The Abomination of Desolation is a prophetic blurb that originally appears in the book of Daniel, and Jesus apparently recycled it and applied it to His current day. ("Let the reader understand")
As I said, from the Hasmonean literature (Daniel). Don't think Jesus said anything about "readers" though.
Ok. That makes sense, because my first go to here, before even pulling additional books off my shelf, is this article about the Gospel of Mark from Joshua Schachterle, which is posted on Bart Ehrman's website. My next go to sources would then be those that aver for a more traditionally minded time spread for the Gospels, but I'm not going to post that at the moment. We'll just ride for the moment with the link below:
When was the Gospel of Mark written? Discover its origins and dating, exploring its authorship and ties to historic events like the Roman-Jewish War, crucial for understanding early Christian literature and textual analysis.
www.bartehrman.com
Turns out it was *exactly* when I thought it was. (Knock of the clickbait, Bart.) Though Requiring it to be *during* the Jewish War and not with in a few years after seems to be a bit tight given the communication lags and how long it might take to decide to write and compose it.
Not only that.
I don't consider Matthew and Luke as "imitators," but rather revisors.
Some times they copy word for word. (in Greek) Some times they clean up the language or facts. Then the also add stuff from somewhere.
Historically speaking, I buy into the idea that there was some sort of body of literature pertaining to Jesus, maybe a list of some of His "sayings," rolling around among early 1st century Christians. Apparently, Paul knew of at least some of it. Whether or not it was specifically what some scholars surmise was the "Q documents" is another matter.
Textual Insertions are a different critical phenomenon within the Biblical texts than short term revisions and need to be studied and analyzed separately.
No, it doesn't have to be seen as reading as an eyewitness account. It can read as someone who has access to the memories, whether written or orally, of things that Jesus is remembered to have said. In fact, I don't stand firmly by the notion that the Gospels are by all necessity "eyewitness accounts." The humdinger here, though, is that historically speaking, they don't need to be in order to be cogent. Eyewitness status itself is no guarantee of much of anything and doesn't actually offer some prior or higher quality of actuality over and above what later but related 'researchers' might write. Eyewitness accounts just offer a smattering of plausibility, not ontological or historical guarantees.
I was trying to keep my statement short. Perhaps I should have said that the parts about destruction were written as if based on accounts of recent events indicating not only that was the Mark Gospel written after the destruction of the temple, but unlikely that Jesus actually "predicted" it.
Part of the problem here is that you apparently haven't studied Historiography or the Philosophy of History, or even Biblical Critical studies, or at least not much, and so you have a 'simpler' understanding at the moment about 'how it all probably works.'
I did not major in history nor go to a bible college or seminary.
I just wanted to make sure you weren't stigmatizing me and assuming that I'm coming at this from a "I belong to a Bible only reading type of church." 'Cuz I don't.
I really didn't and don't care if you do or not. It was the suggestion from your earlier post that you might have been a "Mark-pre-70-CE person" that I found a bit shocking. You aren't, so fine then.
But as an academically minded person who attempts to engage the scholarship on all sides, I try to keep my mind open to the various plausible explanations and variations among them.
I've listened to a lot of people who know and reference that scholarship, but when I try reading it, I just can't follow it. I think the difference is that podcasters and YouTubers in that space know that many listeners are not familiar with the methods of the field or the literature. It's the same reason I don't read technical papers on geology or biology.
The fact is, there are a number of things that are claimed as historical that are underdetermined by the evidence; this is the case for the dating of the Gospels------------no one can really tell for sure when they were written and it isn't impossible that they, or at least one or two of them, maybe even all three Synoptic, were written before 70 A.D. M
But as a historically minded person, I ALSO know that the quality of the reports given don't depend solely upon WHEN they were written. The could be written within a decade or so after 70 A.D. and still be reporting on some thing Jesus said that folks knew were said well before 70 A.D. .............and were by then fulfilled. It would be a humdinger if Jesus said those things and then, indeed, they were fulfilled within the lifetime of those having heard His musings over "the end of Whatever Exactly."
From what I do know, this (pre 70 CE author ship, particularly of multiple gospels) does not seem viable. "Luke" seems to reference Josephus and the "sequel" certainly does. That pushes Luke into the 90s if not the early 2nd century.
You've misunderstood. There is actually a small camp that thinks the Gospels---all 4 Gospels--- were written well into the 2nd century. I demur from that position. But that doesn't mean I can't take up one of the other positions, and there's more than two, and 'still be Christian.'
Oh my, that dating is rather crazy. Mark seems quite obviously a product of the wartime apocalypticism.
Anyway, with all of that said, thanks for having a decent discussion without changing the goalpost.
View attachment 376824
This isn't a goal post. It is a triumphal arch. (And one I have passed through on my way to the Forum the way us barbarians have for 1600 years.)
Moving a goal post by accident stops play. Moving it on purpose is a 2-minute minor penalty. (Around the time you wrote this post, and American hockey player manage to hit both goal posts without scoring. It was wild.)
