On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[Jayson]

Stephan,

Are you referring to the concept revolving around Mark being sympathetic to Peter?

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

As I originally noted the identification of this division reflecting the situation in late second century is universal among scholars and was first noticed by Craig Evans a conservative scholar. Another example:

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 78.10, reports this transfer of Damascus from Arabia to Syrophoenicia, but without indicating that it happened when Syria was split into two. Herodian 2.7.4 reports that Pescennius Niger was governor of the whole province in 193 CE. It was soon after this that Septimius Severus divided Syria into Syria Coele and Syria Phoenicia. See Birley (1988: 114). If this is correct then the comment in Justin must be a later gloss or an indication that even before the split Syria had acquired the name Syria Phoenicia. [Dunn Tertullian http://books.google.com/books?id=kHYl6r ... 22&f=false]

The quote from Justin I gave earlier was from Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 78, the same than yours.
You wrote:
"Septimius Severus divided Syria into Syria Coele and Syria Phoenicia"
However Justin was correct when he wrote in 150-160 that Damascus was allocated to Syro-Phoenicia. At the time, Syro-Phoenicia included the whole of Syria. The division occurred later, but I think the name of the new southern province is not known, and likely not Syro-Phoenicia. The northern province was called Coele Syria.
BTW, Justin never wrote of a transfer from Arabia to Syro-Phoenicia, just that Damascus was, and still is in his days, located in the region of Arabia.
BTW, what is the primary evidence for Severus' split of Syro-Phoenicia?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Jason,

then we have our answer as to why Mark lacks the Zoroastrian influence and yet Matthew contains it.
It would not be as familiar to those in Corinth as it is to those in Egypt, and Egypt would be aware of both Hebrew and Zoroastrian values and basic history.

Don't you think Syria would be better for explaining the Zoroastrian influence in Matthew's gospel? And the people there knew some Aramaic/Syriac, the language before the Hellenistic period. And soon later Syriac got more used, telling me it was not dead in the 1st century.
BTW, I am 100% certain Luke's gospel and Acts were written in Philippi (a Roman colony) in Macedonia (by a woman).
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p42.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[Jayson]

I would think that if Matthew didn't fit so well to Egyptian Hebrew culture; you could practically use it as a template for teaching a course on that culture and segue into the history of the Hasmonean dynasty from it.

[Jayson]

As to Philippi: A model could be ran from that location without much difficulty.
I placed Luke to Athens only as a general region and not a finite point, unlike I did with Antioch.
All I could discern easily was that it seemed to require some proximity to Athenian levels of academic capability.
It probably would have been more prudent to state Macedonian than Athenian, though.

So Philippi is perfectly acceptable and sympathized.

[Bernard Muller]

to Jason,

Stephan,
Are you referring to the concept revolving around Mark being sympathetic to Peter?

I think you were addressing me.
No, "Mark" was not sympathetic to Peter.
Actually a lot of his gospel is about fighting off Peter's views on Jesus. From what can be gleaned from Paul's letters and gMark, Peter did not become a Christian and he kept being an orthodox Jew. Also, he did not believe in "Christian" explanations for the Passion, did not believe in the Resurrection, did not believe in future resurrections, did not witness extraordinary miracles or anything divine by Jesus, etc ...
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... stians.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

^ I think Stephan was referring to Peter Kirby & his posts on this thread today -

And what substantive arguments have been made to deviate from inherited assumptions?

You can stop it even shorter. What substantive arguments have been made? That's what we're here for.

J.V.M. Study recently came out with a book about the dating of the New Testament, albeit posthumously. TItled Redrawing the Boundaries. It may not gel with the ideas of anyone posting in this thread, but it does have some substantive arguments (as well as a bit of nose counting).

But Peter - in this I necessarily disagree with many at the forum - convention is an argument on behalf of something. There are a thousand things that are told to children and people without much in the way of a history lesson. Don't stick your fingers on a hot stove, electrical socket etc. If a volcano exploded tomorrow and all we were left with were those warnings, they would still count for something. In other words, we start with a certain understanding of the New Testament which starts with things that our ancestors were told or are found in old books. That still counts for something. The arguments against these propositions and traditions have to be stronger or as strong as 'Mommy and Daddy told me.' But we just can't sweep these old traditions to the side and be forced to start from scratch. Oral tradition is an argument.

and, I presume that is J.V.M Sturdy - Redrawing the Boundaries: The Date of Early Christian Literature (Jan 2008)

• ISBN: 184553302X
  ISBN-13: 9781845533021

[Jayson]

to Jason,

Stephan,
Are you referring to the concept revolving around Mark being sympathetic to Peter?

I think you were addressing me.
No "Mark" was not sympathetic to Peter.
Actually a lot of his gospel is about fighting off Peter's views on Jesus. From what can be gleaned from Paul's letters and gMark, Peter did not become a Christian and he kept being an orthodox Jew. Also, he did not believe in "Christian" explanations for the Passion, did not believe in the Resurrection, did not believe in future resurrections, did not witness extraordinary miracles or anything divine by Jesus, etc ...

Cordially, Bernard

I was writing to Stephan's post a bit after yours.
Also, sorry for the confusion; when I write "sympathetic" it refers to containing information which agrees with some other information linking by that concept.
Mark "being sympathetic" to Peter meant that Mark writes often of the subject, such as what you wrote, as an example:

That would explain why Peter is so much in evidence in the gospel and that "Mark" could have picked some anecdotal material about Jesus by listening to him (or/and a translator) among others.

This is what I mean by the use of sympathetic; that a link between the two identifiers is capable of being facilitated.

[Jayson]

^ I think Stephan was referring to Peter Kirby

I see, thank you.

[MrMacSon]

.
The Amazon outline of sturdy's Redrawing the Boundaries: The Date of Early Christian Literature is interesting
(paragraphed below for easier-reading) -

... Sturdy came to a view which saw the genuine Pauline letters as in places interpolated; regarded Colossians, Ephesians and the Pastorals as pseudonymous; identified a divorce in authorship between Luke and Acts; and believed Matthew the last of the Synoptic Gospels to be written, with John assigned to the period c.140 CE. The lynchpin of Sturdy's argument is his view that the Ignatian letters are pseudonymous and were written towards the end of the second century CE. For Sturdy, this removed the need to set other texts impossibly early given the knowledge that the Ignatian letters show of the New Testament material. Thus he sets the Johannines, 2 Peter and Revelation c.150 CE, along with the Didache; and concluded that John 21 was not written until 160 CE.

Sturdy's book is required reading for New Testament scholars for two related reasons. First of all, it states a "radical" case in a research environment which has become increasingly conservative. Secondly - and most importantly - it shows that this radicalism is not merely his own aberration but stands in a long tradition of scholarship represented in Germany by the Tuebingen School and its successors, and in England by Davidson and Bishop Barnes. The book is richly documented with extensive references to secondary literature, and serves as an indispensable research compendium for that reason