neilgodfrey

Could another reason have to do with an intention found in Mark's gospel to further undermine the Twelve? Weeden suggested that the transfiguration scene was a re-write of stories going the rounds of the resurrection appearances to the leaders of the Twelve. Mark consigned an otherwise validating appearance of Jesus to Peter, James and John into an earlier time when those disciples failed to understand. The clue to this is that Jesus tells them in Mark not to breathe a word of the experience till after the resurrection -- thus explaining to readers why they had hitherto thought the story was a post-resurrection event.

Ditto for Mark's need to include the "little apocalypse" that culminates in the fall of Jerusalem. He has to explain why he is setting his narrative so many years prior to 70 c.e. Recall that as late as the 140's c.e. Justin Martyr could assume that the disciples went out evangelizing the world from around the time of the fall of Jerusalem. (Details and references in this table).

The reason is to rationalize Mark's brand of Christianity on the scene -- to justify the claim that so many other Christian communities, in particular those claiming the heritage of the Twelve (or "brothers of The Lord"), are wrong.

Mark 13 explains that the world was evangelized before the fall of Jerusalem, and that the careers of the Twelve were plagued by persecution and deception and being misled by false prophets and messiahs. Mark's gospel significantly shows the Twelve (after the warnings of Mark 13) buckling under persecution and persisting with false ideas of messiahship.

If so, is Mark 13 informing readers that the messages that went out around the time of the fall of Jerusalem were as mixed with error as truth?

And then the final vision of Jesus with which Mark 13 culminates is the vision of judgment on Jerusalem. Seeing the Son of Man coming in clouds is a well known apocalyptic metaphor for the divine retribution on an earthly kingdom. Is Mark wrenching a final twist of the knife into the Twelve -- the Jesus tradition says they saw post resurrection was not the one validating their commission, but the one bringing down judgment upon the base of their "Jewish" form of Christianity?

All of this apparently required "a generation" between the time of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem.

Just thoughts. Too many gaps to know anything for sure??

Neil

DCHindley

Why would people think the prediction of Daniel 9 points to that particular time? I know that some Christian groups ancient and modern find a way to make it so, but what evidence from relatively contemporary non-Christian writers makes this kind of statement. The statements of Josephus and Tacitus about ancient "prophesies" predicting a world ruler both relate it to the time of the rebellion, in the late 60's CE.

Ca. 75 CE. Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.4

But now, what did the most elevate them [i.e., the Jewish revolutionaries] in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

Ca. 105-108 CE. Tacitus, Histories, 5.6.13. [alluding to and expanding upon Josephus War 6.5.4?]

Few people [in Judaea] placed a sinister interpretation upon this [portent of the door of the Temple swinging open on its own with a rushing sound accompanying the event]. The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophesy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this mighty destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth.

This can be explained as reinterpretation of some statement by Jesus about "wars & rumors of wars" to make the destruction of the Jewish temple and the accompanying sacrificial system in 70 CE a prophesy of Jesus.

Unfortunately, Pilate's temperament as described by Josephus (brash and contemptuous of local sensibilities, never afraid to use force where necessary) is at odds with that attributed to him in the Gospels (afraid of a Jewish mob to the point that he will condemn an avowedly innocent man rather than send out the soldiers to knock some heads).

Around 311 CE, co-emperor Maximin Daia published what he claims were the actual Acta (official communications) of Pilate to the emperor about Jesus, which place him somewhere around 20 CE, which is before Pilate's governorship. He had no problem placing Jesus' activities in an earlier time, even though Christian's had put out their Gospels placing it in Pilate's time. What gives??

Not quite. Same problem with the first issue you cited. The Julio-Claudian era ended with Nero around 68 CE and the Flavian era began with the rise of Vespasian in 69 CE. Why start the story 40 years earlier?

I'm seeing estimates for the start of the Age of Pisces that range from 100-90 BCE to 499 CE. That is not very precise. Do you have any sources (Claudius Ptolemy, Vettius Valens, etc) who place this event around 30-40 CE?

DCH

spamandham

No, but there is evidence of usage of the Pisces symbol within early Christianity (not the best link, but it has the picture I'm looking for). I have no idea if this was tacked on later or not, but considering all the fish talk in the Gospels, it seems to fit.

DCHindley

Spam,

Mebbe so, but then again a lot that has to do with early Christian development seems a little fishy.

On the other hand, for all the pagan insinuations, and outright accusations, that the founder of Christianity was a mere magician, early Christians were decidedly anti-magical and seemed to care little about astrological matters or its symbolism.

Modern "sidereal" astrologer Cyril Fagan thinks the most common zodiac in use by the Egyptians and Greeks for astrological purposes was sidereal (360 degrees subdivided into twelve 30 degree "constellations" where 15 degrees of the first sign Taurus is fixed on the star Spica). He figures back the dates in which the vernal point would be passing over the "constellations" in such a scheme. He comes up with the following astrological eras:

Age of Taurus = 4152 BCE - 1955 BCE
Age of Aries = 1955 BCE - 221 CE
Age of Pisces = 221 CE - 2376 CE

[FWIW, the source is _Astrological Origins_ (Llewellyn Publications, 1973 reprint of posthumous 1971 edition, first published 1969, a year before his death in 1970), and I suspect more precise data on how he dates these eras can be found in his _Zodiacs Old and New_ (Llewellyn, 1950/Anscombe, London, 1951), of which I have never been able to find a copy in a bookshop.]

DCH

Minimalist

Aretas III of Nabatea did rule Damascus from about 85 BC to around 62 BC when Pompey overran the region.

There seems to be no historical record of Aretas IV, who died in 40 AD, ever ruling Damascus. When last seen in history Aretas IV is fleeing south from the army of Lucius Vitellius after attacking Herod Antipas' kingdom in the aftermath of Antipas' divorce of his daughter.

So....what was old "Paul" talking about?