Mark’s Ending

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So far, there has been nothing worthy of challenge - plenty of speculation challenging the texts, but nothing of any substance.



Highly qualified academics contradict each other, which leads to the need to evaluate their arguments carefully before those arguments can be asserted or denied. On the available evidence, that process is foreign to your experience.
.


Academic texts must be compared with source material, for the reason stated.



I find no compelling argument to the contrary. Feel free to disabuse me of the notion with actual data rather than ad hominems.



My claim is that the mention of Berenice provides no reliable information as a basis for either challenge or affirmation of an early date for the composition of Acts.



That Berenice was a ruler of part of Judaea in her own right, Herod's daughter, sister of Agrippa II is a matter of historical record.



Feel free to demonstrate that my opinion is invalid, and that it is based on speculation rather than evaluation.



The wiki article provides an overview of Berenice's circumstances, and links to works by accredited scholars; attesting the facts. Either you didn't look, or you dislike what you saw. There is no point to providing more to a person who has decided in advance that anything I might provide is invalid.



Until it has been established that the "we" is a false statement, the use of "we" by other authors in other places signifies nothing that supports your contentions.



Your comments prove that you don't approach the subjects of Christianity and the Biblical record with anything approaching objectivity.



When I write of the early church, it is a reference to the post third century church. When I write of the early churches, it is a reference to the congregations of the first through third centuries.



Idle speculation. Common practice would have provided information about the authors on fly leaves. Common practice would not have duplicated the fly leaves.



The claim that mention of Berenice shows a late date of authorship fails for want of logical assessment. Berenice ruled over a section of Judaea in her own right, which explains her presence in Caesaria shortly after Festus arrived there, and explains why should would have been a known figure in her own time, even without the rumours. What other arguments for a late date fare any better? Hostile and careless readings of Paul's comments might lead to the conclusion that there was a conflict.



Is that supposed to be a criticism, or to signify that Luke is historical fiction?

Berenice was not a tetrarch as you initially wrote. And you have singularly failed to produce any evidence from the 40s or 50s on the lady to support your contention that Acts was written at a far earlier date.

Josephus does mention her but his writings are from the last quarter of the first century. Furthermore, verses from Acts bear some striking similarities with Josephus which suggests that the author knew of wha tJosephus had written possibly via rumours and not necessarily directly. as Steve Mason has noted.

Paul's hearing before Agrippa II matches Josephus's account in its repeated reference to his companion Berenice (Acts 25:13,23; 26:30). Acts does not explain that she is Agrippa's sister, nor does it divulge why she is there, since she does not figure in the exchanges with Paul. The modern reader might easily suppose that she is his wife. But once we know Josephus's account, the episode takes on a sharply sarcastic tone. [...]

None of this requires that either the author of Acts or his first readers knew Josephus's writings, since the rumors about Agrippa II and Berenice circulated widely (cf. Juvenal, Sat. 6.158). But the fact that, in its stories of both Agrippa I and Agrippa II, Acts seems almost to ride "piggyback" on Josephus's accounts, forces us to examine more closely the relationship between these two works.[See, Mason, S. Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd Edition, Baker Academic, 2002, p.164]

As for the rest, despite the meaning of your user name, I am not travelling that path with you again as previous exchanges on this text have proved somewhat circular.

[rogue06]

I don't think H_A was writing in the first century AD.

drum-monkey.gif

I specifically said "historian" not "faux historian"

[rogue06]

Meteorological forecasts rely on a great deal of data and the interpretation of that data.

They are not based on one person looking out of a window or studying the tea leaves.

One can make a prediction based upon the facts at hand.

From Cambridge Dictionary:

prediction
noun [ C ]

a statement about what you think will happen in the future:

• make a prediction Analysts are busy making predictions about what we can expect in the next budget.
• prediction that This fall has confirmed our prediction that confidence would soften in the wake of interest rate rises.
• prediction of sth Output will grow by only 2.2% this year, well down on last October's prediction of 3.6%.
• prediction for sth His prediction for the economy in 2003, which many thought over-optimistic, turned out to be spot-on.

Please note the total lack of any sort of supernatural powers involved


When old Joe and the Democrats started printing money to throw down holes, many predicted a sharp increase in inflation. No looking out of windows or studying of tea leaves involved.

Scientists regularly predict things^[1]. In your world do they do so by reading tea leaves, or is it more based upon the evidence and an understanding of probabilities that accept the idea of randomness?




1. One of my favorite examples involves the discovery of Tiktaalik (see my avatar minus the cap and eyepatch), First, scientists predicted that, according to evolutionary theory and previous fossils, that a creature that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians should have appeared some time between 360 and 390 million years ago. They also predicted that such a creature would be found in a freshwater (fluvial) coastal environment, causing them to pull out geological maps looking for exposed deposits that met these criteria. They found one up on Canada's Ellesmere Island and after five years of digging found the evidence that confirmed their prediction.

[tabibito]

Berenice was not a tetrarch as you initially wrote. And you have singularly failed to produce any evidence from the 40s or 50s on the lady to support your contention that Acts was written at a far earlier date.

My contention is that Luke's self identification as a companion traveller with Paul supports the argument that he was a companion traveller with Paul, and was, as he claims, present during the some of the events that he describes from Acts 16 and onward.
I further contend that the argument that Luke's mention of Berenice supports the supposition of a late date for composition fails on the grounds that Luke's mention of Berenice cannot be demonstrated to be dependent on external records.

Josephus does mention her but his writings are from the last quarter of the first century. Furthermore, verses from Acts bear some striking similarities with Josephus which suggests that the author knew of Josephus. as Steve Mason has noted.

Rogue already made reference to the possibility that Luke and Josephus might have depended on the same or similar sources. No firm evidence is available to show that Luke depended on Josephus, nor that Josephus depended on Luke - assuming that there is any veracity to the story that Josephus actually mentions that encounter. So far, the only mention I can find of the event is reference to Acts in commentary about Josephus. Then again, per Steve Mason. Josephus and the New Testament, (1992), 99 (or page 163 of the 2003 edition)

As for Agrippa, the account in Acts of his interview with Paul (25:13—26:32) dovetails nicely with Josephus' portrayal. Josephus nowhere mentions Paul, and that is probably evidence of the limited impact that Christianity had on the turbulent life of first-century Judea. Josephus does mention several other persecuted leaders of small groups, and Paul is mistaken for one of these, according to Acts 21:38.

You might have served your argument better if you had actually paid attention to what Mason really wrote, instead of providing an out of context cherry-picked citation.

Paul's hearing before Agrippa II matches Josephus's account in its repeated reference to his companion Berenice (Acts 25:13,23; 26:30). Acts does not explain that she is Agrippa's sister, nor does it divulge why she is there, since she does not figure in the exchanges with Paul. The modern reader might easily suppose that she is his wife. But once we know Josephus's account, the episode takes on a sharply sarcastic tone. [See, Mason, S. Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd Edition, Baker Academic, 2002, p.164]

That piece is about the record in ACTS: Paul's addressing Festus the pagan instead of the Jewish rulers of Jerusalem. There are contradictory accounts re some of the details, however, Berenice is named as co-regent with Agrippa II, who appointed the high-priests in Jerusalem. Berenice is named as a client queen of Rome, and ruling in Chalcis and Cilicia. So - unless the Judaean tetrarchates had been dissolved, Berenice was at least a co-tetrarch. (but I'll cede your point.)

[rogue06]

Weather can often be adequately anticipated by looking out the window...

Especially if you got one of these.

[tabibito]

Wet - Dog's fault
Dry - Dog's gone missing
Shadow - trying to decoy dogs and magpies
White top - Magpie's fault
Can't see - lying doggo
Swinging - Magpie's near miss
Jumping - heavy dog walking past
Gone - Magpie's fault

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One can make a prediction based upon the facts at hand.

From Cambridge Dictionary:

prediction
noun [ C ]

a statement about what you think will happen in the future:

• make a prediction Analysts are busy making predictions about what we can expect in the next budget.
• prediction that This fall has confirmed our prediction that confidence would soften in the wake of interest rate rises.
• prediction of sth Output will grow by only 2.2% this year, well down on last October's prediction of 3.6%.
• prediction for sth His prediction for the economy in 2003, which many thought over-optimistic, turned out to be spot-on.

Please note the total lack of any sort of supernatural powers involved


When old Joe and the Democrats started printing money to throw down holes, many predicted a sharp increase in inflation. No looking out of windows or studying of tea leaves involved.

Scientists regularly predict things^[1]. In your world do they do so by reading tea leaves, or is it more based upon the evidence and an understanding of probabilities that accept the idea of randomness?




1. One of my favorite examples involves the discovery of Tiktaalik (see my avatar minus the cap and eyepatch), First, scientists predicted that, according to evolutionary theory and previous fossils, that a creature that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians should have appeared some time between 360 and 390 million years ago. They also predicted that such a creature would be found in a freshwater (fluvial) coastal environment, causing them to pull out geological maps looking for exposed deposits that met these criteria. They found one up on Canada's Ellesmere Island and after five years of digging found the evidence that confirmed their prediction.

The use of the word in that context refers to those with an understanding of a topic and/or who possess a lot information on the topic and who can make educated guesses. Hence my remarks about meteorological forecasts as well as Bismarck's comment based on what he knew of the Balkan region and its recent history as well as the ongoing rivalry between Britain and Russia over India and south east Asia aka the Great Game.

It does not apply to your anecdote about Sir Alec Guinness, your comment on Jonathan Swift, your incorrect remark about Ronald Reagan's presidential ambitions, or scenarios in fiction.

[tabibito]

Berenice was already infamous in the early 50s, rumours being widespread even before she married Polemon of Pontus.

… you have singularly failed to produce any evidence from the 40s or 50s on the lady to support your contention that Acts was written at a far earlier date.

As Steve Mason has noted.

… since the rumors about Agrippa II and Berenice circulated widely (cf. Juvenal, Sat. 6.158).

Of course, Steve Mason’s is not a first century reference, and it doesn’t meet the standards that H_A requires for a scholarly reference. The book is replete with speculations and short on citations*. Of course, H_A finds the book acceptable – it supports her preconceptions. Even so, she has supplied an independent source making the same claim as I about widespread knowledge of Berenice during Paul’s lifetime.

[* There are some citations, and a reasonable number of end-notes, but not enough to be satisfy H_A's stringent requirements nor those required of a thesis. Then again, providing a thesis is not within the scope of the author's intent. Speculation is also presented as established fact. Nonetheless, the book provides a wealth of useful information and in an easy to read format. Well worth reading.]

As for the rest, despite the meaning of your user name, I am not travelling that path with you again as previous exchanges on this text have proved somewhat circular.

Subtext: I’m bailing before I further demolish my own arguments.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Of course, Steve Mason’s is not a first century reference, and it doesn’t meet the standards that H_A requires for a scholarly reference.

Purely for information, Juvenal's date of birth is placed around 55-60 CE and he died c.127/128 CE. Josephus' birth date is c. 37 CE and he died c.100 CE. Therefore, insofar as we can ascertain, Juvenal and Josephus were near contemporaries.

Juvenal's Satires are dated from the late first and into the early second century CE. Mason citing Juvenal is therefore citing a late first century or possibly early second century source.

The book is replete with speculations and short on citations*. Of course, H_A finds the book acceptable – it supports her preconceptions.

[Adopting rogue06 mode when referring to academics, and using the favoured academic source of several.]

Steve N. Mason (born 1957) is a Canadian historian of Judea in the Graeco-Roman period, best known for his studies of Josephus and early Christian writings. He was professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto.^[1] He has been Kirby Laing Chair of New Testament Exegesis at Aberdeen University (2011–2015?) ^[2] and works today at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

Even so, she has supplied an independent source making the same claim as I about widespread knowledge of Berenice during Paul’s lifetime.

Acts does not provide evidence that there "was widespread knowledge of Berenice during Paul's lifetime".

[* There are some citations, and a reasonable number of end-notes, but not enough to be satisfy H_A's stringent requirements nor those required of a thesis.

As for Mason's text. I have no idea what copy you looked at online but my hard copy has a list of ancient source references that runs to nine pages.

Then again, providing a thesis is not within the scope of the author's intent. Speculation is also presented as established fact. Nonetheless, the book provides a wealth of useful information and in an easy to read format. Well worth reading.]

[scorn] I am quite sure that a pseudonymous contributor to an insignificant Christian website has far superior Koine Greek and knows a great deal more about all these topics than does Mason.

[tabibito]

Acts does not provide evidence that there "was widespread knowledge of Berenice during Paul's lifetime".

I made no claim that it does. The claim was - Mason [himself] provides independent confirmation of my claim, not that anything he cited provides that confirmation.

As for Mason's text. I have no idea what copy you looked at online but my hard copy has a list of ancient source references that runs to nine pages.

The links that I provided connect to archive.org - so "no idea" is rather surprising. Source references in end notes, providing none of the details necessary to a scholastic reference (not that the book claims to be the kind of work that requires such references). A similar presentation by anyone arguing against your propositions, you would dismiss as unworthy of consideration.

Then there is this problematic piece

The modern reader might easily suppose that she [Berenice] is his [Agrippa's] wife. But once we know Josephus’s account, the episode takes on a sharply sarcastic tone. Here is the great king in all his pomp (25:23), brought in by the Roman governor Festus because of his purported expertise in things Jewish (25:26), which the governor lacked. Indeed, Paul repeatedly appeals to the king’s familiarity with Jewish teaching: “With all that I am being accused of by the Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am to defend myself before you today, above all because you are expert in Jewish customs and issues” (26:2-3, 26-27). But if the reader knows that this august Jewish leader, who presumes to try Paul, is all the while sitting next to the sister with whom he is reportedly having an incestuous affair, in violation of the most basic Jewish laws, then the whole trial becomes a comedy.

No hint that there are questions about whether the claims might have been political propaganda rather than factual. If Paul either did not know about the rumours or disregarded them, the whole assessment involving sarcasm in the exchange falls apart.

[scorn] I am quite sure that a pseudonymous contributor to an insignificant Christian website has far superior Koine Greek and knows a great deal more about all these topics than does Mason.

I made no claim to be more knowledgeable than Martin - the problem is that he does not address opposing viewpoints, nor even acknowledge points that are in doubt. It was a concern about such things as claims being made in a manner that makes it seem they are established facts; for example, that Luke drew on Josephus, a claim called into question by the very fact that Luke (and other Biblical authors) conflict with Josephus. Martin himself notes the conflicts but does not explain why he considers the conflicts to be irrelevant to his argument.

[rogue06]

The use of the word in that context refers to those with an understanding of a topic and/or who possess a lot information on the topic and who can make educated guesses. Hence my remarks about meteorological forecasts as well as Bismarck's comment based on what he knew of the Balkan region and its recent history as well as the ongoing rivalry between Britain and Russia over India and south east Asia aka the Great Game.

It does not apply to your anecdote about Sir Alec Guinness, your comment on Jonathan Swift, your incorrect remark about Ronald Reagan's presidential ambitions, or scenarios in fiction.

So it is finally starting to permeate that boulder on your shoulders that being able to predict something is not necessarily predicated on having some sort of supernatural power.

Some folks gather up evidence and examine it while some can just see the proverbial writing on the wall. Others merely realize that A often results in B.

Personally, I don't regard Jesus' prediction as one that necessarily required a supernatural power to foresee. That doesn't make it any less valid or less correct. He was 100% spot on.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So it is finally starting to permeate that boulder on your shoulders that being able to predict something is not necessarily predicated on having some sort of supernatural power.

Your short term memory problems rear their head yet again. And you even quoted my comments. Emphasis to assist you.

The use of the word in that context refers to those with an understanding of a topic and/or who possess a lot information on the topic and who can make educated guesses. Hence my remarks about meteorological forecasts as well as Bismarck's comment based on what he knew of the Balkan region and its recent history as well as the ongoing rivalry between Britain and Russia over India and south east Asia aka the Great Game.

Your other remarks were nothing but examples of coincidences, unsupported anecdotes, and your historical inaccuracy re Reagan and his presidential ambitions.

[tabibito]

So it is finally starting to permeate that boulder on your shoulders that being able to predict something is not necessarily predicated on having some sort of supernatural power.

"Finally" is kind of an overstatement, the concept was floated for the first time (IIRC) only about nine months ago - that's quite a quick recognition (for some).

[rogue06]

Your short term memory problems rear their head yet again. And you even quoted my comments. Emphasis to assist you.

The use of the word in that context refers to those with an understanding of a topic and/or who possess a lot information on the topic and who can make educated guesses. Hence my remarks about meteorological forecasts as well as Bismarck's comment based on what he knew of the Balkan region and its recent history as well as the ongoing rivalry between Britain and Russia over India and south east Asia aka the Great Game.

Your other remarks were nothing but examples of coincidences, unsupported anecdotes, and your historical inaccuracy re Reagan and his presidential ambitions.

It wasn't any "short term memory" issue as you want to pretend, but your steadfast determined resistance to comprehending the simple truth that making a prediction does not require supernatural abilities.

[tabibito]

Your short term memory problems rear their head yet again. And you even quoted my comments. Emphasis to assist you.

The use of the word in that context refers to those with an understanding of a topic and/or who possess a lot information on the topic and who can make educated guesses. Hence my remarks about meteorological forecasts as well as Bismarck's comment based on what he knew of the Balkan region and its recent history as well as the ongoing rivalry between Britain and Russia over India and south east Asia aka the Great Game.

Your other remarks were nothing but examples of coincidences, unsupported anecdotes, and your historical inaccuracy re Reagan and his presidential ambitions.

Logically, by your own admission, weird and accurate predictions can happen just by coincidence. Perhaps you should consider, given that the Biblical authors do not term the prediction prophecy, the possibility that it was merely a coincidental event. After all, that is the usual hand-wave by people who are averse to acknowledging the supernatural, and have seen prophecy fulfilled.