Mark’s Ending

[tabibito]

We have no idea what the "founding apostles " thought as none of them has left us any written testimony.

Surely you are not saying that others could not have accurately recorded what the founding apostles taught. Paul certainly records the existence of groups that introduce false teachings, as does Peter. The existence of such groups so early would have been a strong driver in producing written records.

How "indubitably"? The dating ranges up to the end of the first century? What do you know that no one else does?

The datings are generally given to the last decades of the first century with Mark as the earliest around 70/71 CE

.

Dates later than 70AD are highly questionable. Pretty much any time after 64 AD, the sacking of Jerusalem and the fall of the temple and the manner of that fall would have been predictable from historical precedents. So, anyone who wants to disbelieve the existence of prophecy has an out in the simple observation that historical precedent would be repeated in first century Jerusalem. So the authors would have no qualms about putting words into Jesus' mouth even before the event. It is no accident that Korean peasant shaman were able to accurately forecast events: they had their fingers on the pulse, and knew from experience (both handed-down and personal) how to interpret the significance of what they observed.

That raises questions about the accuracy of this "first hand account" with the same incidents recounted in the epistles of Paul.

oft stated, never demonstrated.

Why? Can you not entertain the possibility that the writer was looking back to much earlier events and giving his narrative an upbeat ending?

Even if that were the case, the fact remains that the latter section of Acts is presented from the perspective of a first person witness and participant in some of the events described. To support the idea that Luke/Acts were later works, the idea (which has no attested support) was posited that the first person perspective was introduced as a literary device to lend immediacy. Why then does Luke not use the first person witness for the gospel and earlier section of Acts? The simplest explanation is - he wasn't there before he caught up with Paul.

The specified two year term stated at the conclusion of Acts defeats commentators because it is interpreted to mean "resided," in line with the more common interpretation of the aorist tense - but the aorist readily translates to "has resided" or "has been residing." If Luke had completed the Acts account when Paul had been imprisoned for two years and remained imprisoned, Luke would have used the aorist tense.

A plethora of examples of the aorist tense being used to refer to an event which began in the past and continues through and often continues beyond the present, for which English uses the present perfect ("has ~d," or, "has been ~ing"): Koine perfect tense strictly refers to an event completed in the past, leaving an enduring result.

[tabibito]

As I pointed out earlier, there are a host of reasons why it is exceedingly unlikely that there was much (if any) tampering in the texts by later, predominantly Gentile scribes. H_A's assertions that the originals were "not given any particular consideration", "chosen by happenstance" and on the same level as other writings panned as apocryphal aren't much more than skeptical wishful thinking, no matter how much scholarly ink has been spilled proffering such opinions.

Repeatedly - by you and others - ever since the great crash.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Surely you are not saying that others could not have accurately recorded what the founding apostles taught.

We do not know what the likes of James or Peter taught. They have left no attested authentic texts.

Paul certainly records the existence of groups that introduce false teachings

He does and criticises both Cephas and other Jews for "hypocrisy"

for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction

Evidently James and Paul did not see "eye to eye" on those issues.

Dates later than 70AD are highly questionable. Pretty much any time after 64 AD, the sacking of Jerusalem and the fall of the temple and the manner of that fall would have been predictable from historical precedents. So, anyone who wants to disbelieve the existence of prophecy has an out in the simple observation that historical precedent would be repeated in first century Jerusalem. So the authors would have no qualms about putting words into Jesus' mouth even before the event. It is no accident that Korean peasant shaman were able to accurately forecast events: they had their fingers on the pulse, and knew from experience (both handed-down and personal) how to interpret the significance of what they observed.

I do apologise for not being more clear. I should asked you for accredited historical evidence, I am not interested in flight of fancy

oft stated, never demonstrated.

Some examples come to mind.

Even if that were the case, the fact remains that the latter section of Acts is presented from the perspective of a first person witness and participant in some of the events described.

And? Bernard Cornwell writes his Warrior Chronicles/Last Kingdom series of books in the present tense and first person. Cornwell is not living in the ninth century.

To support the idea that Luke/Acts were later works, the idea (which has no attested support)

We do not have a precise date for any of these NT texts, Paul was writing sometime in the 50s but we cannot date a text to a specific year. Acts is dated to the late first century around 85/90 CE with some suggesting the early second.

was posited that the first person perspective was introduced as a literary device to lend immediacy. Why then does Luke not use the first person witness for the gospel and earlier section of Acts? The simplest explanation is - he wasn't there before he caught up with Paul.

Or that the author was using a common technique found in other NT writing by using the first person to make his readers believe he was involved in the events.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"humor"

The vagaries of predictive text. However, I would spell it humour

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Writing on internet forums or blogs doesn't make you a biblical scholar.

I have never claimed to be a biblical scholar. My specialism is in social history.

[rogue06]

Having read the canonical gospels as well as a considerable number of apocryphal gospels, I can safely say that they are not at all comparable. If she'd actually read both, she might have to acknowledge that.

Keep in mind, this is the same person who thought Acts was akin to a Hellenistic romance story, a hilarious claim that absolutely nobody who ever read Acts would have made.

[rogue06]

.

Dates later than 70AD are highly questionable. Pretty much any time after 64 AD, the sacking of Jerusalem and the fall of the temple and the manner of that fall would have been predictable from historical precedents. So, anyone who wants to disbelieve the existence of prophecy has an out in the simple observation that historical precedent would be repeated in first century Jerusalem. So the authors would have no qualms about putting words into Jesus' mouth even before the event. It is no accident that Korean peasant shaman were able to accurately forecast events: they had their fingers on the pulse, and knew from experience (both handed-down and personal) how to interpret the significance of what they observed.

The primary reason for rejecting the early date for the Gospels is a refusal to see Jesus' prophecy as anything but a later interpolation based on the curious notion that people can't predict things.

History is replete with examples of where someone has accurately foreseen this or that event. That this is indeed so cannot be seriously gainsaid.

And as you noted, such a prediction could simply be based on how the Romans typically responded to and treated rebellious people. Predicting that the Temple, which could have been seen as the symbol if not center of any rebellion, would be destroyed by the Romans really didn't require supernatural powers to foresee.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The primary reason for rejecting the early date for the Gospels is a refusal to see Jesus' prophecy as anything but a later interpolation based on the curious notion that people can't predict things.

No one can accurately predict things in full detail. There are coincidences, inspired guesses, and what may be termed "hunches" but nothing more..

History is replete with examples of where someone has accurately foreseen this or that event.

Where? What attested events are you citing?

That this is indeed so cannot be seriously gainsaid.

Says who?

And as you noted, such a prediction could simply be based on how the Romans typically responded to and treated rebellious people.

Rather a generalisation.

Predicting that the Temple, which could have been seen as the symbol if not center of any rebellion, would be destroyed by the Romans really didn't require supernatural powers to foresee.

Not with the degree of accuracy that the three Synoptics provide.

[Sparko]

The vagaries of predictive text. However, I would spell it humour

Why waste vowels?

[Sparko]

I have never claimed to be a biblical scholar. My specialism is in social history.

Your specialty is in trolling internet forums.

[tabibito]

We do not know what the likes of James or Peter taught. They have left no attested authentic texts.

There is no sound reason to doubt the authorship of letters attributed to Peter and James. 1Peter for example is said to not be Peter's work because

Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language, none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.

Sylvanus (despite claims based in wishful thinking to the contrary) penned the letter, and Peter had not been a Galilean fisherman for quite some time. Paul's letter to the Romans likewise nominates Tertius as the pensman, and also places that information toward the end of the letter - the difference being that Tertius himself provides that information.

He does and criticises both Cephas and other Jews for "hypocrisy"

An accusation of hypocrisy is not a criticism of what the accused teaches, it is a criticism of the failure to put the teaching into practice.

for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction

Evidently James and Paul did not see "eye to eye" on those issues.

That from is "apo" - it does not indicate that they were acting as authorised representatives of James. James and Paul provide the same assessments, their teachings are not in conflict with each other, but both are in conflict with careless commentary on Paul's teachings.

I do apologise for not being more clear. I should asked you for accredited historical evidence, I am not interested in flight of fancy

Some examples come to mind.

Dismissing evaluation as though it is idle speculation is not persuasive.

And? Bernard Cornwell writes his Warrior Chronicles/Last Kingdom series of books in the present tense and first person. Cornwell is not living in the ninth century.

The last kingdom series is a paranormal/fantasy series, a different genre altogether.

We do not have a precise date for any of these NT texts, Paul was writing sometime in the 50s but we cannot date a text to a specific year. Acts is dated to the late first century around 85/90 CE with some suggesting the early second.

Speculation which is generally accepted as probably valid by a significant number of commentators. Where now your insistence that there be attested authentic texts providing support for the hypothesis?

Or that the author was using a common technique found in other NT writing by using the first person to make his readers believe he was involved in the events.

Another claim oft made but seldom demonstrated. Though there are sections where the author uses the first person for other purposes, they are hypothetical first persons which do not lend themselves to the author's presence for actual events and do not involve other parties.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why waste vowels?

Perhaps it is indicative of two nations divided by a common language.

[tabibito]

And as you noted, such a prediction could simply be based on how the Romans typically responded to and treated rebellious people. Predicting that the Temple, which could have been seen as the symbol if not center of any rebellion, would be destroyed by the Romans really didn't require supernatural powers to foresee.

Indeed so and more - were the passages quoted without providing citation, it would not be possible to determine whether the author was speaking of the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE or in ca. 589-587BCE.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There is no sound reason to doubt the authorship of letters attributed to Peter and James.

There are a number of valid reasons several of which have been touched upon in past exchanges

An accusation of hypocrisy is not a criticism of what the accused teaches, it is a criticism of the failure to put the teaching into practice.

As I noted self-evidently James and Paul did not see "eye to eye" on certain matters.

Dismissing evaluation as though it is idle speculation is not persuasive.

You might take your own advice.

The last kingdom series is a paranormal/fantasy series, a different genre altogether.

It is no such thing.

It is set in a historical period with real historical figures including Alfred the Great, his daughter, his son, and his grandson, along with actual Norse/Viking figures, one of whom Guðrum/Guthrum converted to Christianity, took the baptismal name Æthelstan and ruled East Anglia until his death. The series also includes real battles.

The figure of the main character, Uhtred, is fictitious but he is set in a real historical period, although as is often the case with historical fiction, Cromwell takes some liberties with history.

You appear to have confused it with the series Game of Thrones.

Speculation which is generally accepted as probably valid by a significant number of commentators. Where now your insistence that there be attested authentic texts providing support for the hypothesis?

The datings are premised on internal content such as reference to Queen Berenice and the assumption that his Hellenised audience would be familiar with this individual, which given that she had become famous through her affair with Titus lends further probability to a post 70 date.

Another claim oft made but seldom demonstrated. Though there are sections where the author uses the first person for other purposes, they are hypothetical first persons which do not lend themselves to the author's presence for actual events and do not involve other parties.

The same technique can be found in other NT texts.

However, as you clearly believe Acts to be an accurate and veracious "account" in every single detail, there is little point in retreading an old path.

[rogue06]

No one can accurately predict things in full detail. There are coincidences, inspired guesses, and what may be termed "hunches" but nothing more..

In "full detail"? No. Enough detail to be clearly predicting something that came to pass? All the time.

Btw, which category would you place Sir Alec Guinness warning James Dean, right after the latter was showing off his new car and boasting how fast it could go, "Please do not get into that car, because if you do … by 10 o'clock at night next Thursday, you'll be dead."? The next Thursday Dean died in an auto accident driving that car.

The point is that such predictions coming to pass is hardly unique, and therefore dismissing something as a legitimate prediction has no basis in reality.

Where? What attested events are you citing?

Aside from the example provided above?

How about these, which naturally vary in levels of impressiveness...

The iconic TV comedy and variety show, Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In had a segment called "News of the Future," where they predicted not only the future presidency of Ronald Reagan -- who at the time was the governor of California and on virtually nobody's list of potential presidential contenders -- but also the exact year of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This all happened in 1969, a full two decades before East and West Germany were reunited.

In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell, best known as the inventor of the telephone, warned of how the continuing unchecked burning of fossil fuels would "have a sort of greenhouse effect" on the planet and recommended collecting solar power from sunlight and using it as an energy source.

Mark Twain, perhaps in jest, predicted his own death:

"I came in with Halley’s comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t. The Almighty said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"

Back in 1840 Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that the U.S. and Russia would become rival superpowers.

In 1888, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's first Chancellor, accurately predicted World War I, proclaiming: "One day the Great European War will come out of some damn foolish thing in the Balkans."

Marshal Foch regarding the Treaty of Versailles declared that "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years." He was correct nearly to the day when WWII broke out.

In John Brunner’s 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar, America in 2010 is run by a President Obomi in a world with satellite news and DVRs (although the book itself was about a world suffering from overpopulation).

Jules Verne is credited with predicting a goodly number of things.

And more than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.

Obviously, this means that Gulliver's Travels was really™ written after 1877 -- over 130 years after Swift's death.

Says who?

The frequency of which these sort of things have been documented to happen

Rather a generalisation.

A prediction based upon past behaviors.

Not with the degree of accuracy that the three Synoptics provide.

The description was rather generalized, not to mention, as shown above, some predictions have been very specific and still came to pass.