This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theBible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChristianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
The dating of the gospels is of primary concern to whether or not Jesus' statements about the destruction of Jerusalem are examples of vaticinium ex eventu. Dating all of the gospels after 70 AD is in no way a consensus position among New Testament scholars, nor is it the mainstream position, nor is it simply question-begging from "fundamentalist Christians." Wikipedia's article on the New Testament gospels, in fact, does reflect the mainstream opinion in that a pre-70 AD date for the Gospel of Mark is plausible. Moreover, in the article on "Vaticinium ex eventu", the citation provided in support of the phrase "the Gospels were all written after the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, in which the temple was destroyed", does not in fact does not say anything about dating the gospels. The citation simply states the mention of the destruction in the Gospel of Matthewmay be an example of Vaticinium ex eventu. Using this citation to buttress the claim that Jesus' prediction of the destruction is necessarily vaticinium ex eventu is spurious.
Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Wikipedia community to alter this article to make it more accurately reflect scholarly opinion. Perhaps a brief discussion of Gospel dating would be helpful. This truly is an interesting topic because the Gospels themselves render Jesus' words different and Jesus' words as communicated in Luke almost certainly are vaticinium ex eventu. However, an unqualified dismissal of the predictions in Matthew and especially Mark based on a mischaracterization of scholarly opinion about the dating of the Gospels does a poor service to readers of the article. The article should be updated to reflect a more nuanced position on the question.
P.S.We could add research and scholarship done by conservative scholars to this list, but I've avoided doing so to avoid arguing against distracting charges of appealing to "Christian fundamentalism."
This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!
Wikipedia is not here to promote Bart Ehrman's opinion. He is entitled to his point of view, but it is not gospel. Bart Ehrman is also not ahistorian. He's atextual critic. His point of view is certainly significant, but it is by no means the only valid one, nor does it trump the views of those who believe otherwise. "Vaticinium ex eventu" is not based on what Bart Ehrman says. I've cited six different sources from across the spectrum, not one of which is written by even a conservative Christian scholar, much less a "fundamentalist." "But Bart Ehrman says" is not a good enough reason to stop a more accurate and nuanced discussion of Vaticinium ex eventu in the gospels in this Wikipedia article.Rusdo (talk)15:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We go by the opinions of the majority of scholars and sizeable minorities. We do not render the opinions of tiny minorities, nor those of theWP:FRINGE sort (i.e. biblical inerrantists and conservative evangelicals).Tgeorgescu (talk)16:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I agree. Then we have reached a consensus that the Vaticinium ex eventu article needs to be clarified in the detailed way that I've discussed up above with multiple sources. I'm glad that we agreed to include a discussion of the view of a sizeable minority.Rusdo (talk)16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article for a long while reflected the scholarly nuance. I'm glad we can return it back to it's proper form.Rusdo (talk)16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned atWP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on theconservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure.Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not mean half-way between religious faith and academia. Wikipedia seeks to render what is taught as true/fact at Ivy Plus. That's what neutrality means for us.Tgeorgescu (talk)17:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Couldn't agree more. I'll update the article with the proper sourcing. Glad we could come to a consensus.Rusdo (talk)17:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix it. Read therevert policy. You're in violation of it. You keep reverting my edits with no reasonable explanation. Not all the sources were from 1920.Rusdo (talk)17:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In what way did my edits distort the view of the mainstream? Also, where is the limitation on using sources only from 2001 and onwards? I see no such limit on Wikipedia.Rusdo (talk)17:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason why Mack and Crossan—and a majority of historical-critical scholars—date Mark after A.D. 70 is that Mark has Jesus prophesy the destruction of the temple in Mark 13, what is known as the "little apocalypse" of Mark." Since it is assumed that neither Jesus nor Mark could have had knowledge of this event ahead of time, a post-70 date is required. The "prophecy," in other words, is avaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the event). Three general considerations, however, lead us to judge this argument inconclusive.
So where again does it say that I can't use sources before 2001? Also, you didn't explain how my edits distort mainstream opinion. Be specific. You keep reverting my edits without reason.Rusdo (talk)18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes that dating, but it is candid enough to recognize the majority view as fact (because it is an objective fact). Friend, some POVs lost the dispute in the mainstream academia, and according toWP:RGW Wikipedia is not the venue for re-litigating their loss.Tgeorgescu (talk)18:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to try this one more time. How are my edits inappropriate? How are my additions violating consensus? How am I distorting mainstream opinion?Rusdo (talk)18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed your accusations of me three times and have still not provided specifics as to how my edits do anything of what you've accused me of doing. I find that very disappointing. My edits were constructive, clear, interesting, to the point, and well cited. You had no grounds from completely removing my addition.Rusdo (talk)18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, you claim that thatWP:RS/AC claim wouldn't be an objective fact? Which are your sources? You're the one making funny remarks around here. And stuff likeWP:RGW andWP:IDHT you have to read those links to find out what those mean, I won't waste my typing with explaining you what you can read for yourself.
It's an objective fact that the majority of Bible scholars think that way (WP:FRINGE scholars excluded from the count). And you're defending a POV which lost the academic debateby a large margin.Tgeorgescu (talk)18:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, even if it would be set in stone that it was written before 70 AD, it still does notWP:Verify your POV. Since both the defenders and the opponents of a post-70 AD dating agree that it isvaticinium ex eventu. I know it sounds paradoxical to newbies, but that is whatWP:SCHOLARSHIP says.
Your comments are becoming increasingly erratic and very strange. I've removed your recent edits because discussion on this issue is ongoing and (as you have said) there is no consensus. The fact of the matter is that the current state of the article distorts the views of scholarship. I'm going to tell you one more time: you don't get to determine what is "fringe" and not "fringe" and dating Mark pre-70 AD is certainly not "fringe" by anyone's standards other than your own. Also, I don't appreciate your tone at all. This is not acting in good faith. If you persist, I'm going to report you to Wikipedia's administrators.Rusdo (talk)21:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made the report for me! Your behavior is going to get scrutinized to, so I'm fine with that. The mention of a pre-70 AD date was a small fraction of the edits that I made. You removed them completely and totally, without warrant, or explanation. You assert my violations of Wikipedia policies, but you don't provide any reasons for how my edit did violate Wikipedia policy. You've been uncivil, rude, disruptive, sarcastic, and condescending. You've called me a POV pusher. On my personal page you've suggested that I'm pushing for fundamentalist extremism. This is not within the guidelines of Wikipedia. This is not how civil discussion works.Rusdo (talk)21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sensed you're up to no good, thank you for making it easy to see.
And the statement about both sides to the debate accepting Mark 13 as v.e.e. is not mine, butMary Ann Beavis's. She wrote very clear prose thereupon, so I don't know what would beerratic about the fact that both the side of pre-70 AD (minority POV) as the side of post-70 AD (majority POV) endorse Mark 13 as v.e.e. You should get used to the fact that many scholarly claims are counter-intuitive and laypeople would consider those as not making sense. Again, that isn'tmy own problem, it is a problem of howyou read Beavis's scholarship. It is her view, not mine.Tgeorgescu (talk)23:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you have provided no reason to delete my entire discussion of Luke because of something that was said about Mark. It makes absolutely no sense.Rusdo (talk)02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to recall that Wikipedia follows thebest sources and it seems to me thatUser:Tgeorgescu is providing sources that conform to that mandate. I do not see the sources thatUser:Rusdo is offering as being considered better in terms of citations or lacking criticism. I do see some criticism of theWP:MAINSTREAM sources, but they all come from scholarship that is based in religious belief rather than the consensus building that comes within the relevant epistemic community. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia pays the most attention to mainstream scholarship. If this is not to your liking, the thing to do is to change mainstream scholarship. It's not the place of Wikipedia to impose a new consensus about subjects like this. Nor is it Wikipedia's place to soften or censor points about dating the Gospels because it makes some believers uncomfortable. These are pretty well established principles of editing at this website.jps (talk)11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of my sources is based on religious belief? Name one specifically. With all due respect, I rephrased my edits a second time and yet they were still reverted, without cause.Rusdo (talk)14:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but would you look at my analysis of the sources below, and compare that with what the article currently says? Some modification is certainly needed.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)17:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the discussion was from the very beginning if the viewthe verses from Mark/Luke aren't v.e.e. is sizeable minority, tiny minority, orWP:FRINGE. In the later two cases, Wikipedia defaults to not rendering it.Tgeorgescu (talk)18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the majority view is clearly that the verses from Mark constitutev.e.e. However, that they do not constitutev.e.e. also clearly neither is a tiny minority view nor fringe: of the 5 sources cited, 2 actually hold that view (Boyd 1995 andLiefeld & Pao 2005), and one (Hengel 1985) specifically points to a major scholar who holds it. That clearly is a significant minority view, and should be represented as such (that is, only with theweight that it's due) in the article. I suggest ditching 3 of the 5 sources, and keeping onlyMartin Hengel 1985 (one of the most authoritative scholars in Biblical studies, conveniently reporting that the majority of scholars see Mark as constitutingv.e.e., but some don't) andSoulen & Soulen 2001, who cite the greatRudolf Bultmann for the view that the verses in Luke constitutev.e.e., andN. T. Wright (clearly less authoritative) for the view that they don't. This is the division of weight given by mainstream scholarly sources, and it is therefore the division that we should also adopt.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)19:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a much better representation of what an article on Wikipedia should look like. Looks pretty good, gang.Rusdo (talk)04:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment tojps, thepossibility of using sources to promote one's religious beliefs does not constitute evidence thereof. Your insinuations are rude, unproductive, disrespectful, unnecessary, and unappreciated.Rusdo (talk)04:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people were honest about their biases, we could perhaps move forward. It is undeniable that the religious proclivities of editors at Wikipedia often motivate their editorial advocacy. That's fine... it's true for all manner of religious proclivities. What we should not do is let that skew article content. I don't see anything controversial about that basic principle.jps (talk)11:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should not be ongoing.Tgeorgescu gave a perfect response to these complaints in their very first comment here, by quoting Bart Ehrman. The response to that was ignorant and ill-informed, as Ehrman is widely recognized (and often even criticized) for representing and dissemating the consensus of serious biblical scholarship, rather than contributing to that consensus himself (he has, but that's neither here nor there). The comment that "Wikipedia is not here to promote Bart Ehrman's opinion," is ignorant of Ehrman's work and reputation, mainstream biblical scholarship on the subject and Wikipedia's policies.
The destruction of Jerusalem is widely cited as an example ofvaticinium ex eventu, as evidenced by the numerous citations in this article. This attempt to undermine that broad consensus -by undermining the widely accepted dating- absolutely reeks of fundamentalist bias, and is a textbook example of thewedge strategy, popularized in adifferent topic that fundamentalists also get up in arms about.
Not only that, but the sources provided are questionable; We don't use Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source, The assertion that the author of the second is an atheist is bizarre, considering that he's been rather critical of atheists in his other books, John Robinson's dating is widely considered fringe and well-known by this point, We don't use Encyclopedia.com as a source, doctoral dissertations carry little to no weight,especially when they contradict the consensus, and Pheme Perkins is a conservative Catholic; hardly an impartial source.
Finally, this tactic of responding to objections raised by saying some variation of "Oh, so you agree with me, I'll just go ahead and change the article" is juvenile and disruptive, and serves only to illustrate better that there is no rational basis for these suggested changes.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Agreed with much of what you say, but you might want to consider that Rusdo is a new editor who was 'welcomed' withthis dreadful post (yes, all of that in the first post on his talk, a rather unfortunate habit ofTgeorgescu's with regard to which it should come as no surprise that they arousedefensive attitudes in other editors). Also consider that in their first post above, Rusdowas entirely right in stating thatdating all of the gospels after 70 AD is in no way a consensus position among New Testament scholars, thatWikipedia's article on the New Testament gospels, in fact, does reflect the mainstream opinion in that a pre-70 AD date for the Gospel of Mark is plausible, and that thoughthe Gospel of Matthew [and Mark only]may be an example of Vaticinium ex eventu,Jesus' words as communicated in Luke almost certainly are vaticinium ex eventu. It's again Tgeorgescu who simplydismissed these statements of fact by quoting Ehrman as if that scholar is some kind of oracle (and who in the quote is very much giving his own post-70 CE view, which appears to have a slight majority but is by no means the scholarly consensus), and who subsequentlyedited the page adding sources such as Boyd 1995, Liefeld & Pao 2005 andHengel 1985 (all of whom date Markbefore 70 CE) in a way that as I'vepointed out earlier completely misrepresents them. So yeah, being entirely right but being rejected by multiple editors based only on unfounded suspicions brought Rusdo in a place where their replies were at times unconstructive, but I for one see where their frustration is coming from.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)16:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Apuagasma, I would like to quote you the very first sentence of this section:The dating of the gospels is of primary concern to whether or not Jesus' statements about the destruction of Jerusalem are examples of vaticinium ex eventu. Keep this quote in mind.
The precise dating of Mark (the earliest gospel) is a matter of some dispute, but there is a clear scholarly consensus that it's sometimearound 70AD, with most scholars thinking it took place within a few years following the destruction of Jerusalem. There are very few mainstream scholars arguing that it was written in, for example, 40AD, and none (anymore) arguing that it was written around 140AD.
There is a clear scholarly consensus that the other gospels antedate the gospel of Mark.
There is, furthermore, a clear scholarly consensus that the fall of the temple is an example ofvaticinium ex eventu.
So, regardless of how much slack we might cut an editor who was antagonized into incivility, my comment aboveis not about incivility. I explained the problems with with the suggested change, then explained the problems with the provided sources, then explained the problem with the argumentative tact being taken here.
On that latter point, you should re-read the quote I just provided. That sentence makes it quite clearfrom the get-go that this editor is arguing that the possible authorship of Mark in the few years prior to 70AD proves that this example does not belong here,in direct contradiction of the scholarly consensus.
So while I'm willing to excuse a great deal of incivility (more so than the majority of editors, I suspect), there is no amount ofWP:OR I can excuse, regardless of how understandable any feelings of animosity might be.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Yes, Mark is usually dated to around 70 AD because of the apparent references in Mark 13 to the destruction of the Temple, butif Mark dates to before 70 AD (and he actually is, for other reasons, often dated to before 70 AD), it technically just isn't av.e.e., but rather a good guess on the part of Mark's author. So yes, the precise dating of Mark clearlyis of some concern here, and that seems to be more a matter of common sense than ofOR. It's possible that Rusdo just inferred this for themselves, but since sources likeLiefeld & Pao 2005 explicitly do make the connection between a pre-70 AD dating (which they hold) and Mark not constituting av.e.e., we could just as well assume that they picked this up in some similar source. It seems clear to me that editors who are not familiar with the relevant sources assumed SYNTH and OR for something that on the one hand really just is common sense, and on the other hand aligns with what sources like Liefeld & Pao are saying quite explicitly.
What irks me about this is that, though I too can perceive that Rusdo seems to have a religionist POV (which is always potentially problematic), the reactions from other editors to this, both in this article and inGospel of Mark, was not just to assume bad faith, but to assume that just because someone with a religionist POV was saying something, the exact opposite (all gospels definitely date from after 70 AD, and they all definitely constitutev.e.e.) must be true and must be firmly stated in the article to the exclusion of any other view. If this would have gone unchecked, anti-religionist bias would actually have caused WP to spread misinformation: the broad scholarly consensus dates Mark to c. 66-74, and there are significant scholars likeJosef Ernst who think it improbable that Mark represents av.e.e. (seeHengel 1985), while a scholar likeN. T. Wright even denies av.e.e. for Luke (seeSoulen & Soulen 2001, p. 204). I agree with what jps said above: people should be honest about their biases, and it's perfectly fine to have religious or anti-religious biases, as long as we don't let that skew article content. It's clearly the anti-religious bias which would have skewed article content here (as well as inGospel of Mark) were it not for my intervention, and I do think that this is something worth contemplating.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)19:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: Not necessarily anti-religionist bias, since liberal Christians side with the historical-critical approach. Many liberal Christians think that there is basically nothing wrong with Ehrman's works, and his works help them understand Christianity better.Tgeorgescu (talk)19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)butif Mark dates to before 70 AD (and he actually is, for other reasons, often dated to before 70 AD), it technically just isn't av.e.e.,"Listen, I know we've been at war with the Romans for a while now, and I know we're losing, and I know our troops will fight to the death and salt the earth behind us, but there's no reason to suspect the Romans will destroy the city!"
Think about the actual historical events of the period during which the earliest mainstream scholars date the writing of Mark. Also, note: Here you are, proposing yourown research be held in the same esteem as the scholarly consensus, so as to compete with it as an equal.
reactions from other editors to this, both in this article and inGospel of Mark, was not just to assume bad faith, but to assume that just because someone with a religionist POV was saying something, the exact opposite (all gospels definitely date from after 70 AD, and they all definitely constitutev.e.e.) must be true Tha'ts complete bullshit wrt me. I did not assume bad faith, but based my judgement of the motivations on exactly what was written. I did not "assume" the opposite "must be true", but identified problems with their argumentation. Tgeorgescu also did not assume bad faith, but responded with a quote outlining the scholarly consensus. Tgeorgescu also did not "assume the opposite must be true", but gave policy-based objections to a suggestion which wasexplicitly intended to replace a scholarly consensus with a fringe view.
anti-religionist bias Why am I not surprised to see this brought up? I swear to the god I stopped believing in decades ago; you people are all reading from the same script.
There is no "anti-religionist bias," and even if you found enough religion-hostile atheists to argue the case for it, you'd lose dramatically because Wikipedia has an incredibly pronounced pro-Christian bias (you think I'm joking? Then explain whyGenesis creation narrative is not called "Genesis creation myth", despite the fact that it is literallythe textbook example of a creation myth) that the majority of atheists on this site (including myself) are completely accepting of because, contrary to what you folks seem to believe, we'reAtheists, notAntitheists. Us not caring is literally the defining characteristic of our religious views.
And in case you haven't been able to put two and two together, the reason you see atheists editing these religious articles is because many of us areactually interested in theology and the history of Christianity. We're fans, not enemies.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here. You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use. Neither of you were able to make your case with sources and sound logic, your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption, at this point.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants: first of all, calm down a bit, so you'll appreciate better what I'm trying to say. You seem to have missed a few points:
I'm an atheist on a personal level and a historicist and anti-religionist (religionism being a methodology in the history of religion which starts from a believer's perspective) on a scholarly level, so I'm not quite the "you people" or "you folks" you seem to have in mind, thank you very much.Also, I've never even seen a creationist website, while you do seem to know what you're talking about. That definitely says something about how interested each of us really is in religious apologetics.
Right now both articles are as I argued they should be (and a lot closer to how Rusdo argued they should be than before), so my case here is already made –and won. This is rather about the fact that my whole intervention would have been unnecessary if editors would have just taken an honest look at the sources right from the start. If we could do that, WP would be better for it, and we'd lose less time.
With "anti-religious bias" I wasn't talking about you (you just started participating in this discussion now), but about the editors who were rejecting Rusdo's concerns without looking at the sources (see, e.g.,here, certainly deserving of atrout).
Then again, there definitely seems to be a pattern of wrongly assuming OR whenever someone is assumed to have a religous POV. I'm just repeating what sources like Liefeld & Pao 2005 are saying (that a pre-70 date implies no v.e.e.), and it is you who denies this based solely on your own reasoning (they could see it coming, so it is v.e.e.; I mean why not, maybe a lot of scholars that are not cited here see it that way, but the ones who have been cited mostly don't).
I believe that the other editors involved here (Tgeorgescu, jps, Achar Sva) have looked at my arguments, looked at the sources, and recognized that they were mistaken. That's a good thing, and I recommend them for that. All I'm asking is perhaps to try and avoid something like this happening again in the future, which I'm sure they will. However, I certainly didn't mean to work anyone up (including myself), so please accept my sincere apologies for that.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)22:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very clear who's attempting to find true consensus that accurately represents the views of scholars and who's here just to attack and disparage religion. I sympthasize with those that have sharp anti-religious feelings, but Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to work out your issues.Rusdo (talk)00:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue wasWP:FRINGE or tiny minority vs. mainstream view; that has been settled by the name of N.T. Wright;
The second issue is that Beavis stated that a pre-70 AD dating won't do, so you were advancing your POV through original research (original synthesis) which is not allowed;
So,Rusdo, I always tell my opponents frankly what the rules of Wikipedia say, and what they can do if they think that I am mistaken. In that respect I am neither mean, nor unfair.tgeorgescu (talk)01:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could not possibly have imagined a worse response to my comments above than this, Rusdo. This is, in every way, the absolute worst response possible. Not only is it (obviously) not convincing, it was literally made in response tome explaining why it's such a horrible argument, and to top it all off, it'sviolation of Wikipedia's policy.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rusdo: please refrain from commenting on other editors' intentions; it's absolutely essential to this text-only medium toassume good faith and to discuss edits, not editors. We all understand your frustrations (most of us have been there before), but that's no license to be uncivil. Tgeorgescu & MjolnirPants: the source (Soulen & Soulen 2001) saying thatN.T. Wright doesn't regard Luke as v.e.e. was already present in the article, but apparently left unread. Moreover,adding a source likeLiefeld & Pao 2005, which explicitly denies that Mark contains a v.e.e. based on its pre-70 AD dating, to refute Rusdo's argument that some scholars date Mark to before 70 AD and may therefore not regard Mark as containing a v.e.e., clearly betrays a lack of interest in what the sources are actually saying. And yes, this selective blindness most often results from some kind of bias. In the case of jps'reverting an edit which added a significant minority POV explicitly mentioned by the source already cited (and included in every statement of the general consensus by mainstream scholarly sources), on the sole basis thatreligious believers definitely don't like the dates, but that doesn't mean that their scholarship has been accepted by those outside of their religion, there's absolutely no question that this is anything other than a very explicitanti-religious bias. Why not, is that such a strange thing? We all make mistakes from time to time, but it would be good to recognize rather than to deny the origin of the mistake.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)03:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu & MjolnirPants: the source (Soulen & Soulen 2001) saying that N.T. Wright doesn't regard Luke as v.e.e. was already present in the article, but apparently left unread. I saw elsewhere that Wright has disputed this. Wright is certainly a reputable scholar whose views carry weight, but I don't think that his views guide the mainstream consensus.
Moreover, adding a source like Liefeld & Pao 2005, which explicitly denies that Mark contains a v.e.e. based on its pre-70 AD dating I believe that Tgeorgeescu had changed his mind by that point. I haven't, for reasons I'll get into in a moment.
there's absolutely no question that this is anything other than a very explicit anti-religious bias. You are wrong. Full stop. This could very well be a bias in favor of certain editor's positions (Tgeorgescu, jps and I are frequently in lockstep agreement in other articles), a lack of familiarity with the sources, or any of a large number of other things. To say there's "absolutely no question" is utterly ridiculous.
Neither you nor anyone else is going to getanywhere by pushing the narrative that there's an anti-religious bias here. I've already given you evidence of how insanely out-of-touch with reality that claim is, and explained the logical problems with it.Stop. Pushing. It.
As for why I'm not convinced that the mainstream view is that the destruction of the temple isnot v.e.e., it's because of the sheer number of sources that use it as the primary example of one. Now, the issue here is that this seems to be somewhat unclear w.r.t. Mark. But, as I somewhat sarcastically hinted at earlier, a v.e.e. need not necessarily refer to a past event, but could very well refer to afuture event that is incredibly likely.
Furthermore, this same claim is considered a v.e.e. almost universally when it is referred to in Luke, for example.
Now, I'm not immune to the case being argued here about Mark. If the propsal is to remove the mention of Mark from the parenthetical gospel reference, then I'm okay with that. We can refer exclusively to Luke. Or if there's a proposal to tone down the "vast majority" to something more ambiguous like "many", I could accept that. But the wholesale removal of this bit, I can't get behind. I've seen this event referred to as the prime example of a v.e.e. far too many times to accept any argument that it's not, and there's exactly zero chance that any argument that it's a legitimate prophecy should be entertained here.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: Duly noted about civility. It does cut both ways though, which I'm sure you'll second. I agree entirely with every point you've made up above. You're entirely correct in your analysis of the situation and with the anti-religion bias present. It's obvious to any reasonable outside observer. And yes, you're right. Being called a "fundamentalist" in spite of anything and everything you say does make one defensive. The sources should be allowed to speak for themselves. Honestly though, I don't understand what the issue is here. I'm of the impression that most editors on this thread agree with the article as it is currently written. Thanks again for your help. I appreciate it.Rusdo (talk)18:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rusdo: it's not about the article anymore, it's about why it was wrong, and would still be wrong if not for my intervention. I guess Mjolnirpants was right when they said many, many comments above this one thatThis discussion should not be ongoing, but then I felt I needed to respond to all what they were sayingafter that.
MjolnirPants: The mainstream view is absolutely that both Mark and Luke contain a v.e.e. The view that they do not is a minority view in the case of Mark, and a tiny minority view in the case of Luke. That's whyI changed tgeorgescu's formulationmajority of Biblical scholars togreat majority of Biblical scholars. I'm absolutely fine with the article as it is,last edited by me. What I was not fine with isthis revision, which wrongly stated thatthe Gospels were all written after the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that the dating of Markdoes not change the fact that both sides to the dispute agree that the "little apocalypse" isvaticinium ex eventu, which was a creative (not to say,WP:SYNTH-ish) interpretation of Beavis 2007 that directly contradicted Liefeld & Pao 2005 as cited in the note before.
Now if rejecting mainstream science (just take a look at the sources quotedhere) on the purported basis thatreligious believers definitely don't like the dates, but that doesn't mean that their scholarship has been accepted by those outside of their religion,followed up byYou don't think that earlier dates are ones being promoted by Christian apologists? If no, how can we get on the same page. There is obviousmotivated reasoning present in these arguments [...], isn't anti-religious bias to you, I'm not sure what youwould consider as anti-religious bias. Of course it's also a bias in favor of other editors' (unargued and unsourced) positions, and of course it's also due to a lack of familiarity with the sources, but the rationaleactually given is not 'my friends are usually right' or 'I haven't looked at the sources, but I just know you're wrong', it's 'religious people believe this, but religious people are pushing for all kinds of nonsense, so it must be wrong'. It's a perfectly validsyllogism, but the second premise (all religous people push for nonsense) is wrong, and clearly biasedagainst religious people. I hope you can appreciate my reasoning here, and if not, let's just agree to disagree.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)18:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and address this directly and in detail, since you don't seem to want to let it go.
I don't find your accusations of bias against jps credible, based on what I know about jps, what I know about this discussion, and what I know about WP as a whole. I'll not go into detail why, because I find that counterproductive.
However, I must point out that arguing about bias is one of the absolute worst tactics one can take on Wikipedia. It willnever win you an argument, unless you can prove that the bias in question is not only real (which means it must be obvious toany reasonable person), but also that it poses a tangible threat to the neutrality of the article or topic in hand. Even if it's not pertinent to the topic at hand, as is the case here, making or agreeing with such accusations immediately raises the temperature of the discussion, making it less of a discussion and more of a fight.
In virtually all situations, such an accusation will result in making the whole discussion less civil and all the participants less willing to change their minds or arrive at a consensus. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that thebattleground mentality that has resulted in literally every single imposition ofdiscretionary sanctions on a topic originated with two editors calling each other biased.
If someone seems biased to you, my advice is not to point this out unless you're quite certain that you can convince a handful of uninvolved admins that the person in question istrying to conform the article to their beliefs, because those are the only circumstances under which such accusations are helpful.
Now that that's said, I'd like to apologize for the tone I took the first time I addressed this. I should have been more decorous in responding, explaining myself more fully and explaining that I'm still willing to discuss any other topic. I most likely gave off a much more heated impression than was true, owing to my brevity and emphatic delivery, and that's not the case.
MjolnirPants I couldn't have said it better myself. You're exactly right about accusations of bias and how they don't contribute to helpful discussion. I didn't appreciate the references to fundamentalist bias, but apology accepted. Next time, please don't jump to conclusions so quickly. (By the way, for what it's worth, I think you're right about theGenesis article.)Rusdo (talk)23:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside observer, it seems like@Tgeorgescu: is simply refusing toWP:Listen. The user is saying that there are mainstream sources that do suggest that Mark was written before AD 70, and Tgeorgescu simply puts hands in his ears and keeps shouting "it's not mainstream consensus". Very puerile and childish behavior from someone who spends 45% of his Wikipedia career on ANI threads --JimboBuckets99 (talk)22:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if the pre-70 AD is either credible minority or fringe view. In both cases it is ared herring, as[1] shows. AsMary Ann Beavis argued, both the pre-70 AD camp as the post-70 AD camp agree that Mark 13 isvaticinium ex eventu. So the dating of the gospel is irrelevant in such respect. In the best case OP's edits areoriginal synthesis and in the worst case areWP:TE.Tgeorgescu (talk)23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is in fact true, and@Tgeorgescu: was NOT arguing that Mark's overall date pre-70 is fringe, then I think there is a point to be made. I read part of it as violation ofWP:LISTEN, but if Tgeorge is willing to concede that mainstream sources DO in fact date Mark as a whole pre-70 (usually around 65-66), then I have no problem, so long as it can be shown that 1 chapter of it is at dispute and not the whole of itJimboBuckets99 (talk)23:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AsAchar Sva wrote(As Perkins makes clear, a pre-70 date is very much a minority), see[2]. I don't put all my money on it either being fringe or mainstream minority view. The pre-70 camp could argue that the end of that war became predictable, or that it is a later edit to the gospel, or some other reason, anyway, they agree it is v.e.e.Tgeorgescu (talk)01:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JimboBuckets99: He was arguing that, but he changed his mind mid mid-discussion. I'm not sure why the 70 AD date for Mark has become such an issue for@Tgeorgescu:. That's not the main point of my edits. My focus was on the Gospel of Luke. If Tgeorgescu had such a big problem with the way that I phrased the pre-70 AD view, he could've corrected it and edited it to make it better. Instead, he just removed my addition completely. Again, that was a side note in my post. My post focused on the Gospel of Luke citation. I wasn't taking a stand on the reference on Mark one way or the other. I just don't understand the knee jerk reaction against my entire post when the issue (apparently) was two or three words.Rusdo (talk)01:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is simple: we do not water down the mainstream view (academic consensus). Even if I grant you the point that pre-70 AD is a legitimate view,it does not follow what you claim (i.e. it does not follow that those versesaren't v.e.e.). It does not follow because it failsWP:V: it isyour own inference that a pre-70 AD dating would preclude it being a v.e.e. Wikipedia does not work that way, since original research andoriginal synthesis are banned. Editors are not allowed to draw inferences from existing scholarly literature, they may only abstract (summarize) what thoseWP:RS explicitly say. ToWP:Verifiy your claim you would have toWP:CITE a modern, mainstream Bible scholar who explicitly stated that those verses aren't v.e.e. And I'm afraid that'sWP:FRINGE even if the pre-70 AD dating isn't fringe.
The New Testament gospels have an interesting example of Vaticinium ex eventu. The first gospel written,according to scholars, was theGospel of Mark. Scholars date the Gospel of Mark from the late 60s C.E. to the early 70s C.E.[1] with most scholars preferring the later date[2]. Mark gives Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of theSecond Temple the following way: "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." (Mark 13:14 NRSV) The Gospel of Luke, written after Mark, changes the phrasing: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains." (Luke 21:20-21)
Which are yourWP:SOURCES? Britannica, Perkins and the Bible (the later is banned according toWP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Neither Britannica nor Perkins (at that specific page) say anything about v.e.e. (Although Perkins makes some point about Mark 13, she does not explicitly state anything about v.e.e. at that very page.) So, original synthesis is written all over your edit in big shinny letters.
The sources from the 1920s are too old to warrant serious consideration.
However, this is disputed. Atheist New Testament scholar James Crossley[3], liberal theologianJohn Robinson[4], and biblical scholarCraig Evans all date at least one of the gospels pre-70 AD.
@JimboBuckets99: Help me out here. What am I missing? Nothing in my edit says anything any which way about whether or not Mark is or isn't v.e.e. My comment was about the reference in Luke being a v.e.e. One more time Tgeorgescu. I'll put it in bold for you one more time:my comment was about Luke. If you had a problem with what I said about Mark, you could've rephrased it instead of deleting my entire edit.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRusdo (talk •contribs)
Mark or Luke: I don't care about that, either. What I care is that you alone are drawing the inferences instead of summarizing what full professors from reputable universities have written. And, of course, Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, that's the mainstream view.Tgeorgescu (talk)02:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's my point exactly. That was the point of my addition. Luke copied Mark's phrasing and altered it to fit the events that occurred. That is a v.e.e. This is what is discussed in the sources that I cited. Again, I'm not seeing what the issue is here.Rusdo (talk)02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were trying to peddle the POV that those verses from Luke or Mark aren't v.e.e. And you choseWP:SYNTH as the means to proclaim your POV.
Tgeorgescu, could you provide a diff that shows where Rusdo implied in any way that either the verses from Luke or Mark would not be v.e.e.? I've been looking a bit into this, and it appears to me like you may be chasing a ghost. It seems that their concern is rather that there is a minority scholarly view which dates Mark to slightly before 70 CE, and that they would like WP to reflect this important nuance.Apaugasma (talk|contribs)03:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AsMary Ann Beavis argued, a pre-70 AD dating of any NT gospel is irrelevant to the articleVaticinium ex eventu, since neither of the two sides of such debate denies that the "prediction" of the destruction of the Temple is v.e.e. So, I'm not concerned with a post-70 AD dating I'm not concerned with a pre-70 AD dating, since both are irrelevant to the article. A pre-70 AD dating is ared herring in respect to our article. Rusdo knows full well that they cannotWP:CITE anyWP:Verifiable statement which denies that those verses are v.e.e. from the book of any recent mainstream Bible scholar. I don't think that oneWP:RS with a clear, verifiable statement that those verses aren't v.e.e. would be too much to ask. Otherwise our encyclopedia would go to the dogs ofWP:OR andWP:SYNTH.
This is a verbatim quote from her work:
In Mark 13, Jesus similarly imparts revelations to his successors—and to the audience of Mark's time—about how the future will unfold after he has departed.
Since the discourse begins with a prophecy that the temple will be destroyed (13:2), and a war in Judea is foretold in 13:14—20, most scholars interpret it as referring to the events surrounding the destruction of the temple in AD 70, although there is vigorous debate as to whether the apocalypse was composed during the first Jewish war (AD 66—70), or shortly afterward. Either way, it belongs to a time when Jerusalem was either about to be desolated or had already been razed. On either interpretation, Jesus's prophecies concerning the horrors to befall Jerusalem constitute a vaticinium ex eventu—a prophecy after the event—directed to the Markan community, which is concerned by alarming events taking place in Judea and is vulnerable to being "led astray" (13:6). The intent of the discourse IS not so much to convey esoteric information as to reassure the audience of Mark's time that, although events seem to be spinning out of control, God is still in charge of history (cf. Lane 1974, 446; Moloney 2002, 250-51).
And the academic consensus is that the gospels of Luke and Matthew were even later than the gospel of Mark. So, if the point is made for Mark, it also applies to Luke and Matthew, who copied from Mark.
Agreed that these diffs show an intention of questioning whether the words in Mark are really a v.e.e. based on the dating of that gospel. But this questioning may in itself be legitimate, because if Mark truly dates from before 70 CE, technically the verses in Mark do not constitute a v.e.e. (speaking only of "desolating sacrilege" before 70 CE), and only the verses in Luke do (speaking of "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" after that actually happened). Beavis is a bit loose here in applying the term v.e.e to a putative pre-70 CE Mark, which clearly serves a different point that she is trying to make (that the verses are a form of political eschatology). I didn't check all the sources Rusdo cited, but I wouldn't be surprised if other scholars who hold a pre-70 CE dating for Mark (even if that is clearly a minority viewpoint) also hold that only the verses in Luke constitute a v.e.e.? Isn't it possible that all Rusdo wants is to add that nuance to the article? Sure, their current proposal tends to unduly presuppose a pre-70 CE dating, but with a bit of rephrasing here and there I think it could serve well?Apaugasma (talk|contribs)04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: You're assuming that a pre-70 CE dating is the deal breaker. But there are other ways wherein v.e.e. crept in, e.g. a 2.0 edition by the same author, or a scribe added to it later, or it was written before 70 AD but close enough to it, so that the fate of Jerusalem became apparent to all the parties involved. Anyway, if there areWP:SOURCES which deny that those verses are v.e.e., by all meansWP:CITE them. What we won't and cannot do is replaceWP:V andWP:RS withWP:OR andWP:SYNTH. So, my offer toRusdo still stands:WP:CITE 1 (one) recentWP:RS by a full professor from a reputable university and we're done arguing. Rusdo is thus not singled out for special treatment, but has to fulfill the obligation ofWP:V, which all Wikipedia editors are supposed to fulfill, no exceptions. I don't know why it is such a big issue, sinceWP:SYNTH is banned as a matter of website policy. So we don't allowany editor to beg the question for their POV throughWP:SYNTH. SinceWP:SYNTH is banned, Rusdo has to eitherWP:CITE thatWP:RS or leave discussing this article. His input is not at all appreciated as long as it relies uponWP:OR. I have nothing personal against them, I am simply opposed to POV-pushing and original synthesis. The truth is that this is much ado for nothing: in all these hours spent arguing, Rusdo could notWP:CITE anyWP:RS explicitly verifying their claim that those verses aren't v.e.e. So, instead of ten thousand words of original research, I prefer 1 (one) verifiable citation.Tgeorgescu (talk)06:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you're unduly assuming OR, SYNTH, POV-pushing, etc., without really closely looking at the sources. I just have inspected the sources currently cited in the article, and I was quite surprised to find that they are in fact grossly misrepresented. According toBoyd 1995, the post-70 CE dating of Markis based on the interpretation of Mark 13 as a v.e.e., and Boyd is actually considering argumentsagainst the view that Mark 13 is avaticinium ex eventu and thus against an A.D. post-70 dating. That quite clearly establishes that those who hold the pre-70 CE datingdo not view Mark 13 as a v.e.e. And this is precisely what we find inLiefeld & Pao 2005, who date Mark in the early 60s CE, and discuss the v.e.e. only as something that could have beenadded by Luke. Furthermore, whileHengel 1985 does affirm that most commentators view Mark 13 as a v.e.e., he also points to a scholar who explicitly argues that this is improbable, and another source which discusses the controversy. Finally,Soulen & Soulen 2001 actually records that even the interpretationof Luke as a v.e.e. has been challenged. I do not know enough of this subject so as to confirm that these sources are representative of the scholarly debate (some, like Boyd, seem unreliable), but I do know that the current article text does not at all represent these sources. In fact, Rusdo's proposal does so much better, although it definitely needs rephrasing.
On another note, I think the best way to save time is to assume good faith as much as possible (i.e., try no to chase ghosts), and to thoroughly read up on any subject before entering in a dispute about it. That way, the dispute will be handled more quickly, and if it does take a lot of time, you may actually learn something new along the way. :)Apaugasma (talk|contribs)06:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith and also rely on the sources. For what it's worth, the prophecy in Mark is that the temple will be destroyed and an "abomination of desolation" be placed where it once stood - what this "abomination" was supposed to be remains unclear, but it is clear that if the author of Mark saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem he would have found it easy enough to forecast the fall of the temple. Note that it's the author, not Jesus, who actually makes the prophecy, as is made clear by the comment "let the reader understand" - Jesus was speaking, not writing. But this whole argument looks like a storm in a teacup to me.Achar Sva (talk)07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith has already been thrown out the window here. He told me: "You're up to no good." Once again, I rephrased my edits to include a more detailed discussion of Luke. Those edits were completely reversed, without reason. This user hasn't explained themselves at all. He just reverts edits without actually reading them or rephrasing them in a better way. Very disappointing. My second round of edits contained only a brief mention of Mark. None of this makes any sense.Rusdo (talk)14:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: Well, it is true that some of the cited authors beg to differ from the academic consensus, butthey do render the academic consensus or majority view for what these are (WP:RS/AC requirements). I had already recognized that at[5]. When one's confessions go against their vested interests/beliefs, it is a sign they are telling the truth.Tgeorgescu (talk)18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation given here is a bit off. For one, it appears to be an attempt at Classical Latin rather than Ecclesiastical Latin judging by the vowel length. The correct classical Latin pronunciation would be Latin: [wäːt̪ɪˈkɪnɪ.ʊ̃ˑ ɛks eːˈwɛn̪t̪uː], whereas the Ecclesiastical pronunciation is [vat̪iˈtʃiːnium eks eˈveːntu]. Since I cannot edit to fix this, I would be glad if someone can go ahead and do so.Av = λv (talk)00:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
