mountainman

Constantine considered himself worthy to be buried as the Thirteenth Apostle and in his personal appointment of christian bishops (some suggest as many as 1800 appointments) he considered himself "Bishop of Bishops". However his minister for historical research and public religious communications Eusebius went alot further -- one need only read through the text of "Life of Constantine" which was authored c.337 CE. Here Constantine is thrice referred to as THRICE BLESSED the same as Hermes - the Thrice Blessed Hermes whom Constantine was making redundant with the new Jesus character. Constantine is compared to ancient Jewish prophets and Eusebius lists the fulfilment of ancient prophecies have unfoled with the rule of Constantine, including some from Revelations.

"Life of Constantine" is clearly a 4th century (Eusebian) PR job.
The Greek civilisation had been replaced with a Draconian Christian civilisation.
Eusebius, well paid and immune from persecution, extolls the blessings of "The Boss".

Back Again

mm, assuming your points are relevant to the question in my post, you are claiming a VERY late authorship of the synoptic gospels (which would essentially make them complete forgeries). Otherwise, when were the synoptics written and were the back-dated prophecies something that had already occurred, something occurring, or something yet to occur? Perhaps there were a LOT of gospels and the ones that just happened to fit circumstances in the 4th century were given priority? Perhaps previously circulated gospels were modified in the 4th century...so a partial forgery. What are you claiming?

You are provide a good motive but no concrete mechanism. I asked specifically for assumptions about authorship of the synoptics in order to understand speculations about the apocalyptic predictions of Jesus in the synoptics and (to keep this on-topic) to get some understanding of how Jesus' portrayal (by the synoptic authors) lined up with the notion of the Jews' expected messiah.

aa5874

I place all the canonical books in the NT after the Fall of the Jewish Temple during the time of Vespasian circa 70 CE and very likely after the writings of Josephus.

The naming of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appear to have been done after the writings of Justin Martyr or after the middle of the 2nd century.

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" as found in Justin Martyr's writings are likely to be the basis for the named Synpotics.

The "failed prophecy" in the canonical Synoptics appear to be from the original author or inventor of Jesus, the Son of God, that is, it was the writer himself/herself who was apocalyptic and fabricated a Son of God character to deliver the writer's own belief that there would be a conflagration after the Fall of the Jewish Temple possibly based on his/her interpretations of Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source.

As of right now, I have the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and "Revelation" by John [not John the Apostle] as some of the earliest writings, perhaps written at about the end of the 1st century, based on the writings of the Justin Martyr.

The information on canonical NT as provided by the Church writers appear to be completely erroneous. The authorship, date of writing and chronology of the books of the canonical NT seem bogus.

As of right now, it would appear to me that the NT canon is a mutilated and munipulated compilation of writings, either wholly or in part, and was most likely produced by the Church in order to invent their own history of Jesus and his believers.

The Jesus of the Synoptics is just an entity who came to tell the Jews to believe in him and they will be saved. That is all.

The Jews believed in another Messiah that had always failed to save them and hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, enslaved and scattered all over the Roman Empire.

The Jesus Messiah, son of God, was presented to the Jews as an alternate for their failed Messiahs.

These are the words of the Synoptic Jesus in gMark, Jesus of the Synoptics was just to be believed to be a Messiah and son of God so that the apocalyptic beliefs of the authors would be accepted as or believed to be predictions from from God himself or his son.

show_no_mercy

It probably didn't fail just yet when they were written/redacted.

show_no_mercy

Caligula didn't actually get to put an image of himself in the Temple, he was assassinated before this happened. If so, it would have been a Daniellic/Mark 13:14/Matt 24:15 abomination. But this abomination did happened in 132, which incited Simon bar-Kokhba. And following Daniel's modus operandi, Mark/Matt were probably reporting on contemporary events but had them "predicted" by a figure in the past.

Back Again

Thanks again, everyone...good info.

aa, good explanation. I agree with your points that I have a well-formed opinion on. Your early date of Revelation would seem to be a minority opinion. I might start a new thread on dating Revelation if it hasn't been well covered recently. show_no_mercy seems to be leaning towards a bit later date for the synoptics...perhaps at late as the reign of Trajan? Neither of you seem to tie the apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus directly to the destruction of the temple in 70. I find it difficult to believe that anyone creating back-dated writing after 70 could leave something like that alone. For this reason, I tend to think the predictions of Jesus were written so that they COULD be applied to that event if one were so inclined.

show_no_mercy

IMO there are too many post-70 CE anachronisms in Mark to have it be written by someone who was a contemporary to the destruction in 70. And like I said, there was no desolating abomination standing where it didn't belong in 70, but there was one in 132.

Back Again

I think it's not insignificant that the abomination of desolation in Daniel, is either a graven image or an altar in the temple.

gMatthew says an abomination of desolation as described by Daniel so he is talking about something for pagan worship but he says "in the holy place" rather than in the temple. Given the destruction of the temple at the time of authorship and uncertainty of the author about when/if a new temple would be built, being vague makes some sense. The prophecy could be applied to the temple or to the temple mount.

gMark says the abomination of desolation is "somewhere it shouldn't be". He's not even willing to finger the temple mount specifically...perhaps because this prophecy was written when the ultimate fate of Jewish holy sites (and the city of Jerusalem) was less certain (eg closely after the temple's destruction).

gLuke dispenses with the word abomination so that the connection to Daniel is more vague and because he isn't even talking about altars or pagan images. The author of Luke's desolation is Roman soldiers surrounding Jerusalem.

I tend to see three authors being true to some source material but only cautiously sticking their necks out with a specific prophecy due to the unknown political situation at the time that each of them wrote.

Thoughts?

show_no_mercy

The temple mount itself was considered holy ground. In 132 Hardrian erected a statue of Jupiter on the temple mount, which incited the Jews to rebel. As I understand it, there was still a husk of the 2nd temple left on that mount when Hadrian attempted to paganize it.

In 135 Roman soldiers did surround Jerusalem and only won due to implementing a scorched earth policy which prevented the Jews in Jerusalem from being able to get food or necessary supplies. Almost everything that can be used to allude to the events in 70 in Mark can also be used to allude to the events in 132-135. Granted, it was only Jesus' prediction about the destruction in Jerusalem that was the only marker, then it could go either way. But like I said, there are quite a bit of 2nd century anachronisms that push things towards a 2nd century composition; anachronisms that wouldn't be used by a contemporary of the destruction in 70.

Maybe a middle ground would be a description of the Kitos War?

Back Again

Good info as always, s_n_m.

You failed to address the (apparently too subtle) point of my last post. Let me re-state the point sans details. The difference in language used between Daniel and the synoptics might be a clue to help date the synoptics. Our assumption (for purpose of discussion) is that the synoptics were written after 70 and before 135.

To escape the wrath of Mods, let me point out that the dating of the gospels is critical for understanding the way that the gospels portrayed Jesus with respect to the expected messiah of the Jews. The synoptic gospels (almost) clearly portray an anti-messiah (I'll only use the term anti-christ if necessary to stay on topic). Let me also point out to the Mods that this thread has largely died other than this discussion (which still kinda relates to the OP).

All, if you think that the synoptics were written (a bit) after 70 and before 135, please tell me what conclusions can be drawn about the different language used between Daniel and the synoptics...see my previous post.