Mark’s Ending

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Either the errors are identifiable, or there is some uncertainty. To support your case, you would need to provide conflicting versions of the same source text for which no resolution is possible.



I don't know of any source text that mentions prophets. Unless such a text is cited, it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that the source text reads as either "the prophet" and "the prophet Isaiah." There is no material difference between the two expressions.



References to origin and references to an ongoing status are two different things.



The gospel of the Hebrews, which was used as supplemental material in some of the churches, includes the story, and seemingly pre-dates the interpolations of the story in John's gospel.



Almost everything dating to antiquity is subject to the same criticism. What you are proposing relies on calculated, deliberate action taken to produce a false record. There is no evidence even hinting that there was any such attempt - there is evidence that no such action was taken. Nor could it have been - by the time of the establishment of the monolithic church, copies of the scriptures were too wide spread and too readily available for any such attempt to be viable.



"Priests" can be identified as erroneous on the basis of grammar, as I have stated; the means by which that error could have occurred is of no particular significance.



Theologically, there is no material difference between the two expressions: washing simply identifies the process by which release is achieved. However, rather than λουω, απολουω would be the expected term, so it seems likely that lousanti is the error.



I think that you would be unlikely to find a Buddhist who agrees with you.



Happily, what might be expected of attitudes to the written divine word is not subject to atheists' opinions.



A readily identifiable error which you yourself declare to be such really does not support your case.

As is the usual case we are simply going around in circles. I am therefore bringing my side of the exchange to a close. However, I will remind you yet again that we have no original MSS for any of these NT texts and therefore the question remains as to the accuracy of these earliest copies that we do have.

As I have previously noted in some instances, and possibly quite a few, we can never be entirely certain what any original contained.

[tabibito]

You seem to know very little about the region in the early first century. Look at the region that was originally under Herod the Great.

Herod the Great was granted control over territories that were not Jewish. Philip was ruler over territory bordering a small section of the north eastern Sea of Galilee (Galilee of the Gentiles) and extending north and east - not Hebrew territory. I know little about the history of the region, true enough. You seem to know less.

No. Nor did Antipas.

Antipas ruled over the traditional Jewish territory of Galilee.

No he was not. The Sanhedrin did not rule Judaea, and the High Priest and other priests were responsible for the Temple cult and after 70 CE that group ceased to exist.

What an extraordinary claim. The Sanhedrin did not dissolve with the fall of the temple: it continued to be quite influential in Jewish affairs until at least 385CE.




What date do you consider to be the first documented claim for Luke as the author of Acts?

[tabibito]

This excerpt from Jimmy Akin, the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers and contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine seems pertinent.

Why invent a postdiction?

...

Writing after A.D. 70, they could know all about the fall of Jerusalem and--to make Jesus look like a far-seeing prophet--they could come up with a postdiction and put it on his lips.

But if that were what they were doing, they would have done it differently.


... when we find people in history making up prophecies after the fact, they tend to be very detailed.

But Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are not detailed. They're quite general.


...

If the evangelists were writing in A.D. 80 or 90 (or any time after A.D. 70), they would have little reason to try to make their documents appear a handful of years older than they were.

The "I told you so" value of recording the prophecy's fulfillment would have outweighed any slight benefit that might arise from making it look like your gospel was written in A.D. 60 rather than A.D. 80.


...

But the fact is that one could predict what would happen before A.D. 70, and we know that someone else did predict it.

What's more, we are not dependent on the Bible for that knowledge.

It's found in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (himself writing about A.D. 75-80) described several portents of the destruction of Jerusalem, including this one:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, ... began on a sudden to cry aloud,

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house [i.e., the temple], a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!"

... "four years before the war began." The war began in A.D. 66, so this would have been A.D. 62, "at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity."

...

This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,

"Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!"

And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the [Roman siege] engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.
.

<<I could swear that H_A had claimed that Josephus claimed ben Ananus was killed by an arrow.>>

. . . Therefore, it was possible for Jesus of Nazareth to do this.

Therefore, there is no reason to date the gospels to A.D. 70 or after simply because they contain such a prediction.

In fact, the absence of a "and it was fulfilled, just as Jesus said" points to them being written before A.D. 70.

And so an independent source is provided that is in accord with what we have presented.

He presents a strong case for why Jesus' prediction wasn't something later inserted into his mouth after Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed.

That he do.


Off to check whether Akin makes mention of the red thread.

[tabibito]

<<I could swear that H_A had claimed that Josephus claimed ben Ananus was killed by an arrow.>>

My mistake - it was me that said arrow.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Herod the Great was granted control over territories that were not Jewish. Philip was ruler over territory bordering a small section of the north eastern Sea of Galilee (Galilee of the Gentiles) and extending north and east - not Hebrew territory.
I know little about the history of the region, true enough. You seem to know less.

You omitted any mention of the considerable Jewish minority in Gaulantis as well as the military colony in Batanaea of Babylonian Jews, who had been settled there by his father..

Antipas ruled over the traditional Jewish territory of Galilee.

He had no jurisdiction in Jerusalem.

What an extraordinary claim. The Sanhedrin did not dissolve with the fall of the temple: it continued to be quite influential in Jewish affairs until at least 385CE.

I was not writing about the Sanhedrin.

You asked for historical evidence following my comment that "The Sadducees certainly adhered to the Pentateuch".

I replied that "Unfortunately no literary sources from the Sadducees themselves survive and what we do know is from other, sometimes hostile, sources" and then gave you a quote from Judaica

What date do you consider to be the first documented claim for Luke as the author of Acts?

The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of some of the NT texts and that is dated to around 165-170 CE premised on internal evidence referencing Pius I whose death is given as 155 CE.

On Luke the author writes:

The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself as one studious of right. Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began his narrative with the nativity of John.

Metzger notes the omission of James, Hebrews, and 1 & 2 Peter in that canon but attributes that to scribal carelessness.

[tabibito]

You omitted any mention of the considerable Jewish minority in Gaulantis as well as the military colony in Batanaea of Babylonian Jews, who had been settled there by his father.

The presence of Jews in the territory does not mean that Philip had sovereignty over a Jewish nation. No more than the presence of gentiles in Jewish Galilee gave Herod sovereignty over a gentile nation.

He had no jurisdiction in Jerusalem.

He did not need to. He had sovereignty over Jewish Galilee - that made him A ruler of the Jews from the scriptural perspective.

I was not writing about the Sanhedrin.

You asked for historical evidence following my comment that "The Sadducees certainly adhered to the Pentateuch".

I replied that "Unfortunately no literary sources from the Sadducees themselves survive and what we do know is from other, sometimes hostile, sources" and then gave you a quote from Judaica

Oh please.
.

Your comment: No he was not. The Sanhedrin did not rule Judaea, and the High Priest and other priests were responsible for the Temple cult and after 70 CE that group ceased to exist.

My response: What an extraordinary claim. The Sanhedrin did not dissolve with the fall of the temple: it continued to be quite influential in Jewish affairs until at least 385CE.

.
Either you are unaware of or choose to misrepresent the Sanhedrin's role in the government of Judaea during the early first century CE.

I also asked (elsewhere) what contemporary historical evidence existed to support the claim that the Sadducees adhered to the Pentateuch. But as you acknowledge - there is none.

The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of some of the NT texts and that is dated to around 165-170 CE premised on internal evidence referencing Pius I whose death is given as 155 CE.

Not answering what was asked: In your opinion, what is the earliest known written reference to Luke as the author of Acts? And - what date do you propose for the compilation of Acts?



ETA: I note that Bart Ehrman also accepts the "we" passages of Acts as a claim that the author was a companion traveller with Paul. But then, Ehrman also considers the claim to be deliberately fraudulent.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The presence of Jews in the territory does not mean that Philip had sovereignty over a Jewish nation. No more than the presence of gentiles in Jewish Galilee gave Herod sovereignty over a gentile nation.

Who has made the claim that Philip "had sovereignty over a Jewish nation"? That appears to have developed in your own mind. I simply noted you had omitted to mention the fact that there was a substantial Jewish minority in Gaulantis and a Jewish military colony in Batanaea.

He did not need to. He had sovereignty over Jewish Galilee - that made him A ruler of the Jews from the scriptural perspective.

He had sovereignty over Galilee only insofar as internal affairs were concerned. And he could be removed should he over-step the mark.

Oh please.
.

Your comment: No he was not. The Sanhedrin did not rule Judaea, and the High Priest and other priests were responsible for the Temple cult and after 70 CE that group ceased to exist.

My response: What an extraordinary claim. The Sanhedrin did not dissolve with the fall of the temple: it continued to be quite influential in Jewish affairs until at least 385CE.

I evidently expected more from my reader than he was able to provide but I acknowledge that my prose may have caused confusion.
.

I also asked (elsewhere) what contemporary historical evidence existed to support the claim that the Sadducees adhered to the Pentateuch. But as you acknowledge - there is none.

I did not write that there was no contemporary evidence I noted that the Sadducees themselves had left no literary record.

Not answering what was asked: In your opinion, what is the earliest known written reference to Luke as the author of Acts?

I go with the historical evidence which at present, pending any new evidence being discovered, is the Muratorian fragment.

And - what date do you propose for the compilation of Acts?

It has been dated to anywhere between 80 -130 CE but I think placing it around 115 CE is probably correct. The author does appear to have some knowledge of Josephus and I very much doubt there were bishops/overseers in the 50s or 60s CE.

ETA: I note that Bart Ehrman also accepts the "we" passages of Acts as a claim that the author was a companion traveller with Paul. But then, Ehrman also considers the claim to be deliberately fraudulent.

Adding an air of verisimilitude is not beyond the bounds of probability. Or they might have been included to give narrative emphasis. Although it should be noted that shifting from the third to first person is not unknown in ancient Greek literature.

[tabibito]

I simply noted you had omitted to mention the fact that there was a substantial Jewish minority in Gaulantis and a Jewish military colony in Batanaea.

In which case, your objection was a non sequitur. My comments addressed the issue of whether Herod and members of the Sanhedrin could be termed rulers of the Jews.

He had sovereignty over Galilee only insofar as internal affairs were concerned. And he could be removed should he over-step the mark.

Any client ruler had sovereignty only at Rome's pleasure. Client rulers were nonetheless regarded as ruling over their territories and referred to as kings.

I evidently expected more from my reader than he was able to provide but I acknowledge that my prose may have caused confusion.

My response followed naturally from your comment in the post that I was responding to.
.

I did not write that there was no contemporary evidence I noted that the Sadducees themselves had left no literary record.

Technically correct. There are good grounds to question the only evidence that does exist, which means that your claim that the Sadducees were adherent to Torah cannot be verified.

I go with the historical evidence which at present, pending any new evidence being discovered, is the Muratorian fragment.

Scepticism regarding your going "with the historical evidence" is warranted. Sections of Acts are cited in Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, with a suggested composition date of 107CE. Written attestation of Luke as the author of Acts actually emerges later than the Muratorian fragment.

It has been dated to anywhere between 80 -130 CE but I think placing it around 115 CE is probably correct.

The (current) suggested dates of composition for Acts range between 60 to 110, with the majority plumping for 70 or 80 to 90.

The author does appear to have some knowledge of Josephus and I very much doubt there were bishops/overseers in the 50s or 60s CE.

That is quite a stretch - the best that can be said is that Luke and Josephus cover some of the same material, with differences enough in the presentation to suggest a common source, or even similar sources. It is reasonable to assume that there were no bishops in the 50s and 60s, but it is not reasonable to assume that "overseer" was equivalent to "bishop" at the time of writing. Elders of the churches were considered by Biblical authors to be overseers - they were not (apparently) considered to be bishops. In addition, "elder" was also a term that encompassed anyone from apostle to deacon.

Adding an air of verisimilitude is not beyond the bounds of probability. Or they might have been included to give narrative emphasis. Although it should be noted that shifting from the third to first person is not unknown in ancient Greek literature.

There is no basis in Koine Greek literature for assuming that the first person was used for the purposes of "narrative emphasis," and "adding an air of verisimilitude," aside from having no precedent, is not even plausible. There were, however, times when third person was used as an oblique reference to the first person.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In which case, your objection was a non sequitur. My comments addressed the issue of whether Herod and members of the Sanhedrin could be termed rulers of the Jews.

And they were not. Herod was responsible for his own territories and the Temple was the cultic centre of the religion.

Any client ruler had sovereignty only at Rome's pleasure. Client rulers were nonetheless regarded as ruling over their territories and referred to as kings.

Herod the Great was made the king of Judaea by Rome and no king of that region would reign again until until Agrippa in 41 CE.

My response followed naturally from your comment in the post that I was responding to.

My apologies I assumed, evidently incorrectly, that you could distinguish between the Sadducean High Priest and the Sanhedrin.

Technically correct. There are good grounds to question the only evidence that does exist, which means that your claim that the Sadducees were adherent to Torah cannot be verified.

Josephus does note concerning their sect:

That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them

Scepticism regarding your going "with the historical evidence" is warranted. Sections of Acts are cited in Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, with a suggested composition date of 107CE.

Feel free to cite the exact quotations from Acts.

And how many references were there? From the two following Christian sites there appears to be a difference of opinion as to the number of times Polycarp referenced both Luke and Acts.

https://medium.com/thesacredfaith/ho...t-849f2b0f2946
The New Testament at the time of Polycarp
Let’s have a look at what texts Polycarp was drawing from when writing his letter to the Philippians. Many of these are quotations, though some may be inferred without being exact quotes, so I’ll count all references direct or otherwise:

• Luke (~4 times)
• Acts (~3 times)

https://isjesusalive.com/polycarp-ea...new-testament/
On the flipside, if Polycarp shows that he values the NT texts and uses them frequently, then they pass a test of “early use”.
SO WHAT NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS DOES POLYCARP QUOTE?

• Luke (once)
• Acts (twice)

Written attestation of Luke as the author of Acts actually emerges later than the Muratorian fragment.

Are you suggesting the quote from the Muratorian fragment is a later fake?

The (current) suggested dates of composition for Acts range between 60 to 110, with the majority plumping for 70 or 80 to 90.

Who is the majority? Can we have some names and their actual comments?

That is quite a stretch - the best that can be said is that Luke and Josephus cover some of the same material, with differences enough in the presentation to suggest a common source, or even similar sources.

That is nothing but opinion. What evidence are you citing?

It is reasonable to assume that there were no bishops in the 50s and 60s, but it is not reasonable to assume that "overseer" was equivalent to "bishop" at the time of writing.

In the early second century why not? And I consider the knowledge of Koine Greek among various academics to be rather more advanced than yours.

Elders of the churches were considered by Biblical authors to be overseers - they were not (apparently) considered to be bishops. In addition, "elder" was also a term that encompassed anyone from apostle to deacon.

The author uses the terms for presbyter and bishops but not deacons.

The only occurrence of episkopoi is found in chapter twenty and it applies to those also called presbyters. That same lack of a clear distinction between the two offices is likewise found in First Clement and the Pastoral Epistles. While all this is a somewhat complex topic it would appear that these texts are effectively stating that how these leaders are known is of little import.

Their job is to stave off false teaching and lead by their own moral example. Acts shares with First Clement the use of the term oversight - έπισκοπή and in this regard it reflects an emerging church order and concerns/debates about it. This is the world of the early second century and the Apostolic Fathers

There is no basis in Koine Greek literature for assuming that the first person was used for the purposes of "narrative emphasis," and "adding an air of verisimilitude," aside from having no precedent, is not even plausible. There were, however, times when third person was used as an oblique reference to the first person.

How much ancient Greek literature have you read in the original?

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1585399]

The author uses the terms for presbyter and bishops but not deacons.

The only occurrence of episkopoi is found in chapter twenty and it applies to those also called presbyters.

Acts 20:17 - Paul summons the elders (presbuterous - presbuteros: accusative plural) of Ephesus.

From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, telling the elders of the church to come to him.

Acts 20:28 When Paul addresses those elders, he calls them overseers (episkopous - episkopos: accusative plural)

28 Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers ...

As also Titus 1:6-7 The elder must ... , for an overseer must ...

Overseers are counted among elders.

The instructions for elders in Titus are applied to deacons in 1Timothy 3: 8-13

Deacons are counted among elders.

In Philippians 1:1 overseers and deacons are listed separately

Overseers are not deacons, but they are elders. Deacons are not overseers, but they are elders.

episkope - the office of overseer Judas' office as an apostle in Acts 1:20
The translation of episkope as "bishop" is anachronistic. "Bishop" is not found in later translations.

[rogue06]

Scepticism regarding your going "with the historical evidence" is warranted. Sections of Acts are cited in Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, with a suggested composition date of 107CE. Written attestation of Luke as the author of Acts actually emerges later than the Muratorian fragment.

I wouldn't be surprised if a separate attestation of Luke being the author of Acts is rare and rather late given that it was (AFAICT) always linked with the Gospel of Luke, and the name of it's authors was being mentioned by ECFs such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century.

[tabibito]

I wouldn't be surprised if a separate attestation of Luke being the author of Acts is rare and rather late given that it was (AFAICT) always linked with the Gospel of Luke, and the name of it's authors was being mentioned by ECFs such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century.

It is almost as though the early authors had no regard whatever for modern standards of academic citation.


The author of the Muratorian fragment declares the Shepherd of Hermas to be the work of a brother of (bishop of Rome until his death in 154) Pius: thus, the fragment's composition date can be determined as not before 155. However, the date of Pius' death might have been as late a 161, and there are questions about what exactly the fragment's author meant be "recently" (IMO the wording of the text makes those questions reasonable).

The Muratorian fragment nominates Luke as the author of the gospel that bears his name and of Acts, and regards Luke's failure to mention both the death of Peter, and Paul's departure from Rome for Spain, as evidence supporting Luke's presence with Paul as recounted in what are now known as the "we passages." It seems though, that some pseudonymous persons might consider that the information provided by the author of the fragment is mere idle speculation on the author's part, having no possible basis in information available at the time, but not available now.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[QUOTE=tabibito;n1585419]

Acts 20:17 - Paul summons the elders (presbuterous - presbuteros: accusative plural) of Ephesus.

From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, telling the elders of the church to come to him.

Acts 20:28 When Paul addresses those elders, he calls them overseers (episkopous - episkopos: accusative plural)

28 Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers ...

As also Titus 1:6-7 The elder must ... , for an overseer must ...

Overseers are counted among elders.

The instructions for elders in Titus are applied to deacons in 1Timothy 3: 8-13

Deacons are counted among elders.

In Philippians 1:1 overseers and deacons are listed separately

Overseers are not deacons, but they are elders. Deacons are not overseers, but they are elders.

episkope - the office of overseer Judas' office as an apostle in Acts 1:20
The translation of episkope as "bishop" is anachronistic. "Bishop" is not found in later translations.

Titus is one of the Pastoral Epistles and their earliest dates are given at around 100 CE.

[tabibito]

Titus is one of the Pastoral Epistles and their earliest dates are given at around 100 CE.

Which does not change the fact that first (and early second) century definitions are those that I stated. Philippians 1:1, in which Paul mentions episkopois (episkopos: dative, plural), was written around 62CE by common estimate. Translating the Biblical term episkopos as "bishop" is an anachronistic interpolation: quite clearly, episkopoi existed in the middle first century, and equally clearly, they were not bishops.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which does not change the fact that first (and early second) century definitions are those that I stated. Philippians 1:1, in which Paul mentions episkopois (episkopos: dative, plural),

was written around 62CE by common estimate. Translating the Biblical term episkopos as "bishop" is an anachronistic interpolation: quite clearly, episkopoi existed in the middle first century, and equally clearly, they were not bishops.

I am still waiting for you to address the rest of my post yesterday.

Yet again you have made an unsubstantiated claim

by common estimate

Precisely as you did with

The (current) suggested dates of composition for Acts range between 60 to 110, with the majority plumping for 70 or 80 to 90.

I ask again, can you provide a list of names and quotes to support both those comments?

I am also waiting for you to provide exact quotations in Polycarp from Acts and also explain why two Christian sites disagree on the number of times both Luke and Acts are referenced Polycarp.