vergari
This is simply (and merely) a case of poor reading comprehension. My contention was quite simple: “even Price and Carrier have mocked this hypothesis.” Note the use of past perfect tense: “have mocked.” It is a matter of fact that Price mocked Atwill’s hypothesis in 2006. That Price may have changed his view over time doesn’t rewrite history.
Steefen
Your “simple” contention misrepresents Price’s current judgment of Atwill’s work. Again, given, your poor reading comprehension: your evidence has been rejected by me as valuable to this thread. It is not that Price may have changed his view, Price has definitely changed his view on Atwill. Price has even asked Atwill to contribute to a book Price is writing/editing.
vergari
I demonstrated above that we actually have surviving manuscripts of Daniel, referencing the “son of man” and destruction of Jerusalem, which pre-date Vespasian’s entry into Jerusalem by (at the very least) more than a decade.
So, I must ask, are you suggesting that the actual author of Daniel had a time machine?
Are you suggesting that the material from Daniel 9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls was written after the destruction of the Second Temple by Vespasian and Titus?
Steefen
In the end, Jesus spoke of the Son of Man in the third person. In the end, the Son of Man was not Jesus and in the end, one like a Son of Man was not Jesus; as a result Daniel 7: 14 does not apply to Jesus.
= = =
Daniel is an example of apocalyptic literature. Since the definition of apocalypse is: final destruction of the world or 2) damage on a catastrophic scale, it is not a stretch for this literature to set the destruction or catastrophe at Jerusalem.
Wikipedia Entry on The Book of Daniel
Dating
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus’ two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the “abomination of desolation”), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus’ death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.
Further evidence of the book’s date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible’s canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.
= = =
After Daniel was written, the gospel writers referred to it pushing it toward the tradition of Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus and the line of emperors up to and including generals Vespasian and Titus who became emperors.
When Jesus and Stephen say they see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, it is Son of Man / Son of Earth / Gaius = Rome who is seated next to the God of the Hebrews (and the Jewish priests mourned that).
At the point of Rome’s victory over the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt, Rome “sat next to the power of God.”
= = =
Also see
** you do not have permission to see this link **
for what Bart says about Daniel 7: 14.
Steefen said
vergari
This is simply (and merely) a case of poor reading comprehension. My contention was quite simple: “even Price and Carrier have mocked this hypothesis.” Note the use of past perfect tense: “have mocked.” It is a matter of fact that Price mocked Atwill’s hypothesis in 2006. That Price may have changed his view over time doesn’t rewrite history.Steefen
Your “simple” contention misrepresents Price’s current judgment of Atwill’s work. Again, given, your poor reading comprehension: your evidence has been rejected by me as valuable to this thread. It is not that Price may have changed his view, Price has definitely changed his view on Atwill. Price has even asked Atwill to contribute to a book Price is writing/editing.vergari
I demonstrated above that we actually have surviving manuscripts of Daniel, referencing the “son of man” and destruction of Jerusalem, which pre-date Vespasian’s entry into Jerusalem by (at the very least) more than a decade.So, I must ask, are you suggesting that the actual author of Daniel had a time machine?
Are you suggesting that the material from Daniel 9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls was written after the destruction of the Second Temple by Vespasian and Titus?
Steefen
In the end, Jesus spoke of the Son of Man in the third person. In the end, the Son of Man was not Jesus and in the end, one like a Son of Man was not Jesus; as a result Daniel 7: 14 does not apply to Jesus.
= = =
Daniel is an example of apocalyptic literature. Since the definition of apocalypse is: final destruction of the world or 2) damage on a catastrophic scale, it is not a stretch for this literature to set the destruction or catastrophe at Jerusalem.
Wikipedia Entry on The Book of Daniel
Dating
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus’ two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the “abomination of desolation”), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus’ death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.
Further evidence of the book’s date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible’s canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.
= = =
After Daniel was written, the gospel writers referred to it pushing it toward the tradition of Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus and the line of emperors up to and including generals Vespasian and Titus who became emperors.
When Jesus and Stephen say they see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, it is Son of Man / Son of Earth / Gaius = Rome who is seated next to the God of the Hebrews (and the Jewish priests mourned that).
At the point of Rome’s victory over the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt, Rome “sat next to the power of God.”
= = =
Also see
** you do not have permission to see this link **
for what Bart says about Daniel 7: 14.
Okay, so the cumulative result of what you just wrote demonstrates — dispositively — that you simply don’t understand what is going on and cannot explain the wild claims you have made.
First off …. it’s fairly clear that Robert Price originally thought Atwill was a crank. That Price has been a dyed in the wool mythicist with virtually no scholarly support for his views for years and years only demonstrates just how far out on the fringes Atwill’s hypothesis is: a mythicist hypothesis even too extreme for garden variety mythicists. That Price is now willing to countenance Atwill’s nonsense changes none of that.
Now let’s move to Daniel. It’s pretty clear from your resorting to Wikipedia, that you had no prior idea when Daniel may have been written, what it actually said about apocalyptic prophecy or how it was connected to Mark 13.
The mainstream scholarly dating of Daniel to approximately 165 BCE is perfectly reasonable by me. It could have been earlier. But I’m not making that case. What it could not have been is later. That is the key. Daniel was written more than two centuries before Mark, before the destruction of the Second Temple, and before the entrance of Vespasian or Titus or any other Flavian figure into Judea.
There is likewise no doubt that Daniel purports to prophesize the destruction of the Temple and establishment of an abomination of desolation (i.e., the very events described in the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13 [Mark 13:14]) and that “one like the ‘son of man'” (the same figure referenced likewise in Mark 13 [Mark 13:26]) would be given kingship over the earth.
Your claims that “[a]fter Daniel was written, the gospel writers referred to it pushing it toward the tradition of Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus and the line of emperors up to and including generals Vespasian and Titus who became emperors” has absolutely no basis in any evidence whatsoever.
For starters, by the time the four canonical Gospels were written, Julius Caesar and Augustus were long dead. The notion that the “son of man” who came “in clouds with great power and glory” was an ordinary human who had already died decades earlier, with the Second Temple still standing, makes ZERO sense.
As to the Flavian emperors …. all one needs to do is actually read the synoptic Gospels — Mark, for instance, refers to the “Son of man” 14 times, Luke 25 times and Matthew 31 times — for it to be beyond abundantly clear that the “Son of man” was not a reference to some Roman emperor living in Rome, but a term Jesus used to refer to himself.
In sum ….
when Daniel (written no later than 165 BCE) refers to the “son of man,” it identifies a “end of days” figure sent by God, and
when the synoptics refer to the “son of man,” it is a identification that Jesus uses for himself.
Combing the term “son of man” with Mark’s Olivet Discourse, drawn directly from Daniel’s prophetic destruction of the Temple, it is thus clear that Mark is seeking to identify Jesus with the end of days figure sent by God, prophesized in Daniel. Mark is NOT attempting to identify the “son of man” with a Roman emperor; if he was, he would not have used the term “son of man,” nor would he have associated the “son of man” with Daniel’s prophecies.
vergari
Okay, so the cumulative result of what you just wrote demonstrates — dispositively — that you simply don’t understand what is going on and cannot explain the wild claims you have made.
Steefen
You are in error 1) about what I understand, 2) about what I can and cannot explain, and 3) that my claims are wild. Your character does not suit me: end of discussion with you. The rest of your post was not read and will not be read.
Steefen said
vergari
Okay, so the cumulative result of what you just wrote demonstrates — dispositively — that you simply don’t understand what is going on and cannot explain the wild claims you have made.Steefen
You are in error 1) about what I understand, 2) about what I can and cannot explain, and 3) that my claims are wild. Your character does not suit me: end of discussion with you. The rest of your post was not read and will not be read.
Of course you didn’t read it, because you have no idea how to respond or really even what it means. Cutting and pasting from Atwill’s website is no way to learn about Second Temple Judaism or the NT.
Robert said
Steefen, sorry but your views of the composition of the gospels and 1 Cor 11 are completely untenable by the overwhelming majority of critical scholars.
Calling this hypothesis “untenable” is a bit like saying World War II was a disagreement.
Virtually every single contention he makes is so detached from supporting evidence and the learned universal view of scholarship that it’s really tough respond in a meaningful way. It’s almost like being asked to opine on a theory that cells are not comprised of DNA molecules built from amino acids, but rather made of cheese. Where does one begin in refuting such a claim?
In the case here, Steefen seems to be starting from an idea that Jesus is constructed based on the writings of Asinius Pollio. There are any number of reasons this makes no sense, but even trying to take such a claim seriously, one is immediately confronting with the fact that Pollio wrote in Latin, not in Greek; thus, why a gospel writer purporting to take the work of a Latin writer about a Roman dictator would compose in Greek?
As to other of these theories . . .
“Julius Caesar forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery (later in the story of Jesus)” — this, of course, is not in any early texts of the Gospel (John), but was a 5th Century CE addition.
“Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus (later in apostolic succession)” — Christians did not appropriate this title from the Roman until the 3rd Century CE.
“Julius Caesar adopted at death (later in the story of Jesus)” — there are three Christian doctrines of adoptionism (i.e., raising Jesus to the status of Son of God), and none involve Jesus’s death. The three are: baptism, resurrection and ascension. Also, Julius Caesar was not “adopted,” as the adoptionism doctrine holds for Jesus. Caesar (posthumously) adopted his nephew.
“Julius Caesar does not fear stormy seas (later Jesus not only does not fear stormy seas, he quiets them)” — this is a comical stretch analogies involving seafaring peoples; this would be like arguing that Carroll Shelby is a fictional character based on Lee Petty, because “Shelby didn’t just race sports car, he built them.”
“Julius Caesar was son of God (Venus) (later Jesus was Son of God)” — Venus is not a god, she’s a goddess, and Julius Caesar was not her son; his line (the Julia) descended from Venue.
“Gaius Julius Caesar’s first name means Son of Earth/Son of Man” — Gaius means “rejoice,” not Son of man. In any case, the term “Son of man” predates Caesar by more than a century.
“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)” — No way, there was food and alcohol at somebody’s funeral?? No way. Of course, the Gospels say nothing about any funeral for Jesus, and we know of no Roman practice involving remembrance of Julius Caesar which involved food of any kind.
Do I even need to go on?
Getting back on topic after unwelcomed rudeness…
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.
When Mark was dated at 67 CE, there was not enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman/pro-Josephus writers to include in the gospels 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.
With Mark having been dated after AD 70, there is writing/editing/production time for Josephus’ experience, recorded in his autobiography, of seeing the three crucifixions, asking General Titus for permission to take them down and one survives crucifixion, to inform the gospels and be included in the gospels.
In AD 70, there were Jews who were Pro-Roman, who did not want to join the rebels against Rome. They wanted the Jewish Civil War stopped and they wanted the Jewish Revolt stopped. A messiah/savior in the late 60s, AD 69, or AD 70 probably would have been betrayed for execution by Rome. On the other hand, the rebels themselves were killing Jews and Jewish priests who spoke against Jewish independence.
Other than the Calvary tableau, what else that happened between AD 67 and AD 73 could have informed the gospels?
Steefen said
Getting back on topic after unwelcomed rudeness…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.
When Mark was dated at 67 CE, there was not enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman/pro-Josephus writers to include in the gospels 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.
With Mark having been dated after AD 70, there is writing/editing/production time for Josephus’ experience, recorded in his autobiography, of seeing the three crucifixions, asking General Titus for permission to take them down and one survives crucifixion, to inform the gospels and be included in the gospels.
In AD 70, there were Jews who were Pro-Roman, who did not want to join the rebels against Rome. They wanted the Jewish Civil War stopped and they wanted the Jewish Revolt stopped. A messiah/savior in the late 60s, AD 69, or AD 70 probably would have been betrayed for execution by Rome. On the other hand, the rebels themselves were killing Jews and Jewish priests who spoke against Jewish independence.
Other than the Calvary tableau, what else that happened between AD 67 and AD 73 could have informed the gospels?
There is exactly as much documentary evidence to support this wild hypothesis as there is that Jesus wrote the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke himself, post-resurrection, or that Julius Caesar was a fictional character invented by the Flavian emperors.
Continuing the thread without vergari who has been blocked or ignored for 1) adding no value to the thread and 2) being rude, isn’t it good that the child has been sent to the principal’s office? Yes, it is.
Now, edifying, intelligent thought and discussion can continue. It is wonderful that people like that person are excluded. Productivity increases and meaningful meetings do not lose their value. If people want to entertain themselves with rudeness, get on Netflix: these forums are for time well spent at a place for constructive arguments, discussion, and learning. Since vergari is being ignored, maybe he can annoy Dr. Price, asking Dr. Price to explain to him what Dr. Price now sees as valuable in Atwill’s Roman provenance perspective on the development of early Christianity. After Dr. Price sets him straight, maybe vergari can then come back without worthless, OUTDATED positions. Some people have difficulty keeping up with advances in this field of study. Religion is stronger on a foundation of history than on a faulty foundation of history. What is between the lines of religion? History.
With no further input to my last question, let’s open another question.
Josephus lived across the time span when the four gospels were written. The Calvary tableau is his memory. Given this part of the gospels deconstructed, it was by permission of Titus that a man survived crucifixion. With the Temple destroyed, the man who survived crucifixion could not appear at the Temple to his community as a crucifixion survivor. Jesus did not appear at the Temple after he arose. Jesus’ tomb was empty. The tomb of the crucifixion survivor in Josephus’s Vita was empty as well.
With the rebels either being killed or taken to Rome as slaves, the Crucifixion Survivor had no disciples who met at the Temple as told in Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, the history underneath the gospels and Acts is not plausible. If the resurrection and the continuation of the Jerusalem Church is, by literary license, moved back by decades, say, four decades, there is temporal space for a fictional Jerusalem Church to have life and for a fictional Paul to have life. Yes?
Steefen said
Continuing the thread without vergari who has been blocked or ignored for 1) adding no value to the thread and 2) being rude, isn’t it good that the child has been sent to the principal’s office? Yes, it is.Now, edifying, intelligent thought and discussion can continue. It is wonderful that people like that person are excluded. Productivity increases and meaningful meetings do not lose their value. If people want to entertain themselves with rudeness, get on Netflix: these forums are for time well spent at a place for constructive arguments, discussion, and learning. Since vergari is being ignored, maybe he can annoy Dr. Price, asking Dr. Price to explain to him what Dr. Price now sees as valuable in Atwill’s Roman provenance perspective on the development of early Christianity. After Dr. Price sets him straight, maybe vergari can then come back without worthless, OUTDATED positions. Some people have difficulty keeping up with advances in this field of study. Religion is stronger on a foundation of history than on a faulty foundation of history. What is between the lines of religion? History.
This is an absolute laugh riot. Can you name one tenured scholar at an accredited academic institution who has adopted Atwill’s hypothesis that Jesus was constructed from Flavian emperors?
I normally hesitate to appeal to authority to make my arguments, but you here have purported to base your argument expressly on just such an appeal, including to “edifying, intelligent thought,” and “constructive arguments, discussion, and learning,” while dismissing contrary views as from “Netflix” and “outdated,” even going so far as to portray Atwill’s hypothesis as an “advance[ment] in this field of study.”
This is a breathtaking level of duplicity. It is the equivalent of calling the latest claims about a flat earth “groundbreaking scientific discoveries.”
Steefen said
Josephus lived across the time span when the four gospels were written. The Calvary tableau is his memory. Given this part of the gospels deconstructed, it was by permission of Titus that a man survived crucifixion. With the Temple destroyed, the man who survived crucifixion could not appear at the Temple to his community as a crucifixion survivor. Jesus did not appear at the Temple after he arose. Jesus’ tomb was empty. The tomb of the crucifixion survivor in Josephus’s Vita was empty as well.
Among the many problems here . . . .
Josephus never tells us that the men spared by Titus from crucifixion were from Jerusalem. Rather, they were crucified on the road leading from Thecoa (near modern day Efrat).
A bigger problem: Josephus also doesn’t tell us that the Temple was destroyed at this time, and even implies it was still standing.
For this, we need a bit of explanation. The siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple is detailed most thoroughly in The Jewish War. However, this account of a survivor of crucifixion is actually from his final known (and autobiographical) work, The Life of Flavius Josephus. The account of the men spared from crucifixion takes place in the narrative immediately after Titus has agreed to spare many people at the request of Josephus, including a group who were being held captive at the Temple.
This raises the question of when captives were being held at the Temple. For this, we must turn The Jewish War, which tells us that the Temple, after being besieged, was first set ablaze and then sacked. This happened in early August of 70 CE. After that, it took the Romans approximately another month to gain full control over the city.
It was only after that, that the actual destruction of the Temple (with the sparing of the Western Wall) happened. This is more than a month after the Temple had fallen. Josephus’s description of Jews being held captive in the Temple implies this period of time — between early August (when the Temple was sacked) and sometime following the full surrender of the city in early September.
There are two more points to be made here. First, if Josephus was attempting to draw a connection between the destruction of the Temple and the survivor of crucifixion, he would have just said so. The chapter of The Life of Flavius Josephus, which includes this story, Chapter 75, also contains the material about captives inside the Temple. It beggars belief that, if Josephus was attempting to imply to his readers that “[w]ith the Temple destroyed, the man who survived crucifixion could not appear at the Temple to his community as a crucifixion survivor,” he would not have simply said in that chapter, at the very least, that the Temple had been destroyed, rather than implying it was still standing.
What’s more, Josephus doesn’t tell us anything about this survivor, other than it was a friend (or acquaintance) of his. It’s not clear why exactly we should think this man, about whom Josephus tells us virtually nothing, should be interpreted as the historical basis for Jesus.
Secondly, and far more importantly, The Life of Flavius Josephus, from whence we get the story of the crucified survivor, is dated to the very end of the First Century (after the Flavian dynasty had ended), and was certainly written after Mark. So, if Mark was supposed to have received his material from Josephus as pro-Flavian propaganda, it sure doesn’t make much sense that Josephus waited until the very end of his life — after the Flavians were gone, and after Mark was composed — to tell this story.
Steefen said
With the rebels either being killed or taken to Rome as slaves, the Crucifixion Survivor had no disciples who met at the Temple as told in Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, the history underneath the gospels and Acts is not plausible. If the resurrection and the continuation of the Jerusalem Church is, by literary license, moved back by decades, say, four decades, there is temporal space for a fictional Jerusalem Church to have life and for a fictional Paul to have life. Yes?
If you had even the slightest familiarity with the source material from which Atwill builds he house of air (to quote Price), you’d see just how much you build logical fallacy upon logical fallacy. The “Crucifixion Survivor” is a figure introduced to the world by Josephus in 99 CE — at the end of his life, after the Flavian dynasty is over, and decades after the persecution of Christians under Nero.
What follows is EVERY SINGLE THING Josephus tells us about the “Crucifixion Survivor”:
“[W]hen I was sent by Titus with Cerealins and a thousand horsemen to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to find out whether it was a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. This made me very sad, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus to him of them. So he immediately commanded them to be taken down and to have the greatest care taken of them for their recovery. Yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”
That’s it. That’s the entirety of the “Crucifixion Survivor” story, from which you seek to claim the figure of Jesus was constructed. Anyone with an open mind will see just how ludicrous the claim that this is the basis for Jesus, his disciples (and lack of disciples) and stories in Act really is.
vergari
“[W]hen I was sent by Titus with Cerealins and a thousand horsemen to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to find out whether it was a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. This made me very sad, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus to him of them. So he immediately commanded them to be taken down and to have the greatest care taken of them for their recovery. Yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”
That’s it. That’s the entirety of the “Crucifixion Survivor” story, from which you seek to claim the figure of Jesus was constructed.
Steefen
Not the whole constructed figure of Jesus … the Calvary tableau of three men crucified and one surviving crucifixion is Josephus’ memory that can be passed on by him or others (including by the man who was revived, those who revived him, or by other witnesses, not just Josephus) even before the autobiography of Josephus is written.
There is the crucifixion tableau followed by Titus giving Josephus permission to take the men down. This was not the time or place for the post-Resurrection disciples to peacefully meet at the Temple. Your rebuttal on this point fails. The sequence is clearly 1) crucifixion tableau and 2) post-Resurrection peaceful assembling of disciples at an impossible time and place. That is the unassailable point your rebuttal fails to refute.
Excellent per usual. Thanks Robert.
Yes, I am already in the post-70 camp. However, in conversation with those who still have an early view of Mark (say 40-50 CE), I often get (as you might expect) “Jesus was Son of God [in the gentile sense], so of course He could foresee the imminent destruction of the temple he just [figuratively and literally] shut down. That datum doesn’t count as dispositive for dating post-70.” And appeal to authority (scholars) isn’t persuasive to someone like that.
The denarius example is a little harder to contort to solve. “Of course Jesus could foresee the future tax being paid in coin, specifically denarii, and the people in the story weren’t somehow confused beyond belief” just doesn’t have the same intuitive appeal. I can already count two people previously in the 40-50 CE camp that are now in the “huh, that’s a stumper” camp.
Not that scholarship should be antithetical to faith. But scholarship should be antithetical to ignorance. I appreciate faith (or lack thereof). I don’t appreciate ignorance.
It ranges from fundamentalist and fundamentalist-adjacent to very philosophical and spiritual but still deeply biblical and conservative. Thankfully the fundamentalism isn’t the “closed off to conversation” version, but more of the “deep apologetics” strain. I grew up deeply embedded in this milieu.
The critical thinking tools I picked up in my stint within analytic philosophy back in the day gives them varying levels of fits, and worries them for my eternal soul. So, the fundamentalist-leaning constituency resorts to quoting scriptural proof texts at me, which deflates quickly in the face of knowing more and having thought more about the texts than they. The philosophically-minded constituency, on the other hand, really is seeking truth (rather than claiming a monopoly on it). So, that’s a more impactful set of conversations, even despite the marked biblical conservatism. And that’s where the discussions get into the more fun arenas – from the nitty gritty around the biblical texts and first century Palestine all the way to the deepest macro-philosophical questions. Aided, of course, by the fruit of the vine and the grain of the field.
And thankfully, all these constituencies are not tee-totalers, so I don’t even have to hide my flask…
Robert said
One scholar’s opinion settles it. Game over.Almost all critical scholars date the gospel of Mark to around 70 CE, ie, sometime during the Judean War. Bart used to think it’s was written shortly before 70 (so also Adela Yarbro Collins), but around 10 years ago he changed his view to shortly after 70 CE (so also Joel Marcus), which is also my view and I suspect the majority of critical scholars. I only know of one living critical scholar who still argues for a significantly earlier date.
How did they arrive at a post AD70 date?
Mark 13 is interesting case of synoptic dating. Little Apocs is not a good evidence for Markan priority
Mark was before Matthew because is more primitive – that is a basic dating argument. Matthew is correcting Mark.
But Mark 13 is more “sophisticated”, more advanced compare to Matthew 24-25.
According to Eusebius Little Apocalypse was a separate leaflet diring 1st Jewish War.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)