Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

[doubtingmerle]

The Apostles / disciples of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah will see these things just seconds prior to Peter unlocking the gates to the Kingdom of God on earth. Also seeing these things will be all those who acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah. Obviously, the dead in Messiah will rise .... no Tribulation to endure. They will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to review those noble things they did as Messianics, then WHOOSH! straight into the Kingdom (the 1,000 year reign on earth, centered in Jerusalem).

All of this is post-date to the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the 2nd Coming, and Armageddon.

OK, so when Jesus speaks to the disciples in Mark 13 and refers to them as "you", he really means"you disciples after you have been resurrected thousands of years from now"? Let's see what it looks like. Here is the original:

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.(Mar 13:28-29)
​

Now lets throw in this interpretation:

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when [you disciples after you have been resurrected thousands of years from now] shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.(Mar 13:28-29)​

I don't think so.

Again, the point is, Mark is accurate about the destruction of the temple because he is writing about it as a contemporary event when he wrote. He is not accurate about the redemption that would come soon after the destruction, because Mark was not a good predictor. The point is that Mark, who is a poor predictor, accurately describes the destruction of Jerusalem, so he must have written after the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Furthermore, while everyone likes to suppose a 70CE date for Mark, given knowledge of the destruction of the Temple, I would ask you to read the text in light of Caligula attempting to set up a statue of himself in the Temple. I think it makes just as much, if not more, sense in this context and that this would imply a remarkably very early date for Mark (40 CE).

It is very difficult to me to see how Caligula has anything to do with foreseeing the destruction of Jerusalem. By all accounts the period decades before 70 AD were much calmer than the era of 70 AD. Regarding Caligula, wikipedea states:

There are few surviving sources about the reign of Emperor Caligula, although he is described as a noble and moderate ruler during the first six months of his reign. After this, the sources focus upon his cruelty, sadism, extravagance, and sexual perversity, presenting him as an insane tyrant. While the reliability of these sources is questionable, it is known that during his brief reign, Caligula worked to increase the unconstrained personal power of the emperor, as opposed to countervailing powers within theprincipate. (source)​

It is very hard to see that the destruction of the temple could be foreknown from this event.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The overwhelming evidence is that the synoptic gospels were "early," that is, written prior to 70 a.d.. The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 21:43, Matthew 24, and Mark 13, Luke 21:1-38, well before that year. (Scripture references edited).

Can you give me an example of the "overwhelming evidence" you refer to? For I see the opposite. The gospels are unknown by Paul and the early writers; the gospels betray a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem; and they are not verified by others until well into the second century. I seem to have missed the overwhelming evidence you refer to.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Can you give me an example of the "overwhelming evidence" you refer to? For I see the opposite. The gospels are unknown by Paul and the early writers; the gospels betray a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem; and they are not verified by others until well into the second century. I seem to have missed the overwhelming evidence you refer to.

"the gospels betray a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem;" yep, it's called prophecy...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

It is very difficult to me to see how Caligula has anything to do with foreseeing the destruction of Jerusalem. By all accounts the period decades before 70 AD were much calmer than the era of 70 AD.

Forgive me, I thought I explained my point earlier... I didn't say that the text concerned the destruction of the Temple. I said that it made sense in light of the events concerning Caligula and his attempt at erecting a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple. This is described at length by Josephus in Antiquities 18.262-309 and I think it very much fits the language of "Abomination of Desolation" in Mark 13 so I suggested it as its original context.

It is very hard to see that the destruction of the temple could be foreknown from this event.

I also said that the Mark 13 text was possibly reworked and reconfigured in the light of the Temple's destruction, it wouldn't surprise me if this were to have happened from a text concerning the abomination of the Temple.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"the gospels betray a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem;" yep, it's called prophecy...

Interesting. But as I explained in this thread, the same passages that talk about the destruction of Jerusalem say that the Son of Man will come in the clouds soon afterward. That didn't come to pass. So how was Mark so right on the destruction of Jerusalem, and so wrong on the prediction of the coming of the Son of Man? Could it be that he was not really a great prophet, but rather, was accurately telling history when he talked of the destruction of Jerusalem, and poorly predicting the future when he said the Son was coming?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Forgive me, I thought I explained my point earlier... I didn't say that the text concerned the destruction of the Temple. I said that it made sense in light of the events concerning Caligula and his attempt at erecting a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple. This is described at length by Josephus in Antiquities 18.262-309 and I think it very much fits the language of "Abomination of Desolation" in Mark 13 so I suggested it as its original context.

Ok, but Mark 13 begins with the question about the destroying of the temple and a question about when it would be. In response Jesus tells of wars, the abomination of desolation, and other terrors. All of this seems to be in answer to the question about the temple, so I cannot see how you can say the abomination part refers to the time of Caligula.

I also said that the Mark 13 text was possibly reworked and reconfigured in the light of the Temple's destruction, it wouldn't surprise me if this were to have happened from a text concerning the abomination of the Temple.

That is a possibility that Mark 13 was added later. We really don't know how many stages the book of Mark went through but it is certainly possible that all or most was written before 70 AD. But the early epistles make it obvious that none of the gospels were well known in the first century.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Interesting. But as I explained in this thread, the same passages that talk about the destruction of Jerusalem say that the Son of Man will come in the clouds soon afterward. That didn't come to pass. So how was Mark so right on the destruction of Jerusalem, and so wrong on the prediction of the coming of the Son of Man? Could it be that he was not really a great prophet, but rather, was accurately telling history when he talked of the destruction of Jerusalem, and poorly predicting the future when he said the Son was coming?

As I explained once before, but I will do it again....

And unless we slept thru it this has not happened:
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mar 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
(sorry, the verses did come thru on previous post)

And before you say the fall of Jerusalem is the tribulation talked about it hardly qualifies as "has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be." There have been far more cataclysmic events since then and obviously even they have not qualified.
So, no your interpretation of these verses do not support your assertion that Jesus was telling this disciples that he was coming back soon; least ways not as man understands soon.

I will even give you the entire chapter just so you can see for your self:
Mar 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
Mar 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mar 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
Mar 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?"
Mar 13:5 And Jesus began to say to them, "See that no one leads you astray.
Mar 13:6 Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.
Mar 13:7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet.
Mar 13:8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.
Mar 13:9 "But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.
Mar 13:10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.
Mar 13:11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Mar 13:12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death.
Mar 13:13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Mar 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Mar 13:15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out,
Mar 13:16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
Mar 13:17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
Mar 13:18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mar 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Mar 13:27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Mar 13:28 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mar 13:29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Mar 13:30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mar 13:33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.
Mar 13:34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake.
Mar 13:35 Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning—
Mar 13:36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
Mar 13:37 And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake."
Where in there does it say, or even insinuate "soon"? So offer real evidence or move along.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Ok, but Mark 13 begins with the question about the destroying of the temple and a question about when it would be. In response Jesus tells of wars, the abomination of desolation, and other terrors. All of this seems to be in answer to the question about the temple, so I cannot see how you can say the abomination part refers to the time of Caligula.

It's not just me who's saying this. This is the thesis of James Crossley. The context of Caligula makes sense of the "abomination that causes desolation" and the text is continually reworked into the commentary on the destruction of the Temple. We see that Mark's ending is continually tweaked with the extended ending so this thesis isn't all that controversial. The point of Crossley's dating is that a late first century CE dating of Mark runs into the problem that Mark's Jesus appears far too comfortable with kosher and purity.

That is a possibility that Mark 13 was added later. We really don't know how many stages the book of Mark went through but it is certainly possible that all or most was written before 70 AD. But the early epistles make it obvious that none of the gospels were well known in the first century.

That's fine, St Paul wasn't known until the second century. Many scholars have posited that he was quite a peripheral figure in the first century. The world St Paul is writing and preaching in was inhabited by extremely important figures like James and Peter of whom we know very little; it was quite a varied Christianity also with texts such as the Apocalypse of John, the Shepherd of Hermas, Hebrews and various other texts quite dissimilar in theology to Paul's and in some respects to the gospel traditions too.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I explained once before, but I will do it again....


I will even give you the entire chapter just so you can see for your self:

Why are you repeating this and ignoring my response? You posted this whole chapter before. I showed you where it says repeatedly that you disciples will see these things, and then says this generation will not pass away until all be fulfilled.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's not just me who's saying this. This is the thesis of James Crossley. The context of Caligula makes sense of the "abomination that causes desolation" and the text is continually reworked into the commentary on the destruction of the Temple. We see that Mark's ending is continually tweaked with the extended ending so this thesis isn't all that controversial.

I have already agreed that Mark could have been written in stages. The abomination is generally thought to refer to the desecration of the temple under Titus, but if you want it to be about something earlier, it still doesn't change much. It still follows that the Jewish war and the destruction of the temple occurred in 70 AD, and Mark 13 betrays a knowledge of these events.

The point of Crossley's dating is that a late first century CE dating of Mark runs into the problem that Mark's Jesus appears far too comfortable with kosher and purity.

Can you give me an example of something in Mark that is very unlikely to have been written in 70 AD? Even if he does refer to earlier customs, I'm not sure why Mark couldn't have just known about customs that existed 40 years earlier and included them in his gospel written 70 AD.

That's fine, St Paul wasn't known until the second century. Many scholars have posited that he was quite a peripheral figure in the first century. The world St Paul is writing and preaching in was inhabited by extremely important figures like James and Peter of whom we know very little; it was quite a varied Christianity also with texts such as the Apocalypse of John, the Shepherd of Hermas, Hebrews and various other texts quite dissimilar in theology to Paul's and in some respects to the gospel traditions too.

But Paul is writing in the first century, and probably knows nothing about the gospels. Also books like Hebrews and James that were probably written in the first century show no knowledge of the gospels. It is not until well into the second century until clear references to the gospels are made. There are a few sayings similar to the gospels that start popping up after 95 AD, but no clear reference to an account that comes from a written gospel.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why are you repeating this and ignoring my response? You posted this whole chapter before. I showed you where it says repeatedly that you disciples will see these things, and then says this generation will not pass away until all be fulfilled.

And I keep asking you

Interesting. But as I explained in this thread, the same passages that talk about the destruction of Jerusalem say that the Son of Man will come in the clouds soon afterward

Where in that chapter does it say soon? Point it out to me....or move along.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's not just me who's saying this. This is the thesis of James Crossley. The context of Caligula makes sense of the "abomination that causes desolation" and the text is continually reworked into the commentary on the destruction of the Temple. We see that Mark's ending is continually tweaked with the extended ending so this thesis isn't all that controversial. The point of Crossley's dating is that a late first century CE dating of Mark runs into the problem that Mark's Jesus appears far too comfortable with kosher and purity.

So, what you are saying is that since Mark is a product from after 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem is worked into Jesus' prophecy in Mark 13? Is that correct? If that is what you believe, then what you are saying is that this is not a prophecy and was put there for what reason?.....in an effort to pad the "resume" of Jesus? And if this was not a prophecy does that not make the entire book suspect or even an outright lie?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And I keep asking you

Where in that chapter does it say soon? Point it out to me....or move along.

Huh? Remember in this thread when I pointed it out to you by highlighting in red those verses that say this?

Once again, I have shown you where it says those 4 disciples will see all these things. If those disciples had a limited lifespan and were adults in 30 AD, then yes, that is saying that all these things will happen soon.

Also it says this generation--referring to the generation that sees the fall of Jerusalem--will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled. Assuming the generation is a normal generation, again we have to conclude it means soon.

Also up through Mark 13:23 it refers to the fall of Jerusalem. Then in v24-27 it says that "in those days, after that tribulation" a series of events will occur. Again, "in those days" must surely mean soon.

Finally in verse 29 Jesus tells those 4 disciples that when "you" (meaning "you disciples I am talking to") see these things begin to come to pass, know that it is near. Again, that surely means soon.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, what you are saying is that since Mark is a product from after 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem is worked into Jesus' prophecy in Mark 13? Is that correct? If that is what you believe, then what you are saying is that this is not a prophecy and was put there for what reason?.....in an effort to pad the "resume" of Jesus? And if this was not a prophecy does that not make the entire book suspect or even an outright lie?

Yes, I believe Mark wrote this after the fall of Jerusalem (or near enough that it could be easily predicted) and that he threw the words back into Jesus's mouth to pad his resume. That throws doubt on what Mark wrote, but does not prove everything is false.

This is no different then what is thought to have happened in the book of Daniel, where the writer writing after the events it "prophecies" tells the history, but pretends it is prophecy from Daniel in the past.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

So, what you are saying is that since Mark is a product from after 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem is worked into Jesus' prophecy in Mark 13? Is that correct? If that is what you believe, then what you are saying is that this is not a prophecy and was put there for what reason?.....in an effort to pad the "resume" of Jesus? And if this was not a prophecy does that not make the entire book suspect or even an outright lie?

It wouldn't surprise me if this is what happened to the text but I personally wouldn't altogether dismiss the idea that Jesus really did make claims about the destruction of Jerusalem. Even from a purely historical perspective it wouldn't have been inconceivable for someone to comment on the state of affairs between Judah and Rome and predict that Jerusalem would likely be destroyed.

 

[Goonie]

It wouldn't surprise me if this is what happened to the text but I personally wouldn't altogether dismiss the idea that Jesus really did make claims about the destruction of Jerusalem. Even from a purely historical perspective it wouldn't have been inconceivable for someone to comment on the state of affairs between Judah and Rome and predict that Jerusalem would likely be destroyed.

If the historical Jesus was along the line of Bart D Ehrmans idea of the apocalyptic preacher, the idea of him preaching the destruction of Jerusalem and indeed the temple would not be unlikely.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Can you give me an example of something in Mark that is very unlikely to have been written in 70 AD? Even if he does refer to earlier customs, I'm not sure why Mark couldn't have just known about customs that existed 40 years earlier and included them in his gospel written 70 AD.

Sure, the Sabbath dispute of Mark 3:1-6 doesn't make sense in a Gentile majority Christian context. Same with the Mosaic purity practices Jesus prescribes the cleansed leaper in Mark 1:44. Marks gospel also contains several passages which are literal translations o fAramaic sources (i.e. Mark 9:11-13; Mark 2:23-3:6; Mark 10:35-45; Mark 14:12-26).

But Paul is writing in the first century, and probably knows nothing about the gospels. Also books like Hebrews and James that were probably written in the first century show no knowledge of the gospels. It is not until well into the second century until clear references to the gospels are made. There are a few sayings similar to the gospels that start popping up after 95 AD, but no clear reference to an account that comes from a written gospel.

The gospel tradition does not seem to know of Hebrews, James or the Apocalypse either. Luke does seem to know of Paul but if one were to read only the gospel of Luke one could walk away thinking differently, it's only in Acts that Luke introduces the character of Paul into his narrative. So an author betraying knowledge of another isn't a good argument. Paul does include some very minor sayings of Jesus as well as the Eucharist practices, did the Markan tradition acquire this from Paul or perhaps from a common source? The point of these sorts of questions are that we can't answer them definitively we can just posit them to see what happens to the data when we look at it from different perspectives.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

If the historical Jesus was along the line of Bart D Ehrmans idea of the apocalyptic preacher, the idea of him preaching the destruction of Jerusalem and indeed the temple would not be unlikely.

Sure, but Bart Ehrman still falls for the trap of Neo-Kantian historiography, viewing the early movement as devoid of mythical elements and myth as requiring a considerable number of decades so as to accrue.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

This is no different then what is thought to have happened in the book of Daniel, where the writer writing after the events it "prophecies" tells the history, but pretends it is prophecy from Daniel in the past.

This is called vaticinium ex eventu and is part of the genre of apocalyptic literature, including Daniel which was written sometime between 167 and 164 BCE. It wasn't an attempt at being dishonest, all apocalypses were written the same way.