An earlier dating of the Gospels?

[HarryStotle]

One additional piece of evidence that Mark was authored around 70ce is due to Mark 12:17 mentioning the denarius as payment of taxes in Judea. The coin evidence shows that the denarius was not a common coin in use during Jesus’s time and became common only after 69ce.

It proves nothing on its own but there are several scholarly reasons why Mark is dated as 70ce.

You are going to need to provide some sources for your claim and for the other “scholarly reasons.”

The denarius was a commonly used coin.

This one, a silver one, dated from 37 AD, had Tiberius Caesar’s likeness on it, and corresponds well to Jesus’ description.

12 Caesars

Roman Coins of Tiberius

 

[HarryStotle]

The point about the almost total absence of denarii in Judea earlier than 70 is striking, but I suspect that some of the commenters on that thread may be reading too much into it.

I wouldn’t just suppose this is correct. The denarii were used to pay the wages of the Roman legions and were in common use throughout the Empire from 267 BC until 274 AD, when the emperor Aurelian reformed the currency. The relative availability of the Tyrian shekel in Judaea does not make the case the denarii were uncommon. Even Herod very likely minted his own shekels in Jerusalem for use in the Temple tax payments.

This claim from the prior post is very tenuous.

As for the Roman coin Jesus calls for, a silver denarius , these did exist during the time of his ministry, and they would have borne the likeness of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. But while denarii would have been recognized by people in Jewish Palestine during Jesus’s time, Udoh says, archeological findings suggest they were not the silver coin being used at the time. That coin was the Tyrian shekel.

There is no reason to assume only one silver coin was used and the Gospels do mention the shekels about four times, distinguishing them from the denarius.

These were Tiberius tribute pennies:

Roman Coins of Tiberius

There were a number of bronze coins attributed to Pilate also in circulation.

Roman Coins of Tiberius

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, Harry. That tends to confirm what I had always believed to be the case, that several different currencies were in circulation side by side. What has stuck in my memory all these years, because it seems counterintuitive, is that – so I was told – the denarius and the drachma were treated in everyday use as though they were equivalent in value, although in fact – according to Smith’s Greek and Roman Antiquities, where I have been looking at the tables – the silver content of the drachma was about 20 percent greater. The mint standard, Smith says, was 80 drachmae to the Roman pound, but 96 denarii to the pound. This would give a 6:5 ratio, with six denarii weighing the same as five drachmae. Surely people would have been aware of the difference, and it seems hard to believe that anyone who was expecting to be paid a drachma for his day’s work would willingly accept a denarius instead.

 

[Dovekin]

Pattyit provided a very interesting link that discusses the idea she raised:

https://celsus.blog/2018/01/12/numi...ius-life-of-otho-and-contradicts-the-gospels/

I think you would enjoy reading it. The essentials are that denarii have not been found by archaeologists in Israel dated before 69 AD, and that Vespasian’s Tax on Jews sounds more like the context for the story.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-3e8...8/jc239__77579.1540842893.JPG?c=2&imbypass=on

And this is a sample denarius from the time of Vespasian which totally inverts the story. Who do you see on the coin? Caesar on the front, a captive Judea on the back. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s?

 

[Pattylt]

From what I read of the study, it is referring to the denarius in Judea and is from coin hoards and such. I’m not a scholar so if you want the arguments on the dating of Mark and why, I suggest reading the scholarship. I am not a scholar! I just thought it was an interesting study. I have no opinion on the actual date of Mark, I just follow the scholarship!

Thanks for responding, though.

 

[BartholomewB]

The essentials are that denarii have not been found by archaeologists in Israel dated before 69 AD,

The poster on that thread who uses the name @Celsus writes at one point:

… [O]nly a single prewar denarius has been found in Galilee, though the region attests 75 denarii minted between 69 and 135 CE. The number of denarii is less drastic for the province of Judea as a whole, but still overwhelming: 79 denarii in the period 63 B.C.E.-68 C.E., as opposed to 374 denarii in the period 69-135 CE.

These figures show that, in Judea as a whole, out of every six denarii that archeologists have discovered there, five of the six date from the postwar period (374 out of 453), compared with only one out of six (79 out of 453) minted in the prewar period. But that isn’t to say that the denarius was unknown in prewar Judea. What we haven’t been told here is how many prewar coins have been found from non-Roman issues – how many prewar Greek drachmae, how many prewar Tyrian shekels, how many prewar Persian shekels, and so on. Those are the statistics that would show us how common the denarius was in prewar Judea, compared with other currencies.

 

[Dovekin]

He does give a reference that contains all that info, though it has to be teased out of some charts. That source also cites some rabbinic sources that say the silver in Judea was mostly from Tyre before 70 CE.

Most of the commerce seems to have been in bronze, minted in Jerusalem, and that more than anything explains the absence of denarii. Or that is my impression.

There is one piece of evidence from Celsus that probably overwhelms other evidence: “ a coin hoard discovered at Isfya, which contained coins dating from 40 BCE-53 CE, contained 4,400 Tyrian coins compared to only 160 denarii, of which about 30 were of Tiberius.” 28 to 1 seems pretty decisive!

 

[HarryStotle]

Dovekin:

The essentials are that denarii have not been found by archaeologists in Israel dated before 69 AD,

The poster on that thread who uses the name @Celsus writes at one point:

… [O]nly a single prewar denarius has been found in Galilee, though the region attests 75 denarii minted between 69 and 135 CE. The number of denarii is less drastic for the province of Judea as a whole, but still overwhelming: 79 denarii in the period 63 B.C.E.-68 C.E., as opposed to 374 denarii in the period 69-135 CE.

These figures show that, in Judea as a whole, out of every six denarii that archeologists have discovered there, five of the six date from the postwar period (374 out of 453), compared with only one out of six (79 out of 453) minted in the prewar period. But that isn’t to say that the denarius was unknown in prewar Judea. What we haven’t been told here is how many prewar coins have been found from non-Roman issues – how many prewar Greek drachmae, how many prewar Tyrian shekels, how many prewar Persian shekels, and so on. Those are the statistics that would show us how common the denarius was in prewar Judea, compared with other currencies.

Correct, less common does not imply uncommon.

 

[BartholomewB]

He does give a reference that contains all that info, though it has to be teased out of some charts.

Thank you for that, @Dovekin. I just took another look at the post, but there are so many hyperlinks in it that it’s easy to get lost in the maze. Do you remember where you found those charts? Thanks.

 

[HarryStotle]

The essentials are that denarii have not been found by archaeologists in Israel dated before 69 AD,

Except, that basic claim is untrue. It isn’t that they were not found, but that they were relatively less common.

Clearly, that would make sense because the Jews would be highly dissuaded from accepting a coin with the graven image and inscription that would imply the tacit acceptance of Emperor worship, i.e., the emperor is equal to God. The inscription on the obverse side of the coin was TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS

Latin abbreviation: *DIVI AVG F Augustus Filius - son of the Divine Augustus.

On the reverse side is: PONTIF MAXIM (high priest), Pax (or Livia as Pax)

Think about it: the claim that Augustus, the emperor is the divine high priest would not sit well with the Jews. Most Jews simply wouldn’t go near them, given their high orthodoxy at the time.

Herod even went so far as to mint the shekel in Jerusalem absent any image at all so as to not incite revolt.

 

[dochawk]

hat tends to confirm what I had always believed to be the case, that several different currencies were in circulation side by side

For most of civilized history, coinage was really only a way of measuring the amount of metal. You weren’t really transacting a certain amount of denari or shekels, but a quantity of silver or gold.

Multiple coinages in circulation was the norm. Think for he US term “two bits”–which was actually two eighths of a spanish coin . .

 

[HarryStotle]

The poster on that thread who uses the name @Celsus writes at one point:

… [O]nly a single prewar denarius has been found in Galilee, though the region attests 75 denarii minted between 69 and 135 CE. The number of denarii is less drastic for the province of Judea as a whole, but still overwhelming: 79 denarii in the period 63 B.C.E.-68 C.E., as opposed to 374 denarii in the period 69-135 CE.

There are so many issues with this quote that it is very difficult to know where to begin. However…

1. In 66 CE, Roman governor, Gessius Florus plundered the Temple, claiming the money was for the Emperor. That along with several related issues kicked off the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 CE), which certainly would have disrupted normal commerce, and the availability of currency, so the period of war from 66 C.E.- 73 C.E., which encompassed a portion of the earlier period could explain the relative lack of denarii in circulation since they could have been removed from Judea by the Romans.
2. The fact that @Celsus includes several of the years from the Jewish War in his second period from 69-135 CE., where 374 denarii were found, actually masks what may have been a relative paucity of denarii from 69-73 CE when the war was still going on. The inclusion of those years of war into his second time frame doesn’t tell us anything about the war period from 69-73 CE, in terms of availability of coins in those years. This just seems shoddy scholarship since it buries the actual historical circumstances which may have been a huge factor in the relative availability of coins under the rubric of an arbitrary time period. Why break the periods up the way he did?
3. Rome could very well have decimated the wealth of Judea during the period of the Jewish War such that large numbers of coins could have been removed from the area during those war years. Hence, coins minted prior to the war could have been removed and newer coins returned after 73 CE.
4. The quote “79 denarii in the period 63 B.C.E.-68 C.E.,” may be in error. Does he mean 63 BCE or 63 CE to 68 CE. If the former, the War could very well explain the relative paucity of coins. If the latter, the numbers of coins after 63 CE would have nothing to do with the time of Jesus ~30-33 CE so denarii might have been less common after 63 CE.
5. Assuming the 63 BCE dating is correct, it seems difficult to believe that such a discrepancy of numbers of coins would exist without reason. Clearly the timing of the war appears to be a crucial factor, and that isn’t even mentioned by Celsus.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

1. While discussed in the article linked above, the war seems to be dismissed as having hardly any effect, but merely that “the currency…changed dramatically.”

This was because, after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, the currency and government in Judea changed dramatically. However, prior to this time (and during the time of Jesus) the primary silver currency in Palestine was the Tyrian shekel. For example, a coin hoard discovered at Isfiya, which contained coins dating from 40 BCE-53 CE, contained 4,400 Tyrian coins compared to only 160 denarii, of which about 30 were of Tiberius (Udoh, pg. 235). To be sure, a few denarii made their way to Palestine through circulation, but this proportion shows that Tyrian shekels were the dominant currency that would have been used for taxation in coin.

The problem with relative numbers using single “hoards” doesn’t tell us much. It could be that denarii were still quite common, even though they were relatively less so. Actual numbers in circulation would be a better gauge for whether they would have been relatively accessible.

1. What about the infamous hoard of 675 million denarii by Tiberius (14-37 CE)? How would that have reduced numbers?
2. What role did the Nero’s debasement (64 CE) play in the relative value of denarii before and after 64 CE? He reduced the fineness from the Augustan 97.5 - 98% to the less fine standard of 80-percent. He also reduced the weight of the denarius by 12.5%; he lowered the weight standard of forty-to-the-pound to forty-five-to-the-pound. This allowed him to create forty-five debased denarii for every forty non-debased that were paid in taxes.
   Denarius - Wikipedia
   Wouldn’t that have engendered a whole scale re-minting of coins after 64 CE? Perhaps that accounts for their relative scarcity?

 

[Dovekin]

1. How could the Romans have removed the denarii? 66-70 the revolutionary gov of Israel minted their own coins, many of which ended up under buildings that got knocked down and so were found by archaeologists & included in this discussion. From 70-135 the Roman soldiers were in Jerusalem, causing the uprick in Roman denarii.
2. From 70, the Romans, with their currency, were in Jerusalem. Also, Vespasian began minting coins with his image in 69, distinguishing the coins after 69 from those before.
3. Maybe. How would this happen? The Procurators? They weren’t in Jerusalem.
4. 63 BCE - 68 CE is the period of the Herodian dynasty, truncated by the revolt.
5. The Jewish revolt is covered in the source materials, particularly Ariel’s A SURVEY OF COIN
   FINDS IN JERUSALEM.
6. Actual numbers in circulation would be better. No one has those, so they used coins that survived. Noy a perfect methodology.
7. What about it?
8. Reminted where? By whom? How would they get to Jerusalem?

I hope I answered some of your questions. I don’t really know that much about the topic, just gleaning from the source and web.

 

[HarryStotle]

1. How could the Romans have removed the denarii? 66-70 the revolutionary gov of Israel minted their own coins, many of which ended up under buildings that got knocked down and so were found by archaeologists & included in this discussion. From 70-135 the Roman soldiers were in Jerusalem, causing the uprick in Roman denarii.

They may have minted their own coins but they weren’t denarii with Roman imaging and inscription, were they? Ergo, they wouldn’t be counted as denarii.

Not seeing your point here.

The “uprick” [uptick?] in Roman denarii wouldn’t have been consistent at any time from 30 CE to 135 CE, so again I am not seeing your point unless you provide specifics.

 

[HarryStotle]

Reminted where? By whom? How would they get to Jerusalem?

The Romans themselves would have been highly motivated to re-mint their own coins given the higher silver content and weight of the older coins.

 

[HarryStotle]

1. Maybe. How would this happen? The Procurators? They weren’t in Jerusalem.

The military leaders and soldiers themselves, shaking down the populace and confiscating goods + coins. Nero’s debasement of the coinage happened between 64 and 68, at the beginning of the war. That made the older coins more valuable because they were larger, purer, and contained more silver.

 

[po18guy]

A good resource is Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S. J. It encapsulates each of the 73 books of the bible, revealing the author if known, most probable date of composition, theme, theology, etc.

 

[HarryStotle]

RollTide1987:

I have long wondered why scholars have dated the Gospels to AD 70 and beyond

In his book The Case for Jesus, Brant Pitre makes the argument that you mention – that these “late Gospel” assertions proceed from two skeptical assumptions: first, there’s no way Jesus could have predicted the razing of the Jerusalem temple, and second, any references to such a prediction would have had to have been a later invention by an author or redactor of Scripture. Therefore, by that line of thought, you must place authorship later than the fall of Jerusalem (ca 70 AD). Well, sure… you must – if you think Jesus isn’t God.

Jesus prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem is, indeed, the principal reason for the later dating of the Gospels. The problem, however, is that questions then are raised as to why the Gospel writers, and Luke (Acts) and John (Revelation) never once mention the destruction of the Temple as a completed event. They could have got a great deal of mileage out of that event. They could just as plausibly have used the destruction to effectively promote the Gospel message, so leaving it completely out of the narratives – if it were a past event for them – wouldn’t have made any sense.

The other point is that predicting events can also be done by mere human beings. Daniel prophesied quite accurately the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the end of sacrificial offering and the abomination of desolation, long before Jesus did. So the fact that Jesus, following Daniel, prophesied these things does not entail Jesus couldn’t have voiced his prophecies long before 70 AD and had these recorded in the Gospels long prior to that date.

 

[Dovekin]

I don’t have a point, except to explain what happened in those years.

The rebel government did not mint Roman denarii. No one was minting Roman denarii in or near Jerusalem. That is why there weren’t many. When Roman soldiers took possession of the city, more appeared because they liked to be paid in Roman coin.