Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 10-09-2006, 05:17 PM

What role might the sack of Jerusalem by Vespasian around 67 CE?

Since we have good reason to believe that all of the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the major turning points that led to the writing of the gospels, the development of the Jesus Myth, and the spread of the religion?

If Paul wrote before this, and all the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the factors that led to major changes?

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 05:28 PM

I believe so, though I don't think you buy into it. In my view, the destruction of Jerusalem in the late 60s destroyed the only legitimate Christian group around - the Jerusalem group led by James Brother of the Lord, a pillar of Christianity. This led the Greek-based Pauline group thrive and grow more fervently and helped the anti-Jewish or pseudo-Jewish groups to flourish.

jgibson000 · 10-09-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What role might the sack of Jerusalem by Vespasian around 67 CE?

The sack of Jerusalem was in 70 and it was done by Titus, not Vespasian. Vespasian was in Rome when the walls of Jerusalem were breached, the Temple was destroyed, and the city was sacked.

Quote:

Since we have good reason to believe that all of the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the major turning points that led to the writing of the gospels, the development of the Jesus Myth, and the spread of the religion?

Why do you not see Mark as being written during the war, especially in its initial stages when it appeared, given the signs in the defat of Cestius Gallus and the death of the idolator Nero and Vespasian's calling a halt to direct attacks against the city in 69 of how God was protecting Jerusalem, that the Zealots cause was divinely sanctioned to prevail? That is what, as Lane and Marcus and other commentators on Mark have shown, makes the most sense of Mk 13 and its call to the elect not to be seduced by Zealot false prophets and Messianic pretenders who claim that in, accordance with Daniel, staying put in Jerusalem and taking a stand against his enemies is what the god of Israel wants his people to do?

And what evidence do you have that the fall of Jerusalem actually spread Christianity, especially to where it did not already have a foothold?

Jeffrey

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

The sack of Jerusalem was in 70 and it was done by Titus, not Vespasian. Vespasian was in Rome when the walls of Jerusalem were breached, the Temple was destroyed, and the city was sacked.

The confusion may have come in since both Titus and Vespasian had the praenomen Titus, belonged to the gens Flavia, and were cognominated Vespasianus. Moreover, the Vespasian and Titus both went to Palestine in 67 CE to crush the rebellion, although it is true that it was in 70 CE that Jerusalem was actually sacked and the Temple destroyed. I suppose I was just assuming this is what Malachi151 meant.

Chris

Vorkosigan · 10-09-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Why do you not see Mark as being written during the war, especially in its initial stages when it appeared, given the signs in the defat of Cestius Gallus and the death of the idolator Nero and Vespasian's calling a halt to direct attacks against the city in 69 of how God was protecting Jerusalem, that the Zealots cause was divinely sanctioned to prevail? That is what, as Lane and Marcus and other commentators on Mark have shown, makes the most sense of Mk 13 and its call to the elect not to be seduced by Zealot false prophets and Messianic pretenders who claim that in, accordance with Daniel, staying put in Jerusalem and taking a stand against his enemies is what the god of Israel wants his people to do?

That interpretation won't work. The writer of Mark 13 is very specific about what would happen: an abomination would be placed in the sanctuary, and that would be the signal to flee. The events would take place in winter -- "pray it would not happen in winter" is a retrojected prophecy -- but the Temple in 70 fell in August. There is nothing that really corresponds to the abomination of the desolation in the events of 70 -- a phrase that refers to a statue placed in the sanctuary. There were only three instances of that, the original reference to the statue of Antiochus IV Epiphanies, Caligula's failed attempt to place his own statue there, and the statue of Hadrian in the revolt of 132-5. Caligula's statue never arrived and did not trigger any horrific events. The best fit with the writer's historical parallel is the statue of Hadrian. Mark dates from after that period.

TE Schmidt pointed out several years ago that Mark 15 depicts a mock triumph in Jesus' suffering. In Rome triumphs ended at a hill surmounted by a Temple, the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. In Jerusalem too there was a hill surmounted by a temple, and in Hadrian's day it was a Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. That is was what the "hill of the skull" -- the crucifixion ground -- was. "Skull" is a reference to head, and no one in the Roman world could fail to make a connection between the hill of the head and capitoline hill. I suspect that the writer, at the climax of his allegorical geography of his imagined Palestine, has Jesus crucified in the Temple.

in sum the writer of Mark knows of a period when there was a Capitoline Temple with a statue of the emperor in it in Jerusalem. There was only one historical period that satisfies that: the Bar Kochba revolt of the 130s.

Vorkosigan

jgibson000 · 10-09-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

That interpretation won't work. The writer of Mark 13 is very specific about what would happen: an abomination would be placed in the sanctuary, and that would be the signal to flee. The events would take place in winter

They will? Is that really what Mark says?

Quote:

There is nothing that really corresponds to the abomination of the desolation in the events of 70 -- a phrase that refers to a statue placed in the sanctuary.

It does? Curious, then, that Mark refers to it as "he". Isn't the rather cryptic nature of this prediction an indication that Mark was unsure of what the AofD was or how it would manifest itself and therefore that it is what you say it is, a retrojected prophecy based on a real -- already having happened -- event?

Quote:

There were only three instances of that, the original reference to the statue of Antiochus IV Epiphanies, Caligula's failed attempt to place his own statue there, and the statue of Hadrian in the revolt of 132-5. Caligula's statue never arrived and did not trigger any horrific events. The best fit with the writer's historical parallel is the statue of Hadrian. Mark dates from after that period.

Only if the AofD is a statue.

Quote:

TE Schmidt pointed out several years ago that Mark 15 depicts a mock triumph in Jesus' suffering. In Rome triumphs ended at a hill surmounted by a Temple, the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

Wasn't it the Temple of Mars?

Jeffrey

Vorkosigan · 10-09-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

They will? Is that really what Mark says?

Well, I don't know how to answer that.

Yes, I think that is what the writer of Mark is saying.

Quote:

It does? Curious, then, that Mark refers to it as "he". Isn't the rather cryptic nature of this prediction an indication that Mark was unsure of what the AofD was or how it would manifest itself and therefore that it is what you say it is, a retrojected prophecy based on a real -- already having happened -- event?

Cryptic prophecy is normal in retrojected prophecies and may occur for many reasons. The writer is no fool and picked the phrase for a particular reason -- if the writer wanted to be vague it was well within his means -- but instead he picks a reference to 1 Macc, in the context of a revolt against an outside emperor who has placed a statue of himself in the sanctuary. That only happened twice in history.

In this case the cryptic reference occurs because the writer is making it do triple duty -- as a historical reference to the past (A Epiphanies), as a reference to current events (Hadrian's statue), and a reference to the place of Jesus' death. The parallels are internal:

Disciples before Councils
Jesus before Sanhedrin

Disciples beaten in Synagogues
Jesus beaten after Sanhedrin Trial

Disciples before Governors
Jesus before Pilate

Disciples brought to trial and "handed over"
Jesus on trial and "handed over"

Brother betrays brother
Judas betrays Jesus

Disciples hated in Jesus' name
Reaction to Jesus' claim to be the Blessed One.

This takes us through Mark 13:13. The very next verse, Mark 13:14, refers to the Abomination. This gives us the crowning parallel:

Abomination Stands in the Desolation
Jesus' Cross Stands on the Temple Mount

Quote:

Only if the AofD is a statue.

Well, it was, historically. If you wish to make the case that the writer is referring to something other than a statue, by all means make it. At the moment, the most reasonable interpretation of AofD is that it is what it was historically, a statue.

Quote:

Wasn't it the Temple of Mars?
Jeffrey

It is my understanding that it was shared with Jupiter and Quirinus.

Michael

the_cave · 10-10-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

in the context of a revolt against an outside emperor who has placed a statue of himself in the sanctuary. That only happened twice in history.

Very interesting point--but in that case let me suggest that the "outside emperor" may simply have been (in the original version of Mark, at least) the Prince of the World--i.e. Beliar, or somebody. (It's possible, I suppose, that this section was re-worked during the time of the Second Revolt.)

Quote:

If you wish to make the case that the writer is referring to something other than a statue, by all means make it. At the moment, the most reasonable interpretation of AofD is that it is what it was historically, a statue.

I still argue that it was the Legio X itself, especially with its various standards--including that of the unclean Boar. (The standards were also poles and crosses of sorts, which could heighten your parallels...) Jerusalem fell in late summer, and so perhaps the first winter season of occupation was remembered rather bitterly. On the other hand, perhaps it was a (dimly?) remembered pre-Revolt prophecy, and Mark is working to make it fit. I admit that the camp of Legio X does not seem to have been on the temple mount itself, but I think that the occupation of the city by it could have been an abomination enough.

(I think it's also possible that the place where the abomination should not stand was the Mount of Olives, the staging ground of the Messiah's return. Instead, it became the staging ground for Legio X, the place where it took up its position and built the siege-engines which helped destroy the city walls.)

NatSciNarg · 10-10-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What role might the sack of Jerusalem by Vespasian around 67 CE?

Since we have good reason to believe that all of the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the major turning points that led to the writing of the gospels, the development of the Jesus Myth, and the spread of the religion?

If Paul wrote before this, and all the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the factors that led to major changes?

This appears to be what Kenneth Humphreys suggests on http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/mark.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusNeverExisted

...
Judaism itself was against the wall. The weakness of its position had been exposed. The Hebrew god had always punished his chosen people because they had failed him: they had not obeyed the Law. But always the Jews had redeemed themselves – and lived to transgress again. But in 135 Judaea was wiped off the map and the nation dispersed. For any individual Jew, the heart of the problem was that the 'covenant' was between the Jewish god and the whole nation of Israel. All had to observe Righteousness. The errors of one bad apple imperilled the whole people.

With the ultimate disaster of 135, for many unhappy Jews the theology of a 'national salvation' (or none at all) no longer gave hope. As Josephus said, God was now with the Romans. Josephus remained a Jew but reasoned the caesars were god's instrument of retribution. No doubt many despondent Jews apostatised and adopted one or other of the pagan faiths. At this low point, the need was thus created for a radical revision of the Jewish faith. The nation of Israel might perish but surely a 'way' could be found for the pious to save themselves? The answer was a new covenant between the individual and his god, for a path to a personal salvation –similar to that on offer from the pagan mysteries.

As the dispersed and desperate bands of Jews struggled with the problem, they must surely have asked, 'How had (Jewish) scripture failed them so badly?' Rather than doubt the veracity of their 'ancient oracles', priests, safeguarding their future role, deliberated and reached the conclusion that the fault was not in the texts but in the Jews themselves.

On cue, as foretold, the Messiah had arrived! – but the Jewish nation – the Jews collectively – had failed to recognize him!! As a result the ferocious god Yahweh had punished the Jews even more mercilessly than he had punished them in the past.

The disaster now made perfect sense. And hope could return. If the righteous individual were to worship this erstwhile messiah, that individual, at least, could be assured of a place in the 'new Israel'. Having decided on the theology, the questions naturally arose, 'Who had been the lost Messiah?' and 'Why had he not been recognised?'

Here, new meanings teased out of old scripture (in good 'midrash' tradition) provided the answer: he would have been in disguise; he would have concealed his messiahship.

The new theology needed to be woven into a convincing story, one that could be read aloud to groups of dispirited Jews. From the moment the proto-Christian priests adopted the conviction that a messiah had been and gone, the hunt was on to identify the missed saviour. Temple records and much else had been lost in the wars (some, of course, secreted away in jars at Qumran to be discovered twenty centuries later) but fragments, half-remembered stories and the rich corpus of pagan mythology would provide the missing detail. If the letters of Rabbi Saul were available to them at all, they contributed only the popular gnostic idea that the 'risen Christ' reigned in heaven and was a wholly spiritual agency, who would descend on a cloud at the End Time.
...

...and it continues in much the same vein, mainly looking at parallels between Mark 13 and the Bar Kochba war.
Not saying that I agree with this, but hopefully this helps you, Malachi151.
Best wishes,
Matthew

Malachi151 · 10-10-2006, 10:17 AM

That makes some sense to me. The problem I see is that the gospels were written prior to 135, I don't buy into late dating of the gospels due to there being so much commentary on them prior to the late dates people try to propose.

So, still , we have to account for the gospels being written between 70 and 140, so the destruction of the temple seems a better source of the initial development of the gospels, while post 135 certianly does show an increase in the religion.

10-09-2006, 05:17 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Role of sack of Jerusalem in rise of Christianity? What role might the sack of Jerusalem by Vespasian around 67 CE? Since we have good reason to believe that all of the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the major turning points that led to the writing of the gospels, the development of the Jesus Myth, and the spread of the religion? If Paul wrote before this, and all the gospels were written after this, cannot this be one of the factors that led to major changes?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2006, 05:28 PM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I believe so, though I don't think you buy into it. In my view, the destruction of Jerusalem in the late 60s destroyed the only legitimate Christian group around - the Jerusalem group led by James Brother of the Lord, a pillar of Christianity. This led the Greek-based Pauline group thrive and grow more fervently and helped the anti-Jewish or pseudo-Jewish groups to flourish.

10-10-2006, 10:17 AM	#10
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	That makes some sense to me. The problem I see is that the gospels were written prior to 135, I don't buy into late dating of the gospels due to there being so much commentary on them prior to the late dates people try to propose. So, still , we have to account for the gospels being written between 70 and 140, so the destruction of the temple seems a better source of the initial development of the gospels, while post 135 certianly does show an increase in the religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.