Gospel Dating & Reliability

[Minimalist]

What is your basis for that?  All, and I mean ALL, of this horseshit comes from one source:  the so-called gospel of mark.  A book replete with miracle stories and numerus obvious errors.  Why do you think that those two items are factual in a book which is otherwise total horseshit?    

There is a concept in law which deals with the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and basically means the discrediting of any evidence which comes from a tainted source.  And nothing is more tainted that these fucking gospels.

Firstly I didn't call gMark “horseshit”, and secondly he didn't invent the movement. Some of his gospel itself is based on the letter of Paul, and besides that he's transformed religious customs and rites and practises of his day into prose. That means the other stuff exists underneath the narrative.

It was Paul, not Mark, who made up the stuff about Jesus fulfilling Jewish Scripture prophecies. He did that by “reinterpreting” scripture, or the way that Jews would put it “misusing” and “misquoting” to an audience that didn't know any better.

No, I called it horseshit....and stand by it.  "Paul" ( and for the record we have absolutely NOTHING actually written by this alleged "paul" guy ) knows nothing at all of the later jesus story that "mark" put forward.  He never heard of Joseph, Mary, Pilate, virgin births, golgotha, joseph of arimathea, caiaphas, judas, etc., etc., etc.  

So you can dance around it all you like but you did not answer the question of why you are willing to accept those two things as "factual" while dismissing the rest of the book as bullshit - or horseshit, if you prefer.  "Paul" is fucking irrelevant.

[SteveII]

I would like to start a thread on NT Gospel Dating & Reliability. It is a popular derailment in other threads and I thought an organized discussion would be useful.

RULE 1: Do not assert theories as fact. You have to give reasons to support your theory. Even if you use a third-party's opinion, you have to share why they believed the theory to be true.
RULE 2: Do not argue by link. If you include a link, you have to summarize the claim and the rationale why you believe it is true or the subject relevant.

I should note from the onset that I will only reply to people obviously willing to have a respectful discussion. I am a heavy user of the ignore feature to block people who seem more interested in being heard than respectfully interacting with the discussion. Life is too short and my purposes here are limited.

You're putting forward fringe-of-the-fringe dating that is almost universally rejected these days by bible scholars. There is literary dependence on these texts to each other (the letters of Paul included as well as other available Greek literature), and besides - the dating that you're putting forward doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring what kind of texts that these are. Specifically you're literalising them when they were not meant to be read as literal. Which means, no it doesn't make a jot of difference to reliability whether gMark was written in 40 CE or 70 CE or 90 CE because Mark is a prose writer and is constructing a literary story to express his spiritual truth.

No, the dating rationale is well established. As I said above, it's literally the only reason given in the Wikipedia Article concerning the dating of Mark:

Composition
...It is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction, or during the years immediately prior.[11][6][b ]

What biography isn't written in prose? You make it sound like it is a different kind of literature. Except for the obvious religions connotations, the gospels shares all characteristics of the genre of Greco-Roman Biography:

Historical Narrative: Ancient biographies aimed to provide a narrative account of a person's life. They often included information about the subject's birth, upbringing, major life events, and achievements. The Gospels provide a chronological account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, including details of his birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection.
Moral and Didactic Elements: Biographies often had a moral or didactic purpose. They were not just about recounting facts but also about drawing lessons from the subject's life. They aimed to inspire or educate readers by showcasing virtues or vices. The Gospels absolutely contain moral and didactic elements. They convey teachings and ethical principles through the life and actions of Jesus in almost every story.
Character Portrayal: A significant aspect of ancient biography was the portrayal of the subject's character, both strengths and flaws. Biographers attempted to provide a well-rounded and nuanced view of the individual. The Gospels present a detailed portrayal of Jesus, depicting both his compassion and wisdom as well as the challenges and opposition he faced.
Use of Sources: Biographers typically used a variety of sources, including personal accounts, letters, and interviews with people who knew the subject. They combined these sources to construct a coherent narrative. It is widely accepted that the Gospel writers (read Luke's intro) used various sources and traditions to compose their narratives.

The more you read about this genre, the more it applies to the gospels. For example, a discussion I found talks about why an author might not be concerned about chronology or gaps in this type of biography:

Emphasis on Character and Theme: Biographers in the Greco-Roman tradition often prioritized character portrayal and thematic content. This meant that they might organize material around moral lessons, virtues, vices, or specific aspects of the subject's life rather than adhering to a rigid chronological sequence.
Literary License: Authors of ancient biographies sometimes exercised literary license to create more engaging narratives. This could involve rearranging events or emphasizing certain episodes to suit the thematic or moral goals of the biography.
Incorporating Anecdotes: Biographers frequently included anecdotes and stories that highlighted particular qualities or lessons. These stories might not always be presented in strict chronological order but rather inserted where they were most effective for the biography's overall message.
Selective Focus: Biographies often emphasized certain periods of the subject's life or specific accomplishments, while glossing over less relevant or less virtuous aspects. This selective focus could lead to a non-linear presentation of events.
Complex Narratives: Some biographies involved complex narrative techniques, such as flashbacks, parallel storylines, or multiple points of view, which could disrupt strict chronology in favor of more sophisticated storytelling.

DATING

To get things started, it seems the earlier the date for the Gospel the better for reliability.

In support of an early date

Mark: 50s AD
Matthew: late 50s to early 60s
Luke/Acts: late 50s to early 60s
John: 70s to early 90s

The reason for an earlier date is that Luke/Acts was written before Paul died around 65 AD (Acts left off with him in prison after following his whole life), there was no mention of Nero's 64 Rome escapades, nor the death of the apostle James sometimes in the 60s.  Textual criticism has Luke/Acts written before Matthew (because it borrows phrases and stories from Matthew). Mark was written before Matthew (for the same reason). You end up with Mark at least in the 50's if not earlier

Matthew has 90% of the content from Mark but is 40% longer than Mark.
Luke incorporated 40-50% of Matthew and the other half is new material.

I have never heard and argument why content borrowing from an earlier gospels is a problem. I seems to me that if you have a different audience, why wouldn't you borrow some good stuff to give to the new group?

Why do people want to date them later?

Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem . Of course we can't have any predictions like that...because, you know, God does not exist, so it must have been written after the temple was destroyed in 70AD. So if Mark was the first Gospel, all the others must be even after that. The late-date assumption is solely based on question-begging reasoning.

Okay so begin with, it makes no difference to reliability because we're not talking about documents that seek to document events dispassionately to record historical fact - that's not what they are. Secondly your assertion that gMark and the other canonical gospels are dated to after 70 CE because they contain predictions of the destruction of the Temple is wrong. It's unfortunate, but many theologians and scholars alike have badly worded this in a way can make it seem like they are simply saying “a prediction is too much”. No, no, no, no, no. That would be like if you read a piece of literature that predicts the destruction of the Twin Towers and then you say “Aha, it has to be written after 11 September 2001”. That's not the case, in fact lots of people predicted terror attacks on them before 2001, rather the question you'd need to ask is this: does the author show knowledge that this event is in their past? If so then yes it has to be written after 2001, but if not and if it's not specifically saying who, when, where, and how then it could be pre-2001.

With Mark what you have is the destruction of the Temple forms a core theological theme, and this can only be the case if he knows the Temple has been destroyed. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is really about the destruction of the Temple, it forms part of the theological justification for the Christ movement to be the heirs to God's promise made to the Jews. The Wicked Tenants represent the Jewish Leaders who were centralised in the Temple. The Passion Narrative also gives the whole game away because the original Passion traditions had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish Temple. I would point to all of these as non-Marcan traditions: 1 Cor 15:3-8, Acts 2:22-36, 3:13-15, 4:10, 4:27-28, 5:29-32, 10:39-43, 13:27-31. Not a single one of them makes any mention whatsoever of the Temple - that's a narrative construct by Mark. Nowhere and never in the letters of Paul does he ever suggest the Temple will be destroyed as a sign to the transfer of God's promise to the Christ followers, or for that matter any other reason. The Temple was not destroyed in Jesus's lifetime, Jesus was executed around 30 CE and the Temple was destroyed some 40 years later in 70 CE. It was not destroyed in Paul's lifetime either. It's Mark that is dealing with this new setting and trying to make sense to what it means for his spiritual and theological convictions, in a similar way to how the original disciples had to deal with trying to understand the brutal execution of their Messiah by the hands of the Romans

There will of course be arguments and scepticism on the Acts ones and that's okay, some people think that Acts 13:27-31 is a summary of the Marcan Passion whereas I see it as a separate earlier tradition from which Mark may have drawn (although with Acts written down decades after Mark the tradition may not have looked exactly the same in Mark's day). I think evidence for this is Acts 4:27-28 which may have been the tradition that Luke used to insert Herod into the Markan Passion for his gospel.

Mark has knowledge of the destruction of the temple and that places it sometime after 70CE. He is also dependent on the theology of Paul which places his gospel chronologically after the undisputed letters of Paul. The other three canonical gospels are all based on Mark. Probably Matthew comes second, then Luke, and then John. Mark's stories are primarily based on the Greek epics and the Marcan Jesus is based on Odysseus and on Hector (see the work of Dennis R MacDonald on this). Entire narratives in Mark have direct literary dependence on Homer as do narratives in Acts, and while scholars have recognised the dependency in Acts as “obvious” they've been more sceptical of Mark, but I think we're at a point now where any such scepticism leads to denial of this clearly literary connection is untenable.

Okay, in order to avoid the question-begging nature of the argument, you claim that Mark shows that he already knew of the destruction of the temple and that was evident in parables like the Wicked Tenants. Your interpretation is overly complicated--it is about the end of the Jewish stewardship of God's revelation due to their rejection of the Messiah and not the destruction of the Jewish temple--the former happening long before the latter. This point is also made in the parable of the Great Banquet in Matthew 22:1-14 and Luke 14:15-24. But if they were Jesus' stories, you are right back where you started--assuming your conclusions in your premises.  You use the Passion Narrative as evidence that the early tradition had no temple theme. Fine. But neither did Mark!  

Further, your theory implies a conspiracy to produce a false narrative. You still have the chronology problem of Mark-->Matthew-->Luke/Acts. Do you believe that none of the synoptic gospels would have mentioned the end of the Jewish nation and destruction of the temple had it already happened?  The more complex the alternate theory, the more vague you have to be with the details.

Finally with the work of Steve Mason we also know that Luke-Acts has literary dependence on the works of Josephus, which means Luke-Acts is second century, not first.

That's a fringe belief. Others have replied to his claim:

Common Literary Conventions: It is possible that both the author of Luke-Acts and Josephus were drawing on common literary conventions and styles that were prevalent in the Greco-Roman world of their time. These shared conventions might have influenced the language, structure, and themes in their respective works.

Shared Sources: Instead of one text influencing the other, both the author of Luke-Acts and Josephus might have drawn from similar sources, such as oral traditions, written accounts, or historical records. These shared sources could explain some of the parallels in content and descriptions.

Parallel Traditions: Some scholars suggest that the parallels between Luke-Acts and Josephus may reflect parallel developments in the early Christian and Jewish communities, rather than direct influence. Both authors might have been responding to similar historical events, figures, and themes in their respective traditions.

Cultural and Historical Context: The social, political, and religious context of the time, including the Jewish-Roman conflicts and the interactions between Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, could have influenced both Luke-Acts and Josephus independently. This context might explain some shared elements in their writings.

Influence on Common Scribes or Editors: It's possible that scribes or editors working with both authors were responsible for introducing similar language or ideas into the texts. These scribes or editors might have been influenced by the broader intellectual and literary culture of the time.

Coincidence: Some scholars argue that the parallels between Luke-Acts and Josephus are coincidental and not the result of any intentional influence or interaction. In a world with a rich tradition of historical writing and storytelling, some similarities could naturally emerge without direct copying.

So in summary what we know is that gMark comes sometime after 70 CE, Luke-Acts comes after 100 CE, and there is direct literary connection between the four canonical gospels. Mark Goodacre would argue that Mark's use of the Temple shows it's a recent very traumatic event for him: the Jerusalem-based Christ followers have perished. I am convinced that Mark's purpose in Mark 16:6-8 is to provide an exoneration for Jesus for the persecution of the Jerusalem Christ followers: he has tried to warn them to wait in Galilee for his return, but the women failed to deliver that message. These dates only provide lower-bound estimates for when the gospels were written, I wouldn't rule-out Mark being early second century. So basically I'd say gMark is written c.70-100 CE and the other canonical gospels all come after Mark.

The reason for an earlier date is that Luke/Acts was written before Paul died around 65 AD (Acts left off with him in prison after following his whole life), there was no mention of Nero's 64 Rome escapades, nor the death of the apostle James sometimes in the 60s.  Textual criticism has Luke/Acts written before Matthew (because it borrows phrases and stories from Matthew). Mark was written before Matthew (for the same reason). You end up with Mark at least in the 50's if not earlier

The reason why you don't have the death of Paul in Acts is 1. because Luke is basing his stuff on Paul from Paul's letters, and 2. Paul wasn't all that important in his own day. So by the time that Luke is writing Acts, let's say 40 years after Paul has died, he doesn't know how Paul died. He also doesn't know how Paul was converted either which is obvious if you read Galatians. He basically makes up a story about it that is more-or-less consistent with Galatians 1-2. He also doesn't know what happened to most of the original disciples or apostles either.

Your theory here relies on a late date--which you don't have a good case for. Further, Paul was the single most important figure apart from Jesus in all of Christianity at the end of the first century. In fact, the more time that lapsed the more his influence so that works against your theory. A significant amount of church doctrine is based on his letters. Early Christian writers and theologians, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, quoted from or referenced the Pauline epistles in their own writings.

I have never heard and argument why content borrowing from an earlier gospels is a problem. I seems to me that if you have a different audience, why wouldn't you borrow some good stuff to give to the new group?

Mark based his narratives on the Greek Classical Literature just like English writers were later trained to use Shakespeare for ideas and inspiration. There's a tendency for people to simply say “well you don't need literary dependency for a Homerism”. While that itself is correct - a cultural Homerism needs no literary dependency - it well overlooks the extensive use of Homer in constructing the prose. Iliad 22 and 24 form the basis of the Marcan Passion Narrative which goes from Mark 14:1 to Mark 16:8. Or to put this another way, starting with 1 Cor 15:3-8 as your Passion tradition there is a zillion different ways to construct a narrative story from it. So if he was doing something completely unique it would not line up perfectly with this source material. Similarly when we get to Matthew, Luke, and John - why do we have the Temple in the narrative? Why do we have Joseph of Arimathea? Why do we have the three women as the primary audience? Why do we have what starts as a straightforward translation fable in Mark 16:1-8 converted into an Empty Tomb in the later editions? Why does Pilate offer to release Jesus? Why do we have Paul's Lord's Supper in the narrative as the Last Supper? Paul didn't learn the Last Supper tradition from the Jerusalem apostles, he says quite clearly that the sacrament starts with him (1 Cor 11:23). That shouldn't be all that surprising because that's what Apostles were supposed to do - come up with their own teachings and their own religious practices/sacraments. But it also means it doesn't go back to the historical Jesus and finding it in a narrative can only be literary.

I addresses some of the larger issues with your fringe theory in another post.

These convoluted theories all start with a fundamental bias--the claims couldn't be true so let's figure out a theory that can account for what we got. Because we have so much to account for (like the beliefs found in the various confessions very early on in the timeline), the theories become quite complicated as you have shown.

[Bucky Ball]

It is the consensus of scholars that the gospels are not biographies.
There were over 200 gospels. They in no way meet any standard of modern biography.

GOSPELS ARE NOT BIOGRAPHIES
"The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...20audience.

Only ignorant fundamentalist literalists attempt these days to say they are "biographies" in the same sense WE think of them today.
Greco-Roman "biography" was NOT in any way related to what we think of that genre today.
The gospels were written as "advertisements" for the new cult. No one sat around "reading gospels". They were "proclaimed" in liturgical "services".

"Biography in antiquity was not a rigidly defined genre. Bios, ‘life’, or bioi, ‘lives’, could span a range of types of writing, from Plutarch’s cradle-to-grave accounts of statesmen to Chamaeleon’s extravagant stories about literary figures, and even to Dicaearchus’ ambitious Life of Greece. Consequently, the boundaries with neighboring genres—the encomium, the biographical novel on the model of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, the historical monograph on the deeds of a great man like Alexander the Great—are blurred and sometimes artificial. One should not think of a single ‘biographical genre’ with acknowledged conventions, but rather of a complicated picture of overlapping traditions, embracing works of varying form, style, length, and truthfulness."
https://retrospectjournal.com/2021/11/08...ographies/

John 20:30-31 "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John admitted what they were up to.

[SteveII]

If Luke/Acts was written in the early 60s (based on its content) but relied on Matthew, that seems the latest period it could have been written.

There's  a domino situation here.  Mark, at the earliest, is dated to 69 CE and it is the first Jesus story written.  Nothing is earlier than that.  So everything after that is from 70 onward and the concensus among Biblical scholars is that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke was written in the 80's.  John was written the late 90's to 110.  

Each successive Jesus story writer adds  more magical and embellished events to the tale.  This is typical of how myths evolve.  I personally think Jesus existed but myth stories were attached to his life through rumor and storytelling after the collapse of Jerusalem.  

WHY do you date Mark at 69?

There are too many historical inaccuries in these stories.  

There is no possible way that the Sanhedrin Council met during the holy week of Passover.  It was forbidden by Jewish law to do this and the only place the Sanhedrin ever was allowed to met was in the Jewish Temple and the only place within the Temple the Sanhedrin met, by Jewish Law, was in the Hall of the Hewn Stone.  So the Christian Greek writers, writing several decades after Jesus died inserted events in the story that would not have actually taken place.  After the Revolt of 69-72 the Sanhedrin scattered and tried to re-assemble in the Syrian area but by 90 CE their influence had very much waned.  

One of the reason's John is dated so much later is that whoever wrote this story became aware that the Sanhedrin was no longer a viable council so he had Jesus come before a high priest instead of the entire council.  This dates it after 90 CE.

Why don't you cite the law that forbade it meeting during passover and the requirement that they meet in the Hall of Hewn Stone or why it is not conceivable that the Sanhedrin might have made case-by-case decisions regarding whether to hold meetings during Passover, depending on the urgency of the situation or the nature of the proceedings.

There was no census as discribed in Luke.  There is no possible way that people were told to travel all over the vast Roman Empire, which stretched thousands of miles in all directions, to get to their ancestorial home of 1000 years previously.  The Romans were a lot of things but when it came to collecting goods, services and money for  tax purposes they were extremely well organized.   But whoever wrote Luke needed to get Jesus of Nazareth and his family out of Nazareth and over to Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy in the Old Testament and this was his solution to the problem. 

Again with the certainty but at the root of your claim is the absence of evidence. There are many books that exploring that question. Here are three such responses:

Historical Variability: Christian scholars point out that historical practices and policies, including those related to censuses and taxation, could vary across different regions and time periods within the Roman Empire. They argue that while the Roman Empire was organized, there might have been flexibility in the implementation of policies at the local level. The Gospel of Luke's account may reflect a specific local practice that required travel to one's ancestral town.

Historical Records: While there may not be direct external historical records confirming this specific census, scholars argue that the absence of evidence does not necessarily negate the possibility of such an event. Historical records from the ancient world are often incomplete, and specific details of local events might not have been widely documented.

Alternative Interpretations: Christian scholars also suggest alternative interpretations of the census account. They propose that the census might have been more of a registration or enrollment for taxation purposes rather than a physical journey. Others argue that the word "world" or "empire" in the Gospel of Luke might be understood more broadly, referring to the known world of the Roman Empire.

There is no possible way that Pontius Pilate, like the Grinch, suddenly had his heart sofened during the trial and allowed peasant Jesus a nice little Hebrew funeral in the traditional rock hewn tombs of this area.   The Romans crucified many thousands of people over the centuries and the bodies were left up on the croses to rot as a visual reminder by the Roman officials that they were in charge. The bodies were then thrown in a pit or burned to keep the smell away.

Archaeologists have unearthed over 1000 Jewish tombs around the Jerusalem area that date back to the 1st century and earlier and have only found the bones of one person who had been crucified and then buried and there's no telling how long the body was left up on the cross before the family got access to the remains in order to bury it.  Each Hebrew tomb woud contain several ossuary boxes with the contents of the bones of the deceased.  More often than not  the bones of several family members were in one box.   Each tomb could contain the body's of dozens of family members.

Well, except if God wanted something to happen, it seems a small thing for him to make sure it happened.

[brewerb]

[Dancefortwo]

No, the dating rational is well established.  As I said above, it's literally the only reason give in the Wikipedia article concerning the dating of Mark."

The Wikipedia article does not go into great depth in its explanation, plus you deliberately left out several other things from the Wikipedia article that explain why it's dated later.  There are numerous other reasons for a later date of Mark.

Whoever wrote this piece never set foot in Palestine. It's one of many reason's Biblical scholars date it to anonymous writer who was writing later and from a distant country.  The writer has geographic directions all wrong   Mark claims,    "Then [Jesus] return from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee "

One does not go "through" Sidon to get to Galilee lake. This would be like going from New York to Charleston, South Carolina by going "through" Boston. One apologists tries to claim Jesus went north to go south so he could bypass large mountiains.  This is simply not true.  If Jesus had merely gone due east from Tyre he would have been able to travel an old tried and true ancient trading passage of Caesarea Philippi that would have taken him through a valley and to the Sea of Galilee.  

Mark also blunders with his distances. In the demonic pig story he claims that 2000 pigs ran from Gerasa head long into Galilee lake. (it's actually a very large lake, not a "sea")

Mark 5;13 "......the herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned."

A few problems here. Gerasa is 32 miles away from Galilee. Having pigs run for 32 miles is nonsense. Later whoever wrote Matthew realized the distance problem and changed the name of the town to a location closer to Galilee lake, a place called Gadara which is 6 miles from Galilee instead of the improbable 32 miles away. Several New Testament bibles have covered up the mistake and changed the names to it makes more sense.   Most Christians don't realize this or they don't look at a map to see that Gerasa and Gadara are two different places and Matthew had to fix the Mark's geographic problem.  

The majority of scholars deem this story to be a metaphor for the Roman Legion. 

In 67 CE Vespasian sent in 2000 soldiers who massacred a few thousand Jews in the Garasa/Galilee area. This was part of the First Jewish-Roman Wars and the first of the three rebellions against the Romans that took place, and everyone reading Mark, Matthew and Luke during this time would have known exactly what this story was REALLY about and what the 2000 pigs represented. It's another reason Mark is dated at 70 CE, three years after the Garasa masssacre.

Next we have Matthew.   

Whoever wrote Matthew has archaeological numismatic problems he writes about that contradict  Roman Palestine coinage from 63 BCE to 70 CE.  So here's the offending passage.

  Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians......  Show me the coin used for paying the tax.’  They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, ‘Whose image is this? And whose inscription?’
‘Caesar’s,’ they replied.  Then he said to them, ‘So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’

Several problems here.  First, the denarii are found in Palestine only after 69 CE, particularly from the reign of Vespasian onward. This was because, after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, the currency and government in Judea changed dramatically. However, prior to this time (and during the time of Jesus) the primary silver currency in Palestine was the Tyrian shekel not the denarii.  

A tax was levied by Vespasian in the form of the denarii as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War, or first Jewish revolt of AD 66–73. The denarii tax was issued to raise money for the upkeep of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and was also intended as a punishment and humiliation for all subjugated Jewish people. This was a huge insult to the Jewish population but it only happened after the 69-73 fall of the Temple. That's the reason the denarii tax story ended up in the Jesus saga.

Another historical inaccuracy with Matthew is that taxation in Palestine was NOT administered by the Romans, but by the Jewish authorities, and it was collected by Jewish agents rather than Roman agents.  This was done to make the presence of Roman imperialism less obvious.   It was also a tax "in kind".  For instance Jews were taxed for the goods they produced.  The emperior got a percentage of their wheat or sheep or whatever they produced.  This is why Lukes census is so stupidly ridiculous.  The Jews were taxed where they lived and what they produced, not where their ancestors lived.  

It's claimed that the person who wrote "matthew" was a tax collector. but whoever wrote this did not know much about taxation and coinage at the time of Jesus.

[SteveII]

Then how do you account for my point that Acts stops in the early 60s?

Because that's the subject of those documents. Acts of the Apostles talks about the Apostles and pretty much all the Apostles died or stopped actively preaching and doing missionary work in the early 60's of the first century. We can write about things in the past. Acts has been dated anywhere from 80 to 120 AD. It's very probable, considering Acts have many author that it was written and edited and re-written slightly differently before setting to some sort of definitive version during that entire time. 

So after chronicling the early church over a 30 year period, Luke, knowing that two of his main characters, Paul and James, were martyred; that Nero was spectacularly persecuting Christians in Rome; and that Jerusalem was sacked and the temple utterly destroyed thought that stopping in the early 60s was good enough for his purposes? Are you serious?

I think that little nugget of information is far more persuasive than we don't have documents because guess what does not survive very well...documents. Your very example goes to my point. It is not like we have nothing, nothing, nothing and then whole documents. They decay as the fragments prove.

While we should expect the overwhelming majority of all documents ever produce to decay or be voluntarily destroyed when too damaged, the fact we can find a lot of full length manuscripts and hundreds of fragments of those document in the 4th century and absolutely nothing from 1st and only 2 from the second mid/late century shows that there is an explosion of production in the 4th century and basically practically nothing written in late 2nd century and very possibly nothing in the mid to late 1st century.

No, it does not show that. Papyrus was used almost exclusively through the first century. Vellum and parchments gained popularity in the second century but papyrus was not phased out until later in the third. That seems to fit with the data better than a complicated conspiracy theory.

You need to spell out the "numerous historical and cultural errors".

errors in geography when it comes down to Jesus' journey, errors in the description of the customs of the Jews of the 1st century, errors about how a Roman census is conducted.

Mark wrote down what Peter remembered. Mark never made those trips. Also, as I discussed with Aractus,  the characteristics of the genre of Greco-Roman Biography makes it likely that chronology was not as important to other goals:

Historical Narrative: Ancient biographies aimed to provide a narrative account of a person's life. They often included information about the subject's birth, upbringing, major life events, and achievements. The Gospels provide a chronological account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, including details of his birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection.
Moral and Didactic Elements: Biographies often had a moral or didactic purpose. They were not just about recounting facts but also about drawing lessons from the subject's life. They aimed to inspire or educate readers by showcasing virtues or vices. The Gospels absolutely contain moral and didactic elements. They convey teachings and ethical principles through the life and actions of Jesus in almost every story.
Character Portrayal: A significant aspect of ancient biography was the portrayal of the subject's character, both strengths and flaws. Biographers attempted to provide a well-rounded and nuanced view of the individual. The Gospels present a detailed portrayal of Jesus, depicting both his compassion and wisdom as well as the challenges and opposition he faced.
Use of Sources: Biographers typically used a variety of sources, including personal accounts, letters, and interviews with people who knew the subject. They combined these sources to construct a coherent narrative. It is widely accepted that the Gospel writers (read Luke's intro) used various sources and traditions to compose their narratives.

The more you read about this genre, the more it applies to the gospels. For example, a discussion I found talks about why an author might not be concerned about chronology or gaps in this type of biography:

Emphasis on Character and Theme: Biographers in the Greco-Roman tradition often prioritized character portrayal and thematic content. This meant that they might organize material around moral lessons, virtues, vices, or specific aspects of the subject's life rather than adhering to a rigid chronological sequence.
Literary License: Authors of ancient biographies sometimes exercised literary license to create more engaging narratives. This could involve rearranging events or emphasizing certain episodes to suit the thematic or moral goals of the biography.
Incorporating Anecdotes: Biographers frequently included anecdotes and stories that highlighted particular qualities or lessons. These stories might not always be presented in strict chronological order but rather inserted where they were most effective for the biography's overall message.
Selective Focus: Biographies often emphasized certain periods of the subject's life or specific accomplishments, while glossing over less relevant or less virtuous aspects. This selective focus could lead to a non-linear presentation of events.
Complex Narratives: Some biographies involved complex narrative techniques, such as flashbacks, parallel storylines, or multiple points of view, which could disrupt strict chronology in favor of more sophisticated storytelling.

The grandfather's name seems innocuous and could just stem from the author's using two different lists. If anything, you want variations because it shows independent effort. The thing about ...so the temple must have been destroyed is not the simplest explanation--do historians use Occam's Razor? It seems like a post hoc rationalization.

Why would there be two lists of Joseph family tree and neither them agreeing on who his father is? Genealogical records were kept in the Temple and there were not many lists; that would defeat the purpose of genealogical records. It would also be very strange that a man very possibly still alive when Jesus was born would be unknown to anybody who knew Jesus well. All of his friends and cousins should easily be able to tell you the name of a man's grand father especially if that grand father was also theirs. It seems nobody even cared to ask Jesus' cousins, uncles or mother about it (and Mary is supposed to be alive until the mid first century and thus very much alive when you claim the Gospels were written). Plus, the two genealogies are so different in so many ways it can't just be a clerical error. Both seem ludicrously different in both length and scope.

They seem completely made up independantly from one another and without any semblance of genealogical research. That's what Occam's Razor would dictate. It's fare more simple for massive discreptencies on fact base inquiry to be based on deception and laziness than genuine error of well intended and ethical parties.

I did some more research.  A lot of scholars think that Matthew traced Joseph back because his Jewish audience would be interested in the connection to David (necessary for the Messiah). It is thought that Luke lists Mary's genealogy and the phrase "so it was thought" was an indication that we were not getting his list. I don't know the answer.

It's literally the only reason given in the Wikipedia Article concerning the dating of Mark:

Have you checked the sources of Wikipedia on this? None of the books quoted in this wikipedia article for this specific passage are from historians, but from a theology professor (definitely not an atheist since he is also a priest) and literature and theology professor. Neither of these are historians. This dating of post 70 AD due to references to the destruction of the Temple is commonly accepted by theologians not by atheists or even historians, but by Christian scholars themselves. Historians tend to prefer something a little bit more solid to date a book and largely consider the Gospels to be almost impossible to date with precision since the authors are unkown and the books edited and prefer the "late 1st century to mid 2nd century" time frame.

That is the rationale for the later date presented in all these books (all considered NT scholars):

J.A.T. Robinson: In his book "Redating the New Testament" (1976), Robinson argued for a post-70 AD dating of the Gospel of Mark and suggested that the Gospel's detailed prophecies in Mark 13 were written after the events they describe.
James Crossley: Crossley, in his work "The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity" (2004), also supports a post-70 AD date for the Gospel of Mark based on his analysis of Mark 13 and other factors.
H. M. Roskam:  " The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context " said “The evangelist could not have presented the prediction of the destruction of the temple as an utterance of Jesus with such firmness unless he was very certain about its fulfilment” (86)
Robert H. Stein: In "Mark" (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2008), Stein presents arguments for a post-70 AD dating of the Gospel of Mark, primarily based on the Gospel's portrayal of the destruction of the Temple.
John Kloppenborg: “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark” said “The fact that this seems to correspond so precisely to what occurred invites the conclusion that it was formulated (or reformulated) ex eventu” (431).

There are certainly Christian scholars who believe the rationale. As far as I can tell, they believe that Mark created a great compelling story by adding in the temple destruction tension with the crucifixion sometime after 70AD. But it is still question-begging. On one side you have the possibility that God orchestrated the whole life of Jesus toward one event and on the other side you have (a) a denial of that and a post hoc rationalization of how to account for such a story or (b) the story could not have been that compelling and God needed some literary help making the story more compelling.

[Bucky Ball]

The Myth of Persecution, Dr. Candida Moss.

"According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire. In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss reveals that the "Age of Martyrs" is a fiction—there was no sustained three-hundred-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. While there were some martyrs, most of these stories were pious exaggerations and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches. Moss encourages modern Christians to get the history of persecution right and embrace the consolation, moral instruction, and spiritual guidance that these martyrdom stories provide.

https://www.amazon.com/MYTH-PERSECUTION-...20warriors.

"Candida Moss is the Cadbury Professor of Theology at the University of Birmingham, UK. A graduate of Oxford University, she earned her doctorate from Yale University. Moss has received awards and fellowships from the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Catholic Biblical Association, and the John Templeton Foundation. A columnist for The Daily Beast, Moss has written for The Atlantic, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, and BBC, and is a frequent news commentator on CBS and CNN. She has previously taught at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Chicago."

Stevie has taught nowhere.

Thanks again Stevie for providing so many opportunities to correct many boring fundy copy-patse pieces of nonsense.

[epronovost]

So after chronicling the early church over a 30 year period, Luke, knowing that two of his main characters, Paul and James, were martyred; that Nero was spectacularly persecuting Christians in Rome; and that Jerusalem was sacked and the temple utterly destroyed thought that stopping in the early 60s was good enough for his purposes? Are you serious?

It was not useful to the narrative, no. If it were so important, nothing would have prevented the Church from producing writings on those subjects and add them to the Canon in the mid 4th century. The same could be said for the important events for early Christianity that followed like the much more important persecution of Christians under other Emperors like Marcus Aurelius or, even more important, Diocletian (that's without delving into the massive amount of exaggeration and fraud about Christian persecution in the Roman Empire). The story of the life of many apostles or Mary was also canned. These could have been very interesting, but they were not kept. These information were not preserved either because they were unknown to their authors or, just as likely and perhaps even more, these stories were not important to the broader message of scriptures. The NT is a doctrinal book not a historical chronical. 

Mark wrote down what Peter remembered. Mark never made those trips.

There is no proof that mark wrote down what Peter remembered or if even any of those characters are actually real; they exist only in Christian scriptures and these cannot be used as historical source material. The Gospel of Mark is written by anonymous author and the earliest fragments date back from over a century after their death if these people even existed. It seems that if Peter existed and indeed talked about his journey, he made many mistakes and Mark was too ignorant to question any of them.

Also, in the case of a journey, it's way easier to tell and remember it in chronological order. That's why when people talk about their journey they do it chronologically. In ancient stories of journey, elements of geography are well ordered. The elements might be fictitious or exaggerated, but the geography is generally correct. Which leads to an important note. In the first century, the Sea of Galilee was not known by this name. It was a territory heavily colonized by the Romans and the name in usage at the time by the Romans was the Sea of Tiberius and the Jews living the region called it the Sea of Kinneret or Gennesaret. The fact the NT called it the Sea of Galilee implies it was written after the Great Revolt. Then, you have the evidence from coinage and taxation rules which also all hold true for the post-revolt era.

Finally, while papyrus is very fragile, we know that all of the early Christian writings were produced in Egypt and that, in Egypt, papyrus can be preserved for long periods of time. We have papyrus fragments dating back from -2500. If there were a lot of Christian scrupture on papyrus in production in the late 1st and early 2n century, we would probably have found some traces of it since we searched extansively for them and the demand to preserve those documents, even back then, would have been very high.

At best, we can assert with a variability of almost a full century the dating of the first copies of the Gospels and we know some of them were modified much later on. 

Also, as I discussed with Aractus,  the characteristics of the genre of Greco-Roman Biography makes it likely that chronology was not as important to other goals

That's exactly why no historian uses ancient biographie as if they were completely true. We know these types of documents are often full of exagerations and political propaganda and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think you consider Alexander the Great as an actual demi-god and the son of both Zeus and Amon, the sun God, even though that's what his biographies of the time mention. Yet, you seem to ignore this prudence with scriptures.

I did some more research.  A lot of scholars think that Matthew traced Joseph back because his Jewish audience would be interested in the connection to David (necessary for the Messiah). It is thought that Luke lists Mary's genealogy and the phrase "so it was thought" was an indication that we were not getting his list. I don't know the answer.

Luke doesn't trace Mary's genealogy since it traces Jesus' ancestry from Joseph and make his grand-father Heli while for Matthew was for Jacob. The difference between the two genealogies is that one is descendant (from Jesus to literally Adam the first human)  while the other is ascendant from Abraham, the first Jew, to Jesus. The "so it was thought" in Luke is there to imply that Joseph was not his real father since Jesus is supposed to be the result of a virgin birth in that narrative. Anybody advancing the idea the person writings "Joseph, the son of Heli" implying that Heli is actually the father of Mary is an idiot trying to fool people.

There are certainly Christian scholars who believe the rationale. As far as I can tell, they believe that Mark created a great compelling story by adding in the temple destruction tension with the crucifixion sometime after 70AD. But it is still question-begging. On one side you have the possibility that God orchestrated the whole life of Jesus toward one event and on the other side you have (a) a denial of that and a post hoc rationalization of how to account for such a story or (b) the story could not have been that compelling and God needed some literary help making the story more compelling.

So you recognize that this argument for the dating of Mark is not an opinion held mostly or exclusively by non-Christians and by historians (a biblical scholar is not necessarily a trained historian btw. Some are, but most are theologians and specialists in literature)? The dating of the Gospels range for almost 200 years if you include modification and editing.

[pattylt]

Ok, I have to laugh at Steve’s explanations…

Could you imagine the US Supreme Court meeting on Easter Sunday for ANY reason? Neither would the Jewish Sanhedrin meet on Passover.

Please, don’t ever try to suggest that Mary’s genealogy was listed. All a woman’s heritage mattered for was to declare the child Jewish. No priesthood ever goes through the female line, nor would adoption matter, either. They must be the natural birth of a Kohanim to be a priest. Don’t embarrass yourself.

Can you name your patriarchal grandfather from 1000 years ago? Neither could most Jews except the Kohanim. This is a tall tale and nothing more.

If you need god to make the the stories true because…magic…you’ll never get anywhere here.

[Minimalist]

The Myth of Persecution is an excellent book.

The problem with forged martyr stories was so widespread that in the seventeenth century a Dutch Jesuit priest named Héribert Rosweyde began to sort through the European manuscripts that preserved the earliest stories of the martyrs. The size of the task of cataloging thousands of manuscripts proved to be too much for Rosweyde alone, and the project was eventually taken over by a group of scholars led by an ambitious priest named John Bolland. The Society of Bollandists, as they came to be known, spent the next three centuries culling the corpus of hagiographical literature (literature pertaining to the saints) into a huge sixty-eight volume collection of texts about the saints. Of these sixty-eight volumes of texts and commentary, they decided that only a handful of stories were historically reliable. The rest—the vast majority—had been thoroughly edited or had simply been made up.


Candida Moss  The Myth of Persecution    p. 37

Even the fucking jesuits knew it was horseshit in 1643.

[Inkubus]

Brother Stanhope: I hate the fucking Jews:

[Dancefortwo]

I did some more research.  A lot of scholars think that Matthew traced Joseph back because his Jewish audience would be interested in the connection to David (necessary for the Messiah). It is thought that Luke lists Mary's genealogy and the phrase "so it was thought" was an indication that we were not getting his list. I don't know the answer.

You didn't do enough research and didn't apply any logic to what you read.  

Here's the big Christian-paradox and it's quite the conundrum. 

If Jesus had no biological father then he has no tribal affiliation.  And if Jesus has no tribal affiliation then he isn't the messiah.  However, if Jesus IS the biological son of Joseph then he isn't the son of a god.   So either way Jesus is disqualified. 

You see, Stevie, it is only through the continuous male line and through tribal afffiliation leading back to David that the messiah could be linked,   The messiah could never, ever come through the female line.  NEVER.  Maternal connection is simply not a consideration for succession to the throne of David. 


So either way Jesus is not the messiah. 



You need to actually THINK!  Like this guy ------>        and then some day a light bulb might go off, like this  --------> 

[Minimalist]

You need to actually THINK!

Religitards don't think.

[Cavebear]

You said "I believe that's what I said. He was a Jew, and more specifically a Nazarite."

I'm glad we agree.

I said "My personal view is that Ken Dark is an idiot much like those "alien experts" you see all the time on cable channels.  Lots of claims, no real facts.
[/quote]

You said "Well he wrote not just one, but two academic books on it - he's the leading expert like it or not until someone else builds upon the work."

Gee "TWO books".  I should be SO impressed.  Alien conspiracy writers write dozens.  So that makes them actual factual experts of anything real?  And about "until someone else builds upon the work", what actual work?  Fiction is fiction.  Anyone can write fiction.

You said "Well no the “oral tradition” itself doesn't change that much in the the first century or so after Jesus dies, it's just that people have a REALLY bad idea about what “oral tradition” means"

The rest of it was too long to quote...

But I will respond.  Oral tradition was once very precise and durable through time. People worked hard to memorize stories before writing.  Some specialized in memorizing very long stories.  I admire a talent now lost to most of us.  But the usefulness of that talent depends on the accuracy of the source material.  If the source material is mythological or superstitious, a perfect recall of it through generations is of little value.  It is simply a re-telling of something that might or might not have been true in the first place.

[Aractus]

No, I called it horseshit....and stand by it.  "Paul" ( and for the record we have absolutely NOTHING actually written by this alleged "paul" guy ) knows nothing at all of the later jesus story that "mark" put forward.  He never heard of Joseph, Mary, Pilate, virgin births, golgotha, joseph of arimathea, caiaphas, judas, etc., etc., etc.  

See this is why you're an idiot. You're as bad as the fundamentalist Christians you despise so much.

Mark is just writing a fucking spiritual story to express his beliefs. Almost all cultures do this. He isn't trying to hoodwink his audience into thinking that they're reading literal history.

So you can dance around it all you like but you did not answer the question of why you are willing to accept those two things as "factual" while dismissing the rest of the book as bullshit - or horseshit, if you prefer.  "Paul" is fucking irrelevant.

Paul's letters are written before 70CE. The undisputed ones I mean. He talks about the Temple as place that still exists (1 Corinthians 3:17 and 9:13).

As for gMark I did not say that it's “horseshit” or “bullshit”. All I said is that it's Mark expressing his beliefs through story. It's Christians today that do not understand this, most of them that is, as they think it's literal or that it's based on “oral tradition” or on “eyewitness testimony”. On the latter point there, eyewitness testimony, it's wasn't well known in the 90's and police forces denied it that eyewitness testimony was actually quite unreliable, and we know that now. But look that's entirely irrelevant because Mark isn't based on eyewitness testimony: he's writing his beliefs in prose. That is it. That's all he is doing. The early Christians were not the dogmatic assholes that the fundementalists are today, they were just people gathering in houses and practising their religion through customs rites and sacraments. In the first century they didn't have a single Creed let alone a dogma of faith. So lay off them, it's not their fault the movement later spawned into the religion that it did, and it's certainly not their fault that people today literalise their spiritual stories.

Hate on Jesus of Nazareth as the asshole all you want, and Paul as well if you want to, but you have zero evidence against these other people as doing anything other than peacefully practising their religion in the late first century and early second century. After that sure - I would agree that the persecution of heretics in particular shows those believing it were assholes. I would note though that even Origen didn't agree with THAT or later 4th century Orthodoxy and he was 3rd century. He was dug up and his body burned for heresy over it.

Saint Jerome he was a real piece of shit. So you want to hate on someone why not hate on that cunt? He taught that women were formed from defective sperm. He taught that only virgins were like men and pure and that any other woman was a tainted worthless piece of trash even if she's married to her husband. Even ISIS are not as extreme in their views of women as he was.

[Aractus]

You said "I believe that's what I said. He was a Jew, and more specifically a Nazarite."

I'm glad we agree.

I said "My personal view is that Ken Dark is an idiot much like those "alien experts" you see all the time on cable channels.  Lots of claims, no real facts.

You said "Well he wrote not just one, but two academic books on it - he's the leading expert like it or not until someone else builds upon the work."

Gee "TWO books".  I should be SO impressed.  Alien conspiracy writers write dozens.  So that makes them actual factual experts of anything real?  And about "until someone else builds upon the work", what actual work?  Fiction is fiction.  Anyone can write fiction.

You said "Well no the “oral tradition” itself doesn't change that much in the the first century or so after Jesus dies, it's just that people have a REALLY bad idea about what “oral tradition” means"

The rest of it was too long to quote...

It's not unusual for one historian to be the expert on a particular subject. Jewish slavery in Antiquity is Catherine Hezser's speciality, John Granger Cook is the leading expert on ancient crucifixion. Dennis R MacDonald is the expert on the use of Homer in the New Testament. Steve Mason is the expert on the NT's use of Josephus. I could of course go on, but the point I'm making is that Ken Dark is the leading expert on Nazareth whether you like it or not, and besides which he didn't just write two books. I said he wrote two academic books, he wrote a third one for the lay-audience as well kind of like how Bart Ehrman writes academic books and also books for the laypeople.

But I will respond.  Oral tradition was once very precise and durable through time. People worked hard to memorize stories before writing.  Some specialized in memorizing very long stories.  I admire a talent now lost to most of us.  But the usefulness of that talent depends on the accuracy of the source material.  If the source material is mythological or superstitious, a perfect recall of it through generations is of little value.  It is simply a re-telling of something that might or might not have been true in the first place.

That's absolutely correct, and there are people today who can recite the Gospel of Mark word-for-word. But that's not necessarily oral tradition, that was a skill that scribes needed to have so that they could recite what they were writing down whether that was by duplication of another text or by oral dictation. For example when Paul wrote Romans he dictated it to his scribe, and then he left the room to go do his day job which was presumably tentmaking while his scribe continued writing down what had been dictated to him in tiny letters.

[Cavebear]

You said "I believe that's what I said. He was a Jew, and more specifically a Nazarite."

I'm glad we agree.

I said "My personal view is that Ken Dark is an idiot much like those "alien experts" you see all the time on cable channels.  Lots of claims, no real facts.

You said "Well he wrote not just one, but two academic books on it - he's the leading expert like it or not until someone else builds upon the work."

Gee "TWO books".  I should be SO impressed.  Alien conspiracy writers write dozens.  So that makes them actual factual experts of anything real?  And about "until someone else builds upon the work", what actual work?  Fiction is fiction.  Anyone can write fiction.

You said "Well no the “oral tradition” itself doesn't change that much in the the first century or so after Jesus dies, it's just that people have a REALLY bad idea about what “oral tradition” means"

The rest of it was too long to quote...

It's not unusual for one historian to be the expert on a particular subject. Jewish slavery in Antiquity is Catherine Hezser's speciality, John Granger Cook is the leading expert on ancient crucifixion. Dennis R MacDonald is the expert on the use of Homer in the New Testament. Steve Mason is the expert on the NT's use of Josephus. I could of course go on, but the point I'm making is that Ken Dark is the leading expert on Nazareth whether you like it or not, and besides which he didn't just write two books. I said he wrote two academic books, he wrote a third one for the lay-audience as well kind of like how Bart Ehrman writes academic books and also books for the laypeople.

But I will respond.  Oral tradition was once very precise and durable through time. People worked hard to memorize stories before writing.  Some specialized in memorizing very long stories.  I admire a talent now lost to most of us.  But the usefulness of that talent depends on the accuracy of the source material.  If the source material is mythological or superstitious, a perfect recall of it through generations is of little value.  It is simply a re-telling of something that might or might not have been true in the first place.

That's absolutely correct, and there are people today who can recite the Gospel of Mark word-for-word. But that's not necessarily oral tradition, that was a skill that scribes needed to have so that they could recite what they were writing down whether that was by duplication of another text or by oral dictation. For example when Paul wrote Romans he dictated it to his scribe, and then he left the room to go do his day job which was presumably tentmaking while his scribe continued writing down what had been dictated to him in tiny letters.

I will note that the Wikipedia article for Ken Dark says "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification.".  So there is doubt about his credentials.  

I will also note that there are indeed people who can recite chapter and verse of the Bible (or other theistic texts), but for different reasons than the ancient story-tellers.  The former are obsessed with a particular belief; the latter were reciting stories of more general history (as they knew it).  The difference may be slight, but real.

The other people you mention may or may not be "legitimate" experts in their fields.  I don't really feel a need to look them up. But I can make some educated guesses from the subject matter you credit them for.  "Jewish slavery in Antiquity", "ancient crucifixion", " the use of Homer in the New Testament".  These are all basically religious themes showing an obsession with theism.  

I tend to differentiate between "biblical scholars" with fake degrees from fake universities and who have a conclusion in mind they want to prove, and those who find actual evidence and go from that towards a conclusion.  And even some people manage to get degrees from legitimate universities and come out as complete idiots.  I've met some.

And add (because you mentioned Nazarite):

"In the Hebrew Bible, a nazirite or a nazarite (Hebrew: נָזִיר Nāzīr)[1] is a man or woman[2] who voluntarily took a vow which is described in Numbers 6:1–21. This vow required the nazirite to:

Abstain from wine and all other grape products, such as vinegar and grapes[3]
Refrain from cutting the hair on his head
Not to become ritually impure by contact with corpses or graves, even those of family members.

After following these requirements for a designated time period (which would be specified in the individual's vow), the nazirite would offer a specific animal sacrifice; along with it, the nazirite's hair was to be shorn and burned.

The nazirite is described as being "holy" and "holy unto God"; yet at the same time, he or she must bring a sin offering. This has led to divergent approaches to the nazirite in the Talmud, and later authorities, with some viewing the nazirite as an ideal, and others viewing the nazirite as a sinner. "

Quite a weird person...

[Bucky Ball]

Ok, I have to laugh at Steve’s explanations…

Could you imagine the US Supreme Court meeting on Easter Sunday for ANY reason? Neither would the Jewish Sanhedrin meet on Passover.

Please, don’t ever try to suggest that Mary’s genealogy was listed. All a woman’s heritage mattered for was to declare the child Jewish. No priesthood ever goes through the female line, nor would adoption matter, either. They must be the natural birth of a Kohanim to be a priest. Don’t embarrass yourself.

Can you name your patriarchal grandfather from 1000 years ago? Neither could most Jews except the Kohanim. This is a tall tale and nothing more.

If you need god to make the the stories true because…magic…you’ll never get anywhere here.

... such an excellent point. And it would have been mentioned historically somewhere by Jews who recorded all sorts of less important events in Jerusalem. There is not one instance we know of, that the Sanhedrin was called into session on Passover weekend. EVER. It's such a glaring error to claim that, in a gospel, but this shit was being cooked up by non-Jews who were totally ignorant of the context. . ... just as bad as the ridiculous notion that at a Passover meal, someone would propose that the disciples would actually eat flesh and drink blood. Both abominations. LMFAO. Whenever they cooked up this crap, it was LONG after the Jews were in charge. It can't possibly be 1st Century. There is no possible way a non-married "rabbi" whom no one ever talked about (his non-married status) was running around in ancient Israel. BTW, in John, there is no mention of the "institution of the Eucharist". There is a LONG speech which includes all sorts of theological material and concepts which we know developed FAR later. These people think we are stupid.

[Aegon]

Mark, at the earliest, is dated to 69 CE and it is the first Jesus story written.  Nothing is earlier than that.  So everything after that is from 70 onward and the concensus among Biblical scholars is that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke was written in the 80's.  John was written the late 90's to 110.  

One of the reason's John is dated so much later is that whoever wrote this story became aware that the Sanhedrin was no longer a viable council so he had Jesus come before a high priest instead of the entire council.  This dates it after 90 CE.

No surprise that the gospel which projects Godly powers and godson status onto Jesus is the latest one. The first two generations of Christians didn't even believe Jesus was a direct descendant of God.

[Bucky Ball]

A "son of god" for Jews was simply a righteous man. It did not include any claim of divinity or direct familial "relationship" that "son" means generally.
There are countless papers on this.
And recently even "divine" status has been shown to not mean "god" status, and certainly in no way equivalency to Yahweh.
The angels were said to be "divine". Part of "the heavenly host".

"the term by no means carries the idea of physical descent from, and essential unity with, God the Father. The Hebrew idiom conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness (see Godliness). In fact, the term "son of God" is rarely used in Jewish literature in the sense of"Messiah." Though in Sukkah 52a the words of Ps. ii. 7, 8 are put into the mouth of Messiah, son of David, he himself is not called "son of God." The more familiar epithet is "King Messiah," based partly on this psalm (Gen. R. xliv.). In the Targum the of Ps. lxxx. 16 is rendered (= "King Messiah"), while Ps. ii. 7 is paraphrased in a manner that removes the anthropomorphism of the Hebrew: "Thou art beloved unto me, like a son unto a father, pure as on the day when I created thee."
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic...son-of-god

[Dānu]

[Minimalist]

See this is why you're an idiot. You're as bad as the fundamentalist Christians you despise so much.

Mark is just writing a fucking spiritual story to express his beliefs. Almost all cultures do this. He isn't trying to hoodwink his audience into thinking that they're reading literal history.

A bullshit answer from you, as usual.  I agree about "mark's" intention but the original question was and I'll highlight it so maybe it will stick in your head long enough to address it:  WHY DO YOU ACCEPT AS FACTUAL THOSE TWO ITEMS WHEN THE ONLY PLACE THEY APPEAR IS IN A BOOK THAT YOU OTHERWISE CONSIDER TO BE HORSESHIT?

I'll wait.

[Dancefortwo]

Ok, I have to laugh at Steve’s explanations…

Could you imagine the US Supreme Court meeting on Easter Sunday for ANY reason?  Neither would the Jewish Sanhedrin meet on Passover.

Please, don’t ever try to suggest that Mary’s genealogy was listed.  All a woman’s heritage mattered for was to declare the child Jewish.  No priesthood ever goes through the female line, nor would adoption matter, either.  They must be the natural birth of a Kohanim to be a priest. Don’t embarrass yourself.

Can you name your patriarchal grandfather from 1000 years ago?  Neither could most Jews except the Kohanim.  This is a tall tale and nothing more.  

If you need god to make the the stories true because…magic…you’ll never get anywhere here.

... such an excellent point. And it would have been mentioned historically somewhere by Jews who recorded all sorts of less important events in Jerusalem. There is not one instance we know of, that the Sanhedrin was called into session on Passover weekend. EVER. It's such a glaring error to claim that, in a gospel, but this shit was being cooked up by non-Jews who were totally ignorant of the context. . ... just as bad as the ridiculous notion that at a Passover meal, someone would propose that the disciples would actually eat flesh and drink blood. Both abominations. LMFAO. Whenever they cooked up this crap, it was LONG after the Jews were in charge. It can't possibly be 1st Century. There is no possible way a non-married "rabbi" whom no one ever talked about (his non-married status) was running around in ancient Israel. BTW, in John, there is no mention of the "institution of the Eucharist". There is a LONG speech which includes all sorts of theological material and concepts which we know developed FAR later. These people think we are stupid.

It is a fabulous post by @pattylt.  This is some information from the Jewish Virtual Library.

 In about 30 C.E., the Great Sanhedrin lost its authority to inflict capital punishment. After the Temple was destroyed, so was the Great Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin in Yavneh took over many of its functions, under the authority of Rabban Gamliel. The rabbis in the Sanhedrin served as judges and attracted students who came to learn their oral traditions and scriptural interpretations. From Yavneh, the Sanhedrin moved to different cities in the Galilee, eventually ending up in Tiberias.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-sanhedrin

Another source says the Sanhedrin didn't try capital punishment cases after 28 CE.

However, in the year 3788 (28 CE), when the Sanhedrin relinquished its power to try capital offenses, it moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself. When Jerusalem was destroyed in 3828 (68 CE), the Sanhedrin moved to Yavneh. During the ensuing century, the location of the Sanhedrin alternated between Yavneh and Usha. From there it moved consecutively to Shafar'am, Beth She'arim, Sephoris, and Tiberias. It remained functioning in Tiberias until shortly before the completion of the Talmud.

 


So if Jesus was tried in 30 CE  during the holy week of Passover, which couldn't have happened anyway, they would have had nothing to do with that trial or the capital punishment aspect of it.   It's pure fiction.  The gospels claim that Jesus was taken to the private homes of the high priest. This is ridiculous. It's like being taken to the private home of one of the Supreme Court judges homes for a trial.   The Sanhedrin was not some sort of casual organization.  

The anonymous gospels were written by later Greek Christians who didn't know any of this and it's one of many reasons scholars date the writings decades later.

The Jesus stories are not biographies, they are faith stories written to promote what the writers believed.   They all have an ulterior motive for the sole purpose converting people to a new religion.  This is not how biographies are written.  They are all written in third person and in a very distant voice.    Most importantly, they do not even CLAIM to be eyewitness accounts.

[Bucky Ball]

Mark is just writing a fucking spiritual story to express his beliefs.

Nope.
The gospels were written to reflect the beliefs of and FOR a specific community, concerning what they thought were "events" and their take on them. It's not a "spiritual story".
If they didn't reflect the views of the community, they weren't used.
They were written and used to proclaim the "Good News" during liturgical events for specific communities.

"Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities.
The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome."

"By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...mfour.html