Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Xtalk] Re: Burton Mack et al

Expand Messages
  • Michael Davies
    ... To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com To contact list managers: e-mail us at crosstalk2-owner@egroups.com
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > Oh, I forgot, honest, that you think Theophilus kept everything
      > under wrap up to the time GLuke parts were all done, put together and
      > published by him. But why did he not publish Acts earlier?
      > Bernard

      What sentences of mine are you responding to here?

      Steve

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
      To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
      crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      To contact list managers: e-mail us at crosstalk2-owner@egroups.com
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      At 10:26 AM 6/5/99 -0600, Bernard Muller wrote: Stephen C. Carlson wrote: He admits that there really isn t much to go on in dating Mark because the
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:26 AM 6/5/99 -0600, Bernard Muller wrote:
        >Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
        >> He admits that there really isn't much to go on in dating
        >> Mark because the references to the destruction of the temple in 70 is too
        >> vague in Mark.
        >
        >Too vague? "Mark" has Jerusalem destroyed stone by stone (usually,
        >Romans were destroying rebellious cities by just torching them, no
        >more). As it looks, most people of Judea fled to the (relative) safety
        >of walled Jerusalem. There, they either died of famine during the siege
        >or were executed by the Romans after it. Some were lucky enough to
        >become slaves instead. No wonder "Mark" has Jesus advising these Judean
        >peasants to flee in the mountains and not Jerusalem. Please notice the
        >"now" in Mk13:19 which replaces a "then" from a similar passage in
        >Daniel 12:1. That's very telling.

        There is little definite detail that would betray actual knowledge
        of the destruction after 70 BC rather than rehearsal of predictions
        such as Dan. 9:26 where "the troops of the prince who is to come
        shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." It is but a simple
        inference that a stone building would be destroyed by tearing the
        blocks down. The Romas actually burnt the temple, then razed it,
        leaving a wall standing. Thus, Mk13:2 is no more problematic as
        a prediction than Rabbi Johannan ben Zakkai forty year prior to
        its destruction (B. Yoma 39b).

        As for fleeing to the walled city or to the mountains, again
        Dan. 9:26 indicates that the city would be destroyed. It makes
        sense, as a simple inference from Daniel's account, that going
        to the city (predicted to be destroyed) is not recommended.

        Finally, the "now" in Mark 13:19 is more telling to you than
        to me. It is used in the phrase hEWS NUN (until now) and takes
        places in the story line in the time of Jesus, not at the
        destruction of the temple nor at the time of Mark's composition.

        >"Mark" did not have Josephus' Wars (as "Luke" did) and likely got his
        >(few and early) information verbally. And why would "Mark" feel
        >obligated to provide a lot of accurate info about 70C.E.? I do not see
        >one reason for it. Gmatthew, written later, does not give any more of
        >those. Furthermore "Mark" might have wanted not to be too obvious.
        >However, it seems that prayers helped! The siege occured in summer, not
        >winter (Mk13:19a).

        If the purpose of dating Mark after 70 is to explain the content of
        Mark 13 better than inferences from Daniel would (e.g. specific
        knowledge of actual events), then explaining away Mark's vagueness
        by appealing to his lack of accurate knowledge undercuts, rather
        than supports, the post-70 composition hypothesis. Mark could be
        just as vague by derived his knowledge from Daniel.

        >More details in this page:
        >http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appd.shtml

        Thanks for the link.

        > There is a tendency to date Mark early because of Markan
        >> priority under the Two Source Hypothesis (and the Farrer Hypothesis), but
        >> not so early as 64 because Papias' reliability is questioned.
        >
        >I do not see the connection between Papias and 64C.E. I thought that
        >Papias was a young man around 90C.E. (and then got to know presbyter
        >John) and died around 140.

        I was too brief. Papias attests to a relationship between Mark and
        Peter, who denied c. 64. However, if Papias is not to believed
        because there was no relationship between Peter and Mark, then there
        is no reason to date so early. That is the basic reasoning I was
        summarizing.

        >> For Luke, L.T.Johnson places the gospel around 80-85 which is recent
        >> enough for a companion of Paul ("we"-sections of Acts) to have written
        >> Luke-Acts and to have ignored Paul's letters, but late enough to
        >> account for the nostalgia in his works. Writing from a more
        >> conservative perspective, Johnson, however, did not discuss the
        >> fairly clear (at least in comparison with the others) references to
        >> the destruction of Jerusalem.
        >
        >According to my study, for the gospel, "Luke" had Wars (but not
        >Antiquities). Later, when writing Acts, "Luke" had Ant. I did not
        >explain that (only) in view on where "Luke" got the info, but also how
        >the author made its own historical errors.

        I think it can be argued the other way (or that there is no connection
        between Josephus' writings and Luke-Acts). For example, one website
        argues that Josephus is dependent on Luke's road to Emmaus story.

        >Notice that in the paralytic story, "Luke" is unaware on how the
        >Palestinian roofs are built. That would take "Luke" out of the "we"
        >people, accompanying Paul to Jerusalem and 2 years after, to Rome from
        >Ceasarea. Also "Luke" is very reliant on Gmark about geographical
        >details and copied its mistakes. For example, Bethany is on the Mount of
        >Olives (Lk19:29,24:50; Acts1:12) and not farther in a valley behind it.

        I see things differently, specifically in that Luke at 5:19 redacted
        Mark 2:4 to make things more intellible to Luke's readers, who are
        outside of Palestine. As for Bethany, it appears that you are
        assuming that Paul's companion has time in Jerusalem to get to know
        the area. But, this seems unwarranted Thus, these examples would not
        disqualify Luke's being a companion of Paul who briefly accompanied
        him to Jerusalem.

        I looked at Burton Mack's WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT for reasons why
        Luke should be dated in the early 2d cen., but I only read Mack's
        confident opinion and no arguments to back it up.

        Stpehen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
        crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        To contact list managers: e-mail us at crosstalk2-owner@egroups.com
      • Bernard Muller
        Michael Davies wrote: Oh, I forgot, honest, that you think Theophilus kept everything under wrap up to the time GLuke parts were all done, put
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 5, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael Davies wrote:
          >
          > > Oh, I forgot, honest, that you think Theophilus kept everything
          > > under wrap up to the time GLuke parts were all done, put together and
          > > published by him. But why did he not publish Acts earlier?
          > > Bernard
          >
          > What sentences of mine are you responding to here?
          >
          > Steve

          Time for me to go to bed! I misunderstood your main hypothesis, Steve.
          No, "Luke" did not provide Theophilus with 3 works at separate times,
          with Theo doing the final editing and publishing.
          Yes, "Luke" provided a complete version of his works, done at different
          times (with Acts written first and around 60) and slightly reedited, to
          Theophilus (after Gluke in two parts was written). Then Theo published
          the rearranged (by "Luke") complete works.
          I hope I got it right this time.
          I apologize for this confusion, it was not intentional.
          Of course, that raises questions like why "Luke" did not mention the 40
          days and Jesus *nailed* on the cross (Ac2:23) in the gospel. Why "Luke"
          is shy about Jesus only one apparition as "not a ghost" in the gospel
          and more confident & bold when writing Acts (earlier!), with many
          apparitions and drinking & eating sessions. Why in the gospel "Luke"
          bothered to write at length about Jesus appearing to (only) two
          otherwise unknown disciples on their way to Emmaus when in Acts Jesus is
          with his followers for some 40 days after his resurrection? Where did
          "Luke", who relied a lot on "Wars" for his gospel, got his historical
          bits for Acts (and got confused about the order of Theudas and Judas
          (Ac5:36-37) when that could be explained by some browsing on Ant. XX, V,
          1-2.)?
          Time to go in bed.
          Bernard
          http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
          To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
          crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          To contact list managers: e-mail us at crosstalk2-owner@egroups.com
        • Bernard Muller
          Stephen C. Carlson wrote:There is little definite detail that would betray actual knowledge of the destruction after 70 BC rather than rehearsal of
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

            > There is little definite detail that would betray actual knowledge
            > of the destruction after 70 BC rather than rehearsal of predictions
            > such as Dan. 9:26 where "the troops of the prince who is to come
            > shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." It is but a simple
            > inference that a stone building would be destroyed by tearing the
            > blocks down.

            Maybe, but I do not read that in Daniel. Like I said, destruction
            usually mean burning, not razing.
            "Mark" is accurate on that point:
            Mk13:1a-2 "What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" "Do you see
            all the great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be
            left on one another; every one will be thrown down."

            The Romans actually burnt the temple, then razed it,
            > leaving a wall standing. Thus, Mk13:2 is no more problematic as
            > a prediction than Rabbi Johannan ben Zakkai forty year prior to
            > its destruction (B. Yoma 39b).
            >
            > As for fleeing to the walled city or to the mountains, again
            > Dan. 9:26 indicates that the city would be destroyed. It makes
            > sense, as a simple inference from Daniel's account, that going
            > to the city (predicted to be destroyed) is not recommended.

            This Da9:26 had been around for a long time and Jerusalem was not
            destroyed prior to 70C.E. The real events of 70C.E. inspired "Mark": He
            has a lot of material depending on Jerusalem & its people destruction
            and is absolutly certain of it. Some details are described during the
            days of distress, after the destruction, about false Christs and
            apocalyptic preachers (Mk13:21-23) appearing. At the end of the parable
            of the tenants, he mentioned a change of the guard:
            Mk12:9 "What then the owner [whose son was killed] of the vineyard
            [Jerusalem's temple: 12:1] do? He [God] will come and killed those
            tenants [priests, city folks?] and give the vineyard [by now God's
            worship] to others [Christian presbyters?]."

            >
            > Finally, the "now" in Mark 13:19 is more telling to you than
            > to me. It is used in the phrase hEWS NUN (until now) and takes
            > places in the story line in the time of Jesus, not at the
            > destruction of the temple nor at the time of Mark's composition.

            Jesus allegedly said that around 30C.E., his "now" time. For him, to
            talk about the events of 70C.E., "then" was correct, as in Dan12:1. The
            "now" appears after the mention of the 70 destruction. It makes sense
            that the "now" comes from the gospel's author in 70, the "now" time for
            him. Furthermore, for the mini apocalypse, "Mark" got a bit carried
            away: in Mk13:14, he has Jesus talking to readers, not the foursome.
            Obviously "Mark", in his thoughts, had become Jesus.

            > If the purpose of dating Mark after 70 is to explain the content of
            > Mark 13 better than inferences from Daniel would (e.g. specific
            > knowledge of actual events),

            I think that "Mark" had other goals than to deduct all kind of
            inferences from Daniel, about a city far away from his community. Just
            because there is a line about the destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel
            does not mean that "Mark" fiddled with it, extrapolating some stone by
            stone demolition (not in Daniel) before the real thing occured. In the
            gospel, please note, as I mentioned before, the destruction of 70
            triggers an accelerated arrival of the (long awaited) second coming
            (Mk13:20-37). We are looking post "destruction" here (as in 12:9), not
            speculations leading to it. Certainly "Mark" used Daniel (because of
            similarity between the (partial) destruction of Jerusalem in 168B.C.E.
            and the (complete) one of 70C.E.). But his gospel is not a commentary on
            it, with speculations attached.

            > but I only read Mack's
            > confident opinion and no arguments to back it up.

            Isn't it typical?

            Bernard
            http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
            To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
            crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            To contact list managers: e-mail us at crosstalk2-owner@egroups.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.