michael wellenberg

My argument against the temple´s having already been destroyed when Mark wrote was that it is highly probable that Mark would have used any passage in prophetic literature that could be read as allusion to such an event in order to back up Jesus´prediction. He would have been most satisfied to tell his audience that Jesus´ threat was already realised “as it has been said in scripture”.
There is no need of any other prophecy apart from such OT passages I have cited. It would suffice that Mark inherited Jesus´prediction.
So your view that the prediction of the temple´s destruction was a fulfilled prophecy since there were no 1st century predictions to this event loses weight though it is still possible. But it is not supported by this argument.
There seem to have been such predictions (see C. A. Evans “Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Scrolls, and Related Texts”, JSP 10 (1992), pp. 89-147). I do not, however, regard them as necessary.

To suggest that for Mark it remains a prediction only expected in the future is still reasonable. It can easily be expected of Jesus to make such a prediction which is also referred to in Mk 14:58 and 15:29, even if 13:1-2 is not read as such.
By his action in the temple he clearly demonstrates an opposition to the temple in its present state and to its leaders responsible for this.

You should read the passage about the mountain in its context. Try and follow for the moment my suggestion that the fig tree refers to the temple leadership :

cursing the fig tree (11:12-14) - opposing temple leaders

throwing out traders (11:15-17) - opposing temple leaders

removing the vineyard´s tenants (12:1-9) - opposing temple leaders

Then the prayer that the mountain might thow itself into the sea (11:22-24) fits in perfectly - opposing temple leaders.

So the prayer is not necessarily to be read as a substitute for atonement of sins after the temple´s destruction. It can refer to the prayer´s ability to obtain the impossible which is in this case the temple hierarchy being destroyed. That the political leadership had in fact been overturned when Mark wrote is a possible view with which I do not agree since it is not supported by this passage.

Barabbas was a rebel - we agree on this. The fact, however, that the two lestai were crucified does not imply that they were rebels, too.
I suspect your argument to run like this :
the two lestai were in strict sense not robbers but insurrectionists because they were crucified since this was the punishment for rebellion. They were called lestai so the den of robbers (leston) means a den of rebels.
But the assumption that the Romans performed crucifixion only for rebels is not evidenced.

Your statement Joe that Mark is a “Historical Commentary on the Destruction of the Temple” assumes as given what should be proven, and you base this assumption on passages that would have to be shown as supporting it.

Such passages like Mk 14:48-49 ; 11:15-17 ; 12:14-17 that you use to get to Mark´s being a war report have in common that they seem to imply that Jesus brings peace not war. But these pieces do not build such a strong base to permit to proceed in the way you do :
since Jesus preached peace and was rejected, and Barabbas preached revolt and was accepted you conclude the Jewish war had already occurred when Mark wrote.
This conclusion is not so unequivocal as you might believe.
If Mark really wished to allude to the historical Jewish war he should have been far more explicit. He could have been in 13:7-8, for example.
But here he only states that if you HEAR of wars and rumours of wars do not be anxious, and that one nation will rise against the other and one KINGDOM against the other – not very specific for the Jewish war, don´t you think ?

Michael

michael wellenberg

To my previous post I have to add a perhaps significant link between Jesus´action in the temple and the vineyard parable. In both cases the high priests and scribes plot to kill Jesus. So this clearly indicates that the temple action, too, is an attack on them and not on revolutionaries.

Michael

JoeWallack

He Was The King


JW:
"pre 70 authors of the 1st century" are a little hard to come by. I'll concede that there could be a Qumran writing claiming Elsus' Spirit had left the Temple Building and was Headlining at The Desert Inn just like the Good El days making the Temple vulnerable to destruction. But I'd like you to quote the specifics here. Otherwise we might just have a JP Holding like reference:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html#mk617

" A prediction of the destruction of the Temple is hardly unique anyway. First, destruction of the temple (or Jerusalem) would not be too wild a guess, in light of how turbulent relations with the Romans were. Second, several contemporaries of Jesus made similar predictions; they were a dime a dozen, and seemingly about as common as modern Americans suggesting blowing up the White House. The most familiar of these predictors, mentioned by Josephus, was Jesus the son of Ananias, a bit of a madman who made predictions of the Temple's destruction between 63-70 AD [ibid., 15]...

Therefore, there is no reason to use this section of Mark 13 as an argument for dating the whole of Mark at 70 or later."


JW:
For starters, Holding is not referencing an author here. Let's go to the actual Source (Stephen Carlson, look out!):

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war6.html

"But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him."


JW
Note that what we are arguing is whether "Mark's" prediction of the Temple being destroyed is evidence of post destruction authorship. According to Josephus this Jesus says "a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house" so at most there is an Implication of some destruction. More important though is the reported Reaction to this. Jesus is treated as crazy which is evidence that such a claim was rare.

Indirectly related are all the parallels to "Mark's" Jesus:

"Jesus"

"came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple"

"a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house"

"However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before."

"Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"


JW:
Actually we see here Michael the best contemporary author to compare "Mark" to, Josephus. Josephus writes above:

"Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man,"

Josephus is writing after the fact, that his Jesus was prophetic towards the Temple's destruction.

The best author to compare "Mark" to in terms of Belief is Paul. Paul is the prolific Christian writer of middle first century. Paul's belief can be sonned up as Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for atonement. Therefore, the Temple became unimportant. Yet Paul's writings show no evidence of prediction, Paul's or anyone else's, of the destruction of the Temple. A prediction which would have fit perfectly with Paul's theology. The simple explanation is because no Christian had made it at the time Paul wrote.

Related evidence that "Mark" wrote of the Temple's destruction after the destruction is that the early Christians were based in Jerusalem. Presumably they were in Jerusalem because that was the center of Judaism and where the Temple was. We have no evidence that these Christians boycotted the Temple. It would be strange for them to stay in Jerusalem if the original Gospel predicted the Temple and Jerusalem's destruction before the destruction occurred.

Now, let's get back to the Historical choice of The Jews between Peace and War. Back to Josephus and the guts of Destruction:

"Yet was the misery itself more terrible than this disorder; for one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it, that the blood was larger in quantity than the fire, and those that were slain more in number than those that slew them; for the ground did no where appear visible, for the dead bodies that lay on it; but the soldiers went over heaps of those bodies, as they ran upon such as fled from them. And now it was that the multitude of the robbers were thrust out [of the inner court of the temple by the Romans,] and had much ado to get into the outward court, and from thence into the city, while the remainder of the populace fled into the cloister of that outer court."


JW:
So in the heart of destruction Josephus notes:

"And now it was that the multitude of the robbers were thrust out [of the inner court of the temple by the Romans,] and had much ado to get into the outward court, and from thence into the city,"

There are those "robbers" I've talked so much about. And what do you suppose the related Greek word is Michael (hint - starts with "L")? No, "Mark" really isn't that subtle in displaying knowledge of Josephus. PJ is probably right that this is pretty good evidence that "Mark" was written well after the Temple destruction.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
The Use Of The Same Names In "Mark":

1) Mary:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:40

And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:47

And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid. (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16:1

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. (ASV)


JW:
"Mark" appears to identify 3 different "Marys":

1) The Mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon

2) The Mother of James and Joses

3) Mary Magdalene


Comparing the two mothers above, 1) and 2), "Mark" gives us the following descriptions:

1) The Mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon

1 - Mother

2 - No husband mentioned

3 - The Mother of Brothers

4 - The Mother of Sisters

2) The Mother of James and Joses

1 - Mother

2 - No husband mentioned

3 - The Mother of Brothers

4 - The Mother of a Sister

The matching up of descriptions here is reMarkable. Just how remarkable each must decide for herself. That these two are both ID'ed without a husband is especially interesting. I also find interesting that the later Witness Mary has less children. The Author was even kind enough to ID the related James as "the less".

This than is the Starting point. Match up Descriptions of the Same names. Than compare the result to expectations for History Verses Fiction.

As a background, "Mark" has written a basically Impossible story so we can be certain that the basic story is Fiction and not History. This leads to one of Wallack's rules of History:

1) Details in Historical writings are Probably Historical.

2) Details in Fictional writings are Possibly Historical.

Therefore, without other quality information to assist, that "Mark" identified any character as "Mary" only makes it Possible that "Mary" was Historical. To the extent Internal evidence indicates related Contrivance this makes it more likely that the name itself (Mary) is Contrivance (Fictional).

Let's also look now at the Actions attributed by "Mark" to these two Marys:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_3

"And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him.

And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee."


JW:
So Jesus' Mother was standing Outside Looking for Jesus.


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15

"And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;" (ASV)

So too is the other Mary standing "outside" and Looking for Jesus.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him." ASV

Now they are standing "inside" but still Looking for Jesus.

Sounds like Contrivance to me Ben.

And the Mother of James and Joses just happened to be Witnessing the crucifixion. And it just happened to be a Joseph who claimed the body. And it just happened to be a Mary, mother of Joses, who witnessed where Jesus was deposited.

Now what's that Word I Am looking for? Starts with a "C". Someone, anyone, Bueller?


Joseph

"The fleeced thought they were white as snow." - Joses

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Where is the mother of James and Joses described as being the mother of a sister?

Agreed. And it gets even a little bit worse when one reads the Hegesippus fragments in Eusebius. This is (and always has been) a thorny problem, and one which you do not appear to have solved.

Cheers.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
You're right. Thanks.


JW:
Only a problem for those looking for History. For those looking for Fiction it's a Solution. Obviously coincidences are easier explained with a small sample. As I've said many times, Counter-missionaries have the best apologies:

1) The author used the same formula to identify people.

2) Mary was a common name.

3) Jesus Marketed to this demographic.

As we expand the sample in "Mark" though:

"Simon":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1:16

"And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers." (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_3:18

"and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean," (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him." (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:3

"And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly; [and] she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head." (ASV)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:21

"And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross." (ASV)


JW:
So in sumMary we have Two Simon Insiders/Disciples, Two Outsider Simons and a Brother Simon. Simon the greater Disciple is introduced to us as a Brother. Simon the Brother is only refered to in the context of being Jesus' brother, standing Outside while Looking for Jesus. Consider that Simon is probably the most (in)famous Insider Jesus supposedly knew and consider that in "Mark's" gospel he appears to be reproducing faster than your own Namesake in The Matrix.

More coincidence Ben? I have to warn you that there is a limit even to my Apologies.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

More? I was waiting for the first.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
While I Am waiting for Vardaman's book quoting Beyer which was used by Finegan to prove that Herod the Great died 2 BCE, used by Hannity to prove that Iraq did have WMD and used by Crocker to prove that Fairies Exist! I thought I'd share with the Unfaithful here the following from JP Holding which I think should be a serious contender for the annual Jefferey B. Gibson Selective Quotation, Misrepresentation and Overstatement Award.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html#pete

"Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke. He is also the most "true to life" character in the Gospel other than Jesus: Kelber [Kelb.OWG, 68] observes that in Mark, "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus. There are also many personal touches reflecting Peter, including the frequent and incidental mention of his house (5 times in Mark); phrases such as "Simon and his companions" (1:36) and Andrew being identified as Simon's brother (1:16); and the direct address to Simon by Jesus (14:37). Many third-person verses, if shifted to first- or second-person, would fit right in the mouth of Peter. (1:29, 5:1, 5:38, 6:53-4, 8:22, 10:32, 11:1, 14:18, etc. - [Mart.NTF, 212]) Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (or via: amazon.co.uk) [179-80] adds to this evidence other special constructions, such as an inclusio (framing device) that indicates Peter as the source of the material; "internal focalization" in the accounts that indicates Peter as their source.

Mark's Gospel has the character of an eyewitness account. As would be expected if the material found its source in an eyewitness, the use of incidental details and characters matches the way an eyewitness account would be composed. Beck notes of the character of Mark's Gospel [Beck.TGJ, 84]:

His vivid language arrests the reader. The Spirit drives Jesus, his followers hunt him out, he sighs deeply. The demoniac hacks himself, the blind man leaps up, the great crowd jostles Jesus or sits like garden plots on the green grass.

And Kelber, although he does not make the connection that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's preaching, observes [Kelb.OWG, 66]:

The prolific use of the third person plural instead of the passive is in keeping with the popular style of storytelling.

Pritchard [Pritch.Lit, 37-44] offers correspondence with our determination criteria. He points out that a literary analysis of Mark indicating that someone very like Peter (as we conventionally recognize him) was behind it: Mark's Gospel has a limited vocabulary (1330 words) and was written in "man on the street" Koine Greek; the rhetorical devices used are few in number and are the sort that would be used by someone who was uneducated; and, it bears an uncomplicated sentence structure: "Its sentences are made like the speech of the less educated men, upon whom the niceties of logically subordinated ideas are largely wasted." (! - Nice words about Peter, eh!)

Obviously, one who is desperately conspiracy-minded might suggest that all of this could be faked, but this would suggest a literary artistry beyond what the author of the second Gospel evidences otherwise (i.e., faking being uneducated). Further, it has been objected that much of Mark looks like "community tradition" rather than a personal account - although remember that it is not held that ALL of Mark's material came from Peter, and at any rate, the community had to get the material from somewhere! [Mart.NTF, 204-5] The most parsimonious explanation for the above is not some wild conspiracy, but that Mark's Gospel was created "essentially on the basis of traditions imparted by Peter" [Reic.Root, 57] and on his preaching - just as Papias indicates."


JW:
Holding specifically refers to Werner Kelber here:

"Kelber [Kelb.OWG, 68] observes that in Mark, "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus."

"And Kelber, although he does not make the connection that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's preaching, observes [Kelb.OWG, 66]:
The prolific use of the third person plural instead of the passive is in keeping with the popular style of storytelling."


JW:
And so Holding uses Selective quotations of Kelber to try and support Holding's Conclusion that "Mark" is Dependent on a Mark's connection to Peter.

In fact in Werner Kelber's book on the subject, Mark's Story of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), Kelber's primary point is the Opposite of Holding's Conclusion. Kelber argues that "Mark" was written by an Opponent of Peter whose main purpose was to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus with the Implication that "Mark" had no connection to Peter whatsoever. This is the reason why Kelber says "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus.". Peter is the most developed supporting cast member in "Mark" and relatively more developed than in the other Gospels because of the Motivation by the author to discredit him.



Joseph

What is the only country never to let "The Jews" in?

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Speaking of misrepresentation ... if you are going to accuse Holding of mis/selectively quoting Kelber, you might at least do us the kindness of demonstrating this by using the actual book that Holding draws his Kelber quotes from (i.e., The Oral and the Written Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk)) , and not a book of Kelber's (Mark's Story of Jesus) to which Holding does not refer and from which he does not quote.

And what's with the capitalization of "unfaithful"?

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Well what else can I say to you but Congratulations (on being the winner of the inaugural award).



Joseph

"I hate actors!" - Raul Julia

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page