Vinnie

I actually think Matthew contradicts himself at points. For instance, see his redaction of Mark's account where Jbap proclaims Jesus presumably before knowing anything about him and then later asks if he is the one he proclaimed him to be from jail. Apparently JBap's memory wasn't all that good. I am not a historically inept fundamentalist Christian. I never said 2d Christians were as concerned with fact literalism and the law of non-contradiction as some of us today but at the same time they clearly knew truth from fiction.

The problem here is when we look at the Gospel view of Jesus and what the authors of those respective Gospels thought of the man they were writing about. Them knowingly making up and attributing a false belief/prophecy to their hero Jesus such as this is extremely hard to fathom. The natural solution is that it was firmly embedded tradition in the 1c when the Gospel was being composed that is why the evangelists included it. 2d century evangelists or those towards the end of the 1c can hardly be said to have created this! Further, it explains the urgent eschatology and the very same Jesus statement that occurs in the Pauline corpus.

You can claim that 2d and 1c writers made stuff up and I will not dispute that. But you will be rightly laughed at if you suggest the evangelists purposefully created a prediction of Jesus after the fact when it did not happen. You have offered us nothing but pure sophistry!

Vinnie

Layman

If you insist on pursuing this tangent, please provide citations and translations. I was kind enough to do so, please return the favor.

Ted Hoffman

I didnt say it was. I have used Ellegards dating and explained his basis for dating all the gospels to the second century.
Can you refute the argument?
You cling to "majority" of scholars without sharing with us when the poll was conducted and by who and what were the results.
How do you expect anyone to be persuaded by that?

I did not argue that its author considered Jesus' death to be the end of the world. We were arguing about Hebrews remember? NOT Matthews.

Oh, references. I see.

And how many times in a year did the HP emerge from the holy of holies? Twice or once?
How can he emerge a second time without entering twice?

This is incorrect. You are saying that Jesus was sacrificed then after that, the sacrifice offered itself as an offering. Whats the difference between a sacrifice and an offering? Jesus was crucified in full sight of the people. He emerged from the burial tomb and we read that he was even seen by 500 people. He transfigured before his disciples. So even if we were to follow your analogy, it doesnt fit. Jesus did not "enter" anywhere - except the tomb as a dead person. And he emerged resurrected and was seen by many.
Your analogy fit slightly if Jesus was going to heaven to be sacrificed for our sins. A job P. Pilate had already taken care of.
Remember "It is finnished"? That was the end. "Second-coming" was manufactured for dishonourable reasons.

And you need to calm down.

Vinnie,
Layman said:
Your dating approach was quite shaky - making claims like "the norm/numerous scholars" etc and Yuri did a good job of putting you to task. Besides, Didache has been tampered with and nobody knows when. You did not demonstrate how Didache is dated anyway.
Yuri concluded:
And he had the last word in that thread. He must have created a conundrum for you since you gave no rejoinder.
You later said:
So you do not agree with Layman's 1stC dating after all huh?
Which is good because I am all for early 2nd C dating of all the Gospels. Based on epigraphic and archaeological evidence from 1st century palestine as I indicated in my post.
Hebrews dated to pre-Jewish war period for the reasons stated before.

Layman

Your claim that there were no synagouges during Jesus' time? Why not prove your point first?

Because I expect people to have some level of basic knowledge about the current state of New Testament scholarship.

Umm, you were the one who brought up Mattew and believed it was somehow relevant to Hebrews' perspective on this issue. If you admit its irrelevant then fine.


You wanted to know. You can try Kummel's intro to the NT as well.

He does not "emerge" a second time, he appears before the people a second time.

This is not rocket science. First he appears before the people as he prepares to go into the Holy of Holies. Then he appears before them a second time after the sacrifice. The second appearance confirms God's acceptance of the sacrifice, just as Jesus' second appearance does.


Umm, yes, Hebrews is very clear that Jesus makes his offering in heaven. One of the core focuses of Hebrews is the analogizing of the Holy of Holies with Heaven. Jesus appears on earth to die (just as the high priest would appear before the people). After that he goes to heaven to offer himself as an atoning sacrifice (just as the high priest would go into the Holy of Holies part of the Temple to offer the sacrifice on behalf of Israel). Then he returns from heaven and appears a second time on earth (just as the high priest came from the Holy of Holies to appear a second time before the people as confirmation the sacrifice was accepted).

And you need to actually do some reading of Jewish history. Or at least all of Hebrews. sheesh. :banghead:

Perhaps this well help. The Holy of Holies was a highly restricted part of the Temple. Indeed, only the High Priest could enter because it was believed that the presence of God resided within. That power was so strong it could kill those who entered. If God was not satisfied with the offering, the waiting people were worried that the high priest would not survive. So they waited expectantly for him to appear before them again as confirmation that the sacrifice was acceptable.

Also, you keep ignoring this question: if the author was constructing a rigid parrallel why did he shift from "meta" which clearly means "next" to a term he uses ever time to mean "second"?

Ted Hoffman

No epigraphic or archaeological evidence shows the existence of Synagogues in the 1st Century palestine. So Says McKay - I cited him fully in my earlier post and link. Proto-christians operated in "communities" and synagogues were a 2nd century phenomena. We find the Gospels talking of synagogues and "saints" - both 2nd C ideas hence the dating.

Oh, you give us too much credit. But you know flattering people doesnt make for argumentation. You cant use our presumed knowledge as a crutch for your inadequate arguments.

If it was so basic, you wouldnt have trouble providing it.
You are assuming things Layman. Thats tragic.


I did not bring it up. I did not think it was relevant.
I was just flabbergasted at your dating of Matthew. I "brought up" my incredulity, not Matthew.

Yes sir.

Great, so Jesus will emerge from a Virgins womb a second time or what?
You can't "wish" things here Layman, the incongruence is stark and clear.

But the High Priest does not "appear" before the people to die - he enters the H of H to do that. Hence more incongruence.


You chose to ignore my question concerning the difference between a sacrifice and an offering. It speaks volumes.
The HP appeared from "the land" to enter the H of H.
Jesus appeared from heaven (equivalent to H of H) allegedly via a virgins womb, came to earth(appeared before the people), died and resurrected back to heaven (entered the H of H from whence he came).
Can you see the incongruence now?

Ted Hoffman

Your question assumes he/she ACTUALLY shifted from meta to ek deuterou.
1. We don't even know whether the author wrote the text as it appears today.
2. He is likely to have used "meta", as Doherty argues (for harmony/ congruence), but transcribers/ translators who thought they knew better (based on their preconceptions) changed it to "ek deuterou".

And you have not explained what I said earlier:

a) In Hebrews 9:12, Christ entered the holy place *once* and obtained eternal redemption for us (KJV) BY ONLY ENTERING.

Why would the same author then turn around and say Jesus had to come again for us to be redeemed?

And do you understand the difference between redemption(ransom) and salvation(deliverance)? and the difference when you compare what the Hp achieved and what Jesus were to achieve by his second coming?

Do you think Hebrews 10:37 should affect how we interpret 9:27-28?

Vinnie

What argument? Your comments about the synagogue? Would you mind formulating your arguments in a little more depth first? Citations, biblical passages with synagogues etc. Just cite Doherty's review of Ellegard and the relevant biblical passages.

Anyone who bothers to read the writings of mainline scholars knows that this is the consensus dating. Your comment tells me and others who are familiar with scholarly literature on the subject that you simply don't bother to read the writings of critical scholars.

The Didache was just one reference and I didn't fully press it. How again do you or anyone else explain the Ignatius reference?

Its important to again note that this is a redactional line of GMatthew who altered mark's "simpler" account of the baptism.

I tend to ignore Yuri from time to time. No one validly disputed the evidence I put forth in there. I was hoping that skeptics would have been eager to come in and point out their evidence for a 2d dating of the Gospels. Unfortunately, yall let me down


No, I'm not going back to look but it should have been clear that I gave that dating as a maximum "ON AN EXTERNAL LEVEL". Given outside references the early 2d is the latest on could posit for Matthew and Luke and Mark has to be pushed back into late 1c. This is solely on an external level and that is more of the latest possible dating. Internal evidence suggests that we go back a little more. The ignatius reference would push Matthew back into the very late first century itself and Mark back further. This again, is a maximum dating. Luke can't be pushed back that far on an external level. On an internal one it can though.

I accept ca 70 ad for Mark and 80-90 for Luke and Matthew.

You quoted Yuri as saying this:

You also said he did a good job of shooting me down. Then you went on to end with this:

Unfortunately, according to Yuri who "did a good putting me to task" the Gospels are fourth century texts. He said something like that anyways, I wasn't really paying attention and I am not going back to look. But the Didache cite was only one of my arguments in there.

So I am not sure how your, apparently 30-40 year later dating than me bypasses Yuri's charges????? Will you uncritically accept "any" argument which suggest a later dating of the gospels even when it contradicts your own position?

Feel free to refute Yuri's comments yourself.

V: Knock knock.
IM: Who's there?
V: Law.
IM: Law who?
V: Law of non-contradiction!
IM: I don't know you, go away!

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie,
Ok Vinnie, here is the review: JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST
Doherty says:,
Oh, so we have a club now? Good for you!
Club membership is not an argument.

Consider the following from Doherty's review:

It does throw a spanner in your works doesn't it?
And I would appreciate it if I could get a complete argument on Koester's argument concerning Ignatius' "indirect dependence" on Matthew.
From you or anyone else. I am a bit discomfited by the idea of the HJ story being the brainchild of Ignatius, but there you are. A bishop is a bishop.

But if one were to compare Doherty & Ellegards arguments vs Crossan and Koester's, I think the former's arguments are stronger because they have more than one dimension and have greater explanatory scope and power.
But then again, perhaps that may be because I havent fully grasped the whole argument Koester/Crossan make as far as the theory that Ignatius partly depended on Matthew is concerned.
Hence my request above. Or maybe Doherty and Ellegard (both being mythers) are just juggling stuff and trying to draw the bulls eye around the arrow. Oops, sorry, lets not argue about motives.

Bad, skeptiks bad.
But now, I believe you have the argument as it were.

Sounds arbitrary. Whether and how far back or forward they are pushed should be a factor of evidence that is available not how comfortable we feel.
What are these internal and external scales all about?

Sounds "safe" and modest. But arbitrary nevertheless.

I never agreed with Yuri's dating. I found his counterarguments to your position valid and he exposed your assertions as shaky. You admitted as much anyway, albeit reluctantly.
That is as far as it goes. I did not endorse his dating - he never argued his basis for the dating anyway.

Huh huh. This is funny.

Vinnie

E.P. Sander in Historical Figure of Jesus (p.100) on Archaeology and Palestinian Synagogues

Three explanations of why so few pre-70 synagogues have come to light.

(1) Archaeologists are not free to dig up cities that are now inhabited (such as Tiberias). All three pre-70 synagogues that have been definately identified were found at sites that have been uninhabited since the revolt against Rome and can therefore be excavated.

(2) In many places archaeologists have found large synagogues from the third and fourth centuries, which was a period when synagogue-building flourished. Many of these were probobly built on the sites of earlier synagogues, which were destroyed.

(3) In small towns and villages, synagogues were probably only converted houses, which would make them harder to identify now. The slight physical evidence can be supplemented by references to synagogues in ancient literature. Josephus, for example, mentions synagogues in Tiberias and Caesarea on the Sea. More important, however, his discussions assume the existence of synagogues, which leads to the conclusion that they were common.

So much for dating the gospels 2d on the basis of synagogues!

I never said it was. I did say that your question serves to show that you have not been reading the relevant literature. Think of it as a caution for those reading your arguments. They might actually take something that you argue as factual. Gotta make sure I kill those first impressions because once they are set....


So Matthews redactional line of Mark baptismal account is actually a quotation of Ignatius who made it all up? Now did Ignatius make up all these characters before Mark wrote or after? What evidence do you have that Ignatius made all this up. In what sense does he cite these names? Authoritatively without "defending" them? Or as if they were unknown? How about you go and look for us and then let us whether it looks like wholesale creation on his part or passing along.

Try this:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ans-hoole.html

We must obviously take into account the assumed audience knowledge of Ignatius' readers. That doesn't look like wholesale creation. if these terms were not known at the time his mention of all of them would indicate very poor writing on his part. You don't teach algebra to second-graders. Or are you saying Ignatius made up a a narrative before, preached all these things, his view became common and then he is just summarizing to his followers here??? The most easiest but not 100% certain solution to this is that GMatt was late first century and that Ignatius's comments indirectly drew off of it. These names tended to be known in Christian circles at the time.

I can only suggest that you read the work or pick up a copy from the library and read the relevant section. Koester is on my list. I've read the Crossan comment on Koester and comments by a few other scholars saying the same thing. Given that Matthew copied Mark and that one instance of the specific line is a redaction of Marks account by Matthew and the other concerns JBap as well suffices for me in saying that Ignatius "redactional line" is indirectly based off of Matthew's redaction of Mark's baptismal account.

What?? When I say "internal" are you taking that as how I feel on the inside about the gospels? I'm not getting fuzzy and sentimental on you

External---evidence outside the Gospels used to date them (e.g. mention of them or direct dependence upon them.

Internal- dating the gospel internally through its contents. For instance, your synagogue argument was an internal one.

I mentioned the difference between ex/in dating in the other thread which apparently you read too hastily.

You obviously have not read the thread carefully enough.

Vinnie

Layman

LOL

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

And what manuscript or secondary evidence do you have to support this argument?

Like I said. You really should read Hebrews before commenting on it.

The author of Hebrews does not turn around and say that Jesus had to come again for us to be redeemed. Christ' sacrifice has already dealt with humanity's sins. The author is very careful to distinguish the first coming (to die) from the second coming (to show salvation).

"So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." 9:27-28.

These are loaded terms. Why not explain what significance you ascribe to these terms in this discussion?

Depends. Do you think Hebrews 10:37 be affected by how we interpret 9:27-28?

The whole point of this post was to show that Doherty's claim that his translation of 9:28 could stand alone. It obviously fails miserably and leaves his own disciples scrambling for nonexistent interpolation arguments.