Talk:Vaticinium ex eventu

Gospel Dating

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 Matthew may 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.

I'd like to offer several citations for pre-70 gospel dates. Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Mark. New Testament James Crossley (an atheist, not a fundamentalist Christian) dating Mark to late 30s, early 40s. Liberal theologian John Robinson's pre-70 AD dating. Encyclopedia.com article on Mark, also points to a pre-70 AD date. This dissertation from a doctoral student from the University of Birmingham contains a detailed discussion of the subject. Another discussion on dating (pg. 137)

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."

Rusdo (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman has stated:

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!

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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 a historian. He's a textual 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)

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 the WP:FRINGE sort (i.e. biblical inerrantists and conservative evangelicals). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 at WP: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 the conservative 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)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't see any relevance of that quote to this article. Rusdo (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2021 (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)

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)

Sorry to spoil your fun, you have no consensus for your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Those sources (1920, 1925) are too old, please WP:CITE WP:RS from past twenty years (original publication). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the issue with my edits? I don't see the problem. Why do you keep reverting them? What is your issue? Rusdo (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Then fix it. Read the revert 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)

The idea is very simple: we don't maim or distort the mainstream view (majority view of mainstream Bible scholars). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

WP:RS which complies with WP:RS/AC: Boyd, Gregory A. (1 October 2010). Cynic Sage or Son of God?: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 238. ISBN 978-1-60899-953-8. It is very explicit why the majority of mainstream Bible scholars date the Gospel of Mark after 70 AD. Stick with the academic consensus, we don't need vagaries from outside it.

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 a vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the event). Three general considerations, however, lead us to judge this argument inconclusive.

— Boyd 2010: 238

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Also, did you notice that your source disputes the post 70 AD dating? Rusdo (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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 to WP:RGW Wikipedia is not the venue for re-litigating their loss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)