Nomad

While I do not doubt the integrity, skill, and judgement of these scholars, I personally believe that 70 AD happens to be the upper terminous for dating GMark (and possibly the other Canonicals). In my view, the range of possible dates should be expanded to 55-70. This point is not central to this particular discussion, however, so I am prepared to let it go. If you are interested in my arguments for pushing back the earliest possible date for GMark, I would refer you to my discussion on this subject <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8572" target="_blank">Dating GMark</a>.

I do think that it is possible that Mark did record a false prophecy here, though I believe that as with many prophecies, the date of their fulfillment is not always apparent in the text. In the case of prophecies concerning the end times, I think that this is certainly the case, and Jesus Himself tells us that no one except the Father is to know when Judgement Day will come. Again this is a separate discussion, but I am willing to take it to a new thread.

As I argued in the remainder of my post, just because a later document mentions a previously known figure, this does not mean that they were written using new or unique information that was derived from earlier sources. Simon is known in Acts, but barely described there. Later speculations about who he was, and what he believed about himself remain speculation, even for 2nd to 4th Century authors. If we had independent confirmation of or from other 1st Century sources, then this would make the claim more interesting, and possibly more historical as well. Unfortunately, in the case of the Acts of Peter and Paul, we do not have such evidence.

Yes it does.

Thanks again Apikorus.

Nomad

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Apikorus

To review the bidding, Nomad, you first implied that my date of 70 CE for GMk was tendentiously late, and you stated flatly that it was "probably written in the 50's to early 60's." Now that I have cited no less an authority than Raymond Brown, stating that "There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70," (INT p. 164) you concede that your early date was a matter of "personal belief" (no doubt informed by the arguments of various legitimate, if conservative, scholars). Presumably you also concede that the date I cited was in line with the scholarly consensus.

You are, of course, entitled to your personal beliefs.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

MortalWombat

There's another bit of evidence that Mark was written after 70, taken from this article:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4e.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4e.html</a>

Quote:
There is another reason to doubt the tomb burial that has come to my attention since I first wrote this review: the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus, yet it was often the case after 70 C.E., just when the gospels were being written. Amos Kloner, in "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?" (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that "more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones" (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, "the Second Temple period...ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common" (p. 25).

Why is this significant? Three of the four Gospels repeatedly and consistently use the word "roll" to describe the moving of the tomb's blocking stone ("rolled to" proskulisaV, Matthew 27:60; "rolled away" apekulisen, Matthew 28:2; "rolled to" prosekulisen, Mark 15:46; "roll away" apokulisei Mark 16:3; "rolled away" apokekulistai Mark 16:4; "rolled away" apokekulismenon Luke 24:2). The verb in every case here is a form of kuliein, which always means to roll: kuliein is the root of kulindros, i.e. cylinder (in antiquity a "rolling stone" or a even child's marble). For example, the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9:20 "rolls around" on the ground (ekulieto, middle form meaning "roll oneself," hence "wallow"). These are the only uses of any form of this verb in the New Testament.

End quote

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

Haran

MortalWombat, I don't know who wrote that article, but they seem to have adopted that part they liked and promptly forgotten the rest.

And even if you are persuaded by his argument, it is still speculation.

Haran

MortalWombat

Haran, did you read the article I linked to? Obviously not, since you say you do not know who wrote the article, when the author's name, Richard Carrier, is right up at the top in bold blue letters. The very next paragraph addresses this point:

Kloner argues that the verb could just mean "moved" and not rolled but he presents no examples of such a use for this verb, and I have not been able to find any myself, in or outside the Bible, and such a meaning is not presented in any lexicon (emphasis mine, MW). His argument is based solely on the fact that it "couldn't" have meant rolled because the stone couldn't have been round in the 30's C.E. But he misses the more persuasive point: if the verb can only mean round, then the Gospel authors
were not thinking of a tomb in the 30's C.E. but of one in the later part of the century. If the tomb description is flawed, this would also put Mark as being written after 70 C.E., and would support the distinct possibility that the entire tomb story is a fiction...

Haran

My apologies... I did not look at the posted link but assumed all relevant information had been quoted.

Ah! Looking at the article helps, doesn't it? Well, I have to agree somewhat with Mr. Carrier. Kloner does not present any examples of usage. Frankly, like Mr. Carrier, I can't find any such usage. However, it does not sound like he has done an exhaustive search and neither have I.

I don't know what reasonings Kloner had for stating this. It would be interesting to know. It could be that he believes that he has discovered a lost meaning for this word or that there could have been an underlying Hebrew/Aramaic word which was poorly translated as "kulio".

Personally, I find Carrier's "more persuasive point" somewhat tenuous. Unless Carrier assumes the Gospels were written very late, it seems to me that the writers and their audience (some of whom would have lived during that time period) would have known that tombs were closed with square blocking stones. Also, because archaeologists only know of a few tombs with rolling stones during that time period, this does not mean that there weren't more, just that we don't have evidence for them today.

Oh well, it's all a game of speculation anyway...

Haran