4 ms·

> The gospels were written not all that long after Jesus died That highly questionable. Even the very conservative secular scholars don't believe Mark was writ

> The gospels were written not all that long after Jesus died That highly questionable. Even the very conservative secular scholars don't believe Mark was written before 70 and John before 90. And many secular scholars believe considerably later dates. > One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate. I'm sorry but that is completely at odds with everything we know from that time. There is rampant falsification, editing and addition in ancient writings. That's why we have lots of letter from Paul, some talking about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote. Thus even conservative scholars don't believe all the letters are written by Paul. We have tons of faked content from back then. The bible (both old and new) is full of it. People back then even the very best ancient historians simply admitted that they made up the speeches of great generals. And there is zero evidence that the gospel were written by series historians or anybody that even attempted that. The idea that we can trust the gospel because writing was effort and nobody would ever put effort into lying is just naive.

prewett 2y ago
Since Mark 13 talks predicts the destruction of the Temple yet has no record of the fulfillment of that prophecy when the Temple was burned and destroyed and Jerusalem razed in 70, which would have been a cataclysmic event for the church, which would have had it's center in Jerusalem. Eusebius notes in his church history that no Christian died, because they left Jerusalem when the Roman army withdrew briefly because of the prophecy. So it's hard to date Mark to after 70, even if you don't believe that Mark was the written account Peter promised in one of his epistles (and presumed to be written by the Mark that acts talks of); Peter's death is usually dated to 64. > [lots of letters from Paul] talk about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote Seems unlikely to me, and I've never heard any reference to them. But do you have any examples? Regarding faked content, making up the speeches of generals, etc: for one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right. One need not quote someone exactly to write something that is accurately reflects what he said. My dad talks about secretaries who CEOs, etc. would just say "answer this letter for me", and they knew exactly how he would respond and could write the letter for him. The apostles were alive for several decades and could correct things. Eusebius cites someone who had learned the faith from someone who was one or two people removed from the apostles, and he went and found the apostle John, and was overjoyed to find that what he had been taught was the same as what John said.
- Detrytus 2y ago
  Or maybe the author did that on purpose: made up a prophecy, to make Jesus look like a prophet. He did not mention fulfillment of that prophecy because all his potential readers already knew about that.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  Internal evidence is always very flimsy. And relying on internal evidence alone for dating is problematic. You have to assume a whole lot about the authors understanding of events and assuming you know and understand what he would or would not have written. If 'Mark' was this early, and such an important document, it seems strange then that externally nobody refers to the text or talks about it or brings it up in arguments. That seems quite strange, if this was a document that people in the 100-150 frame believed was ACTUALLY from this 'Mark' then this would be by far the most important Christian document. It would be use in debates, it would be referenced. But somehow all the Christian we can date to that period show no evidence of knowing 'Mark' or caring about it. Nobody uses it for theological argument, nobody even references it, or quotes it. So basically you are relying on incredibly flimsy internal argument to give it the earliest possible dating you can get away with and just assume that must be it while ignoring more reliable ways of dating and establishing a proper historical record. > Eusebius notes And I'm sure he had excellent record from a time that was 2+ major wars ago. By the time of Eusebius all of early church history is just legendary history. We have absolutely 0 evidence this is true from anything even remotely contemporary. > or one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right Yeah if you believe that we have no basis for argument. The methodology you want to use here is not valid in literally for any other history. Its just a bunch of Apologetics.
  - prewett 2y ago
    Eusebius wrote his church history around 300, and is widely viewed as an excellent source. He quotes extensively, and is not uncritical of his sources, although sometimes he is overly credulous. He is the only source for many of the documents he quotes, including some imperial decrees. (He doesn't talk about the dating of Mark, I'm just correcting your apparent impression that he lived after 1945.)
graemep 2y ago
> Even the very conservative secular scholars don't believe Mark was written before 70 and John before 90. And many secular scholars believe considerably later dates. Do you mean 70 AD to 90 AD or after Jesus death? He was crucified around 30 Ad or later, so we we are looking at 40 to 60 years after that then it would be within living memory. Presumably source material would be even earlier. > That's why we have lots of letter from Paul, some talking about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote. Thus even conservative scholars don't believe all the letters are written by Paul. Agreed, and there is good reason to think that, but some are generally accepted as written by Paul, right? The point of studying it is to try and work out which are which.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > so we we are looking at 40 to 60 years after that then it would be within living memory Again that is the conservative perspective. One that I don't actually think looks likely. We also no that you can have cults develop a whole host of false believes in far less time. And just because it is in theoretical living history, doesn't mean that itself proves that the documents themselves are actually deeply informed by that history. Also, for most historical documents, where we hear about a guy going around doing magic, we don't tend to think 'ah this must be detailed oral history'. And the documents themselves show a huge amount of mystification. Also, conservatives have to defend these dates, because if they don't, all the huge amount of church history built on top of those assumption collapses like a house of cards. There is so much mythology built on these foundations. > Presumably source material would be even earlier. Nobody question if 'source material' existed. But you can't just assume it existed and then assume what's in it. That's not how history works. Yes it would be awesome to have documents from that time period, from within the movement itself, but we don't. The fact is we have virtually no confirmed evidence from the first century. And you can't just take 'Church tradition' as a substitute. Because that is a mythological history built by the church built over generations. We have a lot more in the second century and the waste majority of that, isn't interested in the gospels or even the Pauline epistles. That is troubling for the assumption that by 70AD there was a document that everybody considered the most important document very close from the source. You would think if we had such good evidence of Jesus own direct words, people would talk about that much more. But they don't. > Agreed, and there is good reason to think that, but some are generally accepted as written by Paul, right? The point of studying it is to try and work out which are which. Yes. But just because we have some writing with some original content from Paul, doesn't mean the other names attached to other documents are also correct.

prewett 2y ago

Since Mark 13 talks predicts the destruction of the Temple yet has no record of the fulfillment of that prophecy when the Temple was burned and destroyed and Jerusalem razed in 70, which would have been a cataclysmic event for the church, which would have had it's center in Jerusalem. Eusebius notes in his church history that no Christian died, because they left Jerusalem when the Roman army withdrew briefly because of the prophecy. So it's hard to date Mark to after 70, even if you don't believe that Mark was the written account Peter promised in one of his epistles (and presumed to be written by the Mark that acts talks of); Peter's death is usually dated to 64. > [lots of letters from Paul] talk about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote Seems unlikely to me, and I've never heard any reference to them. But do you have any examples? Regarding faked content, making up the speeches of generals, etc: for one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right. One need not quote someone exactly to write something that is accurately reflects what he said. My dad talks about secretaries who CEOs, etc. would just say "answer this letter for me", and they knew exactly how he would respond and could write the letter for him. The apostles were alive for several decades and could correct things. Eusebius cites someone who had learned the faith from someone who was one or two people removed from the apostles, and he went and found the apostle John, and was overjoyed to find that what he had been taught was the same as what John said.

Detrytus 2y ago
Or maybe the author did that on purpose: made up a prophecy, to make Jesus look like a prophet. He did not mention fulfillment of that prophecy because all his potential readers already knew about that.
panick21_ 2y ago
Internal evidence is always very flimsy. And relying on internal evidence alone for dating is problematic. You have to assume a whole lot about the authors understanding of events and assuming you know and understand what he would or would not have written. If 'Mark' was this early, and such an important document, it seems strange then that externally nobody refers to the text or talks about it or brings it up in arguments. That seems quite strange, if this was a document that people in the 100-150 frame believed was ACTUALLY from this 'Mark' then this would be by far the most important Christian document. It would be use in debates, it would be referenced. But somehow all the Christian we can date to that period show no evidence of knowing 'Mark' or caring about it. Nobody uses it for theological argument, nobody even references it, or quotes it. So basically you are relying on incredibly flimsy internal argument to give it the earliest possible dating you can get away with and just assume that must be it while ignoring more reliable ways of dating and establishing a proper historical record. > Eusebius notes And I'm sure he had excellent record from a time that was 2+ major wars ago. By the time of Eusebius all of early church history is just legendary history. We have absolutely 0 evidence this is true from anything even remotely contemporary. > or one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right Yeah if you believe that we have no basis for argument. The methodology you want to use here is not valid in literally for any other history. Its just a bunch of Apologetics.
- prewett 2y ago
  Eusebius wrote his church history around 300, and is widely viewed as an excellent source. He quotes extensively, and is not uncritical of his sources, although sometimes he is overly credulous. He is the only source for many of the documents he quotes, including some imperial decrees. (He doesn't talk about the dating of Mark, I'm just correcting your apparent impression that he lived after 1945.)

graemep 2y ago

> Even the very conservative secular scholars don't believe Mark was written before 70 and John before 90. And many secular scholars believe considerably later dates. Do you mean 70 AD to 90 AD or after Jesus death? He was crucified around 30 Ad or later, so we we are looking at 40 to 60 years after that then it would be within living memory. Presumably source material would be even earlier. > That's why we have lots of letter from Paul, some talking about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote. Thus even conservative scholars don't believe all the letters are written by Paul. Agreed, and there is good reason to think that, but some are generally accepted as written by Paul, right? The point of studying it is to try and work out which are which.

panick21_ 2y ago
> so we we are looking at 40 to 60 years after that then it would be within living memory Again that is the conservative perspective. One that I don't actually think looks likely. We also no that you can have cults develop a whole host of false believes in far less time. And just because it is in theoretical living history, doesn't mean that itself proves that the documents themselves are actually deeply informed by that history. Also, for most historical documents, where we hear about a guy going around doing magic, we don't tend to think 'ah this must be detailed oral history'. And the documents themselves show a huge amount of mystification. Also, conservatives have to defend these dates, because if they don't, all the huge amount of church history built on top of those assumption collapses like a house of cards. There is so much mythology built on these foundations. > Presumably source material would be even earlier. Nobody question if 'source material' existed. But you can't just assume it existed and then assume what's in it. That's not how history works. Yes it would be awesome to have documents from that time period, from within the movement itself, but we don't. The fact is we have virtually no confirmed evidence from the first century. And you can't just take 'Church tradition' as a substitute. Because that is a mythological history built by the church built over generations. We have a lot more in the second century and the waste majority of that, isn't interested in the gospels or even the Pauline epistles. That is troubling for the assumption that by 70AD there was a document that everybody considered the most important document very close from the source. You would think if we had such good evidence of Jesus own direct words, people would talk about that much more. But they don't. > Agreed, and there is good reason to think that, but some are generally accepted as written by Paul, right? The point of studying it is to try and work out which are which. Yes. But just because we have some writing with some original content from Paul, doesn't mean the other names attached to other documents are also correct.