Mark’s Ending

[tabibito]

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.

As to the unsubstantiated claims, googling will provide you with that information readily enough.

By your report, two Christian sites disagree as to detail but agree that Polycarp cited Luke and Acts - the latter being the critical issue. No doubt other sites will show agreement with either one or the other, and some will probably disagree with both regarding the details while still agreeing that Polycarp had in fact cited Luke's writings.

What I respond to is a decision that I reserve the right to make. Perhaps if your post had been couched in more civil terms, I would have been more inclined to address the issues raised.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As to the unsubstantiated claims, googling will provide you with that information readily enough.

By your report, two Christian sites disagree as to detail but agree that Polycarp cited Luke and Acts - the latter being the critical issue. No doubt other sites will show agreement with either one or the other, and some will probably disagree with both regarding the details while still agreeing that Polycarp had in fact cited Luke's writings.

What I respond to is a decision that I reserve the right to make. Perhaps if your post had been couched in more civil terms, I would have been more inclined to address the issues raised.

Oh dear. Did I touch a nerve?

As you have made the claims it is incumbent upon you to provide your sources. If you are unwilling to do so then your allegations can be dismissed as mere opinion/flights of fancy.

The discrepancy between the two Christian sites illustrates that no direct references to Acts were cited by Polycarp. However, in his Letter to the Philippians he does indicate that he has knowledge of at least four Pauline letters as well as the two later texts of 1 Peter and 1 John.

[tabibito]

As you have made the claims it is incumbent upon you to provide your sources. If you are unwilling to do so then your allegations can be dismissed as mere opinion/flights of fancy.

You consistently dismiss my claims regardless of any of evidence that I advance anyway. What change to your wonted procedure does your comment indicate?

[rogue06]

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

Much like your claim with Acts is from the latest estimate anyone ever makes (130 A.D.) and well outside the common dates given, which you seek to pass it off as the consensus, you are doing the same here. Given that most would place it sometime between 80 and 100, that means 100 is hardly the "earliest" date. This is particularly true when you also consider the sizable minority place it at the end of Paul's life.

[tabibito]

Much like your claim with Acts is from the latest estimate anyone ever makes (130 A.D.) and well outside the common dates given, which you seek to pass it off as the consensus, you are doing the same here. Given that most would place it sometime between 80 and 100, that means 100 is hardly the "earliest" date. This is particularly true when you also consider the sizable minority place it at the end of Paul's life.

Note all the sources she cites to support her own claims, while demanding that others provide citations for theirs ...

The complete list (in the box immediately below) is illuminating.
.

.

per Medium, some food for thought.

The Didache is commonly dated between AD 50–70, which also places this being written during the time of the apostles and other New Testament authors. In this short text we can find various references to: Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews and 1 Peter.

A more interesting claim that is well worth investigating.

[rogue06]

Note all the sources she cites to support her own claims, while demanding that others provide citations for theirs ...

The complete list (in the box immediately below) is illuminating.
.

.

per Medium, some food for thought.

The Didache is commonly dated between AD 50–70, which also places this being written during the time of the apostles and other New Testament authors. In this short text we can find various references to: Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews and 1 Peter.

A more interesting claim that is well worth investigating.

For years it has been theorized that the Lord's Prayer in it was influenced by the one in Matthew^[1] although some claim to see an influence from Luke in at least one passage. If it was indeed familiar with both, along with a good deal of Paul's epistles, I'd be suspicious of them all being available to the author at that early date.

While the original compilation of Didache seems to be from the third quarter of the first century, it is also true that the work doesn't appear to have reached its present, final form until decades later.



1. the same is said regarding the Lord's Prayer it contains.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You consistently dismiss my claims regardless of any of evidence that I advance anyway. What change to your wonted procedure does your comment indicate?

Concerning the dating of Acts you made a statement. I merely requested some evidence from this "majority"

You stated there was a "common estimate" for dating Paul's epistle to the Philippians to 62 CE, again who is making this estimate?

If you wish to continue being coy there is an end to the matter.


Assessing when all these NT texts were composed remain tentative because their authors never dated their compositions.

[tabibito]

For years it has been theorized that the Lord's Prayer in it was influenced by the one in Matthew^[1] although some claim to see an influence from Luke in at least one passage. If it was indeed familiar with both, along with a good deal of Paul's epistles, I'd be suspicious of them all being available to the author at that early date.

On a quick peruse, it seems that the Didache drew on Matthew for its gospel references: the notes show references from Matthew and Mark, from Matthew and Luke, and from Matthew (but neither from Mark nor Luke) alone. Matthew seems to have been the go-to reference, with Mark and Luke simply being coincidental inclusions.

While the original compilation of Didache seems to be from the third quarter of the first century, it is also true that the work doesn't appear to have reached its present, final form until decades later.

It would be interesting to see what the rationale is for the assessment, particularly given that Bart Ehrman (seemingly) either hasn't encountered it or considers it beneath notice.


Side note: In my rummaging through the New Testament for references to episkopos (bishop/overseer), I found it translated as "visitation" in Luke 19:44. That verse is cross correlated with 1Kings 9:7-8 and Micah 3:12 (references to the fall of Jerusalam and the destruction of the first temple). It would be reasonable to assume that anyone believing Jesus to be the messiah could have drawn on those references to identify then current circumstances as being equivalent, and confidently forecast what was coming.

[tabibito]

Concerning the dating of Acts you made a statement. I merely requested some evidence from this "majority"

You stated there was a "common estimate" for dating Paul's epistle to the Philippians to 62 CE, again who is making this estimate?

Commonly accepted dates don't need to be accompanied by citations. Nonetheless, arguing for a date between 110 and 120CE
.

Tyson, Joseph B., (April 2011). "When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?", in: The Bible and Interpretation: "...A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110-120 CE. Three factors support such a date. First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 CE...Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters."

.
Arguing for a date before 100CE,
.

adapted from Darrell Bock:

On a comparison of Luke with material from Marcion, Josephus, Justin Martyr, and the Pseudo-Clementines, some scholars offer a date in the early to mid-second century.

There are three reasons this is unlikely:

1. The tone of Acts does not really fit the tone of other documents of this period, such as 1 Clement (AD 95) and Ignatius (AD 117).
2. In addition, it is unlikely that such a late work would ignore Paul’s letters as much as Acts does.
3. Finally, possible allusions in 1 Clement 5.6–7 (to Acts 26), 2.1 (Acts 20:35), and 18.1 (Acts 13:22) argue against this date.

These allusions move the latest possible date from the mid-second-century limit down to the mid-90s.

As for the date of composition for Philippians - it is not among the disputed letters of Paul.

Assessing when all these NT texts were composed remain tentative because their authors never dated their compositions.

The fact has never prevented you from asserting (without attestation) firm dates.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Commonly accepted dates don't need to be accompanied by citations. Nonetheless, arguing for a date between 110 and 120CE
.

Tyson, Joseph B., (April 2011). "When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?", in: The Bible and Interpretation: "...A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110-120 CE. Three factors support such a date. First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 CE...Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters."

.
Arguing for a date before 100CE,
.

adapted from Darrell Bock:

On a comparison of Luke with material from Marcion, Josephus, Justin Martyr, and the Pseudo-Clementines, some scholars offer a date in the early to mid-second century.

There are three reasons this is unlikely:

1. The tone of Acts does not really fit the tone of other documents of this period, such as 1 Clement (AD 95) and Ignatius (AD 117).
2. In addition, it is unlikely that such a late work would ignore Paul’s letters as much as Acts does.
3. Finally, possible allusions in 1 Clement 5.6–7 (to Acts 26), 2.1 (Acts 20:35), and 18.1 (Acts 13:22) argue against this date.

These allusions move the latest possible date from the mid-second-century limit down to the mid-90s.

As for the date of composition for Philippians - it is not among the disputed letters of Paul.





The fact has never prevented you from asserting (without attestation) firm dates.

I think Tyson puts forward a very balanced viewpoint and if Acts is indeed a response to Marcion of Sinope we are looking at a composition date well into the second century.

Bock seems more inclined to fit the description of those to whom Tyson refers as:

An early date for Acts has been favored by many conservative and evangelical Christians, who emphasize the eye-witness character of its contents and, on that basis, assume the historical reliability of the book as a whole.

[tabibito]

I think Tyson puts forward a very balanced viewpoint and if Acts is indeed a response to Marcion of Sinope we are looking at a composition date well into the second century.

Bock seems more inclined to fit the description of those to whom Tyson refers as:

An early date for Acts has been favored by many conservative and evangelical Christians, who emphasize the eye-witness character of its contents and, on that basis, assume the historical reliability of the book as a whole.

As is clear from Paul's letters, and as you have pointed out, there were competing versions of Christian belief almost from the get-go.
As Luke makes clear in his gospel, what he was writing to Theophilus was an account of the apostolic teachings in Jerusalem so that Theophilus would have a clear understanding of what was believed among the disciples of the founding apostles.

There is no reason to believe that Marcionite or any other particular brand of competing teaching was the target of Luke's writings. It is a reasonable assumption that Luke's missives might have been intended to obviate confusion engendered by conflicting accounts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As is clear from Paul's letters, and as you have pointed out, there were competing versions of Christian belief almost from the get-go.

To quote a line

Finally the penny drops.

As Luke makes clear in his gospel, what he was writing to Theophilus was an account of the apostolic teachings in Jerusalem so that Theophilus would have a clear understanding of what was believed among the disciples of the founding apostles

There is no reason to believe that Marcionite or any other particular brand of competing teaching was the target of Luke's writings. It is a reasonable assumption that Luke's missives might have been intended to obviate confusion engendered by conflicting accounts.

As ever we are back to opinions and Tyson's comment on "conservative and evangelical Christians" who "assume the historical reliability of the book as a whole" certainly applies to several who post here

[tabibito]

To quote a line

Finally the penny drops.

What finally? I haven't made any comment, anywhere, contrary to the stated circumstance of conflicting opinions existing almost from the get-go.

As ever we are back to opinions and Tyson's comment on "conservative and evangelical Christians" who "assume the historical reliability of the book as a whole" certainly applies to several who post here

Ah - that's where you borrowed the opinion from.

However, that citation indicates that Tyson allows that the criticism is not universally applicable to all Christians, nor even to all conservative evangelical Christians. It is a far cry from the version that you apparently subscribe to.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What finally? I haven't made any comment, anywhere, contrary to the stated circumstance of conflicting opinions existing almost from the get-go.

You have shown a tendency to refer to the "early church" as it was some unified group where everyone was in agreement..

Ah - that's where you borrowed the opinion from

However, that citation indicates that Tyson allows that the criticism is not universally applicable to all Christians, nor even to all conservative evangelical Christians. It is a far cry from the version that you apparently subscribe to.

Do you not read the links that you provide?

[rogue06]

What finally? I haven't made any comment, anywhere, contrary to the stated circumstance of conflicting opinions existing almost from the get-go.

Yup. Paul and others repeatedly mention false teachers and prophets in their time. But what H_A likes to ignore is that during the Apostolic Era such false teachings could be exposed quickly as erroneous by those who's authority was universally recognized. This is why it isn't until after they are all gone that various heresies began to take hold