Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually they got bits of it right. The destruction of Jerusalem happened as "predicted". That's one of the reasons why we think the gospels were written decades later. It's a little bit like the prophecies of Daniel. We can date that book fairly precisely by examining when his prophecies started going wrong (in the 160's BCE)

Yes that's my point really.

That the gospels included 'retrospective' prophecies that they knew had come true at the time of writing - e.g. the temple destruction - and in doing so hoped this would persuade people that the real prospective prophecies (e.g. second coming in this generation) would also come true.

[Spud]

Daniel gets three mentions in Ezekiel: 14:14,20, 28:3

[Gordon]

Daniel gets three mentions in Ezekiel: 14:14,20, 28:3

Why not quote these sections, Spud, then we can see just how clear these mentions of Daniel are in Ezekiel.

Bearing in mind, as far as I'm aware, that the presumed dates for these two books are around four centuries apart, it would be interesting to see just how clearly the later one is specifically referenced in the earlier one.

[Spud]

Spud - anyone making an unbiased appraisal of the various versions of the olivet discourse will reasonably conclude that the authors believed (and stated) that the second coming would be imminent:

"this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." (Mark 13:30)

Not just some of these things, but all of these things including the second coming.

Now I understand that prophecy failed to come to pass and that christians feel the need to tie themselves up in knots to reinterpret what is frankly a simply and obvious claim of the imminence of the prophecy. But that is only because they are clearly biased in not being able to accept that a clear prophesy of a second coming expected during the generation around at the time of writing did not, in fact, happen.

And yet as I've shown, several other verses indicate an undefined time period before the end of the world. Another one is Hebrews 10:13

"Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time, He waits for His enemies to be made a footstool for His feet, 14because by a single offering He has made perfect for all time those who are being sanctified."

Regarding the second coming being included in "all these things", that is the son of man coming on the clouds etc.

Ezekiel has a vision in ch 9-10 talks about a man dressed in linen who is told to throw fire down onto Jerusalem to destroy it. Then in 43:3 it says

"And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city:"

The word for "when I came" is usually translated "when he came" but the verb is in the first person singular, indicating that Ezekiel believed that the man clothed in linen he had seen in his earlier vision was himself.

If so, Ezekiel, the son of man, came to destroy Jerusalem through Nebuchadnezzar. So it's logical that in saying he was coming back within that generation, Jesus the Son of Man meant that he would be returning to destroy the city. That's what "these things" means. 

[Spud]

Why not quote these sections, Spud, then we can see just how clear these mentions of Daniel are in Ezekiel.

Bearing in mind, as far as I'm aware, that the presumed dates for these two books are around four centuries apart, it would be interesting to see just how clearly the later one is specifically referenced in the earlier one.

as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.

even if these three men—Noah, Daniel a and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.

re you wiser than Daniel?
Is no secret hidden from you?

[Gordon]

as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.

even if these three men—Noah, Daniel a and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.

re you wiser than Daniel?
Is no secret hidden from you?

Not exactly very clear, is it?

What precisely do these three statements actually mean in terms of facts that can be checked? They seem awfully imprecise so how do you guard against people reading into them what they'd like them to mean?

[Owlswing]

Not exactly very clear, is it?

What precisely do these three statements actually mean in terms of facts that can be checked? They seem awfully imprecise so how do you guard against people reading into them what they'd like them to mean?

As Spud does on a regular basis. Every time you point out to him that the words he quotes can be made to mean absolutely anything, he just repeats the exercise on a different verse.
 

[Spud]

Not exactly very clear, is it?

What precisely do these three statements actually mean in terms of facts that can be checked? They seem awfully imprecise so how do you guard against people reading into them what they'd like them to mean?

In the book of Daniel, Daniel refuses to worship Babylonian gods, interprets the king's dream and also interprets the 'writing on the wall'. He was also alive at the same time as Ezekiel, and could well have become famous in a short time.
Ezekiel's 'Daniel' is said to be righteous, wise and 'knows secrets'. Three very specific and accurate details linking the two.

[Gordon]

In the book of Daniel, Daniel refuses to worship Babylonian gods, interprets the king's dream and also interprets the 'writing on the wall'. He was also alive at the same time as Ezekiel, and could well have become famous in a short time.
Ezekiel's 'Daniel' is said to be righteous, wise and 'knows secrets'. Three very specific and accurate details linking the two.

You must be using your own definition of 'accurate'.

How do know the stuff about dreams, writing on walls and that this Daniel chap was righteous and knew secrets isn't just made up fiction?

[jeremyp]

Daniel gets three mentions in Ezekiel: 14:14,20, 28:3

even if Noah, Daniel, and Job, these three, were in it, they would save only their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord God.

...

even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would save neither son nor daughter; they would save only their own lives by their righteousness.

...

You are indeed wiser than Daniel;
    no secret is hidden from you

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it an attempt to show that the book of Daniel must have existed earlier than the second century BCE simply because the purported author existed at an earlier date? Very few of the Bible books were written by the people they are named for.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ezekiel has a vision in ch 9-10 talks about a man dressed in linen who is told to throw fire down onto Jerusalem to destroy it. Then in 43:3 it says

"And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city:"If so, Ezekiel, the son of man, came to destroy Jerusalem through Nebuchadnezzar. So it's logical that in saying he was coming back within that generation, Jesus the Son of Man meant that he would be returning to destroy the city. That's what "these things" means.

But Ezekiel was around from about 620BCE to 570BCE and those comments refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple by the Babylonians in around 587BCE.

I'm struggling to see how this has anything to do with the destruction of the second temple over 600 years later, let alone provides any insight into the dating and veracity of the gospels.

[jeremyp]

And yet as I've shown, several other verses indicate an undefined time period before the end of the world. Another one is Hebrews 10:13

What you have got to remember is that the New Testament was written over a long period of time. When Paul wrote the genuine letters, the idea that Christ would come again soon was still tenable. This still applied at a stretch when the gospels were written although some doubts were beginning to creep in. By the time the later letters were written, it would have been obvious to most people that Christ was not coming within a generation and so you see lots of dissembling, like the infamous "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" nonsense.

[ProfessorDavey]

What you have got to remember is that the New Testament was written over a long period of time. When Paul wrote the genuine letters, the idea that Christ would come again soon was still tenable. This still applied at a stretch when the gospels were written although some doubts were beginning to creep in. By the time the later letters were written, it would have been obvious to most people that Christ was not coming within a generation and so you see lots of dissembling, like the infamous "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" nonsense.

Indeed and I suspect much of the prophetic elements within the bible (both OT and NT) are written with or modified with hindsight.

Spud has mentioned Elekiel's prophecies, which are clearly about the destruction of the first temple, in 587BCE. Those prophecies, regardless of whether they are claimed to have been made prior then only actually appear in text written well after the event had come to pass. It is easy to use hindsight to cherry pick the prophecies you know have come to pass, while quietly losing those that didn't come to pass or trying to twist them into something entirely different.

[Owlswing]

Indeed and I suspect much of the prophetic elements within the bible (both OT and NT) are written with or modified with hindsight.

Spud has mentioned Ezekiel's prophecies, which are clearly about the destruction of the first temple, in 587BCE. Those prophecies, regardless of whether they are claimed to have been made prior then only actually appear in text written well after the event had come to pass. It is easy to use hindsight to cherry-pick the prophecies you know have come to pass, while quietly losing those that didn't come to pass or trying to twist them into something entirely different.

Let's face it, the truth is the very last thing that Spud is interested in when the truth relates to what he already believes from the bIble.

If it is in the Bible that is quite sufficient to prove to Spud that it is the pure and unvarnished truth.

I would pity him if it weren't so pathetic!

[Spud]

You must be using your own definition of 'accurate'.

How do know the stuff about dreams, writing on walls and that this Daniel chap was righteous and knew secrets isn't just made up fiction?

How do you know the chair will stay together when you sit on it?
You don't, but you have enough evidence to take the step of faith and sit on it.

[Gordon]

How do you know the chair will stay together when you sit on it?
You don't, but you have enough evidence to take the step of faith and sit on it.

Don't be so silly: the chair is to hand, and if I'm unsure about its viability as a chair I can examine it, and I can test it if required to ensure it is safe to sit on and, moreover, I have lots of previous experience of sitting in chairs and so I can make informed judgements when it comes to my interactions with furniture.


 

 

[Spud]

What you have got to remember is that the New Testament was written over a long period of time. When Paul wrote the genuine letters, the idea that Christ would come again soon was still tenable. This still applied at a stretch when the gospels were written although some doubts were beginning to creep in. By the time the later letters were written, it would have been obvious to most people that Christ was not coming within a generation and so you see lots of dissembling, like the infamous "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" nonsense.

You're entitled to think that, but I think the NT was complete before 70AD, as it contains no record of the fall of the city. Jesus had told them that "you will not have finished going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes"; and on the other hand, "and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to all nations, and then the end will come".
This is typical conflation of a near and a far fulfillment. We see this with Isaiah's prophecy of a virgin giving birth, and with God's promise to David of a son who would both build the temple and reign over his kingdom for ever (initially fulfilled by Solomon).

[ProfessorDavey]

You're entitled to think that, but I think the NT was complete before 70AD,

You are perfectly entitled to think what you like Spud - but your suggestion flies in the face of the evidence and the vast, vast majority of scholarly opinion on the matter. What we do know for certain is that the NT texts we actually have (extant fragments and manuscripts) are from decades, if not centuries after 70AD.

... as it contains no record of the fall of the city.

Why would they - firstly the gospels deal with events from around 4BCE (those that include the nativity) to about 30AD, albeit were written decades later. Why would they slot in events from decades later than the time frame they are supposed to be reporting on.

Secondly, is it beyond your understanding that the most compelling way to claim prophecy is to write about a prophecy that you know came to pass while trying to make it appear that you were writing without that knowledge. We see this with Ezekiel - where the book containing the prophecy of the destruction of the first temple was undoubtedly written after that destruction but only talks of the prophecy, not the actual event - the writer leaves the reader to fill in the gaps. And I think this is the same for the gospels - we know that the texts we have are from way after 70AD so why wouldn't they be edited to include the destruction of the second temple - simple, because to do so would make it obvious that you are claiming a prophecy only after you knew it came to pass, which rather negates the whole point of prophecy.

[jeremyp]

You're entitled to think that, but I think the NT was complete before 70AD, as it contains no record of the fall of the city.

Apart from the fact that it does.

[Spud]

You are perfectly entitled to think what you like Spud - but your suggestion flies in the face of the evidence and the vast, vast majority of scholarly opinion on the matter. What we do know for certain is that the NT texts we actually have (extant fragments and manuscripts) are from decades, if not centuries after 70AD.
Why would they - firstly the gospels deal with events from around 4BCE (those that include the nativity) to about 30AD, albeit were written decades later. Why would they slot in events from decades later than the time frame they are supposed to be reporting on.

Acts goes right up to Paul in Rome, around AD 60, and mentions at least one fulfilled prophecy. Matthew mentions several OLd Testament ones. If Acts was written after AD70 it would surely say something about it.

Secondly, is it beyond your understanding that the most compelling way to claim prophecy is to write about a prophecy that you know came to pass while trying to make it appear that you were writing without that knowledge. We see this with Ezekiel - where the book containing the prophecy of the destruction of the first temple was undoubtedly written after that destruction but only talks of the prophecy, not the actual event - the writer leaves the reader to fill in the gaps.

Yes, the book of Ezekiel looks like it was compiled after the events, but how did it become canon scripture if this was false:

"And the Spirit lifted me up and carried me back to Chaldea,b to the exiles in the vision given by the Spirit of God. After the vision had gone up from me, 25I told the exiles everything the LORD had shown me." - Ezekiel 11:24
?

It mentions the fulfillment of the above, too:

"In the twelfth year of our exile, on the fifth day of the tenth month, a fugitive from Jerusalem came to me and reported, “The city has been taken!”" - Ezekiel 33:21

And I think this is the same for the gospels - we know that the texts we have are from way after 70AD so why wouldn't they be edited to include the destruction of the second temple - simple, because to do so would make it obvious that you are claiming a prophecy only after you knew it came to pass, which rather negates the whole point of prophecy.

This depends on knowing the original texts were post-AD70. But you don't know this; there are no references to the fall of Jerusalem that couldn't have been written before the events and based on Old Testament texts.

Eg Luke's "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20) and "For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side" (Luke 19:43) could be a development of "And I will encamp against you all around, and will besiege you with towers and I will raise siegeworks against you." from Isaiah 29:3.

"They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."  (Luke 19:44) could be developed from "Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets." - Micah 3:12.

[ProfessorDavey]

This depends on knowing the original texts were post-AD70.

Spud we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said. We do know what the various extant fragments and manuscripts say, but we know with certainly that every one of those fragments and manuscripts is from decades if not centuries after AD70.

You mention Luke 21:20 and 19:43, but I believe we have no fragments of Luke earlier than 200AD and those earliest fragments don't include those verses. What we know of Luke 21:20 and 19:43 is based on text written down hundreds of years after the destruction of the temple in AD70.

[jeremyp]

Spud we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said.

That's not true. We have a pretty good idea of what they said. The very fact that we can identify texts as Luke or Matthew or Mark shows that they haven't changed that much since they were written down. 

For historians, the fact that you have no original manuscripts is not really considered a huge problem. The earliest extant manuscripts for Caesar's Gallic Wars date from the ninth century. The earliest Iliad manuscripts date to the fourth or third century BCE. Nobody seems to be concerned that we have "absolutely no idea" what Julius Caesar or Homer were saying.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's not true. We have a pretty good idea of what they said. The very fact that we can identify texts as Luke or Matthew or Mark shows that they haven't changed that much since they were written down.

We've been through this earlier in the thread - you claimed that Ehrman implied that we can deduce the originals (the autograph) from the earliest fragments/manuscripts, yet his view is the opposite. See the video link (reply 76) where time and again Ehrmann constantly and continually states that we do not and cannot know what the original gospel texts were.

I think you are misunderstanding Ehrman's thesis - he is not saying that we can deduce the originals. What he is saying is that we can use textual criticism to deduce which of the many versions from 200AD onwards are more likely to be closer to the original - how close to the original we cannot say just that manuscript A is closer to the original than manuscript B. It could be (although very unlikely) that manuscript A is identical to the original - it may be that manuscript A is wildly different from the original. We cannot know which - just that manuscript A is closer to the original than manuscript B.

[jeremyp]

We've been through this earlier in the thread

No. Then I was claiming that we have pretty much exactly reconstructed the text. Now you are claiming that we have no knowledge of what they said at all. There are more possibilities than an exact word for word transcript and complete ignorance.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. Then I was claiming that we have pretty much exactly reconstructed the text. Now you are claiming that we have no knowledge of what they said at all. There are more possibilities than an exact word for word transcript and complete ignorance.

Fair enough - my claim of we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said - in somewhat exasperation at Spud should have been better phrased as:

We do know know what the original texts of the gospels said.

We can use textual criticism to infer which of the extant manuscripts/fragments is likely to be closest to the original, but we do not know how close to the original. And as Ehrman points out, while most of the variances in the early texts are minor/typos as it were, there are some absolute humdingers of variances involving inclusion or not of key sections with major doctrinal significance.