GAME OVER: Mark has been dated after AD 70. Bart says look at Mark 13. Do U see the rationale?
Definition of Game Over:
I remember people arguing that Mark was pre-AD 70 (at year 67 CE) which did not give enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman writers to mockingly turn Vespasian’s military opponent, Jesus of Galilee and his mariners at the Battle of Galilee into a peaceful, non-militant, tax-paying Messiah.
I remember people arguing that Mark was pre-AD 70 (at year 67 CE) which did not give enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman but more importantly pro-Josephus writers to include Josephus’ experience of seeing the three crucifixions of Calvary tableau, then beg General Titus for permission to take them down and try to resuscitate them, being successful with only one surviving crucifixion, as in the gospels.
= = =
I am planning on going to the library today and read Mark 13.
Will pick up after I have had that fresh reading of Mark 13.
Of course the gospel of Mark would have been the work of months if not years. The composition could possibly have spanned an entire decade. And it wasn’t ever “published”. It was shared and copies gradually made. So the idea of “dating” it is always going to be inexact. And then there’s the question of whether the “Little Apocalypse” is an interpolation…
tompicard said
you don’t have a bible at home?
I have many Bibles. I am working on a second edition of a book about the historical accuracy of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
It was not that I did not have a bible at home it was about when and where I was going to re-read that chapter.
Steefen, read this as well:
Zeichmann, C. B. (2017). The Date of Mark’s Gospel apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12: 13-17) as Evidence. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 79(3), 422-437. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Along with Mark 12:13-17, obviously.
Aractus said
Steefen, read this as well:Zeichmann, C. B. (2017). The Date of Mark’s Gospel apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12: 13-17) as Evidence. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 79(3), 422-437. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Along with Mark 12:13-17, obviously.
Aractus,
Thank you.
Apparently to pay a tax by coin identifies the tax in question was Post-Jewish Revolt instead of Pre-Jewish Revolt.
Bernard Muller commented Mark did not pay attention to this taxation detail and neither did Paul at Romans 13: 6 – 7.
= = =
Jax commented:
Confusion over who should pay the tax, as well as difficulty exacting it from those obligated, led Domitian to adopt a harsh policy of exacting the fiscus Iudaicus more rigorously than his predecessors.
Domitian expanded the legal category Iudaeus to include those who were alleged to have concealed their Jewish ethnicity (Suetonius Dorn. 12.1-2; cf. Cassius Dio Hist. Rom. 67.14.1-2, 68.1.2; Martial Epig. 7.55). One can imagine several demographics this may have affected: Samaritans, gentile Christians, Jewish tax evaders, people in mixed households, Jewish converts, former practitioners of Judaism, as well as people concealing their Judean ethnos.
Apparently, many did not pay before Domitian’s policy, whether it was because they did not understand the tax as mandatory for them or as a form of tax protest. All of this suggests that there was not an obvious answer for the dilemma of paying the fiscus Iudaicus, whether by those within Jewish communities or by those at their periphery.
= = =
Franz commented:
Thank you, Ben, for the attention you draw to Zeichmann’s excellent article. I really love this kind of stuff.
Some reflections:
- The numismatic evidence that denarii were rare in Palestine before the war is an eye-opener to me. In combination with the other evidence it makes Zeichmann’s argumentation quite solid.
- I agree with Zeichmann’s position against an ageless reading of this fragment: “Mark’s taxation pericope should thus be understood as historically specific in its scope”.
- The content of the taxation pericope is warlike as its subject is a negative effect of the war – the new and hated fiscus Iudaicus.
- Zeichmann’s dating of Mark is in line with my viewpoint that the gospels cannot have been written before the war because the crucial events they describe are war events (66-70 CE).
- I don’t follow Zeichmann when he speaks of Jesus’ context as opposed to Mark’s. I believe there is only one chronological context in the origins of Christianity, and that’s the war context.
Denarii are also mentioned in Revelation 6:6: A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius.
The numismatic evidence points in the direction of my interpretation of this verse. It describes the famine prices for essential foodstuffs during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Revelation 6 discusses Vespasian and Titus; verse 6 is part of the description of Titus and his deeds.
Bernard wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:10 am
I think there is nothing historical about Mk 12:13-17 (and all activities of Jesus in the temple after the “disturbance”).
“Mark” invented the story in order to incite his Christians to pay tax to the Romans, as did earlier Paul (Ro 13:6-7), without knowing about details of taxation in Judea some 40 years earlier.
Cordially, Bernard
Neil commented:
I don’t think there is anything historical about the James Bond stories but their author clearly drew upon known facts of the Cold War era and those details alone tell us that the novels could not possibly have been written before the 1950s.
Further, the argument of Z itself suggests that the incident/saying of Jesus was NOT historical but arose in a later period from that of Jesus.
= = =
Chris Z., himself, commented:
Thanks for the generally positive feedback. Just to address a few things that people mentioned:
1) It is true that there isn’t much direct evidence one way or the other of monetary taxation in pre-War Palestine. That said, the sheer absence of high- or even mid-value coinage in the pre-War era suggests that taxation was largely exacted in kind rather than monetarily. Indeed, the references in Josephus all seem to suggest that taxes were strictly in-kind as well.
…
3) You all are certainly correct that I suspect that the episode was largely – perhaps entirely – created by Mark. The version in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 100) is no more plausible, though I’m not really sure if it’s independent of Mark or not.
I tried the link you provided.
Then I found: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
So, there is no Oral Tradition in play because if there were Oral Tradition, Jesus would not have alluded to / said “coin” for payment of taxes. Only someone living after AD 70 would presented the account in that context.
Robert
Steefen
Mark chapter 13 is not new information. What new information or new interpretation/commentary was the reason for moving Mark post AD 70?
If you have what specifically was persuasive for Joel Marcus and yourself, that would add value to this thread. The tax by coin instead of tax in kind was a specific reason, if you have a different specific reason, that would add value to this thread.
The argument relating to coins and taxes seems pretty solid. It doesn’t really change much. Doesn’t threaten Markan priority.
Doesn’t make it impossible ‘Mark’ got his information directly from Peter (though I don’t assume he did.) Peter died in the mid-to-late 60’s, probably. So if you want to believe in that, you can say ‘Mark’ was moved by Peter’s death to make sure what he’d learned from Peter didn’t die out. If you want to believe Peter dictated the gospel to Mark, it’s a problem–but did any serious scholar believe that? And couldn’t Mark have added the story about rendering unto Caesar later? Does anybody think Mark had just one source? I sure as hell don’t.
Doesn’t tell us whether Mark was a gentile or a Jew. (Though the later you get, the less likely it is that he was Jewish. Main evidence is his apparent knowledge of Aramaic, which doesn’t prove his religious background.)
If you had your heart set on the gospel being written before 70, it’s bad news. Otherwise, it’s just an interesting observation that seems to narrow the date range by a few years. Which ain’t nothing.
Well I agree that our version of Mark reflects knowledge of the First Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. My point is that this doesn’t tell us much about when the gospel was begun. There are reasons to think it reflects the afterglow of the Neronic persecution. And then there is the question of provenance. Prof Marcus questions a Roman origin favoring Syria if I’m remembering correctly.
Anyway my own hypothesis, based on equal parts surmise and whimsy, is that the Gospel Of Mark was begun in the last years of the 60s perhaps motivated by the passing of the first generation of Christians and the Neronic persecution. It’s period of composition would have spanned the years of the revolt and the version we have copied shorty after.
Stephen
My point is that this doesn’t tell us much about when the gospel was begun.
Steefen
The gospel began when Asinus (sp?) wrote the history of the assassination of Julius Caesar and the historical accounts were used in the remembrances of his assassination.
Julius Caesar forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery (later in the story of Jesus)
Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus (later in apostolic succession)
Julius Caesar adopted at death (later in the story of Jesus)
Julius Caesar does not fear stormy seas (later Jesus not only does not fear stormy seas, he quiets them)
Julius Caesar was son of God (Venus) (later Jesus was Son of God)
Gaius Julius Caesar’s first name means Son of Earth/Son of Man.
Julius Caesar was betrayed by a close friend. (later Jesus was betrayed by close friend/follower)
Julius Caesar had precious belongings under the foot of his cross, the raised tropaeum (later Jesus had his precious robe at the foot of his cross)
When Julius Caesar died and had his funeral, there was the celebration of wine and bread (Baachus and Ceres) (later Jesus is remembered with wine and bread)
Octavian was son of the divine (later Jesus was son of the divine).
The Samaritan Redeemer received capital punishment from Pilate (later the story includes Jesus receiving capital punishment from Pontius Pilate)
Robert
It incorporated earlier material and it would have required some time to reach its current state of completion.
Steefen
It certainly did.
There is much to be gained from determining when the gospels were completed because then we can identify if the gospels were post-Jewish Revolt peace literature (Jesus, Prince of Peace) set out by the Romans or by Jewish intellectuals who wanted to make an effort to spread the word, “We lost our Temple because of our violent messianism and “banditry” but now our messiah is non-violent.”
Steefen
And, as in the original post, it is important to know if
a) Jesus is a Roman peaceful overlay on a Jesus of Galilee and his followers who were violent liberators/bandits/robbers.
b) the iconic image of the three crucifixions of Calvary was
Jesus and two bandits of the Jewish Revolt, with Jesus being a bandit/liberator himself
and
if a slice of life from Josephus’ biography
(three men crucified but the SURVIVED THE CROSS / resurrection was Josephus’s doing with the permission of General Titus)
is the natural explanation of God resurrecting Jesus.
If Josephus’ biography’s slice of life is the true “resurrection” then Apostle Paul’s pronouncements about the resurrection cannot be dated before AD 70 because Josephus had not yet resuscitated Jesus Christ, yet.
Why would Paul want to make a sacrament of cannibalism?
Answer: In scriptural remembrance of the Jewish Civil War that resulted in the Jews being defeated and losing their Temple, just as cannibalism is characterized in Jewish scripture: cannibalism is about a people so defeated that out of hunger, they eat humans, if not human babies. This appears in Jewish scripture and it appears in the accounts of the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt. The leaders of the revolt cut off their own food supply. People starve and turn to cannibalism.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)