Why did the author of Mark...

[blü 2]

What he is saying is that its a historical error in Mark. He thinks the author associated the death of Jesus to the destruction of the temple, where as it actually happened in the year 70. So he is making the case that this is a big error.

I see nothing in Mark that associates the tearing of the veil to the destruction of the Temple.

It would involve God, not the Romans, destroying the Temple, which the Jewish God of Jesus, Mark and the NT (even John) would be extremely unlikely to do, for a start.

What is the argument that it does?

 

[1213]

...place the destruction of the temple during the time of Pilate?

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
...

That is not the same as destruction of the temple. It happened later.

 

[Kenny]

No, just recognize nth-hand hearsay for what it is.

Through the biased lenses that you offer.

 

[Kenny]

So we are back to testimonials, as I pointed out there is a well documented risk in relying on testimonials.
Yes I can believe them, not believe them for whatever reason I fancy or whim.

And yet they use testimonials in court to establish truth all the time. But I am fine with your decision!

I've answered your question.

Not really unless establishing your opinion was your answer. But I've already acknowledged your opinion

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Sorry for the confusion. Mark has the temple destroyed at the time of Christ's death.

You might be right about that one. It's one interpretation of many I suppose.

The verse that you quoted from Mark's account does not claim that the Temple was destroyed though - only that the veil - that which separates Man from God - was rent in twain.

And as I said before the New Testament itself claims that the Temple was still in operation years after the death of Christ.

So I guess I just don't understand how you got to that conclusion based on that one verse that doesn't make the claim that the Temple was destroyed.

 

[firedragon]

I see nothing in Mark that associates the tearing of the veil to the destruction of the Temple.

It would involve God, not the Romans, destroying the Temple, which the Jewish God of Jesus, Mark and the NT (even John) would be extremely unlikely to do, for a start.

What is the argument that it does?

I was merely reiterating what he said. Not that I agreed.

After centuries of scholarship dating Mark to predate the 70 AD episode of the Romans, I believe that one could conclude that it was before the destruction of the temple. The references to the destruction of the temple in Mark are "to be" instances. Future events. Do you understand? This book cannot be speaking of the temple destruction in the present while also saying it is a future event. Its like saying "its a square triangle".

 

[blü 2]

I was merely reiterating what he said. Not that I agreed.

After centuries of scholarship dating Mark to predate the 70 AD episode of the Romans, I believe that one could conclude that it was before the destruction of the temple. The references to the destruction of the temple in Mark are "to be" instances. Future events. Do you understand? This book cannot be speaking of the temple destruction in the present while also saying it is a future event. Its like saying "its a square triangle".

The scholarship I follow dates Mark to 75 CE plus., since it uses Josephus' trial scene of Jesus son of Ananias aka Jesus of Jerusalem (Wars,VI.5.3) as its model for Jesus' trial scene, and this wasn't available before then.

It also contains a 'prophecy' of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2), so it was certainly written after 70 CE.

 

[firedragon]

The scholarship I follow dates Mark to 75 CE plus., since it uses Josephus' trial scene of Jesus son of Ananias aka Jesus of Jerusalem (Wars,VI.5.3) as its model for Jesus' trial scene, and this wasn't available before then.

It also contains a 'prophecy' of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2), so it was certainly written after 70 CE.

So what you are saying is that the writer of Mark copied or resurrected the Josephus narration about another Jesus character?

Anyway, if you wish to place Mark as should have happened after 70 CE its your prerogative.

 

[blü 2]

[

So what you are saying is that the writer of Mark copied or resurrected the Josephus narration about another Jesus character?

Anyway, if you wish to place Mark as should have happened after 70 CE its your prerogative.

Used it as a template and guide for his own scene, yes. Given an historical Jesus, if there was a real trial of Jesus it was some 45 years earlier. outside the author's knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

[
Used it as a template and guide for his own scene, yes. Given an historical Jesus, if there was a real trial of Jesus it was some 45 years earlier. outside the author's knowledge.

Okay. So you could not place Mark to have been written before the destruction of the temple prior to 70 because destruction happened in 70 because you dont want it to look like a prophecy or a prediction.

Yet, you are going with Josephus account of Jesus the son of Ananias who was predicting the destruction of Yerusalem. Also this guys episode is absolutely different and has no resemblance to Marks episode. Nothing whatsoever. Except that his name was Jesus. Jesus was such a common name, that even Josephus mentions so many of them. Thus, picking this guy to date Mark I dont actually agree with. At least lets say that Jesus the son of Ananias was crucified or something other than just being tortured while he just kept his mouth shut etc etc I doubt was an inspiration to Mark. Anyway, if you are looking at this purely, it could have been vice versa. Maybe Josephus got this from Mark. Or even existing remnants of some other story. After all, the name Jesus is the same.

Also you should consider why Mark is placed in the 60's. What have you explored?

Anyway I would like to also read up on the scholarship you follow. Which scholar are you referring to? Please advice.

 

[paarsurrey]

...place the destruction of the temple during the time of Pilate?

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.


Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea (26–36 CE)


The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE was the decisive event of the First Jewish–Roman War, in which the Roman army captured the city of Jerusalem and destroyed both the city and its Temple. wiki


Why the discrepancy?

First inform us the name of the person who authored "Mark", please? Let us have the antecedents of that person, please. Right friend, please?

I am sure, as I figure, the author of Mark was not an eyewitness of the event of Cross so, how did he know that Jesus had breathed his last, please?
A loud cry indicates , I understand, that Jesus was in agony but was alive, please? Right?
Or
The author of Mark just made the above story of Jesus breathing his last, as he made the story that " 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.", without telling the names of the witnesses who testified that the curtain of the Jewish temple/synagogue had torn, please. Right?
Was it a usual phenomenon that whenever a person died anywhere in the world , it caused the curtain to tear up, please? Right?
If that could happen then in the past, does it happen even now, please?

Regards

 

[lukethethird]

First inform us the name of the person who authored "Mark", please? Let us have the antecedents of that person, please. Right friend, please?

I am sure, as I figure, the author of Mark was not an eyewitness of the event of Cross so, how did he know that Jesus had breathed his last, please?
A loud cry indicates , I understand, that Jesus was in agony but was alive, please? Right?
Or
The author of Mark just made the above story of Jesus breathing his last, as he made the story that " 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.", without telling the names of the witnesses who testified that the curtain of the Jewish temple/synagogue had torn, please. Right?
Was it a usual phenomenon that whenever a person died anywhere in the world , it caused the curtain to tear up, please? Right?
If that could happen then in the past, does it happen even now, please?

Regards

It's a story, mythological theology. The author is unknown.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's a story, mythological theology. The author is unknown.

I agree with one.
Regards

 

[blü 2]

Okay. So you could not place Mark to have been written before the destruction of the temple prior to 70 because destruction happened in 70 because you dont want it to look like a prophecy or a prediction.

Historical method puts the question you ask very simply: If you have an ancient writing ─ and it contains a purported prophecy ─ and the purported prophecy is historically correct ─ then which is more likely? ─ that this is the only authentic example of supernatural foreknowledge in the world's literature? ─ or that it was written after the event? The answer is a no-brainer.

Yet, you are going with Josephus account of Jesus the son of Ananias who was predicting the destruction of Yerusalem. Also this guys episode is absolutely different and has no resemblance to Marks episode.

The issue with Josephus' account of Jesus son of Ananias is NOT whether the reported prediction is accurate, which is irrelevant BUT whether the author of Mark used it as his model for the trial scene of his own Jesus.

Anyway I would like to also read up on the scholarship you follow. Which scholar are you referring to? Please advice.

So far as I'm aware, the point was first made by theologian Theodore 'Ted' Weeden jr. in the Jesus Seminars, listing 24 points of parallels in the two accounts. A summary is >here<.

 

[firedragon]

Historical method puts the question you ask very simply: If you have an ancient writing ─ and it contains a purported prophecy ─ and the purported prophecy is historically correct ─ then which is more likely? ─ that this is the only authentic example of supernatural foreknowledge in the world's literature? ─ or that it was written after the event? The answer is a no-brainer.
The issue with Josephus' account of Jesus son of Ananias is NOT whether the reported prediction is accurate, which is irrelevant BUT whether the author of Mark used it as his model for the trial scene of his own Jesus.
So far as I'm aware, the point was first made by theologian Theodore 'Ted' Weeden jr. in the Jesus Seminars, listing 24 points of parallels in the two accounts. A summary is >here<.

See. You miss the point. Many mythicists will have their banking practice on parallels for many many things. But what you have done is that in following scholarship that are mythicist at heart, you have ignored the historical approach abruptly.

The historical approach does not take the mythicists approach of taking two or three parallels and then saying one copied from another. This is predominantly a false dilemma. Because there is always a second or/and a third option.

Maybe Josephus inherited from the already existing Jesus story and turned it around either intentionally or unintentionally.

Also you have missed to note that Josephus quotes James the brother of Jesus as the fellow who's brother Jesus was called the Messiah. Scholars dont negate this part as a forgery. So in advance you are saying that Josephus has contradicting accounts of the same person in two different books being the same man. If you are making him out to be so inaccurate and contradicting, why trust him at all? Why have you put your trust on Josephus just to date Mark?

Josephus wrote wars in the year 78 if I am not mistaken. This is 45 to 50 years after Jesus. One huge issue you should be considering is, did Josephus also get it absolutely wrong? Why does he contradict himself with two different accounts of this same character Jesus, once as brother of James, the Messiah, and then as a madman who was prophesying the war in the year 66, not 33? A man who was tortured but he kept his mouth shut, then the Romans released him "because he was a mad man" and then he dies because some stone hit his head. But then, Josephus accounts for I think more than 10 messiah characters and all of them killed by the romans for sedition. But this man Jesus he calls the messiah as called by people is sent Scott free, once he is brother of James, the messiah, another time he is son of ananias, once he is a handy man, and all other messiahs are killed, only this messiah is let loose "just because he was a mere prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem". Do you think people will call him the messiah for that only? Nope. This is absurd.

Read Josephus. All the people he quotes as Messiahs etc were rebels, revolutionaries, criminals who Rome killed for sedition.

This is the problem with hell bent mythicists. They miss the historical method, though they boast it.

Anyway, it could be true that Mark was written later. If you are looking at possibilities, there could be many many possibilities.

When do you think Josephus places James, the brother of Jesus? Have you thought about it?

 

[blü 2]

See. You miss the point. Many mythicists will have their banking practice on parallels for many many things. But what you have done is that in following scholarship that are mythicist at heart, you have ignored the historical approach abruptly.

On the exact contrary, I've stuck with the practice of historians, and you've rushed to embrace supernatural explanations, which, I admit, are handy because they can be anything you want.

The historical approach does not take the mythicists approach of taking two or three parallels and then saying one copied from another.

What has that to do with mythicists? It's straightforward that none of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus, and that many of the gospel tales are fictional (metaphorical, allegorical, if you prefer, but not reports about reality). It's further the case that Mark can be substantially mapped onto a miscellany of parts of the Tanakh, and that Mark is the template for the authors of Matthew and of Luke, and at a greater distance John too. It's also straightforward that the author of Matthew invented the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to "fulfill" Micah 5:2; and he likewise invented the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.None of that proves there was no historical Jesus. None of that proves there was. There's no clincher either way.

Maybe Josephus inherited from the already existing Jesus story and turned it around either intentionally or unintentionally.

He survives as an historian of reasonable reputation. If the original tale had been about Jesus son of Joseph he would have said so.

Why have you put your trust on Josephus just to date Mark?

Mark is a story-teller. Josephus is, as I said, a fair historian.

Josephus wrote wars in the year 78 if I am not mistaken.

It became publicly available in 75 CE, or so it was said when I looked it up.

This is 45 to 50 years after Jesus.

Yup. As I said, like all the NT authors, the author of Mark never met an historical Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

On the exact contrary, I've stuck with the practice of historians, and you've rushed to embrace supernatural explanations, which, I admit, are handy because they can be anything you want.

See, ad hominem does not always have to insulting. It could be just attacking the person and there are many type of ad hominem. You have just done one.

I dont think there is anything miraculous about the Gospel of Mark. So that argument is just an ad hominem.

What has that to do with mythicists?

Your argument that you called "scholarship" is a mythicist argument. Maybe you were not aware.

He survives as an historian of reasonable reputation. If the original tale had been about Jesus son of Joseph he would have said so.

You missed the part about him being brother of James, and people called him messiah.

Mark is a story-teller. Josephus is, as I said, a fair historian.

I am not comparing Josephus to Mark. See, one does not have to compare with someone else to embrace someone else so blindly.

Yup. As I said, like all the NT authors, the author of Mark never met an historical Jesus.

Of course not. I did not claim that. SO that's a strawman.

 

[blü 2]

See, ad hominem does not always have to insulting. It could be just attacking the person and there are many type of ad hominem. You have just done one.

I point out that my argument has nothing to do with mythicism and everything to do with historical method. That's not an ad hom.

I dont think there is anything miraculous about the Gospel of Mark. So that argument is just an ad hominem.

You see nothing supernatural about Mark 1:10-13? Mark 1:30-34; Mark 1:39-42? Mark 2:10-12? Mark3:3-5?

'And so on all the way through, not forgetting the risen Jesus?

Your argument that you called "scholarship" is a mythicist argument. Maybe you were not aware.

It is not a mythicist argument. It does not depend on there being no historical Jesus. It's self-evident that if there was an historical Jesus he couldn't do magic, but that doesn't prove or disprove that Jesus existed in history. For example, similar stories were told of Apollonius of Tyre and he appears to have been historical.

And the mythicist arguments contain a great deal of scholarship, though that's not relevant here.

You missed the part about him being brother of James, and people called him messiah.

That has nothing to do with the dating of Mark, which is what we're discussing ─ or had you forgotten?

 

[firedragon]

On the exact contrary, I've stuck with the practice of historians, and you've rushed to embrace supernatural explanations, which, I admit, are handy because they can be anything you want.
What has that to do with mythicists? It's straightforward that none of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus, and that many of the gospel tales are fictional (metaphorical, allegorical, if you prefer, but not reports about reality). It's further the case that Mark can be substantially mapped onto a miscellany of parts of the Tanakh, and that Mark is the template for the authors of Matthew and of Luke, and at a greater distance John too. It's also straightforward that the author of Matthew invented the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to "fulfill" Micah 5:2; and he likewise invented the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.None of that proves there was no historical Jesus. None of that proves there was. There's no clincher either way.
He survives as an historian of reasonable reputation. If the original tale had been about Jesus son of Joseph he would have said so.
Mark is a story-teller. Josephus is, as I said, a fair historian.
It became publicly available in 75 CE, or so it was said when I looked it up.
Yup. As I said, like all the NT authors, the author of Mark never met an historical Jesus.

I have a question and it sprung out of curiosity.

Why did you not address my points though you replied to that post? Is there a reason?

Here you go again.

Also you have missed to note that Josephus quotes James the brother of Jesus as the fellow who's brother Jesus was called the Messiah. Scholars dont negate this part as a forgery. So in advance you are saying that Josephus has contradicting accounts of the same person in two different books being the same man. If you are making him out to be so inaccurate and contradicting, why trust him at all? Why have you put your trust on Josephus just to date Mark?

Josephus wrote wars in the year 78 if I am not mistaken. This is 45 to 50 years after Jesus. One huge issue you should be considering is, did Josephus also get it absolutely wrong? Why does he contradict himself with two different accounts of this same character Jesus, once as brother of James, the Messiah, and then as a madman who was prophesying the war in the year 66, not 33? A man who was tortured but he kept his mouth shut, then the Romans released him "because he was a mad man" and then he dies because some stone hit his head. But then, Josephus accounts for I think more than 10 messiah characters and all of them killed by the romans for sedition. But this man Jesus he calls the messiah as called by people is sent Scott free, once he is brother of James, the messiah, another time he is son of ananias, once he is a handy man, and all other messiahs are killed, only this messiah is let loose "just because he was a mere prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem". Do you think people will call him the messiah for that only? Nope. This is absurd.

Read Josephus. All the people he quotes as Messiahs etc were rebels, revolutionaries, criminals who Rome killed for sedition.

This is the problem with hell bent mythicists. They miss the historical method, though they boast it.

Anyway, it could be true that Mark was written later. If you are looking at possibilities, there could be many many possibilities.

When do you think Josephus places James, the brother of Jesus? Have you thought about it?

 

[firedragon]

I point out that my argument has nothing to do with mythicism and everything to do with historical method. That's not an ad hom.

Not at all. Thats not historical method. Maybe you should do a little bit of googling to find out what is a historical method.

Anyway, you will ignore most of the points you are not willing to address. So that ends the conversation.

Cheers.