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)

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)

You're performing WP:RGW and you are entering WP:IDHT territory. Wikipedia does not have sympathy for academic losers (POVs which lost the support of the mainstream academia). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

By the way, Boyd is not disputing something he considers to be an objective fact. That's just silly. Rusdo (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

So, you claim that that WP:RS/AC claim wouldn't be an objective fact? Which are your sources? You're the one making funny remarks around here. And stuff like WP:RGW and WP: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 debate by a large margin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, from the Gospel of Mark written during that Jewish-Roman war it does not follow that the little apocalypse isn't vaticinium ex eventu. That would be simply WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, a red herring for our article.

So, even if it would be set in stone that it was written before 70 AD, it still does not WP:Verify your POV. Since both the defenders and the opponents of a post-70 AD dating agree that it is vaticinium ex eventu. I know it sounds paradoxical to newbies, but that is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says.

And that is because Wikipedia is based upon WP:Verifiable information from reliable sources instead of editors applying logic and evidence on their own, which is banned by WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Well, then report me. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. And I would settle for red herring instead of WP:FRINGE about the pre-70 AD dating. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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, but Mary Ann Beavis's. She wrote very clear prose thereupon, so I don't know what would be erratic 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't my own problem, it is a problem of how you read Beavis's scholarship. It is her view, not mine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, that's the mainstream view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to recall that Wikipedia follows the best sources and it seems to me that User:Tgeorgescu is providing sources that conform to that mandate. I do not see the sources that User:Rusdo is offering as being considered better in terms of citations or lacking criticism. I do see some criticism of the WP: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)

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)

Sources can be used in a way to promote one's religious belief. That's not particularly surprising, is it? jps (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear ජපස (jps), I review the sources currently cited in the article below (one of the last comments in #Back-and-Forth Discussion Copied from DRN). I don't think they are the best sources, but it's clear that Tgeorgescu hasn't looked at them carefully, and Rusdo's proposal actually represents them somewhat better. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Totally disagree. I think Rusdo's proposal is fairly skewed. jps (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Well, the discussion was from the very beginning if the view the verses from Mark/Luke aren't v.e.e. is sizeable minority, tiny minority, or WP:FRINGE. In the later two cases, Wikipedia defaults to not rendering it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the majority view is clearly that the verses from Mark constitute v.e.e. However, that they do not constitute v.e.e. also clearly neither is a tiny minority view nor fringe: of the 5 sources cited, 2 actually hold that view (Boyd 1995 and Liefeld & 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 the weight that it's due) in the article. I suggest ditching 3 of the 5 sources, and keeping only Martin Hengel 1985 (one of the most authoritative scholars in Biblical studies, conveniently reporting that the majority of scholars see Mark as constituting v.e.e., but some don't) and Soulen & Soulen 2001, who cite the great Rudolf Bultmann for the view that the verses in Luke constitute v.e.e., and N. 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)

OK, done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've changed the wording a bit, but it now looks good to me. Rusdo, what do you think? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Apaugasma Thank for helping out. I appreciate working with someone actually trying to come to a consensus. Much appreciated. Rusdo (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

One final comment to jps, the possibility 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)

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)

Usually, I align my biases to the mainstream academia, not the other way around. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• 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 of vaticinium 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 the wedge strategy, popularized in a different 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Agreed with much of what you say, but you might want to consider that Rusdo is a new editor who was 'welcomed' with this dreadful post (yes, all of that in the first post on his talk, a rather unfortunate habit of Tgeorgescu's with regard to which it should come as no surprise that they arouse defensive attitudes in other editors). Also consider that in their first post above, Rusdo was entirely right in stating that dating all of the gospels after 70 AD is in no way a consensus position among New Testament scholars, that 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, and that though the 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 simply dismissed 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 subsequently edited the page adding sources such as Boyd 1995, Liefeld & Pao 2005 and Hengel 1985 (all of whom date Mark before 70 CE) in a way that as I've pointed 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)

@Apaugasma: I offered several times the solution that Rusdo should WP:CITE WP:SOURCES directly WP:Verifying their claim instead of relying upon WP:SYNTH. That was my take. I.e. that I don't accept their claims unless they cite a source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(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 sometime around 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 of vaticinium ex eventu.

So, regardless of how much slack we might cut an editor who was antagonized into incivility, my comment above is 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 clear from 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 of WP:OR I can excuse, regardless of how understandable any feelings of animosity might be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What convinced me was the name of N.T. Wright. Otherwise I would still have defaulted to tiny minority. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Yes, Mark is usually dated to around 70 AD because of the apparent references in Mark 13 to the destruction of the Temple, but if Mark dates to before 70 AD (and he actually is, for other reasons, often dated to before 70 AD), it technically just isn't a v.e.e., but rather a good guess on the part of Mark's author. So yes, the precise dating of Mark clearly is of some concern here, and that seems to be more a matter of common sense than of OR. It's possible that Rusdo just inferred this for themselves, but since sources like Liefeld & Pao 2005 explicitly do make the connection between a pre-70 AD dating (which they hold) and Mark not constituting a v.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 in Gospel 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 constitute v.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 like Josef Ernst who think it improbable that Mark represents a v.e.e. (see Hengel 1985), while a scholar like N. T. Wright even denies a v.e.e. for Luke (see Soulen & 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 in Gospel 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)

@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)

(ec) but if Mark dates to before 70 AD (and he actually is, for other reasons, often dated to before 70 AD), it technically just isn't a v.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 your own 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 in Gospel 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 constitute v.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 was explicitly 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 why Genesis creation narrative is not called "Genesis creation myth", despite the fact that it is literally the 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're Atheists, not Antitheists. 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 are actually 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 a trout).
4. 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)

What part of "we're done here" was not clear? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was the part "we". Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It's as plural inclusive. Kinda the opposite of "Y'all". And if you give it ED it, rather than getting depressed, becomes rather groovy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

1. The first issue was WP:FRINGE or tiny minority vs. mainstream view; that has been settled by the name of N.T. Wright;
2. 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;
3. The third issue is that I have invited you several times to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES, which you did not, after I explained you in detail the necessity to cite your sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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 to me explaining why it's such a horrible argument, and to top it all off, it's violation of Wikipedia's policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Rusdo: please refrain from commenting on other editors' intentions; it's absolutely essential to this text-only medium to assume 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 that N.T. Wright doesn't regard Luke as v.e.e. was already present in the article, but apparently left unread. 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, 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 that religious 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 explicit anti-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)

@Apaugasma: That's why is better to explain politely what the sources say rather than beat the dead horse of the pre-70 AD dating. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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 get anywhere 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 is not 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 a future 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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 that This discussion should not be ongoing, but then I felt I needed to respond to all what they were saying after 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 why I changed tgeorgescu's formulation majority of Biblical scholars to great majority of Biblical scholars. I'm absolutely fine with the article as it is, last edited by me. What I was not fine with is this revision, which wrongly stated that the Gospels were all written after the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that the dating of Mark does not change the fact that both sides to the dispute agree that the "little apocalypse" is vaticinium 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 quoted here) on the purported basis that religious 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 by You 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 obvious motivated reasoning present in these arguments [...], isn't anti-religious bias to you, I'm not sure what you would 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 rationale actually 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 valid syllogism, but the second premise (all religous people push for nonsense) is wrong, and clearly biased against 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)

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 will never win you an argument, unless you can prove that the bias in question is not only real (which means it must be obvious to any 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 the battleground mentality that has resulted in literally every single imposition of discretionary 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 is trying 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.

As far as the original topic goes, I think we're in enough agreement that there's no need for me to elucidate all the ways in which we agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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 the Genesis article.) Rusdo (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't apologizing to, or even speaking to you. You accused me of being "here just to attack and disparage religion"; that warrants an apology, but not on my part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion Copied from DRN

As an outside observer, it seems like @Tgeorgescu: is simply refusing to WP: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)

I don't care if the pre-70 AD is either credible minority or fringe view. In both cases it is a red herring, as [1] shows. As Mary Ann Beavis argued, both the pre-70 AD camp as the post-70 AD camp agree that Mark 13 is vaticinium ex eventu. So the dating of the gospel is irrelevant in such respect. In the best case OP's edits are original synthesis and in the worst case are WP:TE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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 of WP: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 it JimboBuckets99 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As Achar 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)

@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)

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 verses aren't v.e.e.). It does not follow because it fails WP:V: it is your 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 and original synthesis are banned. Editors are not allowed to draw inferences from existing scholarly literature, they may only abstract (summarize) what those WP:RS explicitly say. To WP:Verifiy your claim you would have to WP:CITE a modern, mainstream Bible scholar who explicitly stated that those verses aren't v.e.e. And I'm afraid that's WP: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 the Gospel of Mark. Scholars date the Gospel of Mark from the late 60s C.E. to the early 70s C.E. with most scholars preferring the later date . Mark gives Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Second 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 your WP:SOURCES? Britannica, Perkins and the Bible (the later is banned according to WP: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, liberal theologian John Robinson, and biblical scholar Craig Evans all date at least one of the gospels pre-70 AD.

Again, who draws the inference that a pre-70 AD dating precludes v.e.e.? It is you alone. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusdo (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)

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)

You were trying to peddle the POV that those verses from Luke or Mark aren't v.e.e. And you chose WP:SYNTH as the means to proclaim your POV.

WP:CITE 1 (one) recent WP:RS by a full professor from a reputable university and we're done arguing. But, no, you don't want that: you want to push your POV through WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

As Mary Ann Beavis argued, a pre-70 AD dating of any NT gospel is irrelevant to the article Vaticinium 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 a red herring in respect to our article. Rusdo knows full well that they cannot WP:CITE any WP: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 one WP: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 of WP:OR and WP: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.

Diffs which make their intention clear: [3] and [4] (they have already admitted they're the IP). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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 are WP:SOURCES which deny that those verses are v.e.e., by all means WP:CITE them. What we won't and cannot do is replace WP:V and WP:RS with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So, my offer to Rusdo still stands: WP:CITE 1 (one) recent WP: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 of WP:V, which all Wikipedia editors are supposed to fulfill, no exceptions. I don't know why it is such a big issue, since WP:SYNTH is banned as a matter of website policy. So we don't allow any editor to beg the question for their POV through WP:SYNTH. Since WP:SYNTH is banned, Rusdo has to either WP:CITE that WP:RS or leave discussing this article. His input is not at all appreciated as long as it relies upon WP: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 not WP:CITE any WP: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)

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 to Boyd 1995, the post-70 CE dating of Mark is based on the interpretation of Mark 13 as a v.e.e., and Boyd is actually considering arguments against the view that Mark 13 is a vaticinium ex eventu and thus against an A.D. post-70 dating. That quite clearly establishes that those who hold the pre-70 CE dating do not view Mark 13 as a v.e.e. And this is precisely what we find in Liefeld & Pao 2005, who date Mark in the early 60s CE, and discuss the v.e.e. only as something that could have been added by Luke. Furthermore, while Hengel 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 interpretation of 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)

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)

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)

What I'm trying to explain is that I'm not arguing against Mark being a v.e.e. He just refuses to see that. Rusdo (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Well, it is true that some of the cited authors beg to differ from the academic consensus, but they 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)

References

IPA Pronunciation

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)

Dear Ido66667, Extended confirmed protection has now been lifted, so you should be able to edit the page. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)