Board index ‹ Bible

[Noble One]

I wanted to give a separate reply on the authorship arguments to get into more detail.

> The superscription "According to Matthew" is part of the first editions we have of the Gospel (mid-2nd century). It is found on ALL known manuscripts of the book. There is no manuscript without the attribution "According to Matthew" and no evidence contesting Matthean authorship.

Actually, Most of our manuscripts of Mark come from the third century. In the third century, they were all fragmentary meaning that only pieces of the books were preserved and the rest were lost to damage overtime. Titles would usually go on the front of the work. But since the front is lost in most fragments, we do not have that evidence. We only get these later in the 4th century, 100s of years after the attribution.

> The Church Fathers, not just Papias, were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew.

As mentioned in the OP, Papias' testimony is lost and his books are lost. You are going on conjectures and evidence that we do not have. Your "consensus" is an agreement between 3 Christians century later.

> It is undeniable that the titles of all four Gospels were unanimously accepted over a large geographical region in the 2nd century. Because travelers networked early Christian assemblies throughout the Empire, early traditions concerning the authors have credibility.

There is unfortunately no evidence for this.

If you want to use it that way. The earliest quotations are done anonymously meaning that the author was not known unlike how they would do with the OT or Paul's letters. They also heavily imply that the gospels were in oral tradition not written form by the time they were writing.

> The author was a conservative-minded Jew, aware of but not inclined to sectarian views. This fits Matthew's profile.

We unfortunately have no evidence of this claim.

> The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines (Matthew, or Levi), or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew fits the bill. The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from a Levite. The Gospel presents a picture of Jesus carefully preserving the true principles of the Mosaic Law. Again, Matthew fits the bill. The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, together with an already dying form of writing, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very much as we would expect Matthew to be, and that the writing was earlier, rather than later.

You do realize that I can grant every single one of these points and it would still be compatible with a gentile hellenized Christian who never knew Hebrew living in France and attempting to proselytizing Jews into converting to Christianity based on how many prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

The takeaway is this: The author's interest in proselytizing Jews or having a Jewish audience does not in any way, shape or form mean that he was Jewish nor does it mean that he was an eyewitness.

> Matthew's particular parables reflect a consuming interest in the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people, not a subject of conversation after AD 70. The archaic terminology and expressions and interest in ecclesiastical matters give evidence to a date before 70.

Not even sure that there is evidence for either. Even if true, I can use the same arguments for a post-70 AD.

> "Matthew's parables are a reminder to Jewish people as the people of God and serves as an encouragment to the Jewish people after 70 AD"

> The sharp language about various Jews in the Gospel reflect the kinds of discussions and disputes within Judaism prior to 70.

Well this contradicts your other points. But Matthew speaks of the Jewish people rather nicely in his gospel. I think you mean the canaanites whom Jesus calls dogs.

> It seems that Acts was written in the early 60s, which would put Matthew in the 50s.

Based on fallacious arguments from silence.

> Irenaeus says Matthew was written while Peter and Paul were still preaching in Rome (early 60s).

A christian in the third century. Nice!

> Mark preserves Aramaic expressions, a common practice in the 50s.

Well there are no aramaic expressions in Mark, you provided no evidence. There are actually latinisms which would push its dating later. You provided no evidence for your claim that Mark contains aramaic expressions.

> Mark seems to write in an atmosphere where the theological understanding of the ministry and message of Jesus are still in their primitive and elemental forms. Its main concern seems to be Jesus at war with Satan.

No, Mark's main concern is about painting Jesus as the Messiah.

> Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written while Peter was alive. (Peter is thought to have been martyred sometime between 64-68).

Another Christian in the third century.

> Papias wrote that Mark got his information from Peter.

Addressed in the OP.

> Some Marcan material seems to stem from a controversy about Gentiles, clearly a concern in the 50s, and a dead issue after 70.

No there is not. What material are you talking about?

> Themes of Gentile inclusion and Jewish rejection. These are themes that indicate pre-70.

There is nothing like that. If anything, that would be evidence for Post-70 CE.

> Acts deals with issues especially important before 70. Luke was written before Acts.

Acts records events about issues particularly important pre-70 CE, that does not mean that it itself is composed pre-70 CE. If anything, that would mean that it is post- 70 CE since it needed to know the issues before talking about them.

> Luke doesn't mention anything in Paul's writings, nor any acquaintance with them, and yet he travelled with Paul. It gives evidence of a date of writing before his travels with Paul in the late 50s.

There is no evidence that the author was a companion of Paul. Do you know what fallacy you committed here?

> It is possible that Paul quotes from Luke 10.7 in 1 Tim. 5.18, which was written in the mid-50s.

We have no evidence that 1 Timothy is written in the mid 50s. It is one of the disputed letters actually meaning that it is a forgery that came later in Paul's name.

Since you love laundry Lists. Here is evidence that the gospels were written in the mid second century, Let's start with luke.
Luke:

1) Luke is probably writing to Theophilus of Antioch based on the title "Most Excellent" that others called Theophilus of Antioch, who was known in 169 AD only.
2) The gospels of Basilides and Atillepes were written before gLuke meaning that gLuke must have been composed post-160 AD
3) Luke-Acts copies gLord by Marcion (Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle by Joseph Tyson)
4) Acts Seminar gives multiple other reasons like the Use of Josephus. Here is Richard Carrier's evidence.
5) Hermann Detering in the analysis of the Olivet discourse in Luke 21 shows that it is based on the Bar Khokhba Revolt in 136 CE

[jimwalton]

> "The superscription "According to Matthew" is..." Actually, Most of our manuscripts of Mark come from the third century.

Um, I was writing about Matthew, not Mark. You're right that our earliest extant Mark manuscript is from 250, but it's a fragment containing many many verses from Mark, proving its existence. We have a fragment of a few verses written sometime between 100-150, still as yet unpublished.

> Papias' testimony is lost and his books are lost. You are going on conjectures and evidence that we do not have.

It's not conjectures at all, but the written history of Eusebius. who is regarded as an extremely well-learned Christian of his time. Wikipedia says, "Although its accuracy and biases have been questioned, it remains an important source on the early church due to Eusebius's access to material." He is considered a significant church historian. Again, Wikipedia writes, "• He is our only source of information for some of what happened in the first two post-apostolic centuries, making it difficult to judge the reliability of what he wrote. Wikipedia says, “Eusebius had made himself indispensable by his method of authorship; his comprehensive and careful excerpts from original sources saved his successors the painstaking labor of original research."

As far as the evidence, this is the evidence we have, and there is no evidence to the contrary, meaning there is no evidence to support your position.

> There is unfortunately no evidence for this.

I answered this in the previous post. The source is Dr. Craig Keener from his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

> Irenaeus ...A christian in the third century. Nice!

Ahem, Irenaeus wrote in 2nd c., AD 180.

Here's the issue. You're so derogatory about the lines of evidence I have provided, but you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your position. Until you do so, my evidence remains the strongest on the table.

> Well there are no aramaic expressions in Mark

I beg to differ.

- Talitha cum (Mk. 5.41)
- Ephphatha (Mk. 7.34)
- Abba (Mk. 14.36)
- Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (Mk. 15.34)

> "Some Marcan material seems to stem from a controversy about Gentiles, clearly a concern in the 50s, and a dead issue after 70." No there is not. What material are you talking about?

See, you say "No there is not," and then you ask what I'm talking about. It sounds like you've made up your mind before you even know what the evidence is.

Jesus gives specific attention to the Syrophoenician woman in 7.24-30, the Gerasene demoniac in 5.1-20, the feeding of the 4,000 in 8.9-19, all Gentiles, and in Mk. 13.14 makes a prophecy that the End won't come until the Gentile inclusion for salvation. Gentiles are not merely acceptable but are also essential to the plan of salvation. It was an issue in the 30s-50s whether or Gentiles should be included in the people of God without first becoming Jews. After 70, this was not a discussion.

> "Luke: Themes of Gentile inclusion and Jewish rejection." There is nothing like that. If anything, that would be evidence for Post-70 CE.

Luke is dealing especially with the Jews' disappointment with/rejection of Jesus because of the failure of messianic events to play out as the Jews expected. He is rejected at Nazareth (Lk. 4.28-29), widespread rejection by the Jewish religious leaders (explicitly stated in 7.30; 10.13-15; 11.29-32, et al.), the Parable of the Great Banquet (14.15-24), and so many more. Jesus's teaching had many political applications, but he didn't come as a warrior to defeat the Romans. Most Jews rejected his message. He didn't restore the Temple as they expected, and 40 years later it was destroyed by the Romans Jesus "failed" to conquer.

By the same token, he seems to emphasize Gentile inclusion.

- Lk. 2.32: A light to the Gentiles
- Lk. 4.24-27: Examples of Jews rejected in favor of Gentiles
- Lk. 7.9: The faith of the Roman centurion greater than any found in Israel
- Lk. 14.15-24: The Parable of the Great Banquet
- Lk. 17.17-19

...and so many more.

> We have no evidence that 1 Timothy is written in the mid 50s.

Timothy was pastoring in Ephesus, and Paul was writing to him in the 50s. What we don't have is evidence that he didn't write it in the 50s. All there is is guesswork based on shat they deem to be internal evidence.

> It is one of the disputed letters actually meaning that it is a forgery that came later in Paul's name.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Did you just say that since it's disputed it's a proven forgery? "Dispute" means there are scholars of many opinions.

> Luke

Finally, you present some evidence. Let's examine it.

> Luke is probably writing to Theophilus of Antioch based on the title "Most Excellent" that others called Theophilus of Antioch, who was known in 169 AD only.

There may have been any number of men named Theophilus. It was common from the 3rd c. BC on. You just make a statement (It was the guy from 169), but give no evidence. κράτιστε (Most excellent; excellency as a title) may indicate a public office (Acts 23.26; 26.25), but not necessarily since it doesn't appear in Acts 1.1 (which could indicate it wasn't an official title but merely a term of courteous respect, and your theory is damaged). It could have been the name of the man who sponsored the Gospel. In other words, your speculation has no evidence to it.

The theory of "Theophilus of Antioch based on the title 'Most Excellent' that others called Theophilus of Antioch, who was known in 169 AD only" comes from the Pseudo-Clementine *Recognitions,* a work from AD 350. You have chided me many times for using a reference centuries to the future, and now you have done it. The Ps-Clem are not a reliable source of information for the identity of Theophilus.

> The gospels of Basilides and Atillepes were written before gLuke meaning that gLuke must have been composed post-160 AD

> Basilides

Basilides was a commentator on the Gospels, possibly a redactor of them, and not a reliable one at that, since he was a Gnostic and considered heretical. There is no evidence that it was written before Luke.

I have no idea who Atillepes is. But I still don't see any evidence to support your assertion.

> Marcion

Marcion only accepted a Reader's Digest version of Luke, writing in about 130. You're going to have to give me evidence of your claim that Luke drew from him rather than vice versa.

> Acts Seminar

Sorry. I have no respect for the scholarship of the Acts Seminar, and especially not for Richard Carrier. My every exposure to Carrier is that he doesn't have a clue.

> Bar Khokba Revolt

I need the evidence. I'm not going to read 3 books to respond to your list.

[Me 6]

What is your primary source for this? Everything I see has Mark towards 65-80 leaning closer to 80, with Matthew and Luke dependant on Mark meaning later dates. If you have some academic papers on this that dispute the common consensus I'd be interested in reading them.

[jimwalton]

My sources are multiple. I've been studying the subject for years and have notes from all kinds of sources. For instance, if we just look at Mark for now (so the discussion stays somewhat focused):

There is no external evidence to date Mark, so whatever any scholar tells you, it's a speculation based on what he or she interprets that he sees in internal inferences. That's why there is so much disagreement.

The arguments to put Mark before AD 60:

- Mark preserved Aramaic expressions where Matthew & Luke do not (Boanerges [3.17]; Talitha Koum [5.41]; Ephphatha [7.34]; Abba [14.36], Eloi eloi lama sabachthani [15.34]). Aramaic expressions were replaced by Greek phrases as the church spread to Gentile locations. Since Mark was written in Greek, the inclusion of Aramaic phrases could indicate that the Gospel was written early.
- Primitive and elemental forms. Jesus at war with Satan: elemental theology. Repent and believe. The authority of Jesus. Basic stuff. Nothing about ecclesiology, the Holy Spirit, trinitarian doctrine, etc. A very early worldview.
- Mark seems to care about the Jewish/Gentile controversy, an issue in the 50s, a nonissue in the 70s and later. (Syrophoenician woman, Gadarene demoniac, feeding of the Gentile 4000, Mk. 13.14, etc.)
- Some "hard" evidence: Clement, Papias. (As scant as it is, there is absolutely nothing to the contrary.)

The arguments that put Mark between 60-70:

- According ccording to the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel and in Irenaeus, Mark wrote subsequent to the death of Peter, believed to have been in 64. That puts Mark in the late 60s.
- Mark seems to have been writing to a persecuted community. He emphasizes suffering, a reasonable theme during the great persecution of Nero in AD 64 (Mk. 4.17; 8.34-38; 9.49; 10.29ff.; 13.9-13). Mark even uses a phrase very similar to one used by Tacitus about Nero's persecution of Christians.

Evidence that Mark was written around 70 or a little later:

- in the eschatological discourse of Mark 13, Jesus mentions many details about the destruction of Jerusalem. For those who don't believe in prophecy, this for them is evidence of a post-70 writing.

We have fewer fragments and mentions of (quotations from) Mark's Gospel than any of the other Gospels. That makes it harder to place the date of writing from anything other than scholarly speculation.

I'm always interested in bolstering my research. What do you have that I can add to my notes?

[Me 6]

>There is no external evidence to date Mark

The Chester Beatty Papyri fragment dates to about 250 CE

> The arguments to put Mark before AD 60

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

According to (admittedly unreliable church sources) Paul died between 64-68 CE

1. Mark had no geographical knowledge of Palestine [1]
2. He mentions messianic pretenders that weren't around until right before the destruction of the temple [2]
3. Mark was living in an interval time between the destruction of the temple and Jesus's proclaimed return [3][4][5][6]

[1] Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

[2] Menahem, Simon

[3]J.D. Crossan writes in The Historical Jesus that Jesus "said, according to Mark 13:24, that there would be a clear but not prolonged interval between the Temple's destruction and his own return. Mark's community was living in that interval, having rejected those false but Christian prophets who, in 13:5-8 and 21-23, had proclaimed Jesus' return at...the destruction of the Temple in the First Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 C.E. Mark, in other words, clearly and deliberately separates all that led up to the parousia of Jesus in 13:24-37. And all is placed on the prophetic lips of Jesus himself. That, says Mark, was what he actually said."

[4]Paul J. Achtemeier writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 4, p. 545): "the assurance that one cannot calculate by historic events when the risen Christ would return in glory, found again and again in chap. 13, may have been designed to head off discouragement when the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was not immediately followed by that return."

[5]Eisenman comments (op. cit., p. 56): "There are, in fact, several veiled references to events of this kind in the Gospel of Mark, for instance, in the introduction to the Little Apocalypse, where Jesus is made to predict the utter destruction of the Temple (13:1-2) and in the Apocalypse itself, when the Pauline Mission is anticipated (13:9-10) - but, even more importantly, in the depiction of the rending of the Temple veil at his death (Mark 15:38 and pars.). This veil was more than likely damaged in the final Roman assault on the Temple or in the various altercations and the turmoil preceding this. Josephus specifically refers to it, along with its replacement materials, as having been delivered over to the Romans after the assault on the Temple. It was doubtless on display in Rome, damaged or otherwise, along with the rest of the booty Josephus describes as having been paraded in Titus' Triumph."

[6]Many scholars see another historical allusion in Mk 5:8-13 to a 'Legion' which had a pig as its emblem and which Josephus tells us remained in Jerusalem in the war's aftermath (Wars of the Jews 7.1.3). William Harwood writes in Mythology's Last Gods: "Since the fall of the city a few months earlier [in 70 C.E.], Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion [X Fretensis], whose emblem was a pig. Mark's reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark's fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates."

[jimwalton]

> The Chester Beatty Papyri fragment dates to about 250 CE

We cannot responsibly date a book by its earliest extant fragment. If I'm correct about this, Homer wrote in about 750 BC, and the earliest fragment we have of his writing is the 3rd c. BC. The first printed edition we have is from AD 1500. The earliest fragment is not how we date the composition.

> Irenaeus

Yep. This is one of several evidences for Mark having been written in the 60s. The other primary "evidence" of Mark having been written in the 60s (though it's speculative) is Mark's emphasis on suffering that seems to fit, in the minds of some, with the Neronic persecutions of AD 64-65.

> Mark had no geographical knowledge of Palestine [1]

This has to do with authorship but not with date of writing.

> [1] Randall Helms

The whole problem with this theory is that the location of Bethphage is unknown. We know where Bethany was, but not Bethphage. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the date of writing.

> He mentions messianic pretenders that weren't around until right before the destruction of the temple

Messianic pretenders were common in Palestine all through the 1st century. It was an era of Messianic fervor (because of the dominance of Rome). Josephus mentions 3 right before the destruction of the Temple, as you have said, but many were prevalent through the whole era. Those 3 didn't just arise out of a vapor. From the end of the Maccabean war to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Messiahs were common. Yohanan ben Zakkai, in his book *First-century Judaism in Crisis,* mentions that it was an era of messianic fervor. The Jewish Apocrypha & Psedepigrapha, particularly the books of 2 Esdras, 1 Enoch, the Syballine Oracles, Psalms of Solomon, 2 Baruch, and 1 Maccabees all had messianic prophecies feeding the excitement. The Dead Sea Scrolls had numerous references to a coming Messiah.

> Mark was living in an interval time between the destruction of the temple and Jesus's proclaimed return [3][4][5][6]

This is speculative and holds true only if one rejects the possibility of actual prophecy. It's not evidence, but depends on one's theology.

> [3] Crossan

Jesus is obviously speaking with regard to two phases of fulfillment. While the chapter speaks of the Roman destruction, it also speaks of the eschaton (as is evident in v. 25). Verses 24-33 move beyond the destruction of Jerusalem to some unspecified time in the future when Christ returns at the end of time.

> [4] Achtemeier

This is quite speculative and inconclusive as a dating mechanism.

> [5] Eisenman

This is totally speculative and weak.

> [6] Legion

I've heard this interpretation, and it's pretty wild. It's out there as far as exegesis. It fits better (historically, thematically, theologically) to view it as historical archetype, filled with archetypes of barriers and obstacles to Jesus's purpose in the world and God's kingdom. It fits Mark's emphasis of the epic battle between dark and light, God and Satan. It's a recognition story: Jesus's power over Satanic beings and satanic forces, and God's compassion and mercy. It compares nicely with Isaiah 65.1-7 (and Isaianic references were common in Mark) in which YHWH reaches out to a people who had not sought him and who sit in tombs, eat pork, and revile him upon the hills. It could also allude to God's defeat of Pharaoh and the Egyptian army at the Red Sea (Ex. 14-15), another common theme of Mark's. It puts Jesus in a Moses-like role as an incomparable conduit of divine power. To me this fits the passage much better than the reference to the Roman invasion.

[Me 6]

I would like to point out that this has been an interesting conversation and I will wrap up a few points.

You stated there was no external evidence to date Mark. That is factually incorrect, and while you may have poorly worded your statement, that doesn't change that fragments of Mark are dated to around 250 CE. This is an important item to note because when trying to date a document, it is highly speculative. As evidenced by the addition to the ending of Mark, not contained in the earliest manuscripts, there was tampering done to the documents over time. Therefore we have a time period of 65-250 CE where the exact contents of the document are unknown, so historians are completely speculative when it comes to dating documents from this time period and rely on contemporaneous accounts. As there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, his disciples, or any of the events taking place in Mark, nor the other gospels, points of reference are drawn from the text as a best estimate.

> This has to do with authorship but not with date of writing.

Once again, you make a significant error because location of where documents are written can absolutely help date them. If Mark had accompanied Peter and documented as he traveled with him, we would expect Mark to be familiar with the territory as Peter would be relaying correct information. Perhaps Peter was dead and Mark was, as Papias records "Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory," which definitely indicates a later dating.

> Messianic pretenders were common in Palestine all through the 1st century. It was an era of Messianic fervor (because of the dominance of Rome). Josephus mentions 3 right before the destruction of the Temple, as you have said, but many were prevalent through the whole era. Those 3 didn't just arise out of a vapor. From the end of the Maccabean war to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Messiahs were common. Yohanan ben Zakkai, in his book First-century Judaism in Crisis, mentions that it was an era of messianic fervor. The Jewish Apocrypha & Psedepigrapha, particularly the books of 2 Esdras, 1 Enoch, the Syballine Oracles, Psalms of Solomon, 2 Baruch, and 1 Maccabees all had messianic prophecies feeding the excitement. The Dead Sea Scrolls had numerous references to a coming Messiah.

This is an attempt to deflect or red herring because I didn't just mention any messiah claimants, but specific ones, and tied together with the other indicators that you ignored and glossed over is the reason that historians date Mark much later than theologians.
my opponent finds legitimate textual clues and scholarly opinion speculative and weak, yet provided no sources of his own to be able to validate or look at. The Gospel of mark fails the core principles for determining reliability due to the following:

-Any source can be forged or corrupted, Mark has been as evidenced by additions and textual variants

-The closer a source is to the event the more one can trust it. Mark is at best 65 CE, or 30-35 years after the alleged event which is a significant gap in time

-Eyewitness account is more reliable than second hand testimony, or hearsay at further remove. We don't know who actually wrote Mark, and rely on hearsay at further remove to place authorship, so it fails that one

-The number of independent sources increases the credibility. Mark is copied by other "eyewitness" accounts but not independently verified, earlier writings such as Paul make no mention of him or any events that occurred to corroborate, neither do any contemporaneous historians.

-It is a biased source

The likelihood of an author, who's earliest writings have only physical evidence dating after significant events can't be trusted to have successfully predicted any events. The more likely scenario is that these events were recorded after the events. We can see evidence of falsified prophecies throughout the world, and even failed predictions within mark such as Mark 13:30. Theologians rely on confirmation bias to make it fit and the posts above are evidence of it, which is why the majority opinion sides with scholars even christian sources which push the limits.

Lastly, the "prediction" which is the fundamental point that theologians want to hang on to earlier dating cling to, was predicted back in Micah 3:12. As a final point, setting aside pretty much every scholarly and common sense opinion and assuming that this was a prophecy and was predicted, it is the equivalent of predicting North Korea will be destroyed soon. Jerusalem was in a civil war against rome, the height of which was around the earliest datings of Mark. The Temple was the center of Jewish life and Rome had a very good track record of scorched earth policies with insurrectionists. The area was absolutely flush with Messianic claimants that could bring the wrath of Rome on Jerusalem and did.

[jimwalton]

> You stated there was no external evidence to date Mark. That is factually incorrect,...

You're making good points, but the fact that we have quotes (Hermas, Papias, Clement, Tertullian, Origen), references (Tatian, Irenaeus, Muratorian Fragment), and a fragment with abundant references (P45) proves to us that the dating of Mark, by external evidence, is far earlier than 250. I agree with you that 250 is the earliest manuscript, and I also agree with you that we can't verify the entire authentic content of the Gospel before that time. But these pieces and references verify its existence. Also, the fact that the pieces and references are from different portions of Mark verify a more complete Gospel, and we can potentially infer the whole from the parts we have.

In addition, many ancient texts we have are centuries after the fact. The only biographies of Alexander the Great we have are centuries after his life, but no one seems to think Alexander didn't exist or that he really existed at the date of the earliest manuscript. The date of the earliest manuscript is not how we date historical data.

> Once again, you make a significant error because location of where documents are written can absolutely help date them. If Mark had accompanied Peter and documented as he traveled with him, we would expect Mark to be familiar with the territory as Peter would be relaying correct information.

Mark didn't travel with Peter. He travelled with Paul, but was in Rome when Peter was in Rome (late 50s). There is no claim by anyone that Mark travelled around Palestine with Peter. So what Papias said doesn't indicate a later dating.

> This is an attempt to deflect or red herring because I didn't just mention any messiah claimants

Here is what you said that I was refuting: "He mentions messianic pretenders that weren't around until right before the destruction of the temple [2]". By contrast, I was showing that there were many messianic claimants during the 1st century, so I disagree with your source placing the writing in the late 60s as the earliest possible date based on the evidence of the messianic claimants as being datable to that decade.

> Any source can be forged or corrupted, Mark has been as evidenced by additions and textual variants

It's true that any source can be forged or corrupted. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim to prove that it has been forged, which you have not succeeded in doing.

As far as additions, the addition of chapter 16.9-20 is well known and easily discernible. Regarding variants, since we have so few manuscripts and fragments of Mark, the variants are comparatively few and therefore do not detract from its textual reliability.

> The closer a source is to the event the more one can trust it. Mark is at best 65 CE, or 30-35 years after the alleged event which is a significant gap in time

I agree that the closer the better, but we are actually debating the date of writing. To conclude at the beginning of the argument that the date is "at best 65 CE" is a bit brash. I'm giving evidence for an earlier date: (1) preservation of Aramaic expressions, characteristic of an early date, (2) primitive and elemental theological elements, characteristic of an early date, (3) Jewish-Gentile controversy, suggesting an early date, and (4) Clement of Alexandria, who says Peter was still alive.

> Eyewitness account is more reliable than second hand testimony, or hearsay at further remove. We don't know who actually wrote Mark, and rely on hearsay at further remove to place authorship, so it fails that one

I think there's a good case to be made for Markan authorship, but that's another discussion. And since Mark lived during the ministry of Jesus, lived in Jerusalem, and whose family was active in Christian circles, there are reasonable speculations that Mark could have been far greater an eyewitness than is concluded by some. So it doesn't fail; instead, it's under discussion. It is far from failure just as it is far from proof.

> The number of independent sources increases the credibility. Mark is copied by other "eyewitness" accounts but not independently verified, earlier writings such as Paul make no mention of him or any events that occurred to corroborate, neither do any contemporaneous historians.

1\. That 2 other Gospels writers copy from Mark gives credence to their perception of its accuracy.

2\. What would you consider to be "independent verification"?

3\. "Earlier writings of Paul": How can earlier writings make mention of Mark's Gospel that came later? I'm missing your point. Luke makes mention of Mark (Acts 12.12, 25; 15.39). Paul certainly makes mention of the person Mark (Col. 4.10; 2 Tim. 4.11; Philemon 1.24). I'm missing your point.

4\. biased source

Of course he's biased. He has an agenda: He's interested in his subject. Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you're wrong. If it were, then we can't believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don't come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus's claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Gerd Ludemann has an agenda. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but rather because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased.

> The likelihood of an author, who's earliest writings have only physical evidence dating after significant events can't be trusted to have successfully predicted any events. The more likely scenario is that these events were recorded after the events.

I understand this perspective. Since I am of the position that Mark was written in the late 50s, I don't share you position, but I understand it. And since I believe that Jesus is God, the credibility of him being able to predict the future is easily believable as well. I know you don't see it that way. We each make our decisions based on the choices we make about evidence.

> Lastly, the "prediction" which is the fundamental point that theologians want to hang on to earlier dating cling to

My arguments didn't pertain to the prediction element, just for the record.

> Jerusalem was in a civil war against rome

Not in the days of Jesus when the prophecy was most likely given.

> the height of which was around the earliest datings of Mark.

I have given evidence that Mark was written before the height of the insurrection.

[Noble One]

> Um, I was writing about Matthew, not Mark. You're right that our earliest extant Mark manuscript is from 250, but it's a fragment containing many many verses from Mark, proving its existence. We have a fragment of a few verses written sometime between 100-150, still as yet unpublished.

Right, and as I told you, you can not use the superscriptions or titles because the earliest manuscripts of them are late. Those unpublished fragments are simply evidence that we do not have and their dating has changed quiet a bit. Gray Habermas wanted to date them to the 50-60's. You are going on evidence that we do not have.

> Wikipedia says,

Strong sources.

> "Although its accuracy and biases have been questioned, it remains an important source on the early church due to Eusebius's access to material." He is considered a significant church historian. Again, Wikipedia writes, "

I am not saying Eusebius is not reliable. I am saying that your argument is conjecture. You do not have second century evidence or second century data. The book written by Papias in the second century is lost and there is no manuscripts of it. Eusebius quotes it in the fourth century. That's when your data is .. fourth century.

> and there is no evidence to the contrary, meaning there is no evidence to support your position.

Extant evidence to the contrary* again, the argument from silence.

> The source is Dr. Craig Keener from his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

Bring the argument here.

> Irenaeus wrote in 2nd c., AD 180.

I meant to say that we do not get a consensus until the third century.

> You're so derogatory about the lines of evidence I have provided, but you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your position.

I would not call anything you are bringing evidence at all. It is all centuries late by others who were not there at least for authorship.

> Talitha cum (Mk. 5.41) Ephphatha (Mk. 7.34) Abba (Mk. 14.36) Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (Mk. 15.34)

facepalm We translated those from the greek meanings to the aramaic meaning.

> It sounds like you've made up your mind before you even know what the evidence is.

That's because there is not and I am telling you that all cases that I have looked into have been debunked.

> Jesus gives specific attention to the Syrophoenician woman in 7.24-30, the Gerasene demoniac in 5.1-20, the feeding of the 4,000 in 8.9-19, all Gentiles, and in Mk. 13.14 makes a prophecy that the End won't come until the Gentile inclusion for salvation. Gentiles are not merely acceptable but are also essential to the plan of salvation. It was an issue in the 30s-50s whether or Gentiles should be included in the people of God without first becoming Jews.

None of that useful. That only shows that Jesus' ministry was before 70 AD not that the composition was before 70 CE. I thought you were talking about something else here.

> Luke is dealing especially with the Jews' disappointment with/rejection of Jesus because of the failure of messianic events to play out as the Jews expected. He is rejected at Nazareth (Lk. 4.28-29), widespread rejection by the Jewish religious leaders (explicitly stated in 7.30; 10.13-15; 11.29-32, et al.), the Parable of the Great Banquet (14.15-24), and so many more. Jesus's teaching had many political applications, but he didn't come as a warrior to defeat the Romans. Most Jews rejected his message. He didn't restore the Temple as they expected, and 40 years later it was destroyed by the Romans Jesus "failed" to conquer.

> By the same token, he seems to emphasize Gentile inclusion.

> Lk. 2.32: A light to the Gentiles Lk. 4.24-27: Examples of Jews rejected in favor of Gentiles Lk. 7.9: The faith of the Roman centurion greater than any found in Israel Lk. 14.15-24: The Parable of the Great Banquet Lk. 17.17-19 ...and so many more.

Right, Luke is recording about events that happened before 70 CE. That does not mean that he himself is writings about events before 70 CE. I had a different argument on my mind. Arrian and Plutarch in the first century talk extensively about events in the 4th century BCE. That does not mean that they themselves were writing in the 4th century BCE.

> Timothy was pastoring in Ephesus, and Paul was writing to him in the 50s.

Scholarly consensus is that Paul did not write 1 Timothy though.

> Did you just say that since it's disputed it's a proven forgery? "Dispute" means there are scholars of many opinions.

No. Disputed letter in academia means that the letter is different from the 7 undisputed letters which are written by paul for sure.

> Finally, you present some evidence. Let's examine it.

Re-read what my point was. My point was that throwing laundry lists is frivolous. I am not advocating either position. We do not know who wrote the gospels nor when, but I lean that they were written in the second to third quarters of the second century.

> You just make a statement (It was the guy from 169), but give no evidence
That's literally my point. You tossed around claims like, "Mark seems to write in an atmosphere where the theological understanding of the ministry and message of Jesus are still in their primitive and elemental forms. Its main concern seems to be Jesus at war with Satan" with no evidence. Again you did not address this point.

> Basilides was a commentator on the Gospels, possibly a redactor of them, and not a reliable one at that, since he was a Gnostic and considered heretical.

Not sure what being gnostic has to do with. I am saying that the gospels used Basilides. Whether Basilides was gnostic or proto-orthodox is irrelevant. You did not address this point but went on a red herring about Basilides' identity.

> Marcion only accepted a Reader's Digest version of Luke, writing in about 130. You're going to have to give me evidence of your claim that Luke drew from him rather than vice versa.

I gave you citations. So you did not address this point.

> I have no respect for the scholarship of the Acts Seminar,

that's not addressing the point. This is just ad hominem

> I'm not going to read 3 books to respond to your laundry list.

So you see how it works now?

[jimwalton]

> you can not use the superscriptions or titles because the earliest manuscripts of them are late.

In Mark's case you're right that we have a dearth of manuscripts and fragments. I agree with Habermas, however, that I put Mark early.

> Extant evidence to the contrary* again, the argument from silence.

MY evidence is here. It's the evidence to the contrary that is silent.

> I would not call anything you are bringing evidence at all. It is all centuries late by others who were not there at least for authorship.

I still have yet to see any evidence coming from you.

>We translated those from the greek meanings to the aramaic meaning

This is backwards. Mark wrote the Aramaic. You have no evidence for what you are claiming.

> Luke is recording about events that happened before 70 CE. That does not mean that he himself is writings about events before 70 CE.

Your "debunking" is only "No he didn't." Where your EVIDENCE?

> Scholarly consensus is that Paul did not write 1 Timothy though.

I know that the authorship of 1 Timothy is hotly debated, and that most scholars now say it's not Pauline. There's quite a bit of evidence on both sides, and the conclusion is mixed. My research, however, forces me to conclude it's probably Pauline. Short of future discoveries, the matter may never be settled.

> I gave you citations. So you did not address this point.

Of course you gave me citations. I prefer evidence.