Bias in biblical scholarship

[Mithrae]

Edit: I've cluttered up the screen a bit with my detailed explanations, so for everyone's sanity, here's a link to the last (and shortest) of my explanatory posts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 759#465759



Almost eight years ago I departed from the Christian faith; I considered myself an 'agnostic theist' for a few months after that, then an atheist/agnostic for seven years or so, and over the past few months have become persuaded that theism is a more reasonable worldview. But on and off through that period (and obviously when I was a Christian) I've been interested in discussing and learning about the origins of Christianity and earlier Jewish history.

While I'm obviously no expert, I've found over the years that there's a few points on which the scholarly 'consensus' views - though to be fair, in most cases I doubt there's anything more than a significant majority - simply doesn't seem compelling to me. Since this is hardly a concrete subject like physics or chemistry, on those issues where I've considered my views carefully enough I've been content to hold my own tentative opinions until shown otherwise.

But we all, myself included, are often heavily influenced by majority scholarly views in areas which we haven't examined extensively, and indeed often very much guided by them even when we do look up things for ourselves. So it troubles me that there's not just one or two points on which I think reference to the scholarly majority is inadequate (or even incorrect), but several - and on each issue, it seems to me that mainstream scholarship's suggestions deviate more from historical/traditional perspectives than I myself would endorse.

The main examples would probably be these:

• 1) Dating of Mark (and Matthew) (link)
  Majority scholarship suggests that Mark was written after 70CE, and that consequently Matthew was written after 75 or even 80CE. My view is that thematic features suggest Matthew was almost certainly written 70-73CE, and Mark could very plausibly have been written before 70.
  
  2) Gospel of John (link)
  Majority scholarship suggests that the fourth gospel was written by a community aligned with or previously led by a disciple of Jesus, rather than the 'beloved disciple' himself. I find no strong evidence to support that view (a couple of possible redactions aside), and quite a solid balance of evidence suggesting that it was indeed written primarily by a disciple.
  
  3) Book of Daniel (link)
  Majority scholarship suggests that the sections of Daniel dealing with events of the Greek period were written in the 2nd century BCE, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Obviously I see things differently, though I haven't yet had the opportunity to test my views on this forum; the lack of response even in McCulloch's recent thread on prophecy was actually the catalyst for this thread.
  
  4) History of Israel (link)
  Majority scholarship (or so I've read) suggests that the peoples who became known as Israel and Judah were not foreign to Canaan, but in fact emerged from native populations whose religion they persisted in until the time of Hezekiah (c 720s BCE) and beyond. The presence of Canaanite religion is certainly acknowledged in the bible, but I believe that the earlier prophets, the J and E sources of the Pentateuch and perhaps external history or even archaeology could imply the influence of an originally foreign culture with monotheistic tendencies.

To keep the OP brief I'll post more detailed comments on these points separately. So without further ado I ask:

Is it plausible that majority or 'mainstream' scholarship may be subject to some (minor) anti-traditional bias? Why or why not?

[Mithrae]

Dating of Mark (and Matthew)

Even before the gospels were written the early Christians, or at the very least those influenced by Paul, believed that Jesus was going to come back soon (eg. 1 Cor. 7:29-31). This theme is seen also in the apocalypse of Mark 13, where Jesus supposedly said "this generation" will not pass 'til those prophecies had been fulfilled. I suggest could be the same kind of expectation as Paul's, rather than anachronistic reference to the Jewish revolt, because it's questionable how strongly Mark emphasised that theme. In ch4 Mark's Jesus at great length describes the 'kingdom of God' as an organic, growing process; thus in Mark 8:34-9:1, where Jesus is talking about the process of self-denial which he requires of his disciples, it's questionable (though possible) whether his final comment about the 'kingdom of God' refers to eschatological expectation.

Matthew's gospel changes that passage, making it an explicit reference to "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28). Whereas the later gospels of Luke (17:20-21 & 21:20-24) and John (21:22-23) carefully downplay the expectation of an immanent eschaton, Matthew more than any other New Testament work emphasises how soon it will be; in 10:23 Matthew alone has Jesus saying that "you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Matthew is the most Jewish in theme and content of the gospels, and unlike Mark he specifically draws his readers' attention to the writings of Daniel in his apocalypse (Matt. 24:15). Daniel 9:26 says that a future ruler would destroy the city and sanctuary, and verse 27 from which this 'abomination of desolation' is drawn says that in the sacrifice and offering would be halted in the middle of a 'seven,' the end of which completes all prophecy (v24).

I believe that Matthew's extreme emphasis on how soon Jesus would return is best explained (and indeed only explained) if he wrote immediately after the temple's destruction - the end to sacrifice and offering - and expected Jesus' return within three or four years of that event. Some discussion on this point between myself and ThatGirlAgain can be found in the final posts of this page.

Furrowed Brow's thread Is Markan Priority Wrong? includes much discussion about whether Mark was written before Matthew, with most contributors agreeing that the common scholarly view is the most reasonable. There was also considerable, related discussion on whether or not Mark could have been written prior to 70CE, more or less beginning with ThatGirlAgain's arguments here. A couple of highlights from the side which I agree with:

Argument that Mark 13 refers specifically to the First Revolt and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus.

Heres a funny thing. In the heart of London next to the Thames you will find the Tower of London. It is built from stone and so far stood for several hundred years with absolutely no hint it will fall down or be knocked down. Im going to make a prediction. At some point I shall not define Not one stone there will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down. I guarantee you this prediction will come true. Not saying when though.

So what Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. These are violent times, buildings are no so well built, and Rome is ruthless. Rome already destroyed Carthage 146 BC and plenty of other folk who stood in her way. It was the sort of thing Rome did. Heck he might must have been generalising in a very nonspecific way like just like next few verse that follow. Mark 13:5-8 theyve been true just about every century ever since.

Here are two Messiah claimants associated with the First Revolt.
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts11.html
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts12.html

Okay you need to rethink what you are trying to do. You are taken some very nonspecific claims attributed to Jesus and trying to write in the details, and then give Mark the credit for referencing these possibilities. Just look at how non specific Jesus claims are. Here is a list of messiah claimants How did Mark know about Montanus in in 135-177? If he is not referring to him then why might he be referring to the two you offer as an example. Because their dates work out I guess. What about Simon Magus. What Jesus said could apply to the whole list. If so it makes the claim the reference applies to a specific siege pretty darn meaningless. This is a clear example of trying to rationalise Mark as responding to the Jewish Revolt when what is said is just open to interpretation.

The problem here is getting unnerved by seeing this as some kind of meaningful prophecy on Jesus part and in retreat from that thought look for ways to get the prediction in after the event. So what if the temple was destroyed by Rome 40 years or so later. It really is meaningless much like trying to discern the meaning of a metaphor is a meaningless exercise.

Step outside your theory of Mark for a moment. Go back to the sectiona in Mark 13 you have just quoted and pick out one hard specific prediction with a date and location and name attached. You are seeing Mark referencing events I am seeing you fit some data to very non specific generic statements and truisms. Sure we can make sense of Mark this way, I am not saying this is not just as good a way to rationalise Mark as any other, except it makes it all a meaningless exercise. I kind of prefer the idea these sayimngs are really being attributed to Jesus. Maybe he even said them. It is really not problematic a prophet would come out with such banalities. They tend to do that.

I believe I have already made a pretty good case that the demons into swine pericope indicates that it was written not earlier than 67 CE. This pericope shows up in all three Synoptic Gospels. I believe that analysis of the different ways it is told indicates Markan Priority.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=23
See the two consecutive posts from me.

In summary: The story involves the presence of a herd of two thousand swine. The Roman Tenth Legion used a wild boar as its symbol in the timeframe of the First Revolt. Elements of that Legion, arguably two thousand in number, took part in the siege of a rebellious city in 67 CE. That siege ended with many of the Jewish defenders falling to their deaths trying to escape down a steep slope. Jesus tells this story in an area on the east side of the Sea of Galilee where there is a steep slope leading down to the water. Jesus casts two thousand demons whose name is Legion into pigs who run down that slope into the water. This is the way the story is told in Mark.

Matthew tells a shorter version than Mark or Luke, leaving out the name Legion and not mentioning the number.

Luke tells a story very similar to Mark, even with much common language, using the name Legion but leaving out the two thousand.

As described at length in my other posts, the name Legion and the number two thousand tie in well with a revenge fantasy based on a specific historical event. But only Mark has both and Matthew has neither. Why did Luke use the word Legion when Matthew did not? Why did Mark use the number two thousand? The most likely explanation I can see is that Mark wrote first and then Matthew and Luke used parts of his story comprehensible to them and their respective audiences. Again my belief is that Mark got his material about the Revolt from an eyewitness.

Hey ThatGirl, sorry for not replying to this in the other thread. Two obvious problems spring to mind here:
- Mark himself and his gentile (Roman?) audience probably wouldn't understand the reference in the first place
- Matthew and his Jewish audience (Galilean/Syrian, I believe you've said?) probably would get the reference, if such it was, yet he doesn't use it

Positing a Revolt eyewitness for Mark doesn't help much; presumably it'd still have to be Mark himself who decided that his audience really ought to see an obscure tale about demons called Legion taking a herd of swine into the lake at Gerasa. The perfect way to vent this (presumably) non-Galilean author's strong feelings about the fate of one small rebel town amongst the many at the time!

Furthermore, I think there's simply too little in the story to connect it to the siege of Gamala. It occurs near Gerasa instead of Gamala, and while I'm not familiar with Roman-era idioms I wouldn't be surprised if it was common to use 'legion' as we use 'army' - a synonym for a host or multitude. Mark certainly knew enough about Jewish culture to recognise that sending a herd of pigs into the lake would be poetic justice in a Jewish region, and what does it say about this Jesus that he shows that smidgeon of mercy even to demons who plead for it? The only small oddity is that the pigs (not the 'Legion') are actually numbered, and that connection to X Fretensis is somewhat dubious to us (and almost certainly unknown to Mark's readers).

I think what we've got here is simply coincidence; scholars finding an event which vaguely fits in with 'legion,' pigs and a steep slope.

Mark 13:14-17
14 When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong"let the reader understand"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

This is a very interesting passage. The abomination that causes desolation is from Daniel chapters 9, 11 and 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_Desolation

What Mark is referring to has been debated back and forth. It is usually taken to be something that happens in or to the Temple during the siege of Jerusalem. However note that Mark uses it as a sign of the bad times to come. By the siege it is too late to flee. Jerusalem is surrounded. What might Mark be referring to that comes before the siege. And why does Mark break the proscenium and speak directly to the reader about this?

An interesting point, and to my mind that suggests that the passage was written before the event. An abomination (which didn't actually come to pass) from over thirty years earlier is hardly a fair warning to "flee to the mountains" by any measure. Likewise, as you've pointed out, it'd be strange warning people to flee once they see that Jerusalem has fallen, the rebellion mostly crushed and tens of thousands of lives destroyed. Writing after the events, surely Mark would have put a more appropriate warning in Jesus' mouth?

Or from a different perspective, why does Mark (c71, 72 CE) want the Christians of Judea (should they ever read his work) to flee to the mountains now that they've seen the temple desolated?

On the contrary, this reads more like a genuine concern based on existing prophecy in the Tanakh. Wars and rumours of wars, nations, kingdoms and brothers rising against each other, persecution of believers and even famines and earthquakes are all rather general warnings, and in any case obviously accessible to a writer in the early or mid 60s CE. Rather than looking back to the Revolt history for a relevant warning bell, the author seems to be looking forward to prophecied events and notes the abomination as the biggie to watch for.

On the basis of the above I have formed what I consider to be a very sound opinion that while it's possible Mark wrote in 70CE and Matthew wrote in 71, it's just as likely (if not more so) that Mark wrote before the temple's destruction and reflects only similar eschatological expectations as we see in Paul's work.

If it is the case that most mainstream scholars date Mark at 70-80CE and Matthew to 75CE or later, I question whether their conclusions might not be unduly influenced by the anti-'prophetic' bias which Furrowed Brow mentions in the quote above.

[Mithrae]

Gospel of John

I have mostly discussed and developed my views here in my own thread on the Gospel of John. Probably the most comprehensive account of my views, and a summary in note form, is at the end of page 14:


Discussing Jesus in the thread Circumstantial Evidence against BibleGod, I suggested the fourth gospel as admissible (non-'hearsay') evidence since it claims eyewitness status. To avoid derailing that thread any further, I'll reply to Goat's objections here.

The author does claim to have been a witness in 1:14. Some might interpret this as a non-specific 'we,' as in 1 John 1:1-3, but I don't suspect it that it's a very convincing view. The anonymous references to the 'beloved disciple' and the aforementioned 19:35 fit in well with that view. And of course since John 21:24 was written by someone else it provides additional confirmation, which personally I wouldn't say is a reason to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Actually, that does not meet the evaluation of most Johnaine scholars. The full article about it is here

It says
There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That Papias source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

The passage from Mark reads:

• Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.
  36 And He said to them, What do you want Me to do for you?
  37 They said to Him, Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory.
  38 But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
  39 They said to Him, We are able.
  So Jesus said to them, You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; 40 but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared.

The interpretation suggested here is that it's referring specifically to death, rather than to more general suffering and rejection. It's certainly true that James suffered death a few years afterwards (Acts 12:2). By the time Mark was written, so had a number of other key Christian figures (Peter, Paul and Jesus' brother James for starters). Even if we presume that the passage can only refer to martyrdom, I think it's a weak argument to infer that the second brother definitely must have already died also. On the contrary, the passage is all about the contrast between hopes for the next life and an expectation of suffering in this; to assume that it must be anachronistic seems to rather miss the point.

On the subject of the death of James son of Zebedee, however, it's interesting to note that while the synoptic gospels name Peter, James and John as Jesus' three closest disciples (and Paul and Acts confirm the later prominence of the surviving Peter and John), the fourth gospel names only Peter out of the three. If John were the 'beloved disciple' as church tradition maintains, would it be so surprising that he doesn't mention his deceased brother in his record of Jesus' ministry?

The 5th and 10th century quotations from Papias shouldn't be dismissed, but two things are worth noting; first that under Roman law the Jews did not have the power to legally execute anyone, and secondly that martyrdom was not by any means the sole preserve of young Christian leaders. Polycarp was allegedly in his 80s when he was killed in Rome! There's no reason why John also might not have been killed at an old age by some Jewish mob, if we choose to speculate on the accuracy of Papias' information. In fact according to Irenaeus (c 180CE), Polycarp himself confirmed that John was alive and at Ephesus at the time of Cerinthus (AH 3.3.4). We've got no solid information on exactly when Cerinthus taught there, but it was probably sometime after the Jewish revolt and it confirms that John had traveled well beyond the Jewish homeland.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled." (p. 918)

I've read this page numerous times in learning about the gospel of course, and this argument has always baffled me. Apparently, it is inconceivable that an eyewitness would be inaccurate, and would have issues relevant to his own time and community showing through his work. It goes to show that even scholars don't always think or write very clearly; frankly it's so laughable as to merit no further response

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)

Kysar also observes on the dating of the Gospel of John: "The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does, although there have been persistent attempts to argue otherwise. The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in 2:13-22. Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed." (p. 918) Note also the irony of 11:48: "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place [i.e. temple] and our nation." Finally, there is no mention of the Sadducees, which reflects post-70 Judaism. The retort that there is also no mention of scribes misses the mark, as the Pharisees represented the scribal tradition, and the Pharisees are mentioned.

The terminus a quo might also be set by dependence upon the Gospel of Mark, if it were certain that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. The matter is debated in contemporary scholarship, but Kysar says that the theory of Johannine independence commands a "slim majority" of contemporary critics. For a discussion of this issue, D. Moody Smith's John Among the Gospels is recommended.

I would say it's fairly clear that the gospel was written sometime after the Jewish revolt, not only because of the passages about the temple but also because of the distinction drawn between the emerging Christ movement and mainstream Judaism (including being 'put out of the synagogue'). Whether it was written after 90CE I'm not certain, though that wouldn't pose a significant problem for Johannine authorship. It's worth noting however that if our combined information from Papias and Polycarp suggests that John was killed by Jews at Ephesus, that would indeed suggest strong local tensions between the Christian and Jewish communities. I wouldn't argue for a date before 90CE, but nor would I rule it out as a possibility. As discussed earlier in this thread, I don't believe there's reason to suggest John's dependency on Mark.

Kysar writes: "In the place where the synoptics narrate the origin of the eucharist stands the account of the foot washing (13:1-10). The last meal Jesus celebrates with his disciples before his passion is not a Passover meal at all. Thus one of the basic features of the institution scenes in the synoptics is missing. Furthermore, there is no account of the baptism of Jesus, and there is confusion about whether or not Jesus practiced baptism (compare 3:22 and 4:2). Water baptism is treated critically and assigned strictly to the Baptizer in contrast with Spirit baptism (1:26, 31, 33). One is left with the impression that the sacraments of baptism and eucharist did not figure in the theology of the fourth evangelist." (p. 929)

Kysar states: "The passages which seem to address the sacraments are sometimes thought to be redactional. Some maintain that 'water and' in 3:5 and the discourse in 6:51-59 are insertions of a later hand by one interested in strengthening the explicit sacramental teachings of the gospel. It has been recently argued that portions of chaps. 13-17 come froma redactor at the time of the writing of the Johannine epistles some ten years or more after the completion of the gospel." (p. 922)

Norman Perrin believes that the redactor who added the sacramental passages to the Gospel of John also authored the first epistle of John, in which the sacraments are emphasized.

Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

I find this to be a very interesting topic, which sparked lengthy discussion with Shermana and others (starting here). As stated above, Cerinthus apparently believed that 'the Christ' descended on Jesus at his baptism and departed before his death. If the Christ descended at the time of one key Christian ritual, is it possible that Cerinthus believed he departed at the time of the other - the last supper? My guess so far is that the omission of direct description of these two events in the fourth gospel is in fact quite good evidence that it was indeed written in part against Cerinthus; deliberately omitting the supposed moment of the Christ's descent and (perhaps) departure. With that view, the less overt references to the Christian rituals elsewhere in the gospel are entirely consistent with fairly 'mainstream' or Johannine authorship without the need for speculating about redactions.

On the subject of authorship of John and 1 John, even a casual reader will note the strong similarities in both themes and style found in the two works, suggesting the obvious presumption that the same person wrote them. Arguments that they were written by different people seem weak to my mind, emphasising the gospel's scant references to sacraments (explained above) and conjuring a false dichotomy regarding eschatology in the fourth gospel in order to suggest different theologies in the two works. The fact of the gospel's extant references to sacraments and eschatology are explained away as redaction by the epistle's author! (Source) Essentially I, like many scholars, can see no evidence that church tradition and common sense are wrong in considering them the product of the same author. Arguments drawing on that presumption are therefore obviously very weak.

With that in mind, the epistle's initial introduction of the deceivers and antichrist's couldn't be more clear about their error: "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). While the arguments quoted above emphasise 'Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,' this verse shows clearly that the primary concern is the identity of Jesus as Christ. Again, this fits in perfectly as opposition to Cerinthus' teaching that the Christ descended on and departed from Jesus. Later verses (1 John 4:1-3) may be more general warnings not tailored specifically for the issues of John's community at Ephesus, or they may again be insisting the identity of Christ who came in the flesh as Jesus, rather than as a spirit who came and went from Jesus. And the quoted arguments' emphasis that the deceivers "went out from us" again seems to me slim pickings from which to draw sure conclusions; it could indeed be that Cerinthus gained some followers from John's community (perhaps Cerinthus himself had been a follower), or it could simply be referring to their departure from the wider mainstream Christian belief and 'us' doesn't refer to the specific community.

In short, while it's certainly interesting to speculate in more detail about the precise interactions between John, his community, Cerinthus and his followers, the traditional view of authorship for the gospel and epistle/s makes perfect sense overall, with no need for unevidenced speculation about redactions or the like.

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

Another point covered in earlier discussion with Shermana. Quite simply, Epiphanius' opponents c. 390CE really are not a valid source from which to draw conclusions about the gospel's origins. Indeed in the second century not only the proto-orthodox but Gnostics also attributed the gospel to John:

• Mithrae wrote:
  There is evidence of the gospel's use in gnostic circles in the 2nd century:
  By Heracleon c. 170CE
  By the 'Peratae,' mentioned by Hippolytus c. 210-230CE
  By the Valentinians as described by Irenaeus c. 180CE
  However according to Irenaeus the Valentinians acknowledged John as the author:
  • 5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,"that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God...
  Similarly, Heracleon attributes the gospel to a disciple of Jesus:
  • The words, No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known, were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.
  So it would seem that the tradition of Cerinthean authorship for the gospel probably began after the 2nd century, long after it would have any value for our discussion. And indeed, if we believe that the quotations by Origen of Heracleon and Irenaeus of the Valentinian text are reliable, they provide two additional sources of mid/late 2nd century evidence confirming the gospel's authorship.

----

To conclude, I think it's worth re-posting my summary of the evidence for and against which I made back in January (I've made a few changes):

• Mithrae wrote:
  As a matter of interest, I decided to summarize the discussion and the arguments last night, with an analysis of the type of argument and their relative strength. Perhaps others will find it interesting, or helpful in clarifying their thoughts on the matter. I've tried to put them in as much of a coherent claim/response format as possible.
  
  I think such an analysis is important in order to think clearly on a subject. Evidence should be assessed and weighed, not stacked on one side from which to argue against anything contrary. So it's important to try to assess the relative strength of any given point, as well as the reasoning used to make it. For example, an argument that the gospel is anti-semitic is based on interpretation; an argument that John wouldn't have learned to write is based on probability; an argument that the gospel was originally an unorthodox, gnostic work is based on interpretation and historical factors (the use of the book by gnostics); an argument based on the attribution by Irenaeus is similarly based on historical data.
  
  So without further ado, my summary of the arguments:
  • 1 - The gospel and 1 John were written by the same person - style analysis & interpretive, average (and historical, weak)
    2 - Eyewitness claims in 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 & John 19:35 (contrast 21:24) - interpretive, average
    A ~ A disciple wouldn't have lived that long - probabilistic, weak
    3 - There were quite a few long-lived ancients - historical & probabilistic, weak
    4 - The appendix was written shortly after disciple's death (21:22-23) - interpretive, strong
    5 - The appendix confirms it was written by a disciple - historical, strong
    B ~ John was already dead (Mark 10:35-40) - James was killed; further interpretation is weak
    6 - John was alive at Ephesus - historical (Polycarp/Irenaeus), weak
    7 - Omission of James from the gospel - interpretive, weak
    C ~ John wouldn't have learned sufficient literary skills to write it - probabilistic, average
    8 - The disciple had some 50-odd years to learn - probabilistic, average
    9 - The gospel's Greek is nevertheless quite Semitic/vulgar - linguistic, strong*
    D ~ The gospel is anti-semitic - interpretive, weak
    10 - Pro-semitic; it shows sympathetic reasons and God's will for Jesus' execution (11:49-51) - interpretive, weak
    11 - The gospel merely distinguishes between Christianity and Judaism - historical & interpretive, average
    E ~ Anachronistic; Christians 'put out of the synagogue' - interpretive & historical, average
    . . . . . . The gospel distinguishes between Christianity and Judaism - historical & interpretive, average
    12 - It may reflect local tensions or the division from the council of Jamnia - interpretive, average
    F ~ It was used by gnostics (attributed to Cerinthus 3rd-4th century) - interpretive & historical, weak
    G ~ It's unorthodox, anti-ritual; it omits Jesus' baptism and Lord's supper - interpretive, weak
    . . . . . . John was at Ephesus - historical (Polycarp/Irenaeus), weak
    13 - He wrote the gospel against Cerinthus - historical & interpretive, average
    14 - Jesus' baptism and last supper support Cerinthian doctrine**; hence omitting those specific stories - interpretive & historical, weak
    
    Summary of main positive evidence:
    Eyewitness claims in 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 & John 19:35 (contrast 21:24) - interpretive, average
    The appendix was written shortly after disciple's death (21:22-23) - interpretive, strong
    The appendix confirms it was written by a disciple - historical, strong
    John was alive at Ephesus - historical (Polycarp/Irenaeus), weak
    15 - Quotation by Justin Martyr - historical, average
    16 - Attribution by Irenaeus - historical, weak
    17 - Attribution by Heracleon and the Valentinians - historical, average
  
  * I don't have a proper source for this yet, but I think Student is reliable: "As for Johns Greek, according to Wallace [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament; p.30], the range of literary levels of the NT authors is as follows: Most semitic / vulgar : Revelation, Mark, John, 1-3 John, 2 Peter." This may also confirm that the epistles were written by the same author.
  
  ** One of the doctrines of Cerinthus was Jesus was a good human, son of Joseph and Mary, but that the Christ came down on him (as a dove) when he was baptised, and departed before his crucifixion. If one primary Christian ritual (baptism) was the time of the Christ's descent, the other (Lord's Supper) may well have been considered the time of the Christ's departure. The gospel does mention these two rituals in different manner and places, but the fact that it departs from the synoptic norm on those two points is arguably (interpretive, weak) further evidence that it was written against Cerinthus - whereas if it had been a Cerinthian/gnostic work, they would probably have been emphasised.
  
  
  Any comments/disagreements/criticisms would be welcome. Do you believe that John's presumed illiteracy after Jesus' death (point C) is actually a strong argument, for example? Or is my interpretation of the gospel's appendix (point 4) only an average argument - is there a more reasonable view on the matter? Or perhaps you'd claim that Irenaeus' attribution of the gospel (point 16) should actually be considered evidence of average strength?
  
  Like I say, it's more for the purpose of clarifying my own thoughts, but I figured it might be interesting to others also.

Overall, I'd say there's a very solid balance of evidence favouring Johannine authorship




- The epistle/gospel's own eyewitness claims
- The additional confirmation by the appendix shortly after the author's death
- The attribution to John by Gnostics prior to Irenaeus
- And the interesting circumstantial evidence that two of Jesus' key disciples are not named in the work (the alleged author and his dead brother)
These are some of the key reasons why I believe that the evidence most reasonably suggests that the fourth gospel was primarily written by a disciple of Jesus.

If there is any great assuredness by any majority of scholars that it was not, I question whether scholarly thought has advanced enough from the influential but radical views of the 19th century "Tbingen School" of New Testament criticism.

[Mithrae]

Book of Daniel

I started a thread on the Book of Daniel in November 2011, and since biblical prophecy can be such a hot topic at times I was surprised that my controversial assessment didn't even attract any nibbles, let alone rebuttals:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html
I'll try to keep the OP brief, while giving at least an overview of some of the main issues and arguments on the topic. Obviously there'll be plenty of things still left for discussion.

Content and background
The book claims to have been written by a Jewish noble during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. It is written partly in Aramaic (2:4b to 7:28) and partly in Hebrew. The first six chapters are mostly narrative content and the last six are mostly vision/prophetic content. Based largely on one or both of those divisions in content, many theories of the origin of the work involve authorship by writers at different periods in history. Many scholars believe that the Aramaic/narrative sections (chapter 2-6) were written, together or separately, in the 3rd century BCE or earlier - possibly with chapters 1 or 7 also, or not.

The most common view of mainstream scholarship is that the Hebrew/prophetic portion (chapters 8-12) was written in a very specific time-frame around 168-165 BCE. The primary reason is simple: Chapters 8 and 11 accurately 'predict' events under the reign of Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (notably his defiling of the temple in 167BCE), but don't accurately predict his death in 164BCE or any subsequent events of the period.

Other evidence that the book wasn't written in the 6th century include things like historical inaccuracies, Greek loan-words, theological views and so on. From what I've learned so far, I believe these may provide sound reason for believing the Aramaic/narrative to be later works. However I also believe that aside from anti-supernatural presuppositions, there is little or no good reason for a 2nd-century date of the Hebrew/prophetic section - and indeed good reasons to believe it was written earlier (perhaps even in the 6th century).


Mainstream scholars' view
As a starting-point for discussion, let's pretend this is more of a parody. Essentially the theory is that around 168-165 BCE, the period in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes was enforcing policies in Judea aimed at Hellenizing the Jewish population and the Jewish Maccabean resistance movement was growing, a Jew wrote this work which shows God's power and foreknowledge in order to encourage his compatriots and offer hope for the future.

Notable components include God's foreknowledge of Alexander's conquest of Persia, the division of his kingdom and the persecution of Antiochus IV (chapter 8); a prediction in chapter 9 most obviously interpreted as saying that some 70 'sevens' after the end of the Babylonian exile God would make everything hunky-dory for his people (that is, around 50 BCE give or take); God's foreknowledge of the interactions between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Greek kingdoms (ch11); and the prediction that after Antiochus IV's determined efforts to impose Greek culture on the Jews, at "the time of the end" he would abandon the gods of his fathers, exalt himself above every god and honour a foreign 'god of fortresses' (11:35ff). These genuine predictions were known to be obviously and blatantly irrelevant within less than a decade of writing, yet the Jewish community still valued the work so highly that it became part of the official canon of scripture.

Needless to say, while I can appreciate that accurate predictions of the future by an earlier-date Daniel might be considered 'supernatural' and thus not acceptable according to some philosophies, the alternative theory does not on face value seem very compelling.


Alleged evidence for later date
Historical inaccuracies - To my knowledge these are all in the Aramaic/narrative section, and include things such as the 7 years of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (ch4, which may be based on the illness of the later king Nabonidus); naming Belshazzar as the 'son' of Nebuchadnezzar; naming Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon (ch5 - not sure how valid this one is, since he was co-regent with his father Nabonidus); and having Darius the Mede as a king and conqueror of Babylon for the Medo-Persian empire (ch6), rather than Cyrus the Great. But in the later chapters of the book the only issues I know of, such as they are, are that Belshazzar is again called 'king' (8:1, which I'll argue is actually evidence for authenticity), and Darius the Mede is said to have been "made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom" (9:1) - strange, but not quite the same as being king of the Persian empire, especially since after leaving Babylon Daniel more conventionally dates the year by the reign of Cyrus (10:1).

Exclusion from the Nevi'im - The Tanakh is divided into the Torah (law), Nevi'im (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings), which many scholars believe represent successive stages of canonisation. The Nevi'im include the 'former prophets' (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the 'later prophets' (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Treisar, the twelve minor prophets). Unlike the Christian bible, the Jews place Daniel amongst the Ketuvim rather than the prophets. However the simple fact is that Daniel was not a prophet by Hebrew standards - he didn't pass on the 'word of the Lord' to the people, he simply had his own predictive visions. Even assuming some validity to the notion that the Nevi'im were 'canonised' at some point before the Ketuvim, it's hard to imagine why Daniel should have been included amongst the former or later Prophets rather than kept aside for another designation like Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth or Lamentations.

Theology/genre - Some argue that elements like belief in a resurrection (ch12) or the general vision/apocalyptic nature of the work are evidence for a later date. There are precursors (if not definite examples) of resurrection-type theology in Ezekiel and even Isaiah, and in any case the concept was important in the Persian culture with which a historical Daniel would have become acquainted. Likewise, while still prophets in the traditional sense Ezekiel and Zechariah are solid evidence for 6th century Jewish apocalyptic-type visions and content, so the argument is weak against Daniel.

Exclusion from Sirach's list - Around 190-180 BCE, Jesus ben-Sirach's work includes a list of the great figures of Jewish history, but with no mention of Daniel. The simple response is that the list doesn't include Ezra either, and Ezra is universally acknowledged as a pre-Maccabean figure. We can certainly speculate on the reasons for these omissions, be they theological, polemical or even simply forgetful, but the omission of Daniel clearly is not a significant or strong argument from silence.


Alleged evidence for earlier date
Widespread acceptance - Implied earlier, it's hard to imagine Daniel would be widely embraced by Jews if the most significant 'prophetic' sections had been written early in the 160s BCE and found to be useless later in that decade. Yet we can easily confirm from later in that same century that the book is used/referred to in 1 Maccabees, and by the contrasting perspective of the author/s of 2 Maccabees, and even by the separatist group with founded the Qumran community c. 150BCE. Others also; anyone impatient for more detail can have a read of this site. With inaccurate or at least irrelevant 'predictions' from 164BCE onwards, and only a year or three before that in which to supposedly gain acceptance, it's inconceivable that this supposedly 2nd century work would be embraced by any wide sampling of later 2nd century Jews. Yet this is what the evidence shows. This suggests the work was well-known before Maccabean times and had gained enough 'authority' that the divergence of the predictions after 164 was merely strange, rather than being proof of false prophecy.

Thematic incongruencies - It's not so much positive evidence for an earlier date as the problems, mentioned above, with a 2nd century theory for date of authorship. Why would a king who was devoting his efforts to imposing Greek culture on the Jews be predicted as abandoning the gods of his fathers and honouring a foreign god (11:35ff)? Why would a Jew under Antiochus IV's oppression write the vision of chapter 9, suggesting that more than a century into the future God will finally make everything wonderful? Many 'scholars' dismiss this as being a product of the author's extreme ignorance of the historical time-frame since the exile, and he'd actually meant to refer to his own day.

Knowledge of Belshazzar - Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who was the last king of Babylon. Many 19th century scholars believed he was fictitious, since known history from the likes of Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias and so on make no reference to him. It was only with the discovery of a couple of cuneiform inscriptions in Mesopotamia (the Nabonidus cylinder and the Nabonidus chronicle, if memory serves) that it was discovered not only was Belshazzar an historical figure, but he was actually ruler or co-regent in his father's place while Nabonidus was ill for almost all of the last decade of his reign. More on this later, including references once I re-discover them: But the central point is that while 'king' Belshazzar makes a lot of sense for a 6th century Babylonian court official, without authentic information from Hebrew Daniel even the name Belshazzar would probably have been unknown to a 2nd century Jew, never mind considering him royalty!




This is the outline of why I believe the balance of evidence favours a date of composition prior to the 2nd century BCE for Hebrew Daniel - most likely as a genuine 6th century work.

Curiously, while anti-supernaturalism would be an obvious possible source of bias here, I've previously opined that another significant factor may be academic Christians' redefinition or reconception of biblical prophecy in acknowledgement that much of it (most notably Ezekiel, though Deutero-Isaiah may be another prominent example) clearly is not authentic. Rather than alter the biblical canon or consider it a serious blow to the Christian faith, the concept of predictive prophecy is wholly disavowed:

Presented with fairly compelling evidence, for example, that the Pentateuch was written in four parts over several centuries or that Aramaic Daniel was written much later than the 6th century, a conservative Christian can either stand by their faith and argue their case as best they can; or reject their faith; or perhaps reassess their canon of Scripture (which few apparently do); or else reassess what Scripture means to them. . . .

But since a few centuries ago virtually all Christian thinkers were 'conservative' by our standards, I think it's worth bearing in mind that to whatever extent there's a scholarly consensus on the meaning of prophecy, in no small part it was probably based on scholars' choices between traditional beliefs, secular evidence, and the meaning found in faith.

[Mithrae]

History of Israel

While it's not a subject I'm particularly familiar with, I made a few limited comments in Confused's thread last October, Evidence to support the Christian Bible:


Monarchy of Israel and Judah (c1000 BCE to 586 BCE)
To my understanding, the large-scale biblical account of history from 900 or 800 BCE or so (the latter parts of 1 and 2 Kings) generally is not widely disputed these days, besides the small-scale miracles like those of Elijah or Elisha. In this period there were the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the former being conquered by the Assyrians around 730BCE give or take; this was blamed on their apostasy.

From around 841BCE, the Black Obelisk shows the king of Israel Jehu offering tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. He's called the 'son of Omri,' who was the sixth king of separated Israel, builder of the capital Samaria and founder of its most famous dynasty (Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah and Joram). In fact the death of Joram along with Judah's king Ahaziah (c 842 BCE) is mentioned in the Tel Dan Stele, in a very fragmented account which may confirm several key details of the biblical story and question others. It's the earliest archaeological find with reference to the 'house of David.'

David himself has been (and may still be) considered a largely legendary figure by some scholars, though along with other aspects of the earliest history of the Israelite monarchy I really couldn't say how decided the issue is. For example the extent of Solomon's wealth and influence is almost certainly exaggerated greatly in the book of Kings, which was written some 400 years after his reign (though drawing on earlier records). But while I don't know much about the subject, to my mind it does seem probable that Solomon did build a temple in Jerusalem and probably ruled over the united kingdom of Israel and Judah. The Jewish historians' attention to detail in Israel's history seems hard to explain otherwise, and in addition I'd guess that it's probable the J and E sources of the Pentateuch came from Judah and Israel respectively.


The Pentateuch
The Documentary Hypothesis suggests that the Pentateuch or Torah was derived from four main sources recognisable within its text; the Yahwist and Elohist sources J and E, distinguished in part by their use of divine names and repetition of similar material, the Priestly source P with its emphases on purity and social order, and the Deuteronomist source D with its historical-perspective approach. (In fairness I'm really just expressing my general impressions there, not the actual theory.)

Deuteronomy contains predictions that the Israelites would set kings over themselves (17:14ff) and even defeat by foreign rulers and exile if they break the covenant (28:49,63ff). It's generally agreed to have been written during the monarchy period, sometime after the northern kingdom had been taken into exile by the Assyrians. Personally I'm intrigued by the theory that it could be the book of the Law 'rediscovered' by Hilkiah the priest in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign (c 623BCE, cf 2 Kings 22). Jeremiah 8:8 may be an interesting reference to this - or alternatively perhaps Jeremiah was laying groundwork for Hilkiah's book by condemning some previous version of the law, since Jeremiah the priest was son of perhaps that same Hilkiah (1:1), may refer to the covenant of Deuteronomy (Jer. 11), and apparently was on good terms with the son of Shaphan who delivered Hilkiah's book to Josiah (36:8-19). Either way it's fun to speculate.

Personally I've most obviously noticed evidence of the J and E sources in the two creation accounts of Genesis, and in particular the dual contradictory references to four centuries vs. four generations in Egypt, repeated both in Genesis (15:13-16) and Exodus (6:16-20 and 12:40-42). But I'm really not sure how accurately scholars can identify these sources throughout the four remaining books, especially if P elements are considered as belonging throughout them also rather than being restricted to Leviticus (here's a handy graphic on one theorized distribution of the sources).

Another possible point of contention is whether or not we can show that the P source is dependent on Persian Zoroastrianism (all but forcing a c500 BCE date) or not, which some scholars dispute; if not, the P source may well be the 'lying pen of the scribes' Jeremiah condemned, since he like earlier prophets spoke against the perversion of the law and neglect of social justice by Judah's religious and political elite. Thirdly, while it's necessary that the traditions found in the J and E sources come from before the Judah/Israel split, recorded a little differently in each kingdom, I don't see that it's necessary that both sources were written after the split based only on oral tradition; it could be that one or the other (presumably Judah with its allegedly older J source) preserved written information from before the split, which the other didn't have full or direct access to (or perhaps revised to their own agenda).


Early history (c2000 BCE to 1000 BCE)
The upshot of all this is that while the material in Numbers, Exodus and Genesis 12 forwards needs to be treated with varying degrees of scepticism, its quite possible that some, perhaps many elements of genuine history are preserved in the tales. As one Wiki-linked writer concludes after a thoroughly-referenced and rather good summary of archaeological finds relating to the age of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob):

• In many areas the archaeological study of the patriarchal period it has to be conceded that we simply do not have the evidence to make any statement as to the historicity of events one way or the other. The best that can be said is that they have a ring of authenticity and that they do not now appear as far-fetched as was once thought. Charges of provable anachronisms no longer carry the weight that they once had. We may conclude therefore that the burden of proof is very much on those who would deny a second millennium context for the patriarchs.
  ~ Archaeology and the Patriarchs

But as with Jesus, we're unlikely to find much in the way of direct evidence regarding a handful of Aramean shepherds in Canaan. So while it's sound scholarship, archaeological confirmation of the historical and cultural context portrayed in Genesis isn't so interesting to me as wild theories about the BIG events in the legends of Israel's history; are they in fact wholly fiction or mythical, or are they based in part on actual historical events, embellished over time?

For example, the bible says that Joseph became the second-most powerful man in Egypt, his whole family moved there and occupied the region's best land (Genesis 47:6), but eventually they departed a few generations later. I can't help but wonder whether the Hyksos, Semitic rulers of northern Egypt in roughly the right time-frame, didn't re-write their ignoble expulsion as a ruling class into a glorious escape from oppression. Another theory is that the plagues on Egypt might be explained by the eruption of the Santorini/Thera volcano in the Aegean Sea; while it's not probable (I don't know enough to say it's impossible) that the time of the eruption can be plausibly matched with the expulsion of the Hyksos, if hard times had befallen Egypt as a result of it that might explain the ultimate origins of the plagues story.

Even more intriguing are questions of whether the widespread destruction of Canaanite Middle Bronze II cities might in part be linked with the Israelites' invasion. And even more specifically, might archaeological evidence regarding the destruction of Jericho's walls even confirm specific details in the biblical account? Obviously it's not something I know enough about to say with any degree of surety - I'd just end up parrotting others' views. But hopefully as a brief overview of some evidence and speculations regarding the older portion of biblical history, this serves as a point for further discussion from the OP. (When my sporadic internet connection finally lets me cherry-pick a couple of final references and post it, at least!)


Edit: Whoops, forgot to mention from my 2005 notes that some elements of the Pentateuch, be they J or E, would take a rather determined forger to come up with if they were not more or less genuine material from a much earlier time:

• References to camping, marching sequence and the portable tabernacle - Exodus 26-27, 36, 38, 40; Numbers 2-4, 10, 33
  Descriptions of Canaan with reference to Egypt - Genesis 13:10, Numbers 13:22
  On/Heliopolis? - Genesis 41:45, 46:20

JehovahsWitness also made some relevant comments a few posts later, including the 13th century BCE Egyptian 'Merneptah stele,' the first recorded reference to Israel. And in his recent thread I'm ok with anti-gay stuff in the Bible. Really!, Waiting4evidence suggested quite convincingly that the sexual attitudes of the Torah - forbidding male homosexuality and excluding from the assembly castrated or mutilated men - seems more understandable from a survivalist nomadic background than a more stable, settled culture. I would also note in addition that the books of Judges and Samuel read more as an apologetic for the Davidic monarchy, perhaps shortly after the division of the northern kingdom, than as a much later romantic history.

[Furrowed Brow]

As you will already have assessed Mithrae. When it comes to biblical scholarship I know little. But on what I have read and been exposed to I have found much of it weak. The thread on Markan Priority, was me simply trying to point the weakness of the basic logic used by the scholars. This point is not undermined by any ham-fisted inability to form my own theory.

The fact that scholarship did not seem to notice the obvious flaw in the basic logic of Mark priority is a worry to me. The kind of anti prophetic bias you mention if true of scholarship exposes some very muddled thinking. And I think you are right on this point. It seems to me that the idea that Mark must have written after the fall of the temple issues from a bias against prophecy which itself stems from a weakness of logic, and I think an implicit fear of prophecy.

Wars and rumours of wars, nations, kingdoms and brothers rising against each other, persecution of believers and even famines and earthquakes are all rather general warnings, and in any case obviously accessible to a writer in the early or mid 60s CE. Rather than looking back to the Revolt history for a relevant warning bell, the author seems to be looking forward to prophesied events and notes the abomination as the biggie to watch for.

This seems right to me. Give folk a little credence that they can read the signs of the times and that information is available to them that would allow them to worry about certain outcomes. I would look at it the other way around, and ask what would it say of that society if in their writings there were no signs of fear of the destruction of the temple in the decades before, or maybe even if there were writings that predicted the temple would stand for a 1000 years. If we found that kind of prophecy we might interpret that to mean the society was very self confident and sure of itself. And barring earthquakes it is less likely the temple would fall within a society that could be so sure of itself. But what we find is pending doom. Which shows a society very unsure of itself, and fearful of the future. If you look closer there were prophets who predicted the 2008 financial crisis. But they were few. But now everyone seems to be predicting a much larger crash looming. And lets say there is a crash, but ten years from now. Does that make folk economic prophets? Kind of the opposite. The folk who are talking up a crash or talking in terms of this year or next year latest. Will they be vindicated by fifteen years of uncertain and poor economic results and then a crash? Hardly. But they will claim they are vindicated. What the fear of the crash does show us is the uncertainty, fear, and economic stress felt within a society. Taken the pending war on Iran, there is a political and economic build up, we can all observe. Some folk have been saying Iran is a target of the US for over a decade. It has just that long for momentum to build and events to come to a head.

So the problem with thinking Mark has prophesied the fall of the temple is that this is neither a realistic view of history nor how societies store information. For example, it leaves out the obvious question: why did the Romans target the temple and who could have seen it coming? If it was worth them destroying this would be obvious to folk long before they destroyed it. In this sense the temple is like an Iranian Nuclear facility. Viewed one way it makes sense for the US to bomb them. Im guessing it kind of made sense to the Romans to destroy the temple, and if it made sense, then it is not surprising that some folk might fear that outcome a decade or so before it happened. But then if someone says ah but the early Christians predicted it so what. Here is a group on the margins of society. This makes them better placed to be critical of mainstream normative thinking and more aware of the weaknesses and flaws in that society. The last couple of years we have seen the leaders of Europe basically tell us there is no fire. Anti Europeans have been shouting "fire!" for a decade. Just another example of how folk closer to the margin have clearer vision than the mainstream who tend to see things too late. But even now (unlikley as it seems) the Euro might survive for another decade or three. If that were to happen and then it collapses does that vindicate those who are sure it is about to collapse any day now.

But if someone says "ah ha but it was only the early Christians that predicted it" then I am not sure that is true. We are using one of the most widely published documents of all time as our source. How many lost conversations and lost texts aired their fears for the temple. We will probably never know. However given all that I have just said it is realisitc to assume Mark's talk of the fall of the temple did not occur in a vacuum, that given the presence of Rome, it was a good outside bet, and a natural worry, and however history might have unfolded, the "prophecy" would likely come true someday. Even if the original temple still stood today some folk would be waiting for it to fall, like some folk are waiting for the fall of the second temple. Sheesh . Talk about history repeating itself. And do you know, one day their expectations will be met.

[99percentatheism]

Edit: I've cluttered up the screen a bit with my detailed explanations, so for everyone's sanity, here's a link to the last (and shortest) of my explanatory posts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 759#465759



Almost eight years ago I departed from the Christian faith; I considered myself an 'agnostic theist' for a few months after that, then an atheist/agnostic for seven years or so, and over the past few months have become persuaded that theism is a more reasonable worldview. But on and off through that period (and obviously when I was a Christian) I've been interested in discussing and learning about the origins of Christianity and earlier Jewish history.

I find it telling, that since there are SO many theistic belief systems that you could have gravitated to after you left Christian life that you return to having to deal with it again.

Iis it because it is the only valid theology in history?

[historia]

Majority scholarship suggests that Mark was written after 70CE

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate, Mithrae.

James G. Crossley, in The Date of Mark's Gospel (2004), gives this helpful overview of scholarly opinion on this point:

In the early twentieth century Moffatt tabulated the scholarly views on the dates of the synoptic gospels. On Mark's gospel he shows that the majority of scholars favored a date sometime between 65 and 75 CE. At the beginning of the twenty-first century this view remains dominant, although the conventional dates for Mark and the synoptic gospels are not accepted uncritically. While scholars differ over the precise year, a date between 65 and 75 CE is accepted by a wide variety of scholars of very different ideological persuasions.

Mary Healy's commentary The Gospel of Mark (2008) similarly notes:

There is nearly unanimous agreement among scholars that Mark's Gospel was written within a few decades of Jesus' death and resurrection. There is less agreement, however, as to whether the Gospel should be dated before or after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington in their commentary on The Gospel of Mark (2005) also note:

This survey of the views of four distinguished Markan scholars (and the list could be expanded) establishes at the very least that the old "consensus" among scholars for the origin of Mark's Gospel at Rome before 70 C.E. no longer holds . . . But their reliance on Mark 13 as clearly conveying ex eventu prophecies . . . do call for caution.

Finally, a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "biblical literature." Britannica articles tends to provide established (read: older) consensus on issues like this:

Except for the Passion narrative, there is little chronological information. References in chapters 13 and 14 appear to presuppose that the Jerusalem Temple (destroyed in ad 70) still stood (in Matthew and Luke this is no longer the case); but the context of chapter 13, the Little Apocalypse, is so interwoven with eschatological traditions of both the Jewish and Christian expectations in the 1st century that it cannot serve with certainty as a historical reference. To some extent, however, chapter 13 does help to date Mark"the priority of which has already been established from literary criticism"because it is in good agreement with the traditions that Mark was written after the martyrdom of Peter. Mark may thus be dated somewhere after 64 and before 70, when the Jewish war ended.

In other words, although the vast majority of scholars estimate the text to be written sometime between 65-75, there is no real consensus on a post-70 date -- in fact, the earlier 20th Century "consensus" was a pre-70 date -- and there is a strong recognition in the literature of the very criticisms you've leveled at the post-70 dating.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The concepts of an "anti-prophetic bias" and "anti-supernatural presuppositions" don't make much sense to me. Without such "biases", how is historical inquiry meaningful or even possible? Like any other academic effort, history seeks rational explanations for things. You can't really conclude the texts are magical because that's an explanation that answers any inconsistency or question without actually explaining it at all.



I think while most would acknowledge that we can't rule out magic as an explanation, the whole point of history is to come up with an explanation that accounts for the evidence without resorting to such cop-outs. Hence the famous phrases of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and "what is more likely - that the known laws of the universe were temporarily suspended in favour of your religion, or that somebody told a lie?" Coming at history with the perspective that one magical event is just as plausible as another is more biased and counterproductive than a perspective, based on centuries of scientific and historical investigation, that magic as an explanation is unlikely to hold up here having failed everywhere else.

[Mithrae]

Majority scholarship suggests that Mark was written after 70CE

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate, Mithrae. . . .

In other words, although the vast majority of scholars estimate the text to be written sometime between 65-75, there is no real consensus on a post-70 date -- in fact, the earlier 20th Century "consensus" was a pre-70 date -- and there is a strong recognition in the literature of the very criticisms you've leveled at the post-70 dating.

Thanks. The impression I got came mostly from various discussions, the likes of earlychristianwritings.com and so on. That pretty much eliminates my point #1 I guess.

--

The concepts of an "anti-prophetic bias" and "anti-supernatural presuppositions" don't make much sense to me. Without such "biases", how is historical inquiry meaningful or even possible? Like any other academic effort, history seeks rational explanations for things. You can't really conclude the texts are magical because that's an explanation that answers any inconsistency or question without actually explaining it at all.


I think while most would acknowledge that we can't rule out magic as an explanation, the whole point of history is to come up with an explanation that accounts for the evidence without resorting to such cop-outs. Hence the famous phrases of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and "what is more likely - that the known laws of the universe were temporarily suspended in favour of your religion, or that somebody told a lie?" Coming at history with the perspective that one magical event is just as plausible as another is more biased and counterproductive than a perspective, based on centuries of scientific and historical investigation, that magic as an explanation is unlikely to hold up here having failed everywhere else.

For starters, I'm not sure which "known laws of the universe" exclude predicting the future accurately. I also doubt that every 'magical' explanation has been examined and, for those that have, it's interesting to wonder how many others (like Daniel) have been dismissed largely because those explanations have "failed everywhere else."

As I understand it methodological naturalism is important in science for two primary reasons:
- To eliminate that branch of ad hoc hypotheses
- To preserve the requirement of testability
But the study of history is not subject to testing in that manner; and if a source claims personal observation/experience of 'supernatural' agency, it clearly is not an ad hoc approach to consider that claim - on the contrary, its automatic dismissal is the arbitrary course.

The approach of source makes a claim about personal experience -> that experience contradicts certain worldviews -> the claim is dismissed as false -> a rather unlikely alternative scenario is put forth as fact does not seem unbiased, to my mind. I'm not saying scholars should say that Daniel really saw an angel - that's obviously more than we can know - nor even that they should affirm that the work was written in the 6th century - that's just a strong contending possibility. But to put the 2nd century theory forward as fact, using that presupposition as the primary evidence, without ever mentioning the rather significant weaknesses in the theory... no, that is not what I would call unbiased scholarship.