On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[neilgodfrey]

If Mark had written his gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, he would have much more colorful and devastating analogies to make.

Again this is a mind-reading argument. If Mark were not an eyewitness but were writing with reference to the comparable prophetic descriptions of the fall of Babylon and were not seeking to write history in the first place -- as is evident from the rest of the gospel -- then we don't need to resort to mind-reading apologetics.

[The Crow]

If Mark had written his gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, he would have much more colorful and devastating analogies to make.

Again this is a mind-reading argument. If Mark were not an eyewitness but were writing with reference to the comparable prophetic descriptions of the fall of Babylon and were not seeking to write history in the first place -- as is evident from the rest of the gospel -- then we don't need to resort to mind-reading apologetics.

I agree.

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

This is a very common argument but the problem I've always had with it is that once Mark 13 was presumably found to be false then why was it not redacted to explain away the failure? Why was the supposedly failed prophecy then repeated by Matthew and Luke? Why was the embarrassing prophecy not re-written or removed altogether?
The implications of those questions make even less sense to me.

"Luke" did not say the "second coming" will happen soon after the fall of Jerusalem.

Yep. Luke 21:27 removes the "angels coming on the clouds to gather the elect" part of the prophecy (Mark 13:27), and similarly at 22:69, he edits Mark 14:62 to no longer have Jesus say directly to the High Priest that he will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds, but only that from this moment (i.e. Jesus' passion) that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God.

So I think there is evidence that the embarrassing part of the prophecy was being re-interpreted and re-written. Like Harold Camping's followers and the original Jehovah's Witnesses, it's easier on the cognitive dissonance to reinterpret failed prophecy that to remove it altogether. And I think we catch glimpses of this in Luke. The same thing is happening in 1 Thessalonians with Paul not denying the second coming, but having to 'theologise' on it in light of the passing of time. It would not have been easy for Paul or "Luke" to just remove the prophecy altogether if it was part of the foundation of the faith. But slight and slow reinterpretation allows them some wriggle room.

So it is Mark's insistence that the second coming will be "at the very gates" once the temple is destroyed, as well as the way Luke etc. have to deal with this prophecy, that I think points strongly in favor of Mark being written in the 70s.

Luke's changes are explicable along the same lines as all his other changes to Mark (and Matthew?) are explicable. Theology and (pro-Roman) politics. We don't need to bring in a different set of explanations for his changes to these passages from the explanations we have already found work for the rest of Luke.

I suspect a far more satisfactory and simpler answer is that the prophecies were fulfilled. They were written about in the same metaphorical language as comparable prophecies were written in the Jewish scriptures. The same cosmological signs were used to depict the fall of Babylon. God had come on clouds before down to earth to deliver his saints in the same sort of poetic language that depicted earthly armies destroying enemies.

[theomise]

I just spend 15 posts explaining it. You just want to believe what you want to believe.

Utter nonsense.

You went off on a tangent about a terminological issue that has absolutely no bearing on the point at issue. If you want to defend the extraordinary hypothesis that Marcion's Evangelikon and Apostolikon shared the same original author, that's fine - just provide evidence. To anyone capable of elementary reasoning, of course, that idea is not exactly plausible a priori. But maybe everyone else is wrong, and you're right. Anything is possible. The point is, you can't just assume everyone is wrong based on some hunch or intuition you have, and expect that to fly. Engage the argument in a rational, dispassionate manner, and cite relevant empirical evidence where appropriate.

Hint: what the church fathers believed, or what you imagine the Marcionites to have believed, does not count as "relevant evidence".

[Stephan Huller]

I think I have a little better grasp of the issues that you do and I have cited the evidence. What are you confused about?

[Stephan Huller]

If you want to defend the extraordinary hypothesis that Marcion's Evangelikon and Apostolikon shared the same original author,

Paul wrote the gospel, Paul wrote the apostolic epistles. That is Marcion 101. No need for explanation here.

that's fine - just provide evidence.

Who do you think wrote the Marcionite gospel? This is quite funny.

[theomise]

I think I have a little better grasp of the issues that you do and I have cited the evidence. What are you confused about?

I think not. Otherwise you would have provided rational grounds for rejecting the thesis, instead of boiling over and then abruptly veering off to another subject.

[Stephan Huller]

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqrCAz ... 22&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

Who do you think the Marcionites credited with authoring the gospel? Luke? Mark? Jesus?

[Stephan Huller]

Here it is plainly in an ancient text:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu0 ... 22&f=false