stephen

Diogenes the Cynic

The Western Wall was not a foundational wall of the Temple or any part of the Temple complex at all. It was part of a retaining wall around the Temple Mount. The plateau of the Temple Mount -- all the oikidamas of the Temple complex -- was completely leveled, just as Mark's apocalypse would suggest.
Did Caligula ever put his statue in the Temple? Did people run to the hills at the threat? Even by conservative standards, the Caligula crisis had long been averted before Mark wrote his Gospel (or even before the Pauline corpus).
When Hadrian erected a Temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount, however...
I think that's a reach. Josephus shows no other knowledge of Mark.[/QUOTE]

Rick Sumner

Why would this matter? The rule for dating you're trying to employ demands that a text must be written after the realization of any confirmed prophecy. If it is referring to Caligula, it should be written after Caligula. That is not a point against such a tact.

By way of analogy, Daniel is written an awfully long time after the events it narrates. The long chronological distance between the events and the authorship of the narrative is not a point against those events being described.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

S.C.Carlson

The point remains that Mark 13:1-2 is not specific enough to exclude it.

:huh: I'm not arguing that Mark was written before 40.

Is a post-135 Mark a serious proposal?

I consider both ideas to be equal reaches.

Stephen

Diogenes the Cynic

It makes no sense for it to be about Caligula,not only because Caligula never put a statue in the Temple but also because Mark has Jesus say that those in Judea would run to the mountains when the "abomination....stands where it should not." Nothing of the sort happened with Caligula and that was a long past crisis by the 60's. Why would Mark resurrect it or assign it any current urgency?

Diogenes the Cynic

Nor should he be expected to include it.
I know that. I'm arguing that Mark's audience would have seen the Caligula crisis as a dead issue.
I didn't used to think so. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think Papias gives us a good terminus ad quem because I don't think he was talking about canonical mark. Or Irenaeus either. Mark 13 also speaks of persecutions in synagogues and by foreign kings which further suggests a post 70 (or 80 or 90) dating.

I have seen no positive evidence to date it before 70 other than the (in my opinion) specious objection with regards to the Western Wall.
Perhaps. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only wondering. The similarities are tantalizing but no smoking gun.

Roland

This would be like saying that Matthew, Luke and John must have been written in the time between Jesus' resurrection and ascencion into heaven, since the latter event is not recorded in any of those gospels - or that Mark must have been written on Easter morning because it fails to record even one appearance of Jesus to anyone after his resurrection.

S.C.Carlson

But you're the one claiming that Mark's prediction is "specific." Merely saying that buildings are going to get destroyed, without more, isn't specific enough to make it a "magical prophecy." That kind of stuff happens in war.

Prior to 70, Caligua's threat against the temple would have been a reasonable model as to what Romans would do it they destroyed Jerusalem.

What's Papias talking about then? Those who read him, with more context than what we have, understood Papias to be discussing our Mark. Also, persecutions in synagogues and foreign kings are found in Paul (e.g. 2 Cor).

It's not specious, and I gave you a cite where it's discussed in the scholarly literature.

All kinds of stuff involving Josephus are tantalizing. Something is going on. Perhaps Luke knows Joe, but the evidence is lacking for Mark.

Stephen

Peter Kirby

I meant "Seriously Stephen" in the sense that I agreed with you, Stephen.

--
Peter Kirby

Johnnyboy

Hehe. This Jesus ben Ananias had to be a funny guy.

Besides of this, my discussionpartner made a claim, like:

" I talked to a historian scholar last summer who said that there are signs of change in the dating of the gospels amoug scholars, many now tend to say that Luke has to be written before 70 AC because it is not reasonable that he wound't mention the destruction of the temple.

Since I don't know any scholars, I cant weight that argument.

Sorry for my bad english





Greetings from Heidelberg