Robert said
Because the author seems to think of the destruction of the temple as part of the Lord’s coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 13,26 14,62) and that the end of this age is still coming very soon. The Lord has even shortened the days. Some Markan scholars (eg, Adela Yarbro Collins) even credibly date the gospel during the Judean war against Rome. I also don’t see evidence to date Matthew too much later than Mark.
From my point of view, the theme of “clouds” is quite popular in the literature of the period. Perhaps this is influenced by the popularity of Daniel’s apocalyptic prophecy that “clouds” were in Josephus, in Tacitus, in the gospels. And this leads me to the conclusion that the author’s possible emotion may not have been as genuine and direct as one might expect.
The author connects the temple with Jesus and drama is highly recommended regardless of whether he writes in the 70s CE or 90s. It may be a genuine emotion, but it may just as well be a literary construct. How to settle it?
Or maybe he liked the idea he read in Josephus.
The rules of ancient biographical literature gave the authors much liberty in conjuring up the details of real or invented heroe’s lives as long as their writing did not violate the sense of probability. The expectation which they had to meet was to offer a coherent portrayal – plausible, but not necessarily faithful through and through. These principles were extensively used in hagiographic literature in the later period
Mark keeps on giving. He is obsessed by the Temple, an aspect of his gospel that seems obvious – once you notice it. Mark has an immediacy that almost makes you think he’s composing it as the Temple itself burns right in from of him. Yet he has clearly thought about it. I keep circling back to an aspect I really did grasp early on. The composition of the gospel was not the work of weeks or months but of years.
Stephen said
Mark keeps on giving. He is obsessed by the Temple, an aspect of his gospel that seems obvious – once you notice it. Mark has an immediacy that almost makes you think he’s composing it as the Temple itself burns right in from of him. Yet he has clearly thought about it. I keep circling back to an aspect I really did grasp early on. The composition of the gospel was not the work of weeks or months but of years.
Robert said
Mark is definitely quoting Daniel. That’s irrelevant to finding the most likely historical context of the work. Nor do I see how emotion enters into this judgment. There’s an extremely broad consensus about this among critical scholars. You’ve presented no arguments yet to effectively challenge this consensus.
In fact, the temple is burning in Josephus, and in him you can see the tear of a Jew proud of his tradition, standing on the side of the Romans, which adds drama to his texts. Marek is a professional scribe who imitates a specific linguistic manner at the client’s request, but he is a genius when it comes to composition. He wrote what was expected. While Josephus with his “army in the sky” merely suggests the relationship of the Romans with Daniel, Mark directly indicates the relationship of the prophecy and Jesus is the Son of Man, is the Messiah (incognito), predicts the fall of the temple like Jesus ben Ananias, etc. etc.
Josephus is just a source material for Marek in many cases. Marek masterfully maintains the tragedy of the situation but, like Josephus, uses it against specific people. In Josephus, they are rebels. In Mark, these are the Jews. Marek places his product on a specific market because he wants to gain believers where such a story coincides with the views of the target audience.
Marek is obsessed by Josephus. All in all, it turns out to be better in the mass market
Robert said
Other than simply asserting that the author of the gospel of Mark is using Josephus as a source, do you have any evidence or a credible argument to that effect? Any? Josephus writes more or less as a historian; Mark writes as a apocalypticist expecting the destruction of the temple to be an essential part of the end of history in the very near future. You don’t see the difference?
The goals of Mark and Josephus’ writings are simply different. But the goal of writers, like all of us, is to offer the best. Josephus practices historical politics, Marek writes religious content. A writer is first and foremost a writer, otherwise he will lose to those who remember what they do and what they get paid for. apocalyptic? If so, he knows perfectly well that he must be the most convincing apocalyptic on the market. How do you know that Marek is not a sybarite who needs money for wine, drugs and paid sex? He is a ghost writer. He will not achieve glory, he will only get money.
I recommend you Macrina, because the writings of Gregory of Nyssa perfectly show how one literary construct can be used for different purposes. Macrina as an ascetic, knowing only Scripture, devoting herself exclusively to prayer. There is another Macrina, a humanist, a philosopher who quotes others and knows their achievements. Such is the writer, Gregory of Nyssa, who wants to raise his family so that his brother becomes a bishop, who wants to create a role model for everyone, who wants to remove the figure of a former heretic colleague from the biography of the other brother. Great reading.
Robert said
So no evidence whatsoever or any credible argument that Mark was written in the time of Marcion, contrary to the overwhelming consensus of critical scholars who find the most probable historical context of Mark to be roughly 70-75 CE.
Marcion’s success was a matter of product choice, target group selection and efficient organization. He selected the gospel and Paul’s epistles and made an offer to the Gentiles. If he was a leader, his goal was not theology but effective and efficient building of his organization. If better products were available on the market, he would not hesitate to improve the offer. After all, he did not admit to the authorship of the letters (3-4 authors) or the authorship of the gospels.
Marcion’s market success initiated the development of the literary genre of the gospels. So the assumption that he had the best products is reasonable. Defining Marcion’s running time is also simple. He achieved success before staying in Rome.
If we accept the consensus dating of the gospels between 70-100 CE, then another reason for the rapid development must be found, because the gospels are almost ignored, they are not authoritative.
There was competition between the churches to produce more Christians, and beautiful and inspiring stories were needed for that.
Marcion’s Gospel was the best of his time. There were no nativity stories, genealogies or other add-ons on the market.
Stephen said
Jarek I think the “R” key on your keyboard is stuck to your “E” key. Just like your “Josephus” key is stuck to your “gospel” key. heh heh heh
I think ‘Marek’ is one way that ‘Mark’ comes into some Slavic languages (e.g., Czech, Polish).
I’ve noticed that proper names of well-known figures are one of the last things people give up from their native tongue when writing in another language. There is a propensity even in truly fluent speakers to slip randomly back into calling famous people whatever you grew up calling them.
Robert said
Repetition is neither evidence nor argument, Jarek.
You’re right. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “Mark is being obsessed with the temple” in Goodacre’s media appearances. Luke wanted this, Mark wanted that, Matthew wanted something else. And I’m always reminded of the proverb “Poetry doesn’t lie. Poets notoriously.”
[…] These suggestions for timelines represent merely a majority opinion. The seriously discussed timelines are much more extensive and comprise approximately 100 years beginning with the 40s of the 1st century and reaching into the mid-140s CE.49 The widespread majority opinion, narrowing the timeline between 70 and 90 CE, is not viable (as acknowledged by most authors) and hardly justified, particularly when determining the terminus ante quem. A timeline starting before the turn of the 2nd century is neither substantiated nor apparent. Even internal criteria, usually cited for this rationale, do not really permit these limitations.50 In view of the uncertainties, further speculations are ill-advised; more tangible information is simply not available. Two methodological references are nonetheless merited. Canonical Luke did emerge only in association with the canonical edition. If this edition is supposed to be correlated with Marcion’s separation from the Roman congregation, and if Justin can be validated as being the earliest witness of this edition, the timeline of the emergence of Luke should lie between 144 and 155 CE.51 The discrepancy between this and the customary timelines should serve as a cautionary reminder about the timeline of the pre-canonical Gospels based solely on internal criteria. Another aspect arises from the greater coherence of the Gospel tradition. The narrow literary fallback of the tradition’s individual stages to all the respective pretexts suggests that the process of the emergence of the pre-canonical tradition between *Ev and *John needs not be expanded to fill the entire timespan between 90 and approximately 144 CE. These individual pre-canonical stages in the tradition are probably separated by months or a few years only rather than decades.
The simultaneous consideration of both aspects suggests that the writing of the pre-canonical Gospels was carried out in only a few years. Various scenarios are conceivable. (1) A continuous process (analogous to the widespread assump-tion about the emergence of the canonical Gospels), anticipating longer intervals between the tradition’s individual stages and taking up the entire available time-period. Given an even distribution, the timeline for *Ev would start with 90 CE, for *Mark with the 1st decade of the 2nd century, for *Matthew with the mid-120s, and for *John shortly before 144 CE. Conceivable is also that (2) the entire written Gospel tradition took place in only a few years either at the very beginning of the time-period (between 90 and 100 CE) or at its ending (between 130 to 144 CE). Conceivable as well is that (3) *Ev existed (as an individual Gospel) since approximately the 90s, but that the pre-canonical attribution from *Mark to *John only lasted a few years. While such an attribution could have occurred before the turn of the first and second centuries, it may also have been carried out by the 130s. These deliberations not only show the great danger of arbitrary timeline stipulations; they make apparent the leeway for further research. (M. Klinghardt)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert