Questions about the Gospels

By Merle Hertzler

RA,

I see your comment at the blog. I see you have not addressed the fact that in Mark 13 Jesus is addressing the apostles, and specifically says that the prophecies apply during the lifetime of those apostles. Why does Jesus continually say that "you", that is, the apostles whom he was addressing, would see these things? Why does he say that it would happen in the disciple's generation(v 30)? I see that you have not addressed that point. Can we simply ignore the clear teaching of these verses regarding the immanency of the return? Why not simply admit that Mark was mistaken in his predictions?

Let's look first at your counter-arguments on the dates of the four gospels.

My comment about children being dashed to the ground was in direct response to these words from your email: "among all the barbarities which Josephus reports, he does not say that the conquerors dashed children to the ground. The expression ἐäáöéïῦóéí óå êáὶ ôὰ ôἐêíá óïῦ ἐí óïßis in any case not based on anything that happened in 66-70::" Now I can't decipher what that last sentence means--the nonsense characters are just as it came over in the email--but you seem to be suggesting that Mark says something about children being dashed to the ground, and that this would be irrelevant to 70 AD. If this is not what you were trying to say, what exactly were you saying?

Huh? I said absolutely nothing about finding it hard to believe that the Roman army could surround a city!

Let's look at what was actually said in context: You had written that, "it was far too late for anyone in Judea to take to the hills, which had been in enemy hands since the end of 67". I questioned your assertion that the hills to which the people would want to flee were in enemy hands. I argued that ancient armies did not concentrate on controlling hills but attacking cities. And your response? You suggest that I think surrounding a city is hard to believe! Huh? How can you possibly get that from what I wrote?

Now once, more, let's get back to your assertion that the Jews could not flee to the hills, for the hills to which they would flee would have been in enemy hands. Have you abandoned your original assertion?

The command to flee Judea (Mark 13:14) was indeed relevant to 70 AD, for many in Judea fled to escape the disaster. Although the army surrounded Jerusalem, they did not surround all of Judea, and did not control all of the hills. Many in the surrounding community could have fled, and probably some fled from Jerusalem. (see Siege of Jerusalem )

But the prophecy that Jesus would come soon wasn't a failed prophecy when Mark wrote it. It became a failed prophecy several years later, when the fulfillment did not come.

Who would sponsor a failed prophecy? Well, for one thing, it appears that very few did sponsor Mark. As you yourself seem to admit, the four gospels were virtually unknown in the early Christian writings. Guess what? People seem to have been doing exactly what you say they would do. They relegated the book of Mark and its offshoots--including the failed prophecy--to the sidelines. From the surviving record, it appears that the bulk of early Christianity had very little to do with the four gospels before the second half of the second century. Up until that time, Christianity was based mostly on Paul's' writings, which as you apparently agree, had very little to do with the four gospels. When the four gospels were later merged with Paul's writings, the failed prophecy of Mark 13 could have faded into the background, and could have been interpreted away.

But might some people have sponsored a gospel with a failed prophecy during the first century? Sure! The early Jehovah's Witness movement, for instance, was based on specific prophecies, which soon failed. Did the group disband when the prophecies failed? No! Folks found a way to overlook the failed prophecies, to come up with new interpretations, and to continue on with a slightly modified faith. (See Failed Prophecies and When Prophecies Fail for documentation.)

If literate people in the 20th century can bypass the failed prophecies and maintain hope, why do you think it could not have happened to isolated, largely illiterate communities that continued to accept one or more of the four gospels?

You wrote this in response to my argument that the book of Mark could have been intended as a novel or a deliberate deception. Why would the writer do that? I explained it to you once. Should I explained it again?

Once more: "Mark" might have written it to give people hope. The people were desperate, had lost their homes in the destruction of 70 AD, and had fled far into the hills. Maybe Mark was not trying to start a cult. Maybe he was simply writing a novel to lift their spirits.

I gave you my source on Jewish handwashing. Please go back to my original essay "When Were the Gospels Written?" and look at footnote 11.

You are assuming that "Luke" was writing history when he wrote Acts. Many have observed that the book of Acts might well be shear fabrication, for it does not accord well with actual history and with the writings of Paul.

"Luke" may have written because she saw a need to explain a difficult problem. There were many Christian followers of Paul in Greece and Rome in the early second century. As you seem to acknowledge, Paul's writings expressed very little --if any--interest in the four gospels or the earthly details of the life of Jesus. In fact, it can be argued that Paul never thought that Jesus had been on the earth, but that Jesus did his work of salvation strictly in the spiritual realm. Paul's followers worshipped this Jeus who dealt largely in the spiritual realm, but they later became aware of the books speaking of the earthly Jesus. Luke may have been dealing with questions that came up when people read of an earthly Jesus in Jerusalem. How could Jesus have lived in Palestine? They were in Rome. There apparently was no significant Christian presence around Jerusalem at that time (for history outside of the book of Acts seems to be silent about a significant Christian presence there). If Mark is true, how is it that a message originating in the area of Jerusalem is now centered in Rome, Asia Minor, and other outlying areas? So the unknown author that we conveniently refer to as "Luke" wrote an edited gospel (that we now call the Gospel of Luke), and the book of Acts, thus authoring a two volume epic of how it could have happened. Having accomplished her objective, she had no need to keep writing.

The fact that Papias (writing c.130 AD) ascribed one of the two gospels to Mark means that the tradition in ascribing it to Mark (from various sources) is correct since no one would ascribe it to the disciple (instead of to Peter as later forgerers did), who even deserted Paul at one point on his journeys.

Excuse me, but Papias never said that the second gospel was written by Mark. He says that a Mark wrote down sayings and stories that Peter told him, but not in order. That hardly describes the narrative book of Mark. We don't know what document Papias was talking about. In fact, Papias himself apparently never even saw the stories that Mark had written. Papias was merely reporting that some guy named John the Presbyter told him that Mark had written what Peter had said. Was the Presbyter reliable? We don't know. We don't know anything about him.

Besides, the writings of Papias did not survive. We have only the word of Eusebius--who was notoriously unreliable--who wrote several centuries later telling us that Papias had said that the elder had said that a Mark had written what Peter had said that Jesus had said and done. (Can you count all the levels of hearsay here?) How can this be considered reliable evidence?

Even if Papias was indeed talking about the book we call Mark, it is interesting that, since Papias himself states that he did not have a lot of confidence in the written word, Papias certainly isn't testimony that the book of Mark is reliable.

And even if Papias was correct that a Mark had written it, which Mark did it? Mark was a common name. Papias makes not effort to identify this Mark as a particular person in history.

And if we can agree that Papias as not a credible witness, then, as I said, the earliest evidence we have for the authorship of Matthew and Mark comes around 180 AD, which is far removed from 30 AD.

Matthew is a different matter, but once again you can't expect everything to be 100% stated, and an early reliable tradition is just as good.

I didn't ask for everything to be 100% started. What I said is that the four authors do not identify themselves, and that we have no reliable early record of who those authors were.

Okay, so you were mistaken when you said, "The two gospels that do mention that they are their writers are John and Luke"? So Luke didn't identify himself as you said? It appears that I have made my point and that you now agree. The writer of Luke did not identify herself.

And you now turn to a majority vote to prove that Luke was the writer? That's odd, for majorities are sometimes wrong. Yes, many believe that Luke wrote the book of Luke, but what is their reason? Do not most people believe it because everybody they know believes it? But if everyone is blindly believing it because everyone they know is also blindly believing it, what kind of evidence is that?

Okay, so you have no interest in proving that John 21 is authentic? That's odd, for you told us that John identifies himself in the book of John. If you have no interest in defending the authenticity of John 21, what can possibly be the basis of your claim that John identifies himself?

Excuse me, but you seem to be reinterpreting history. Here is what happened: I had said, "Now if Paul or another first-century writer had referred to a gospel, we could use that information to date the gospels prior to that apostle. But the first century writings are no help here. Instead we find no clear mention of the gospels until well into the second century." (emphasis added)

In direct response to this, you wrote, "As for the first century writings are no help here, what other 1st century writings exist that we know of, except 1 Clement (possibly, which DOES mention the gospels)?" (emphasis added) So yes, your words clearly indicate that you were using I Clement to counterargue against my assertion that the first century writings are no help in establishing the date of the gospel.

Do you now agree with me that the first century writings do not make a clear mention of the four gospels, and so cannot be used to establish a date for the gospels?

You had written that I Clement possibly does mention the book of Matthew. What is the basis of your claim? The only place I know where I Clement comes close to quoting the gospels is in chapter 13, where it says,

Well, that is a basic synopsis of the Sermon on the Mount, all of which is found in Mathew, but also in Q and Luke. This is certainly not an exact quote of Matthew, and in no way does it reference Matthew. What was Clement's source? Matthew? Q? Verbal tradition? Some other written source? We don't know. So we can hardly use this as evidence that the book of Matthew existed when Clement wrote around 90 AD. And even if Clement did use Matthew in 90 AD, that doesn't prove that Matthew was written before 80 AD. So I Clement cannot be used to prove that Matthew was written early.

Questions about the Reliability of the Gospels, Part 2