AnotherBart said
This is “Argumentum ex silentio”
Why should we expect Paul to have openly reflected on written Gospel accounts? If he was smart, he would not have made open references to them.
If Paul felt inferior in matters relating to the knowledge of the teachings and events connected with Jesus’s ministry, it may have been smart to excel in theology and the meaning of the resurrection. With gMark being around, this limitation would have been removed.
gavriel said
The clues for more precise dating is usually taken to be 13:7 and 13:14. 13:7 indicates that something horrible has happened, but that Jesus still did not return, and 13:14 hints at a desecration of the temple. So, shortly after the uprising had ended maybe CE 71-72.
Many terrible things did happen, prior to 70 A.D..
167 B.C.E. Antiochus IV puts ** you do not have permission to see this link **in Temple (see 2 Maccabees chapt 4, 5, 6, 7)
19 C.E. Tiberius enlists 4,000 Jewish males from Rome to military service in Sardinia
26-31 C.E. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** were provoking the Jews by bringing in ensigns to Jerusalem, mixing blood of Galileans with their sacrifices, etc.
40 C.E. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** placed in Temple. He orders Publius Petronius to take 2 legions to enforce it.
john76 said
One last thought. There is no question, like the impaled, just man of Plato’s Republic (Plat. Rep. 2.362a), Jesus was a good man who died by impaling crucifixion. However, because this very crucifixion was (very early) interpreted theologically in terms of Psalm 22:16b (Mark’s use of the Septuagint in Mark 24) and Deuteronomy 21:23 (Paul’s “Hung on a tree in Galatians 3:13), it is possible that Jesus himself felt it was his theological mission to die of crucifixion to fulfill such scriptures as Deuteronomy and Psalms, just as he probably felt it was his mission to fulfill Zechariah 9:9 with the way he entered into Jerusalem.
I just wanted to share a comment I posted in the reader comment section of one of my blog posts on my blog (see ** you do not have permission to see this link ** ) regarding Jesus and the Caesars:
I’ve been thinking a lot about the resurrection appearances referred to in the pre-Pauline Corinthian creed, and how they might be thought of in the context of Dr. Dennis R MacDonald’s mimesis work on the New Testament. Perhaps the resurrection appearance claims were Noble Lies (a la Plato, Euripides, etc.) meant to lend divine clout to (and help the disciples carry on) Jesus’ message of love of God, neighbor, and enemy after Jesus died (a cause the disciples may have been willing to die for)?
In “Mythologizing Jesus (2015, pg. 3),” Dr. Dennis MacDonald writes:
“The importance of the Homeric epics in antiquity is undisputed. A contemporary of Mark and Luke praised them as follows: ‘From the earliest age, children beginning their studies are nursed on Homer’s teaching. One might say that while we were still in swathing bands we sucked from his epics as from fresh milk. He assists the beginner and later the adult in his prime. In no stage of life, from boyhood to old age, do we ever cease to drink from him’ (Ps.~Heraclitus, Homeric Questions 1.5-6, cited in MacDonald, Mythologizing Jesus, pg. 3). ”
Since the Gospel writers and Paul wrote in Greek, one would assume they would be they would be familiar with this. Continuing on, Dr Dennis R MacDonald argues:
“Greek education largely involved imitation of the epics, what Greeks called mimesis; Romans called it imitatio. Homeric influence thus appears in many genres of ancient composition: poetry, of course, but also histories, biographies and novels. One must not confuse such imitations with plagiarism, willful misrepresentation, or pitiful gullibility. Rather, by evoking literary antecedents, authors sought to impress the reader with the superiority of the imitation in literary style, philosophical insights, or ethical values. Literary mimesis often promoted a sophisticated rivalry between the esteemed models and their innovating successors (MacDonald, Mythologizing Jesus, pg. 3).”
Maybe, in the resurrection appearance claims present in the pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed, the first Christians were inventing these appearance accounts to present Jesus as greater than the Roman emperors. In this regard, Justin Martyr writes:
“What about your dead emperors, whom you always esteem as being rescued from death and set forth someone who swears to have seen the cremated Caesar [Augustus] ascending from the pyre into the sky?” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21.3).”
It seems impossible to pull back the veil in front of the pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed to discover whether the resurrection appearance claims therein were Lies, Legendary Accumulation (although they may be too early to be Legendary), Hallucinations, or whether the apostles actually did encounter the risen Jesus?
And there may be good reason to suppose the early Christians were directly concerned with establishing that Jesus was greater than Caesar. The syncretic flavor of Mark is at once evident from his reproduction of a piece of Augustan imperial propaganda and his setting it beside a tailored scripture quote. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” closely matches the formula found on a monument erected by the Provincial Assembly in Asia Minor (1st century BCE): “Whereas… Providence… has… brought our life to the peak of perfection in giving us Augustus Caesar… who, being sent to us and to our descendants as a savior…, and whereas… the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the beginning of the gospel (euaggelion) concerning him, let all reckon a new era beginning from the date of his birth.” Mark 12:17 also seems to establish that only trivial things are to be rendered unto Caesar, whereas the true esteem is to be given to God.
And we know the Jews of that time engaged in mimesis, just as the Greeks and Romans did, such as the material Matthew invented to portray Jesus as the new and greater Moses.
john76 said
I just wanted to share a comment I posted in the reader comment section of one of my blog posts on my blog (see ** you do not have permission to see this link ** ) regarding Jesus and the Caesars:
I’ve been thinking a lot about the resurrection appearances referred to in the pre-Pauline Corinthian creed, and how they might be thought of in the context of Dr. Dennis R MacDonald’s mimesis work on the New Testament. Perhaps the resurrection appearance claims were Noble Lies (a la Plato, Euripides, etc.) meant to lend divine clout to (and help the disciples carry on) Jesus’ message of love of God, neighbor, and enemy after Jesus died (a cause the disciples may have been willing to die for)?
In “Mythologizing Jesus (2015, pg. 3),” Dr. Dennis MacDonald writes:
“The importance of the Homeric epics in antiquity is undisputed. A contemporary of Mark and Luke praised them as follows: ‘From the earliest age, children beginning their studies are nursed on Homer’s teaching. One might say that while we were still in swathing bands we sucked from his epics as from fresh milk. He assists the beginner and later the adult in his prime. In no stage of life, from boyhood to old age, do we ever cease to drink from him’ (Ps.~Heraclitus, Homeric Questions 1.5-6, cited in MacDonald, Mythologizing Jesus, pg. 3). ”
Since the Gospel writers and Paul wrote in Greek, one would assume they would be they would be familiar with this. Continuing on, Dr Dennis R MacDonald argues:
“Greek education largely involved imitation of the epics, what Greeks called mimesis; Romans called it imitatio. Homeric influence thus appears in many genres of ancient composition: poetry, of course, but also histories, biographies and novels. One must not confuse such imitations with plagiarism, willful misrepresentation, or pitiful gullibility. Rather, by evoking literary antecedents, authors sought to impress the reader with the superiority of the imitation in literary style, philosophical insights, or ethical values. Literary mimesis often promoted a sophisticated rivalry between the esteemed models and their innovating successors (MacDonald, Mythologizing Jesus, pg. 3).”
Maybe, in the resurrection appearance claims present in the pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed, the first Christians were inventing these appearance accounts to present Jesus as greater than the Roman emperors. In this regard, Justin Martyr writes:
“What about your dead emperors, whom you always esteem as being rescued from death and set forth someone who swears to have seen the cremated Caesar [Augustus] ascending from the pyre into the sky?” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21.3).”
It seems impossible to pull back the veil in front of the pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed to discover whether the resurrection appearance claims therein were Lies, Legendary Accumulation (although they may be too early to be Legendary), Hallucinations, or whether the apostles actually did encounter the risen Jesus?
And there may be good reason to suppose the early Christians were directly concerned with establishing that Jesus was greater than Caesar. The syncretic flavor of Mark is at once evident from his reproduction of a piece of Augustan imperial propaganda and his setting it beside a tailored scripture quote. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” closely matches the formula found on a monument erected by the Provincial Assembly in Asia Minor (1st century BCE): “Whereas… Providence… has… brought our life to the peak of perfection in giving us Augustus Caesar… who, being sent to us and to our descendants as a savior…, and whereas… the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the beginning of the gospel (euaggelion) concerning him, let all reckon a new era beginning from the date of his birth.” Mark 12:17 also seems to establish that only trivial things are to be rendered unto Caesar, whereas the true esteem is to be given to God.
And we know the Jews of that time engaged in mimesis, just as the Greeks and Romans did, such as the material Matthew invented to portray Jesus as the new and greater Moses.
One last thought on the possible portrayal of Jesus as greater than the Caesars:
Craig Koester’s Revelation commentary says:
“The section climaxes by noting that [Jesus] holds seven stars in his right hand (Rev 1:16). This cosmic imagery conveys sovereignty. An analogy appears on a coin from Domitian’s reign that depicts the emperor’s deceased son as young Jupiter, sitting on the globe in a posture of world dominion. The coin’s inscription calls him “divine Caesar, son of the emperor Domitian,” and the imagery shows him extending his hands to seven stars in a display of divinity and power. John has already identified Jesus as the ruler of kings on earth (1:5), and the imagery of the seven stars fits the book’s larger context, which contrasts the reign of Christ with that of imperial Rome. (p. 253).”
Brandon D. Smith comments on Koester’s Revelation commentary here that:
Koester is referring to the coin in the image used in Rome around AD 88-96 during the reign of the brutal Caesar Domitian. Koester’s insights here give us an interesting look at the background of John’s writing during hostile Roman persecution. It also helps us think about the later date of Revelation’s writing (the end of the first century) versus a potential earlier dating (some say it might’ve been written closer to AD 65). This is enough to chew on a little bit.
But it offers us more than that. This information helps shed light on the theology of Revelation.First, it shows us that much of Revelation’s imagery (beasts, numbers, etc.) are direct shots at the Roman empire. Many believe (and I could be convinced) that Revelation is written during intense Roman persecution and this letter was first written to encourage the Church during that time. However, as a non-preterist, I believe portions of the letter are speaking of future events—i,e., Jesus hasn’t come back yet; the New Jerusalem isn’t here yet; etc. In any event, this note might help us better understand the anti-imperial leanings of John.
Second, it shows us how high John’s Christology was. He’s not merely putting Jesus on par with some exalted or glorified person. Rather, he’s portraying Jesus as divine—specifically pitting Jesus’s true divine sovereignty against the supposed divine sovereignty of the Roman emperorship. Roman caesars liked to pretend to be gods, but John is reminding them and us that there’s only one true God. Jupiter is seated on the world with stars hovering around him? Ha—Jesus created the world and clutches the stars in his hand.
As I argue in my thesis, John explicitly and purposely ties Jesus into the divine identity of YHWH, and this little note only adds to the case.
Perhaps Jesus as surpassing Caesar is more pervasive in the NT than originally thought.
gavriel said
If Paul felt inferior in matters relating to the knowledge of the teachings and events connected with Jesus’s ministry, it may have been smart to excel in theology and the meaning of the resurrection. With gMark being around, this limitation would have been removed.
By “if he was smart, he would not have ….” what I meant was this:
If Paul was wise (and he was), if Paul was ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (as prescribed by Jesus) he would not have referred to & thus given away the existence of recently written documents that were considered to be blasphemous to the Jews, and treasonous to the Romans. Paul’s letters were widely copied and passed around. He knew that Roman officials and infiltrating enemies could see what he wrote.
If any written Gospel account existed prior to writing his earliest works, (51 C.E. 1st Thessalonians), then Paul would have every good reason to KEEP HIS TRAP SHUT about them.
Plus, if the churches in Thessalonica and Corinth had Matthew and Mark, why should he have quoted them?
AnotherBart said
By “if he was smart, he would not have ….” what I meant was this:
If Paul was wise (and he was), if Paul was ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (as prescribed by Jesus) he would not have referred to & thus given away the existence of recently written documents that were considered to be blasphemous to the Jews, and treasonous to the Romans. Paul’s letters were widely copied and passed around. He knew that Roman officials and infiltrating enemies could see what he wrote.
If any written Gospel account existed prior to writing his earliest works, (51 C.E. 1st Thessalonians), then Paul would have every good reason to KEEP HIS TRAP SHUT about them.
Plus, if the churches in Thessalonica and Corinth had Matthew and Mark, why should he have quoted them?
In the early Christian literature it is often possible to detect traces of earlier writings, for instance they are using expressions close to phrases found in the Pauline letters, without explicitly mentioning Paul. This is what I have in mind. In this way it is possible to say that Ignatius knows most of Paul’s letters. This is not conclusive evidence that Paul did not know Mark, it’s just another small nail in the coffin of the early dating of Mark.
Beside this, Paul has plenty of theological ideas confronting traditional Judaism, which he put forward without fear. For this he received the so-called forty lashes minus one, several times. The authors of Revelation didn’t care much about not insulting Roman sentiments.
AnotherBart said
This is “Argumentum ex silentio”
Why should we expect Paul to have openly reflected on written Gospel accounts? If he was smart, he would not have made open references to them.
No it’s more like an argument pointing out the lack of evidence for an early date.
We’re really talking about Mark here because Matthew and Luke depend on him and there would have had to be time for Mark to be circulated before it would have been available to Matthew and Luke. What sways most scholars is the internal evidence. Mark’s community had undergone some kind of distress in living memory and if the view that Mark had Roman providence is correct the Neronic persecution of the sixties best fits that description. And most compelling of all the gospel seems to clearly reflect the events of the First Revolt. Occam’s Razor. All things being equal the simplest explanation that fits the facts tends to be the best one.
Stephen said
No it’s more like an argument pointing out the lack of evidence for an early date.
We’re really talking about Mark here because Matthew and Luke depend on him and there would have had to be time for Mark to be circulated before it would have been available to Matthew and Luke. What sways most scholars is the internal evidence. Mark’s community had undergone some kind of distress in living memory and if the view that Mark had Roman providence is correct the Neronic persecution of the sixties best fits that description. And most compelling of all the gospel seems to clearly reflect the events of the First Revolt. Occam’s Razor. All things being equal the simplest explanation that fits the facts tends to be the best one.
I see what you’re saying now, and it is a good point. Yes, Ignatius is obviously well versed in Pauline literature, and no, Paul does not exude literary allusions to the Gospels.
I still would not expect him to do so, especially not Mark or Matthew. I’ve been convinced for 18+ months that Acts was written in preparation of Paul’s trial. Also convinced for about 12 that Luke used Matthew and Mark. I believe that, if presented to Roman officials in 60-62, Matthew’s gospel would have made Jesus look like a suicidal instigator(1), and Seneca would have led Paul & companions directly to the chopping block. By looking at Special M and comparing it to Special L, a distinct pattern of deliberate mollification appears. In short, I believe that Paul saw the translated Gospel of Matthew as a huge problem: a danger both Christians and Jews if seen by the Roman Govt. Therefore, his buddy Luke had to rewrite it, with ample opportunity 51-55 in Philippi and 57-59 in Jerusalem.
Our earliest sources indicate that Matthew written for Israelite eyes, (in Aramaic) then, post Mark, was rewritten in Greek.
But I certainly have not always thought this. Matthew = post 80 AD was all I knew for decades.
Additional question: In your opinion, what is it about the First Revolt that is reflected in Mark? My knowledge of the actual siege years [66 (?)] is lacking. Any help is appreciated. thx
(1) example of Jesus’ words to Pharisees in Matthew that portray him as an instigator: Matthew 23:31-33
“So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
AnotherBart: Today there is almost universal agreement among scholars that Matthew incorporated the Greek gospel of Mark into his own gospel, just like did Luke. It is impossible that canonical Matthew is a translation from Aramaic despite some early traditions to the contrary.
what is it about the First Revolt that is reflected in Mark?
In Mark 13 Jesus is said to predict the destruction of the Temple. And the apocalyptic imagery later in the chapter seems to allude to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Also in Mark 15 at his trial before the Sanhedrin the destruction of the Temple is alluded to in the accusations against Jesus. I’m a methodological naturalist which is a just a highfalutin’ way of saying I think the laws of nature worked pretty much the same way in the past as they do now. I don’t see any evidence for the ability to tell the future especially since the original “prophecy” and its “fulfillment” both supposedly took place a long time ago. In the face of a lack of definitive evidence I think the simplest assumption is that the writer put the prophecy in Jesus’ mouth already knowing the outcome.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)