[This is part Three of a series of question, related to the historical Jesus… see the beginning of the stream at muddleplatonismx1.html ]
This was another question that came in, related to the Mythicist question (although it could be raised for other considerations as well, I think):
“Dear Mr Miller,
“I have been an avid reader of your
apologetics site for years. Usually, I can hold my own when I comes to questions, but a blog written by a popular atheist
apologist has made me questions the Gospels accuracy. This
man believes that Jesus is a myth that rapidly became historized after he
was invented. He asserted that the Gospels and Acts have NO historical
value because it was possible for the evangelists to
wholly invent situations and no one could respond saying, "I was there and
this Jesus guy never did anything like that."
“I know many apologetic books say that
people where still alive when the Gospels where written. But this guy dates them really late, Mark being the first written in
the '90's AD. I asked him why, if the Gospels and Acts are
totally made-up, why no one cried "foul!" when they had the chance
to. I will give his response as best I can remember it:
"I do
not think you appreciate the devastation the Jewish-Roman war had on
“Can it be this easy to fabricate
history? It seems to me that a conclusion like this would make any info
on
“Other than this, I can't think about what to say. Can you help?
………………………………………………..
My response:
I think I will organize my analysis into these areas:
Since Jesus and the disciples were Galileans, and most of his ministry,
miracles, and teaching was done ‘in front of Galileans’,
I hate to give away the conclusion this early (smile), but your
blogger-friend has grossly overstated the situation in post-70
Consider this summary statement by Levine:
“Nevertheless, it is easy to overstate the effects of the year 70.
Contrary to popular opinion, the exile did not commence in that year—most Jews
were already living in the Diaspora before the destruction—nor did the year 70
signal the loss of Jewish independence. In reality,
And Schwartz:
“For many, or even
most, Palestinian Jews, especially those outside
That should be clear enough: the Jewish War was devastating for
Before we get into the Jewish War discussion, I should go ahead and
point out that the Bar Kochba Revolt (131-135),
which resulted in the expulsion of Jews and Jewish Christians from
“
“No texts, coins, or
archaeological excavations indicate that
“Why
“Until relatively recently,
scholars have assumed that the entire
All these claims notwithstanding, there is practically no description of hostilities except in southern Judea (the
biblical area of
One. Events and Damages of the Jewish
War on
We should note at the outset that there were two historical accounts of the Jewish War written: one by Josephus and one by his political rival Justus of Tiberias. The one by Justus is only known through Josephus’ unflattering remarks about his rival’s account, so we don’t have it to use. References to the Jewish war in classical historians are summaries mostly (e.g., Tacitus) and coins commemorating the War give precious little data.
With this in mind, we have to recognize—with most historians—the ‘exaggerated’ accounts of Josephus, with regard to his personal ‘importance’ in the war and with regard to (alternately) the brutality and the clemency of the Roman military leaders!
In our data quotes, we will see very strong statements by scholars on his exaggeration, while most will give some credence to the basic outlines of his story. Most of the time, it seems like Josephus is inflating his numbers by an order of magnitude:
“The first
impression we have, once we recognize that
Josephus's accounts of the Galilean phase of the Jewish War constitute one long
self-glorification of his own exploits as the great Jewish general
worthy of engaging in war with the future emperor Vespasian, is that there was not much of a
war… Again, while we cannot trust the details, including the exaggerated numbers, we must take seriously the
basics of his account of Japha's resistance to the Roman reconquest (BJ. 3.289-306; he even gives the date, 13
July 67). That is, persisting in their insurrection, the villagers offered
stiff resistance to the Roman troops, the "women as well as the
able-bodied men doing whatever they could to fight back. In reaction to such
resistance the angered Roman commanders became all the more vicious in
retaliation. As Josephus reports, virtually the whole
population (thousands, but not 15,000) was massacred.” [AHSG, 127-130]
With this in mind, let’s note the actions/damages believed by scholars…
A. Overall (as in the above
quotation), there wasn’t much of a war. Galilee seems
relatively passive, and the majority of natives seem
uninterested in the war at all. There are very few actual battles described—but
lots of fleeing and hiding… Summary accounts in the secondary literature
typically only mention/describe a couple of battles, with most of the large
cities only marginally involved/affected
“During the
first revolt
“In the spring of 67 the Roman general Vespasian, sent
by Nero, and his son Titus arrived with an army of nearly 60,000 men (J.W.
3.4.2 §69). Using friendly Sepphoris as a base in
“Once Sepphoris received him with
open arms the other cities also
remained quiet, and Caesennius' only
engagement was against 'all the rebels and brigands' (…) who had fled to an unidentified mountain near Sepphoris called Asamon,
and more than 2000 of these perished. The account of this excursion of Roman
troops into Galilee concludes: 'Gallus, seeing no further signs of revolt in
Galilee returned with his troops to Caesarea' and Cestius was able to continue
his march on
In assessing the situation in
“When the Romans finally launched their massive
expedition to reconquer greater Judea in 67, starting as usual with
B. The Roman army DID use their standard ‘terrify
through pillage’ (‘scorched earth’ approach, selectively applied) tactics in
the countryside (and ad hoc
strongholds), but the actual depopulation
effect (of Jewish Galileans—possible witnesses/objectors) was minimal, because
the Galileans were smart enough to flee!! Most of the villages Josephus says
they plundered, pillaged, or burned, were empty of people when they got there—even
IF the Roman army had intended to kill the economic base of the country.
“Vespasian recognized that Sepphoris afforded an
excellent springboard from which he could control the whole of Lower Galilee
(War 3:30.34), and so the tribune Placidus is stationed there with 1,000
cavalry and 6,000 infantry as reinforcement for the garrison already sent by
Cestius (Life 394; cf. War 2:510). This force was adequate to
overrun the surrounding countryside. Josephus' 'army' was not able
to take the city which he himself had so strongly fortified as to render it
practically impregnable! The Romans adopted a scorched earth policy: 'they never ceased, night
or day, to devastate the plains and to pillage the property of the country
folk, killing those who might be able to carry arms, and reducing the weak to
slavery' (War 3:59-63.110f). This seems an altogether likely tactic if
“The peasants
in Chabulon and neighboring villages bore
the brunt of the Roman attempt to intimidate the Galileans and of the first
assaults in the Roman campaign of reconquest (B.J.
2.503-5; Vita 213-14).
Situated along the frontier with Ptolemais, Chabulon
had houses of the same style as those in the Phoenician cities of
“1. (132) So Vespasian marched to the city Gabara, and took it upon the first onset, because he found it destitute of any considerable number of men grown up and fit for war. (133) He came then into it, and slew all the youth, the Romans having no mercy on any age whatsoever; and this was done out of the hatred they bore the nation, and because of the iniquity they had been guilty of in the affair of Cestius. (134) He also set fire, not only to the city itself, but to all the villas and small cities that were round about it; some of them were quite destitute of inhabitants; and out of some of them he carried the inhabitants as slaves into captivity.” (Wars 3.131-134).
C. Indeed, the major/large cities of the region
were spared much of the possible damage and loss of life. The native Galilean folk were almost universally ‘spared’, while
the minority rebels and foreigners bore the brunt of Roman fury. Let’s look at
the major cities/towns of the area and see how many of them were depopulated
and/or abused. The major cities of Lower Galilee were: Sepphoris, Tiberias,
Tarichaeae, Gamala (in Gaulan), Jotapata, Gabara, and perhaps the fortresses of
Gishala (Upper Galilee) and Itabyrion (at the base of
Sepphoris.
We have already noted that they actually fared well in this deal. After the war
their administrative power was actually increased. The large influx of people
from the south (and villagers from the surrounding areas looking for protection
from
Tiberias. Tiberias actually was under the jurisdiction of Agrippa, and was not really Vespasian’s ‘responsibility’. It was actually pro-Roman, but some rebels virtually forced them to resist the Romans. The Romans, however, understood the situation, so when the city was eventually captured, only the outsiders/Greeks were killed/enslaved. The city was not even plundered.
“First Tiberias and then Tarichaeae had revolted at the instigation of Jesus son of Sapphias, and Vespasian 'wishing to repay his hospitality' decided to restore both cities to their allegiance to the king (…). In other words, Vespasian did not consider these cities his personal responsibility, and obviously he does not regard the disturbances in either as the continuation of the struggle that he had completed at Jotapata. Once Jesus and his followers left Tiberias the peace party there quickly prevailed and there were no undue reprisals on the part of the Romans (War 3:453-61). “ [HI:GFAGH,84-86]
“Yet despite this influential group in Tiberias the facts are that the city did revolt eventually, and pad a certain price for its behavior. The (minority) Greek population was massacred, and Herod’s palace burned down… Through the mediation of the elders the Romans were received by the people at large as saviors, and Vespasian forbade any looting by his soldiers, merely destroying one section of the wall (War 3:445-61).” [HI:GFAGH,131, 132]
Tarichaeae. This town also offered resistance, but received a similar result:
“At Tarichaeae
matters were slightly different. It had accepted Josephus' position in the
earlier period, and stood solidly behind him in his dealings with Tiberias -
possibly because of jealousy towards its more prominent neighbor (Life 158f.
174.276.304.404). It seems that
the city was an accepted refugee center (…) for people from the countryside
despite the obvious exaggeration of Life 142, which
speaks of vast numbers having come there to throw in their lot with Josephus.
Presumably, these earlier refugees were from Agrippa's territory or from the
Syrian cities in the Dekapolis (War 3:541f), but these would now be joined by
people from
“Though
Tiberias and Tarichaeae were in rebel hands, pro-Roman feeling was known to be
strong in Tiberias and Vespasian could hope to recover that city for his ally
Agrippa without difficulty. In August he reassembled his three legions at the
loyal city of
Gamala (in Gaulan). According to Josephus, many of the able-bodied people fled the town during the siege (War, 4.52f, 63f), and he states that more committed suicide than were killed by the Romans (4.80ff). The Romans are described here as killing all the remaining inhabitants except for two women.
Jotapata. This, as has been noted, was the only significant battle in
the war. In this case, Josephus was one of the only two survivors (who broke a
suicide pact). Most of the rebel forces were concentrated here, in an act of
desperation. Presumably, all were killed. [Josephus gives the number of slain
at 40,000—which, when you divide by 10 (smile), gives about 4,000 casualties. [“The
one major exception is Jotapata. Of all the sites he claims to have fortified,
this one now has at least some credibility. It has finally been excavated. The Romans did indeed besiege and destroy this town, although the scale
of the conflict was nowhere near what
Josephus claims.” ([AHSG,
38-40]); Tanknote: I arrived at the ‘divide by 10’ factor by calculating
the amount of exaggeration that appears in Josephus’ description of the height
of
Gabara. We have already seen how this town was ravaged, but also that many (most?) of the inhabitants had already fled.
Gishala (
“One final phase of the Galilean campaign remained, the reduction of various
'strongholds' throughout the country. Most of them 'surrendered' as soon as
Jotapata had fallen, Josephus admits (War 4:1); only Gischala and Itabyrion
remained and the narration of these events allows him to honor Titus, Vespian's
son who reduced Gischala. It is difficult to
estimate the proper extent of either operation, given the highly anti-John
polemic of the War account, and the fact that the description of the size and
quality of the Itabyrion fortress
is blatant exaggeration, presumably to extol his own achievements.
It is noteworthy that John did not appear at any of the lower Galilean centers
to aid his fellow countrymen in their hour of need. Of course, his absence may
be explained by the antipathy that had grown up between himself and Josephus
and the failure of the
Itabyrion (fortress). Same as Gishala—natives spared.
“Itabyrion,
which bordered on the Great Plain, might well have been a center of some
resistance, for it was in this very neighborhood that the highwaymen of
Dabaritta had waylaid Herod's steward's wife early in Josephus' command (Life
126; War 2:595ff). However, as
noted, the area of the enclosed rampart is impossible, and this reduces the
vast multitude considerably. Presumably some did escape to
So, the two largest cities were spared altogether (Sepphoris and Tiberias), and several of the others were dealt with mildly. Two seem to have been completely annihilated (probably due to the amount of investment that was required to subdue them)—Jotapata and Gamala.
Summary: The
depopulation of the
Two:
The situation in the Land between the Jewish War and the beginning of the 3rd
century
Here I want to focus on the evidence for continuity between the pre-War and the post-War settings, and to discuss the nature of the major changes in the area during the post-War and post-Revolt period. To the extent the data suggests continuity, to that same extent the likelihood of families and communities having group memories of Jesus’ life goes up.
First, let’s
look at the data for change: migration of Judean families into
There is a fairly strong consensus that many wealthy
people (i.e., landed individuals, Priestly families) from Judea and many learned (i.e. scribes,
rabbis) people from Judea moved into
“At the destruction of
“Since Josephus was a general of Jewish forces located
in “both Galilees” (BJ ii.20.4 [568]), we could easily lose our objective if we
were to track down his many references. Furthermore, for this article it would
serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that Vespasian quickly conquered
“Another fact was also of considerable consequence:
after the revolt had been crushed by the Roman legions, Emperor Hadrian issued a decree that made it illegal for all
circumcised persons to live in
“After the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against
“…we also find another picture of Sepphoris emerging from the rabbinic sources, namely that of wealthy Jewish landowners dwelling there in the 2nd century C.E. These 'great ones' or 'heads' were the recognized leaders of the Jewish community and acted as judges in their law courts, as well as representing them in the city council which was part-Jewish, part-Gentile, at least after the Bar Cochba revolt and the re-naming of the city as Diocaesarea. The picture which rabbinic sources paint of these great ones and their oppression of their poorer Jewish brothers is not very complimentary, giving rise to the bitter disputes with the Jewish teachers who transferred there after 135 C.E. Presumably this Jewish landed aristocracy can be dated back to the period immediately after the first revolt when, as we have seen, many, especially of the upper classes, fled Jerusalem for safer places like Agrippa's kingdom, and presumably also Sepphoris, which was spared the ravages of the war due to the presence of the Roman garrison which Vespasian had granted them.” [HI:GFAGH,126-127]
“After the further Roman devastation of Judea in
suppressing the Bar Kokhba Revolt, many of the sages moved to
“As if history were repeating itself, recovery and the
reinstitution of Jewish self-government ensued once again. With the
accession of the emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 C.E.), virtually all of
Hadrian's decrees were rescinded. The
patriarchate and the high court were reconstituted at Usha, in the
“Around the beginning of
the third century, for reasons long the object of speculation and
still unknown, the position of the patriarchs and rabbis began to change—a
change most scholars follow rabbinic literature in attributing partly to the
activities of the patriarch Judah I. He somehow became a wealthy landowner, well-connected in the increasingly prosperous Galilean cities and
even, the Talmudim claim (or rather fantasize), in the Roman imperial court. He
or his son may have been the famous Jewish "ethnarch" referred to by
Origen as behaving regally, to the point of executing criminals—though without
imperial authorization. It was probably in this period, too, that the patriarchs
began to claim Davidic ancestry. Cohen argues that around 200 rabbinic judicial
activity broadened to include issues of interest
outside rabbinic circles, like civil law and Sabbath observance. Apparently,
rabbinic judicial prestige was growing again, perhaps in part because the rabbinic movement
left its rural Galilean exile for the cities, mainly
Sepphoris and Tiberias, but also
“The
“The center of Jewish life moved
from Judea to towns and villages
in
For our purposes, there are three implications of this:
Second, let’s look at the data for continuity.
Here we are looking for indications of family stability, cultural continuity, and any social means for enforcing/supporting community/family longevity or identity.
There are a couple of data points here:
“
“One priestly family by the name of Hapizez (or
Hapises) settled in
“Fortunately we are in a position to fill out this
picture of Sepphoris from rabbinic sources, both prior to and after 70 C.E. From these it is apparent that in
the period before 70 C.E. Sepphoris was one of the few
priestly towns in
“Galilee should probably not be lumped with
“In the second and third centuries the free population
of Tiberias apparently consisted mostly, or almost
entirely, of people who were in some sense Jewish. … The
rabbis unquestionably regarded Tiberias, along with Sepphoris and Lydda, as
"Jewish," in contrast to the mainly pagan
Scythopolis and Ptolemais. Probably in all these places there was a small
Christian or Jewish-Christian presence, notwithstanding Epiphanius's claim
(Panarion 30.11.9-10) that around 320 the cities and large villages of
“Eventually all of Lower Galilee was divided between
the territories of these two cities but
Of special importance here is
the existence (and use) of genealogical records—to PROVE family continuity.
There are two data points (one Jewish, and one Jewish-Christian) to illustrate that these were still in use. [BTW, they are almost invariably ‘in use’ in any inheritance-based land-ownership society (!), so these cases are only the tip of the iceberg.]
“… and Rabbi Jose also informs us that old registers were kept in this city indicating who were Israelites of pure blood, equal to those whose ancestors were priests, levites, or members of the Sanhedrin (M. Kidd 4:5).” [HI:GFAGH,126-127]
“Apart from this, we also meet Jesus’ relatives as
church leaders and travelling missionaries in some other scraps of information
in Hegesippus and others. Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 9:5 about the rights of
a traveling apostle, rights that were used by “the other apostles and the brothers
of the Lord and Cephas”. Some 170–80 years later Julius
Africanus said that Herod, being a non-Jew, had all Jewish family
records burned so that no one should have an advantage on him, yet a few careful people had private
records of their own, … priding themselves on preserving the
memory of their noble birth. Of
such were the persons mentioned above, called Desposyni
[Relatives of the Lord] from their connexion with the Saviour’s family.
Coming from the Jewish villages of
But you really didn’t need written records (in an oral culture) to document family membership—the community around you simply ‘remembered’. It was stable enough for generations and generations.
[That’s why it is not really ‘critical’ when Mark’s gospel was ‘written down’—the pieces could have (and were, actually) circulated orally everywhere, for decades and decades before being written down. The issue is not ‘when was it written down’, but ‘when did the story originally emerge and begin to be disseminated’.]
A great example of this is the post-War/post-Revolt actions by
“Religious toleration went hand in hand with increased political
vigilance in the decades after 70, and
In other words, the family blood ties were public enough that
This argues, though, that we can also use the family
of Jesus as a data point on continuity.
They are said to be based out of two cities during this entire time—one of
which was
“These wandering missionaries of our Lord’s family are
said to have preached in the
“In the 3d century the Christian martyr Conon from
“More promising is the evidence of Julius Africanus (c. 170 C.E.) in his letter to Aristides, namely that the desposynoi, that is the cousins of the Lord 'from the Jewish villages of Nazara and Cochaba traversed the rest of the land expounding their genealogy from the book of Chronicles as far as they went' (Eccles. Hist. 1,7.15). The context is a discussion of the differing genealogies of Mt and Lk and it is possible that in the second century different people laid claim to being cousins of the Lord within the Jewish Christian community, relying on the differing genealogies. [HI:GFAGH, 352]
What this means is that we have a concrete example from history of a family which spanned the two events and lived in the same town all that time: Jesus’ family, at least down to the late 3rd century. And the priestly families in Sepphoris, and probably the Tiberian house-manager servants did too—at a minimum.
We have one more stake in the ground to place: that there
was probably a Jewish-Christian witness
(in addition to the family of Jesus) within the area of
We have already seen that
“The rabbis unquestionably regarded Tiberias, along with Sepphoris and Lydda, as "Jewish," in contrast to the mainly
pagan Scythopolis and Ptolemais.
Probably in all these
places there was a small Christian or Jewish-Christian presence,
notwithstanding Epiphanius's claim (Panarion 30.11.9-10) that around 320 the
cities and large villages of
And the non-heretical nature of the Nazarenes – who were very probably in
“The
Nazarenes. Despite the
considerable symbolic significance of the event just mentioned, it should not
mislead us to think that Jewish Christianity completely disappeared. In the middle of the second century, some twenty-five years after the
Bar Kokhba revolt, Justin knew of
Jewish believers who had two characteristics: (1) They believed in Jesus as the
Messiah and Son of God, and (2) they continued to
observe the law of Moses without requiring that their Gentile brethren do the
same. … In the third
and fourth centuries there is still
solid evidence for the existence of such Jewish believers. In the
fourth century they are called “the Nazarenes”, and from Jerome and Epiphanius
we get the following information: they are few, mainly to be found in the region of
So, the players are on stage: we have the ‘embedded’ Galilean witnesses
(friendly and maybe hostile) and memory-carriers of Jesus, we have new possible
‘
Three: Evidences of Jewish/Christian interaction during this period (in the
Land)
What we are looking for here is the (post-biblical) Jewish response to Jewish-Christian proclamation in our area/period. As Judaism-without-a-Temple gets to work trying to reinvent itself, national identity becomes ‘at risk’. The fierce boundary setting requirement of this period (“this is a Jew—and that is not”) is standard for threatened organizations. [Christianity went through it early, and over and over and over again…]
A practical starting point for delineating what you ARE is to first list all the things you are NOT. And Galilean Judaism defines that during our period and in interaction with Jewish-Christian literature.
Consider this simple summary of Jewish response:
“As we glance back over this chapter, a number of things come to light. There is evidence that Jews persecuted and harassed Christians intermittently in a number of locations. This could take the form of synagogue discipline or of persuading Gentile authorities to act on their behalf. Christians nevertheless had a tendency to exaggerate the intensity and extent of Jewish hostility, and this has unduly influenced certain strains of scholarly analysis since.
Christians were included among those targeted by the Jewish authorities at Yavneh. The banning of books, occasional expulsion, and liturgical malediction all appeared in new or revised form during the Yavnean period, and their implementation throughout world Jewry was probably encouraged by roving envoys. From the rabbinic viewpoint, Christians were one of several troublesome groups of nonconformists, but Christians increasingly saw themselves as singled out for rabbinic antipathy. The Bar Cochba uprising may have been an important turning point, precipitating the expansion of the synagogue malediction to include Gentile Christians too. And, as an element of liturgical routine, the more this malediction focused on Christians the greater its influence would have been on popular Jewish attitudes.
and
“Jewish
Polemic and Rejection of Christianity. Jewish polemic
directed against Christianity could be just as harsh and ugly as was Christian
polemic, though with the ascendancy of Christianity, Jewish polemic came to be
muted and sometimes was even edited out of texts. Some of the Jewish polemic is
preserved in “dialogues” composed by
Christians. The best known is Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
Although these dialogues are artificial and routinely portray the Christian
apologists as refuting, even silencing, their Jewish opponents, the nature of the objections raised by the Jews in all probability
accurately reflects the arguments and polemic that Jews directed against
Christians.
Justin’s Trypho found it difficult to accept that Jesus could really have been the fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. How could Jesus have been the Messiah, since he had been defeated and put to death by the Romans in such a shameful manner? Trypho declares: “Be assured that all our nation awaits the Messiah; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to him. . . . But we are in doubt about whether the Messiah should be so shamefully crucified. For whoever is crucified is said in the Law to be accursed, so that I am very skeptical on this point. It is quite clear, to be sure, the Scriptures announce that the Messiah had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether by suffering he was cursed . . . Prove to us whether he must also be crucified and die such a disgraceful and dishonorable death, cursed by the Law. For we cannot bring ourselves even to consider this” (Dial. Tryph. 89–90).
With the passage of time the polemic became much
sharper, even hateful. Civil arguments, such as we find in Justin’s Dialogue,
gave way to vituperation and slurs. The polemic found in the Talmud and
Midrashim document some of this nastier polemic. In reference to Jesus’ birth we find:
“She who was the descendant of princes and governors [= Mary] played
the harlot with carpenters [= Joseph]” (b. Sanh. 106a). … In various places Jesus is accused of having
practiced magic and having led
As early as the end of the first century the liturgy of the synagogue was modified to discourage Christian Jews. It was apparently at this time that the twelfth benediction of the ancient Jewish prayer, called the Amidah (or Shemoneh Esreh), was expanded: “Can anyone among you frame a benediction relating to the heretics? Samuel the Lesser arose and composed it” (b. Ber. 28b). Samuel the Lesser’s composition may have something to do with the revision of the twelfth benediction: “For apostates let there be no hope, and the kingdom of arrogance quickly uproot. [In a moment let the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed; let them be blotted from the Book of Life, and with the righteous not be inscribed.] Blessed are you, O Lord, who loves judgment!” (Amidah §12). The bracketed words are thought to be the later inserted material. It was probably to this malediction (often referred as the Birkat ha-Minim, lit. “blessing of the heretics”) that Justin alluded when he told Trypho, “You curse in your synagogues all those who are called from him Christians” (Justin Dial. Tryph. 96).
Martin, R. P., &
Davids, P. H. (2000, c1997). Dictionary of the later New
Testament and its developments (electronic ed.).
We don’t have room here to unpack these, but if you look over the
responses, you can see that they match up pretty well with what a
Jewish-Christian might define as his or her belief at the (pre-Church Councils)
time. There are no ‘straw men’ in there: they would be addressing items that
they could hear from Galileans in
But this is an exercise in literary ‘reverse engineering’—figuring out
what the audience ‘said first’ in a piece of literature or tradition. And in
this case, the response suggests that much of the core proclamation of the
Gospels was circulating in
Summary: Our first three points
argued that there were PLENTY of
people who lived through the war, that their ability to articulate objections (e.g. the
polemical responses to Christians) was
always there and increasing in sophistication, and that the Christian witness
(of at least, the very flesh-and-blood family of Jesus in Nazareth) was available for them to ‘shoot’
at.
And they shot at it—at various times and in various ways—but this confirms that their intellectual world confronted the traditions of the historical Jesus (e.g. birth, parentage, Galilean ministry) and confronted the theological explanations of the Jewish-Christian church of the time (e.g. Jesus as Messiah and as Son of God).
We are right back to the implications of
our opening summary by Levine:
Four: Reality check: was Jewish
literature being written in
This is just a reality-check point. If Jewish literature was being written from Palestine during our period—AFTER the Jews had been banned from Jerusalem (and had moved from Judea to Galilee), then this alone shows that there were at least SOME people who COULD have written about this issue, if they wanted to.
[If NO literature was produced—when it WAS produced on either side of our period—then this would warrant further investigation.]
So, do we have
any written Jewish literature (or Jewish ‘parts’ of mixed literature) from this
period?
Yes, we do.
An analysis of [OTP] yields these results. Of the 52 works in the two-volume TOC, here is what shows up:
|
Work |
2nd Century-3rd
Century? |
Provenance/Perspective? |
|
Testament of Solomon (1-3rd AD) |
Yes? |
?, mixed |
|
3 Baruch (1-3rd AD) |
YES? |
Disputed, Jewish |
|
History of Joseph (prior to 4th AD) |
YES? |
Egyptian, Jewish |
|
Prayer of Jacob (1-4th AD) |
Yes? |
Egyptian, Jewish-magic |
|
Apocalypse of Abraham (70-150AD) |
YES? |
Palestinian, Jewish |
|
Testament of Abraham (100AD +/- 20 yrs, Jewish part) |
Yes? |
Palestinian, Jewish |
|
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (2-9th AD) |
Yes |
?, Christian |
|
Apocalypse of Sedrach (2-5th AD) |
Yes |
?, Jewish (apoc part) |
|
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (2-3rd AD) |
Yes |
Egyptian or Syrian, Jewish |
|
Testament of Isaac (2nd AD) |
Yes |
Egyptian/Palestinian(?), Jewish |
|
Testament of Jacob (2-3 AD) |
Yes |
Egyptian/Palestinian(?), Jewish |
|
Apocalypse of Elijah (150-275 AD) |
YES |
Palestinian(?), Jewish/mixed |
|
2 Baruch (early 2nd AD) |
Yes |
Palestinian, Jewish |
|
4 Baruch (100-135 AD, Jewish part) |
YES |
Palestinian, Jewish base |
|
Testament of Adam (Jewish base 2nd AD) |
Yes |
Syriac, Jewish base |
|
Odes of Solomon (100AD) |
Yes |
Syrian Antioch/Edessa, Jewish-Christian |
|
The Sentences of the Syriac Menander (150-400 AD) |
Yes |
Syrian(?), Jewish |
In fact, several of these deal with the fall of
“Its value as a source of historical information
notwithstanding, the War is an interpretive piece
of literature that presents an approach and a point of view quite different
from that of Pseudo-Philo and the authors of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the
Apocalypse of Abraham. The work is not pseudonymous and thus deals with named
places and persons. It is less interested in theological explanations of
historical causation—though they are present also—and more concerned with the
nitty-gritty of political intrigue and social tension. And not least, the War reminds us that the empire had its own point of view
about the events between 60 and 70 c.e.
… In these respects, Josephus walks a tightrope. He is a client
of the Roman emperor, writing a history that would later be adopted as the
empire’s authorized version of the events he describes (Life 363). He does not
hesitate to emphasize Titus’s goodwill toward the Jews, for example, his
attempt to avoid the destruction of the temple. At the same time, Josephus
writes as a Jew, who both criticizes those of his own people whom he sees as
the cause of the revolt and praises the virtues of his religion and the power
of his God, who in the final analysis allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed on
account of the sins that took place, notably in the temple. Josephus does speak
in a voice that will please his Roman patrons because it justifies their severe
measures against the Jews. Nonetheless, in blaming
the destruction of
So, apparently the War/Revolt didn’t kill off all the writers at least…
Five: Constraints on dating the
Gospel of Mark
Very, very few scholars [if ANY] would put the ‘writing’ of Mark this late. [You should push back on the blogger-friend and get them to DEFEND this date!]
Here’s a list of the datings/authors in just my library:
|
(Source) |
Dater |
When |
|
|
"early church" |
no later than early
60's |
|
Carson/Moo |
"majority of contem.
scholars" |
mid2late 60's |
|
NT:EG |
"most NT scholars" |
ca70ad |
|
Kummel |
"most scholars" |
64-70 |
|
NT:OMMCCD |
"scholarly consensus" |
60-70 |
|
|
"skeptical moderns" |
65-70+ |
|
Kummel |
Albertz |
40-50 |
|
Carson/Moo |
|
mid2late 60's |
|
Kummel |
Beach |
after 70 |
|
Kummel |
|
after 70 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Brown |
mid2late 60's |
|
Carson/Moo |
Carson/Moo |
late 50's or the 60's |
|
Casey |
Casey |
‘within a few years of
the crucifixion' |
|
Carson/Moo |
Cranfield |
mid2late 60's |
|
Crossley |
Crossley |
mid2late 30's to
mid-40s |
|
Carson/Moo |
CS Mann |
draft in 55 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Edwards |
mid2late 60's |
|
Ellis |
Ellis |
55-58 |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Ernst |
“shortly after the
fall of |
|
Dunn |
Evans |
middle-60s |
|
|
|
mid-60's |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Gnilka |
“shortly after the
fall of |
|
Gould |
Gould |
ca70ad |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Grundmann |
“shortly after the
fall of |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Guelich |
67-pre70 |
|
Ellis |
Gundry |
60-62 |
|
Kummel |
|
after 70 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Harnack |
50's |
|
Carson/Moo |
Hengel |
mid2late 60's |
|
Kummel |
Hopf-Gut |
40-50 |
|
NT:OMMCCD |
JAT Robinson |
45-60 |
|
Kummel |
Johnson |
after 70 |
|
NT:OMMCCD |
Kelber |
post-70 |
|
Wenham |
Kummel |
70 |
|
Kummel |
Kummel |
70 |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Lane |
65-68 |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Luhrmann |
“shortly after the
fall of |
|
Ellis |
Marcus |
70 |
|
Kummel |
Mariani |
40-50 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Martin |
mid2late 60's |
|
Kummel |
Masson |
after 70 |
|
Kummel |
Meinertx |
40-50 |
|
Kummel |
Minette de Tillesse |
after 70 |
|
Ellis |
Moffatt |
shortly after 70 |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Nineham |
65-68 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Pesch |
"as late as the
70's" |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Pesch |
“shortly after the
fall of |
|
Ellis |
Plummer |
65-70 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Reicke |
late 50's |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Schmithals |
75-80 |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
Schweizer |
65-68 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Stock |
mid2late 60's |
|
Guelich (WBC) |
|
65-68 |
|
Ellis |
Theissen |
75 |
|
Kummel |
Torrey |
40 |
|
Carson/Moo |
Torrey |
40's |
|
Kummel |
Trocme |
40-50 |
|
Ellis |
usually set' |
65-75AD |
|
Ellis |
Vielhauer |
after 70 |
|
Wenham |
Wenham |
45 |
Note that when a date given is ‘post-70’ or ‘after 70’, it generally means ‘shortly after’—not twenty-plus years later!
BTW, the reason ‘shortly’ is generally added is this: post-70 dates are generally given on the belief that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem/Temple in Mark 13 is given ‘after the fact’, and that therefore the passage MUST BE dated after the fall of the city/Temple in 70. They don’t believe it could/would have been ‘predictive prophecy’ as others do. … But the reason they add ‘shortly’ to this date, is because of other things in the passage that were NOT fulfilled but which looked EQUALLY prophetic [“…the events associated in much of the current scholarship with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple simply do not fit with this verse that contains both a reference to the “abomination of desolation” and the note about fleeing “into the hills.”, Guelich/WBC]. In other words—to these later-daters—the passage had to be written immediately AFTER the writer saw the Temple/city fall, but BEFORE he noticed that the ‘abomination of desolation’ thing didn’t happen and the people didn’t flee, and before he realized that the events described in verses 24ff (“Then will you see the Son of Man coming…”) were gonna apparently be delayed…
But at any rate, you get the picture. The VAST majority of scholars date the written version of Mark to 65-70 (with oral circulation of the content much earlier). I could only find one scholar that had it later (by five years), and none of them had anything as late as the 90’s!
A date that late would require special, extra evidence—to overturn the considerably more data in favor of traditional date ranges.
I have already pointed out, though, that even with
this being this late, there is still enough continuity
in community memory/family history/public folklore even in
I can only summarize one strand of dating-data for this.
I cannot go through all the data here, but let me mention for starters:
One. I have already shown that I Clement-written around 95 AD already knows of, and uses, the synoptic tradition MULTIPLE times! [dumbdad2.html] A 90’s AD date for Mark just isn’t enough room for development of Matthew and Luke from it, in order for those two gospels to show up in other Apostolic Fathers. There is no time-gap for development/transmission to happen ‘in’!
Two. One can easily consult the series of books by Edouard Massaux on “The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus” [HI:IGSM3], to see the many, many cases where Matthew (allegedly dependent on and therefore LATER than Mark!) is quoted by I Clement, Barnabas (prob. 95 AD-ish too), and Ignatius (105-107). [See the individual chapters in [HI:RNTAF] where each of the Apostolic Fathers are shown to have at least one allusion/reference to a Synoptic Gospel (and other evidence for the existence of the Synoptic traditions—in either written or oral form). ]
[The following is a bit dated, and probably needs about “20% correction” to dates and such, but this summary of 2nd century writings’ knowledge of the NY/synoptic traditions argues that the gospel materials needs to be dated MUCH earlier than at ‘the edge of the 2nd century’ to have had this wide a range of acceptance, impact, and even imitation:
“What, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter? Clement makes two quotations, the canonical source of which
is doubtful. Pseudo-Clement gives twelve,—nine
of them canonical but free, and three extra-canonical; Ignatius, four,—one of
them probably uncanonical; Polycarp,
five,—four canonical but free, and one probably extra-canonical; the Didache, sixteen, quite canonical; Pseudo-Barnabas,
four, canonical; Shepherd of Hermas, one, normal;
the rest mere reflections of Scripture. Justin quotes
largely but freely, and introduces incidents from apocryphal sources, one of
which, the Acts of Pilate, he cites by name as authority for the miracles of
our Lord; Athenagoras, four, quoted freely; Papias, one from Mk., with distinctly apocryphal matter. The
Clementine Homilies give us canonical
and uncanonical matter in the proportion of about seventy to thirteen. One of
these, about good money-changers, is a distinct addition to the probable
sayings of our Lord. Finally, we have the testimony of Papias to the
composition of Mk., and of the Logia, the probable witness of
Marcion to Lk.,
the more than probable testimony of the Canon of Muratori to the canonical Gospels,
and the Diatessaron of Tatian, with
its unmistakable use of the four Gospels as the exclusive source of information
about the Gospel history. The
conclusions are inevitable: first, that the second-century
literature certainly uses extra–canonical sources of information about our
Lord, and does it freely and without apology; secondly, that the four Gospels were the main stream to which the rest was
tributary,—the standard writings on the subject; thirdly,
they were not Scripture in the sense which we attach to that word,—they were
not separated from other writings by any such line; fourthly, that the amount and importance of extra-canonical matter is
after all small. Substantially, the Jesus of the second-century literature is the Jesus
of the Gospels.” [Gould, E. P. (1922). ICC,
A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (xli).
Three. We have NT apocryphal literature from the early 2nd century which is DEPENDENT on Markan traditions…
Four. For goodness sake, we even have a fragment of John’s Gospel that dates earlier than/equal to this hypothetical date for Mark!:
“We cannot conclude this survey of the papyri without some further comments on the truly amazing discoveries of the past generation. The critical significance of p52, which preserves only a fragment of John 18, lies in the date of 'about 125' assigned to it by the leading papyrologists. Although 'about 125' allows for leeway of about twenty-five years on either side, the consensus has come in recent years to regard 125 as representing the later limit, so that p52 must have been copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the early 90's A.D. (with the recent discovery of p90 another second century fragment of the Gospel of John is now known). It provides a critical witness to the quality of the New Testament textual tradition, further confirming it by exhibiting a 'normal text', i.e., attesting the text of today (that of Nestle-Aland26 and GNT3).” [ATNT, 85f]
This is just a thumbnail here… There are just so many reasons to reject this late a date for Mark…this just seems to be an arbitrary number (ask the blogger-friend for non-conjectural data to support it!)…ask them to explain how the above dependencies can emerge so quickly and in such a wide range of places and uses… Ask them to re-evaluate this data, and adjust their figures for further discussion…
But the strongest reasons against this late date (IMO) are related the ‘spacing’ required for its use by OTHER documents in the same time period. [And, BTW, you cannot appeal to ‘earlier common tradition’ to get around this, because ‘earlier common tradition’ means the stories originated earlier—and this is a huge problem for the mythicist-gospel position.
………..
Anyway, my main point here was to show that the devastation in
I think the data shows that…
Thanks,
glenn