Today Churches all over the world are inviting Christians to ‘celebrate the Lord’s saving death which has won our salvation.’ So says my local Catholic Church St. James’s, Spanish Place in London where I often worshiped as a Christian.
Muslims, of course, believe in the freedom for Christians (and others) to practice their faith. So we respect this day in their liturgical calendar.
Nevertheless, we can still ask what Jesus of Nazareth himself probably taught about how we are to attain salvation, forgiveness of sins, and justification before God.
According to reputable biblical scholars the earliest gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke contain many sayings of Jesus that are likely to be authentic (ie Jesus probably uttered them).
‘What must I do to be saved?’
Compare these two different answers to the question concerning how one may be saved:
1) A man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ (Mark 10:17-22)
2) [The jailer in Philippi] said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ (Acts 16.30f.)
Now in the fundamentalist and revivalist tradition the Acts passage gives exactly the correct answer. What Paul and Silas there say is precisely what the evangelistic preacher says. Only this one thing counts, that one should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But the passage in Mark is on a quite different footing. Few in that tradition of Christianity [fundamentalist evangelicalism] will be asked if they have kept the Ten Commandments, as if that would answer the question of the means of salvation. Even fewer in fundamentalist society are likely to be told that thy may inherit eternal life through selling their goods and giving to the poor. Although this is the very teaching of Jesus himself, one will commonly find that it is effectively downgraded and made figurative, and subordinated to the type of answer that the Acts passage gives.
The ‘goods‘ that the young man possesses, it may well be suggested, are not actual goods or money that he has to give to the poor, but rather rather his worldly bases of security, his knowledge, his morality, his attendance at church: it is these, rather than actual possessions and money, that he has to get rid of. Put at its crudest, this interpretation says that ‘sell what you have and give to the poor‘ means ‘make a decision for Christ and become an evangelical.‘ This is a very drastic reinterpretation of Jesus‘ words. But the need for so drastic a change in their meaning should not surprise us too much: for what Jesus says, taken for itself, would seem to imply that eternal life may be ensured through the keeping of the commandments plus the giving away of one’s property – a teaching that might well seem to many to be a complete contradiction of the idea of justification by faith.
Excerpt from Escaping from Fundamentalism pp. 112-113 by James Barr.
I highly recommend this book to Christians struggling with fundamentalism. It is also an excellent resource for Muslims engaged in discussions with Christians. Barr was a Scottish Old Testament scholar, Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford from 1976 to 1978 and Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford from 1978 to 1989.
Barr served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study (1973) and of the British Association for Jewish Studies (1978), and was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1993.
Barr died in Claremont, California aged 82.
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, History
Blogging Theology 
My friend the Rev James Fields who has a parish in London just emailed me the following:
Wonderful to see James Barr’s work being referenced. His scholarship and integrity of faith were a beacon when I was studying theology in Edinburgh in the 80’s, and for the first time in my faith journey having to respond to this fundamentalist element, with which, hitherto, I had had little contact or knowledge.
His writing introduced me to the very freeing relationship that the rabbinical tradition has with the text. So the text enables reflection rather than being used to eradicate any possibility of free thought.
Christianity that divorces itself form the hebrew scriptures is a very barren affair and of course neglects the reality that it was a Jew who hung on the cross…not a Christian. ( A rather important historical detail!)
I removed my shoes today as I went into “my” church hall to share greetings with the Muslim community who offer their prayers every Friday at St John’s Church in Northwood. On this day (Good Friday) when as Christians we allow the shadow of the cross to fall across our lives, it felt important to stand with my Muslim pilgrims to affirm the love of our creator.
As Christians this is the day when the cost of betrayal is laid bare and hung up high. As Muslims and Christians we know the cost in our own day of betrayal, of shoddy thinking; the consequences of faith stripped of integrity and truth.
I trust we work together to challenge ignorance and chase away the darkness of fear.
In peace
James
LikeLike
Interesting
LikeLiked by 1 person
how so?
LikeLike
James Barr and you stopped at Mark 10:22 – how do you explain Mark 10:23-27?
23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus *answered again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”
And Mark 10:28 ?
28 Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.”
“left everything” = total surrender, submission
Jesus goes on, a little later, in the same progression of teaching, to predict his trials, sufferings, death, and resurrection:
32 They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, 33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.”
Then later, in the same progression of teaching, Jesus teaches about His atonement on the cross – substitutionary atonement (Ransom):
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45
So, there is no contradiction.
how do you explain that?
LikeLike
Mark 10: 45 nowhere teaches substitutionary atonement. Ransom means something very different. Luke interestingly deletes this verse not agreeing with Mark’s soteriology.
The early church Fathers taught that the ‘ransom’ in this verse was referring to a payment God made to the Devil. A strange notion unbefitting of God.
The rich man in Mark 10 could have given away his wealth by the grace of God (as Zacchaeus indeed does in a smilier story in Luke 19). God makes it clear in the Jewish Scriptures that it is NOT difficult to obey the Law (contrary to Paul who disagreed with God). See Deuteronomy 30:11ff
Jesus said to the young man that he lacked just one thing to get into paradise: to give his wealth to the poor. A far cry from Acts 16.30f as Professor Barr correctly observes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about Mark 10:23-27 ?
You never deal with that.
LikeLike
some early church fathers taught that; not all; but they were wrong; all agreed later that that was wrong. (All agreed later that the ransom to Satan theory was wrong.)
LikeLike
Luke did not “delete” it. Just because he does not mention it, does not mean he “deleted” it.
LikeLike
Yes, Luke deliberately deleted a key verse in Mark. I’m sure you agree that Mk 10:45 is a crucial text in this gospel. Yet Luke (who used Mark in writing his own gospel as most scholars agree) chose not include it. This is highly significant. Luke does not view Jesus’s death as a ransom or as a substitutionary atonement.
Mark 10:23-27 does not overthrow Jesus’s teaching of salvation by obeying the law and giving away wealth. He stresses it is quite possible with the grace of God, and Zacchaeus proves this to be the case in practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So why did Matthew include it (Mark 10:45) in Matthew 20:28?
LikeLike
For the simple reason that he agreed with Mark of course!
LikeLike
“So why did Matthew include it (Mark 10:45) in Matthew 20:28?”
Um, because he found it acceptable, and Luke didn’t? It’s pretty simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s for the same reason that Matthew included the story of the Canaanite woman being called a “dog” but Luke didn’t. It was just not palatable to Luke.
LikeLike
Just because Luke does not have the pericope of Mark 10:35-45 / Matthew 20:20-28 does not mean he “deliberately deleted it”. It is possible that oral tradition and different sets of other documents are what Luke is using, that also include parts of Mark and Matthew.
Luke does have this: Luke 18:31-34 (same in Matthew 20:17-19 / Mark 10:32-34)
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished.
32 For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon,
33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.”
34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.
interesting that the bold of Luke 18:31 is unique to Luke. That is probably Luke’s short-hand for the ransom saying – the accomplishment of redemption as prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 53, and other OT prophetic texts.
Luke speaks of the death and resurrection of Christ and that a person must repent in order to receive forgiveness of sins. Luke 24:44-47 – Luke clearly is proclaiming that repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement is necessary for salvation.
Then there is the truth that the Holy Spirit directed all four writers to write their unique accounts and they all harmonize with one another as God-breathed Scripture. ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
LikeLike
2 Tim. 3:16-17 cannot refer to any of the 4 gospels as they were written long after Paul’s death.
You have yet to give a reason why Luke, who had a copy of Mark right in front of him would deliberately omit Mark 10:45 from his own gospel. Scholars credibly suggest this to be due to Luke’s soteriology which lacks an atonement.
Luke 18:31-34 simply does not mention an atonement (substitutionary or otherwise) or a ransom.
Luke 24:44-47:
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Note the absence above of a suggestion that Jesus’s death was an atonement or substitution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No.
Mark written around 45-60 AD
Matthew 50-60 AD
Luke 61-62 AD
All before the apostle Paul’s death in 67 AD. (execution by Nero)
They are all “God-breathed” anyway, including those written after 67 AD – 2 Peter around same time as 2 Timothy ( 67 AD, before Peter’s execution; probably dictated to Jude from prison); Hebrews, John, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation, Jude. It is possible that all of John’s writings were written before 70 AD also. Jude was probably written last, as “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” demonstrates.
God’s powerful inerrant word defeats all liberal theories.
LikeLike
Yes.
Mark is usually dated by scholars 60-75, most likely between 68 and 73
Matthew date 80-90, give or take a decade
Luke date 85, give or take five to ten years.
Paul died about 67.
The above dates are taken from An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) by Raymond E. Brown.
Respected Evangelical professor Bruce M. Metzger praised Brown’s book:
“Once again Raymond Brown has written a magnum opus…a monumental piece of scholarship that speaks to experts and novices alike. If a person could own only one book on the New Testament, this is the one to have.”
LikeLike
2 Peter is nearly universally considered by historians to be a 2nd century forgery.
Professor Raymond Brown writes:
‘Date: After the Pauline letters: most likely AD 130, give or take a decade.’
An Introduction to the New Testament page 762
LikeLike
No; Raymond Brown is not credible. I have that NT introduction and he gives no real major or logical reason for the late dating, except for doubting that someone can predict the future – Jesus predicted the future in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 – the destruction of the temple. The liberal presupposition that those books could not have written before 70 is the basic reason for his liberal bias.
LikeLike
‘No; Raymond Brown is not credible.’
Sometimes Ken your arrogance is awesome to behold.
One of your very own evangelical Christian scholars think Brown is utterly brilliant.
Bruce M. Metzger praised Brown’s book:
“Once again Raymond Brown has written a magnum opus…a monumental piece of scholarship that speaks to experts and novices alike. If a person could own only one book on the New Testament, this is the one to have.”
The dates he suggests for the gospels are shared by the vast majority of historians, conservative and liberal.
He is reporting on this widely held consensus. I don’t know of a single serious scholar who says Paul was still alive when the 4 gospels were written.
Also there were other works written after 2 Tim. 3:16-17 was composed, or do say all the NT was written before the death of Paul?!
LikeLike
Raymond Brown admits:
“The failure of NT works to make specific and detailed mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is very hard to explain.” (An Introduction to the New Testament, page 163; in note 93)
Brown even mentions that another scholar, John A. T. Robinson, uses this fact to date all the NT books before 70 AD. (though Brown disagrees and dismisses it as “too simply”, Brown still admits: ” . . . we should not pretend that we have a satisfactory answer.”
“Nevertheless, we admit that the absence of an indisputable, clear, specific Gospel ( or indeed, NT) reference to the destruction of the Temple as having taken place remains a problem, since it would have had an enormous impact on Christians.” (ibid, page 273)
LikeLike
very few other scholars have found John A. T. Robinson’s extremely early dating convincing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the scale of the 7 year (66-73 AD) war of the Romans vs. the Jews in Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the massive details that Josephus gives us in his books of this war; it is just incredible that Matthew and Luke would have been written in 80 AD, as Brown asserts, without some kind of details like “indeed, it happened, and fulfilled the word of the Lord”, etc.
the temple was destroyed in 70 Ad, in the middle of that seven year war.
The mass suicide of the Jews on the Masada hill was in 73 AD.
It is too incredible to believe that those books are written after 70 AD, without mentioning that it happened.
LikeLike
For much of this late dating by liberal scholars, there is little real evidence. This point was made by C. H. Dodd, arguably the greatest English-speaking biblical scholar of the century. In a letter that serves as an appendix to Robinson’s book Re-dating the New Testament:
In a letter to Robinson, the New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd wrote that “I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton; the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic’s prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud.” (Robinson, 2000, p. 359-360)
Robinson’s call for re-dating the New Testament – or, at least, the four gospels – was echoed in subsequent scholarship such as
John Wenham’s work Re-dating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem and work
by other scholars such as :
Claude Tresmontant,
Günther Zuntz,
Carsten Peter Thiede,
Eta Linnemann,
Harold Riley and
Bernard Orchard.
The date of Luke’s Gospel is closely connected with that of Acts, its companion volume, for if Acts is early, then Luke will be earlier still. In 1896, Harnack put Acts between 79 and 93, but by 1911 he had come to the conclusion that “it is the highest degree probable” that Acts is to be dated before 62. If Luke does not mention the outcome of the trial of Paul, it is, Harnack argued, because he did not know, for when Luke wrote, the trial had not yet taken place.
C. J. Hemer, in his magisterial work, “The Book of Acts” in the Setting of Hellenistic History, which was published posthumously in 1989, gives fifteen general indications, of varying weight but cumulative in their force, which point to a date before 70. Indeed, many of these point to a date before 65, the year in which the Neronian persecution of the Church began.
LikeLike
“Romans vs. the Jews in Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the massive details that Josephus gives us in his books of this war; it is just incredible that Matthew and Luke would have been written in 80 AD, as Brown asserts, without some kind of details like “indeed, it happened, and fulfilled the word of the Lord”, etc.”
temple, do you really think christian apologists like you haven’t been addressed?
what do you think of matthew fergusons reply
Dear Patrick Sele,
“I think your analogy is not appropriate. The problem is not the idea that the author of Acts may have written his accounts of certain events decades later after these events had happened, but that he didn’t write about events that one may expect appearing in his account if he knew about them. This applies to the outcome of Paul’s trial in Rome or to Paul’s death.”
The difficulty with your objection is whether we should “expect” Paul’s death to appear in the narrative at all, especially if the author of Acts only had the intention of writing about events up until 63 CE. As both Herodotus and Suetonius show, ancient historians would often close their narratives several decades before the present moment. Why should I expect Paul’s death to be included in the narrative, if it was designed to end several years earlier? And, regardless, there are plausible allusions to Paul’s death, such as in Acts 20:36-38, so that even if the narrative closes several years earlier, there still seem to be hints of the outcome.
“To use your example of Suetonius’ accounts concerning Roman emperors, if Suetonius wrote only about the early years of Domitian’s reign, but would have mentioned the later years of Domitian’s reign and Domitian’s death, one may reasonably conclude that Suetonius wrote his account during Domitian’s reign and not decades later.”
I think you are missing a couple points here. To begin with, the way that Suetonius structures his biographies, he begins with the birth of each emperor and ends with their death. If there was a biography in Suetonius’ De Vita Caesarum that lacked a narrative of death, therefore, that would be very odd, indeed, since none of the other biographies lack this detail. You might be able to explain such an oddity by arguing that Suetonius was writing during the reign of that emperor. However, the book of Acts does not narrate the life of each of its characters up until their deaths, so it is not an oddity for these details to be missing. The only apostle mentioned to die at all is James the son of Zebedee in Acts 12:2 (and briefly, at that). It is therefore not a structural expectation in Acts that it will follow Paul all the way to the scene of his death. Acts is not a book about the deaths of the apostles, but rather the spread of the Christian church to Rome.
But, furthermore, your objection needs to address things that Suetonius could have narrated, if knew about them, but yet left out of his narrative. Suetonius mentions the emperor Nerva coming to power, for example, in Life of Domitian 1.1; however, Suetonius does not write about the death of Nerva. The reason why is that Suetonius closes his narrative around 96 CE, even if one could argue that we should “expect” him to write about later things that he knew in the following years, such as the reign of Nerva.
To argue that Acts should have included Paul’s death in the narrative, therefore, you have to argue why the author could not have simply ended the narrative at 63 CE. There are plenty of ancient historians who ended their historical works before major events that they could have included in the narrative. I don’t think that the Acts ending in 63 CE, and failing to mention certain later events, therefore, prevents it from still being written in the 80’s to early 2nd century CE.
then the dagoods
I was responding to your claim that “even if Paul really believed, when he wrote the letter to the Romans, that Christians would be safe from harm by the Roman government if they did the right thing, there is absolutely no reason to think that the author of Acts believed that, especially if he was writing after 70 AD.” (emphasis added) I was showing you that there is a perfectly logical reason to think that the author of Acts might have constructed his narrative with that idea in mind even if he wasn’t as certain about it as he might have liked to have been, and even if circumstances had change since Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. That reason is that powerless groups have often treated their oppressors as if they were benefactors for a variety of pragmatic reasons, e.g., the desire to avoid harsher treatment, the hope of winning acceptance, and the futility of resistance.
Standing alone, the fact that a book doesn’t mention an important event doesn’t prove that it was written before the event occurred. World War I was a very important event, but it isn’t mentioned in Gone with the Wind. That doesn’t give us any reason to doubt that Gone with the Wind was written after World War I, however, because Gone with the Wind is a story about the Civil War and we wouldn’t expect it to mention World War I.
In Luke-Acts, the overall purpose of the story is to show how a Jewish Messiah became the savior of the gentiles. A theme within that story (I believe Dagoods used the phrase “underlying theme” and you used the phrase “a recurring theme”) is “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side.” However just as Gone with the Wind doesn’t use wars later than the Civil War (even though the author knows about them) to demonstrate the effect of war on civilians, Luke-Acts doesn’t demonstrate the badness of the Jews with the later Roman-Jewish war (even though he knows about it). The author had already completed his overall purpose of showing how a Jewish Messiah became the gospel of salvation to the gentiles.
“Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side” is a theme of Acts, but it is not the only theme of Acts or the predominant theme of Acts. It is a subsidiary theme. Even if the Roman-Jewish war might have supported this theme, it would be inconsistent with many elements of the story: (1) the event occurred eight years after the logical ending point of the story; (2) the event occurred more than 1300 miles away from the geographical point at which the story ended; (3) the event did not involve any of the characters that the story had been following. The fact that the event might support one particular subsidiary theme in the story wouldn’t warrant its inclusion.
LikeLike
“It is too incredible to believe that those books are written after 70 AD, without mentioning that it happened.”
quote:
J.K . Elliott’s The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M.R. James (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993) and scanned the entire Index of Subjects and Proper Names finding totally no reference to any Temple at all much less the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed 70 CE!
quote:
As to an Apocryphal Gospel story which mentions the Temple in Jerusalem over and over is The Protevangelim of James or an account about the birth and early life of Mary (which serves as the basis for most all Marilology) to the birth of Jesus.
make a date for these temple and say that the story came BEFORE the writing and place them in early 1st century cause they don’t mention temple destruction
LikeLike
Apocryphal gospels were not true gospels, most of them were Gnostic, so they had no interest in the temple.
Luke was Paul’s traveling companion and fellow missionary, and the abrupt way Acts ends shows he wrote it while Paul was still in prison. Otherwise he would have mentioned the trial, his release, etc. It really does prove at 62 AD date for Acts and 60-61 date for Luke.
LikeLike
Also, the Gospels show the predictions and significance of the temple in Matthew 21-24; Mark 11; Luke 19, etc. – it would be weird to include the predictions, and if they (Matthew and Luke) were written in the 80s AD or afterward, to not include the fulfillments – “this happened to fulfill the word of the Lord”.
LikeLike
Also, Paul wants to go to Spain, the frontiers of the Roman Empire. (Romans 15:20-24 ff)
Acts is about the gospel reaching “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) He would include Greece (Acts 19) and Rome and beyond Rome also – Spain. (if written in the 80s)
So, since Paul was released after 2 years in house arrest in Acts 28, and then went on other missionary journeys (1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy show this), and then he was arrested again around 65-66 AD (2 Timothy written from prison) and executed by Nero in 67 AD, it makes no sense for Luke to not have these kinds of details, if he wrote Acts after 62-63 AD.
LikeLike
2 Tim. 3:16-17 of course refers to the OT as the NT did not exist during Paul’s lifetime.
LikeLike
There is some evidence that Luke was written AFTER the destruction of the Temple. He adds tell tale details in Luke 21, which are not there in his source Mark 13, suggesting eye-witness details:
‘When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.’
LikeLike
“Luke was Paul’s traveling companion and fellow missionary, and the abrupt way Acts ends shows he wrote it while Paul was still in prison. Otherwise he would have mentioned the trial, his release, etc. It really does prove at 62 AD date for Acts and 60-61 date for Luke.”
why would he mentioned it if he lost or if he died by disease?
“Apocryphal gospels were not true gospels, most of them were Gnostic, so they had no interest in the temple.”
“As to an Apocryphal Gospel story which mentions the Temple in Jerusalem over and over is The Protevangelim of James or an account about the birth and early life of Mary (which serves as the basis for most all Marilology) to the birth of Jesus.”
it does take interest .
LikeLike
“Also, the Gospels show the predictions and significance of the temple in Matthew 21-24; Mark 11; Luke 19, etc. – it would be weird to include the predictions, and if they (Matthew and Luke) were written in the 80s AD or afterward, to not include the fulfillments – “this happened to fulfill the word of the Lord”.”
quoting ehrman
It is frequently noted that the earliest Gospels seem to presuppose the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and of the Jewish temple, as happened in 70 CE. And so, for example, in Mark’s Gospel Jesus indicates that the nation of Israel will be destroyed (12:9) and that the temple will not be left standing (13:1-2). Matthew is even more explicit: here Jesus tells a parable in which God is portrayed as burning the city and killing its inhabitants (22:8). Luke has similar passages (e.g., 21:24). All these passages seem to presuppose that by the time the books were written, the destruction had happened.
LikeLike
“Also, the Gospels show the predictions and significance of the temple in Matthew 21-24; Mark 11; Luke 19, etc. – it would be weird to include the predictions, and if they (Matthew and Luke) were written in the 80s AD or afterward, to not include the fulfillments – “this happened to fulfill the word of the Lord”.
and it is mark who is presenting his human sacrificed god as REPLACING jewish temple sacrifices?
that doesn’t leave the reader any hint?
LikeLike
i quote this commentary from m turton
Historical Commentary:
Although this is typically labeled an “apocalypse,” Bruce Malina (2002) has argued that this is not, in fact, an apocalypse:
“What is distinctive of final words before death in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere) is that the person about to die is believed capable of knowing what is going to happen to persons near and dear to him or her. Dying persons are prescient because they are closer to the realm of God (or gods) who knows all things than to the realm of humans whose knowledge is limited to human experience. The dying process puts a person into specific type of Altered State of Consciousness, a special way of knowing from the viewpoint of God (or gods), as it were. There is ample evidence of this type of Altered State of Consciousness in antiquity (see Pilch 1993; 1995; 1998; Malina 1999). Consider these instances, collected by Gaster (1974 vol. 1: 214; 378). Xenophon tells us: “At the advent of death, men become more divine, and hence can foresee the forthcoming” (CYROP. 7.7.21). In the ILIAD (16.849-50) the dying Patroclus tells of the coming death of Hector at the hands of Achilles, and the dying Hector predicts the death of Achilles himself (22.325). Similarly, in Sophocles’ play, “The Women of Trachis,” the dying Heracles summons Alcmene so that she may learn from his last words “the things I now know by divine inspiration” (TRACHINIAE 1148 ff.). Vergil finds it normal to have the dying Orodes predict that his slayer will soon meet retribution (AENEID 10.729-41). Plato too reports that Socrates made predictions during his last moments, realizing that “on the point of death, I am now in that condition in which men are most wont to prophesy” (APOL 39c; cf. Xenophon, ANAB. APOL. 30). Cicero reports concerning Callanus of India: “As he was about to die and was ascending his funeral pyre, he said: `What a glorious death! The fate of Hercules is mine. For when this mortal frame is burned the soul will find the light.’ When Alexander directed him to speak if he wished to say anything to him, he answered: `Thank you, nothing, except that I shall see you very soon.’ So it turned out, for Alexander died in Babylon a few days later” (DE DIVINATIONE 1.47).
The Israelite tradition equally shared this belief, as is clear from the final words of Jacob (Gen. 49) and Moses (Deut 31-34); see also 1 Sam 12; 1 Kgs 2:1-17; Josh 23-24. The well-known documents called “Testaments,” written around the time of Jesus, offer further witness to this belief (e.g. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Moses; see also Jubilees 22:10-30, 1 Macc. 2:47-70; Josephus, ANTIQUITIES 12.279-84).
In the U.S., with economics as the focal social institution, last words and testaments will deal with the disposition of goods. However in Mediterranean antiquity, with the kinship institution being focal, final words will deal with concern for the tear in the social fabric resulting from the dying person’s departure. Hence the dying person will be deeply concerned about what will happen to his/her kin group. As the examples just cited indicate, toward the close of the dying process, the person soon to expire will impart significant information about what is soon to befall the group in general and individuals in the group. This includes who will hold it together (successor), and advice to kin group members on how to keep the group together. Of course, before passing on the dying person tries to assure the kin group of its well-being, offering abiding good wishes and expressing concern for the well-being of the group. It is within this cultural framework that Jesus’ final words and actions need to be understood.”
The Markan polemic against the Chief priests and scribes is here heightened, for the writer has again implied that they are the priests of Ba’al and their temple will be destroyed. There are many other OT elements in this section, where the content is controlled partly by the book of Daniel. Note also that this functions as a Passion prediction, for Jesus himself will undergo many of the things laid out here, such as being condemned in a synagogue (Sanhedrin) and dragged before a governor. The Parable of the Watcher below will be reflected in the Gethsemane scene to come.
Ludemann has pointed out that this section may be based on a Jewish source overlaid by Christian reworking. He sees it as descending from a polemic against the erection by Emperor Caligula of statues of himself in the Jerusalem Temple (Ludemann 2001, p87-8), a position also held by Nick Taylor (2003b). Given the extensive references to the Old Testament as well as its composition in a future time where Christians suffer persecution and encounter false Christs, it is not necessary to posit an earlier source. In any case the statue was never actually erected as Caligula was assassinated in 41. The writer of Mark is referring to some later event.
This section has traditionally been used to date the Gospel to either during or just after the Roman war against the Jews and the destruction of the Temple. The extensive use of OT creation, and its literary features make dating problematical. It may refer to that war. It may also refer to the rebellion of Bar Kochba, which ended in 135. It may represent some other conflict. it could even have been written long before 70, for the details of the predictions are drawn from the OT and could have been written anytime in the first or second century. On the basis of this passage, the writer is often held to have known that the Temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed and thus, that the Gospel dates from after 70.
The numerous references to the future of persecution and false Christs (v9), as well as lavish quoting of the OT, and supernatural prophecy of Jesus own death, all indicate that nothing in this pericope can support historicity
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark13.html
LikeLike
2 Tim. 3:16-17 of course refers to the OT as the NT did not exist during Paul’s lifetime.
No. 2 Tim. 3:15 refers to the OT.
2 Tim. 3:16 expands it to the NT with “all Scripture”.
As Paul quoted the gospels (Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10) in 1 Tim. 5:18 and calls those Gospels, Scripture, along with Deut. 25:4
Paul wrote 2 Tim. around 66-67 AD, before he was executed by Nero.
There is some evidence that Luke was written AFTER the destruction of the Temple. He adds tell tale details in Luke 21, which are not there in his source Mark 13, suggesting eye-witness details:
‘When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.’
Or it is a genuine supernatural prophesy that Jesus spoke around 30 AD, predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD.
Or does a Muslim dismiss supernatural prophesy of God in Jesus the prophet?
If it was written after 70 AD, surely the author would have made a big deal about it with, “and that came to pass some years later when that happened, thus fulfilling Jesus’ words precisely.”
LikeLike
why would he mentioned it if he lost or if he died by disease?
“died by disease” ?
If he lost the case and was executed, it certainly would be mentioned, just as Acts 7 accounts Stephen’s martyrdom and Acts 12 mentions the beheading of James, son of Zebedee and brother of John. (Acts 12:2)
“Apocryphal gospels were not true gospels, most of them were Gnostic, so they had no interest in the temple.”
“As to an Apocryphal Gospel story which mentions the Temple in Jerusalem over and over is The Protevangelim of James or an account about the birth and early life of Mary (which serves as the basis for most all Marilology) to the birth of Jesus.”
it does take interest .
I was going on your other statement:
J.K . Elliott’s The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M.R. James (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993) and scanned the entire Index of Subjects and Proper Names finding totally no reference to any Temple at all much less the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed 70 CE!
But you are right in that the Proto-Evangelium of James does mention the temple in Jerusalem; in the context of Mary’s parents, as a child, when Jesus was born; and when Zechariah, father of john the Baptist was a priest.
LikeLike
Ehrman is reading his anti-supernatural bias into the prophesies. Muslims agree with God’s ability to prophesy through prophets. So, that is inconsistent.
Besides, the author would have said, “and it was fulfilled, just as Jesus predicted”, especially in Matthew, as that was his constant theme, “this happened in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken of by the prophet”, etc.
LikeLike
The numerous references to the future of persecution and false Christs (v9), as well as lavish quoting of the OT, and supernatural prophecy of Jesus own death, all indicate that nothing in this pericope can support historicity
Turton just dismisses it as not being about to be historical, because of Jesus’ supernatural prophesy before the events take place. (and quoting of OT – how that qualifies as unhistorical is a mystery to me.)
More anti-supernatural bias.
Inconsistent for a Muslim to use.
LikeLike
you have no reply to ehrman . why do you say the author would have said? when the readers were reading ,they would have understood and said what you say mark was suppose to say. “let the reader understand”
these are clear clues that the author writing on hills known about an event.
‘When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.’
Or it is a genuine supernatural prophesy that Jesus spoke around 30 AD, predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD.
paul left out any mention of this “supernatural prophesy”
what do you mean “supernatural prophesy” jews before your man god were predicting its destruction
“But you are right in that the Proto-Evangelium of James does mention the temple in Jerusalem; in the context of Mary’s parents, as a child, when Jesus was born; and when Zechariah, father of john the Baptist was a priest.”
the gospel writers are writing about characters who were involved in the war?
mark sees his god as replacement of temple?
“If it was written after 70 AD, surely the author would have made a big deal about it with, “and that came to pass some years later when that happened, thus fulfilling Jesus’ words precisely.”
mark, luke and john leave out big events such as rising of the dead saints at the time jesus is hanging dead on the cross. destruction of the temple is already known to mark because of his anti temple rhetoric.
LikeLike
why would he mentioned it if he lost or if he died by disease?
“died by disease” ?
If he lost the case and was executed, it certainly would be mentioned, just as Acts 7 accounts Stephen’s martyrdom and Acts 12 mentions the beheading of James, son of Zebedee and brother of John. (Acts 12:2)
lol
you do understand that “martydom” is understood as winning
and dying by disease /losing is seen as loss?
LikeLike
loss = lost the trial
LikeLike
“If he lost the case and was executed, it certainly would be mentioned, just as Acts 7 accounts Stephen’s martyrdom and Acts 12 mentions the beheading of James, son of Zebedee and brother of John. (Acts 12:2)”
what if he died by disease ?
LikeLike
“let the reader understand” means go back and look at Daniel 9:27, because the destruction of the temple was prophesied that is would happen after the crucifixion of Messiah (Daniel 9:26 = “the Messiah will be cut off”) See Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15.
LikeLike
But the apostle Paul did not die by disease, rather he was executed by Nero around 66-67 AD.
LikeLike
Daniel makes no mention of messiah bring crucified – you read Jewish texts through Christian bias
LikeLike
“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (13:14).
24 “Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.[c]
25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks.
Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[d] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
i see a lot of destruction going on there. “let the reader understand”
have you given more proof that mark already knew of the destruction?
LikeLike
Daniel 9:26 says the Messiah will be cut off (meaning killed) – same concept as Isaiah 53:8 – the suffering servant will be cut off from the land of the living (killed).
The meaning is obvious, and Jewish; all the first believers in Jesus as Messiah were Jews.
LikeLike
26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[a] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
LikeLike