spamandham

Exactly, and I don't think either a post temple writer or his readers would be so pedantic about the point, searching the temple mount to see if they could literally find two stones on top of eachother in order to verify whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled.

From the perspective of 2nd century Jews, and probably even late 1st century Jews, the temple was completely destroyed (no stone left standing).

Considering the importance of the entire temple area to the Jews, I guess I'm highly skeptical that they had let the out buildings go to ruin.

This is not a reasonable interpretation considering the apocalyptic context of the chapter.

Aside from the mini-apocalypse, there are other anachronisms within Mark that indicate a post temple authorship, several of which have been discussed already in this thread.

In my mind, it's bewildering how anyone could argue for a pre-70 dating. The arguments in favor of early dating are pathetically weak and completely ignore the inconsistencies that arise. They are apologetics, not history.

Elijah

Again this quote isn’t about the temple but all the buildings being destroyed.
Huh? Are you saying they buildings were still standing then?
Two different scenes. The armageddon later he’s describing isn’t trying to predict events either, it’s illustrating the amount of time he feels it’s going to take for his return.
Again, I’m not arguing for a pre-70 date. I’m arguing against the methodology of using when a prophecy actually happens to date texts. It's just not a reasonable method to me when the prophecies are either vague, inevitable or not fulfilled.

spamandham

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The temple isn't one of the buildings being referred to? Then what is the purpose of setting the context as the temple?

It's two different conversations, but it's all part of the same scene. The 'ands' tie it together explicitly.

1And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

The author didn't randomly switch gears in between and ad hoc insert the 'ands'....the entire chapter is apocalyptic in nature. (note that chapter 13 is a continuation of the temple scene from chapter 12...hence the 'and' in verse 1 as well)

Of course it is. There is no point to the details otherwise. They do not add to the sense of timeframe.

The prophecy is not vague at face value, and most scholars agree with me on that point. You are simply adding your own spin to it to make it seem vague.

The following are historical facts:

1. The Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Mark 13 discusses the destruction of the Temple

2. Simon bar Kochba was acclaimed to be a messiah ca. 130, and fooled many, leading to the final Jewish war. Mark 13 discusses false messiah's fooling many.

3. 'wars and rumors of wars' certainly is vague by itself, but when combined with the rest of the prophecy, it is no doubt referring to the Jewish wars.

4. During the Bar Kochba revolt, Christians were persecuted by Jews. This was the reason for the split from Judaism, and the inti-semetic slant of the Gospels reflect the resulting bitterness. Mark 13 discusses Christian persecution at the hand of Jews (an idea which is completely anachronistic from an earlier time period).

5. The 'abomination of desolation' referred to in Daniel is a statue that desecrates the temple. Mark 13 predicts a redeux of history...and Hadrian fulfilled this very specific "prophecy" by erecting a temple to Jupiter right on top of the temple mount.

If not for the legions of apologists masquerading as Biblical scholars, I don't think anyone would take seriously the idea of an pre-130 dating of Mark.

Elijah

I don’t have a problem with the temple being one of the buildings being mentioned but for your theory to hold water you need show that all the buildings were left that way by Rome.

Same chapter maybe but different scenes. One is outside the temple, the other is at the mount of Olives.

I think you may want to check out some of the other sections that begin with “And…” in Mark before making that statement.
So you admit that his predictions are being used to illustrate the time necessary for his return but you still think it’s a good indicator to find events that match up with it to date the text?

It’s like listening to someone try to convince me horoscopes works because of all the things that happened that it predicted accurately or Nostradamus must have been a real prophet because look at all the things he predicted. Faulty reasoning. You see what you want when looking at a prophecy and history.

Again, this isn’t about the dating of the text but of using when prophecy happens as a dating tool.

spamandham

That is what happened. The entire temple mount was decimated, not just the temple itself. The whole city of Jerusalem was "razed" (perhaps a bit of an exaggeration , but that is how the ancient historian Cassius Dio described it, which indicates it was common to refer to it that way even if it wasn't pedantically true).

From my perspective, the writer describes the events of 70-135 CE and puts it into the mouth of Jesus for the purpose of emphasizing that the author and his audience had just lived through all but the final stage of the apocalypse - the return of Jesus.

So from my perspective, yes, the descriptions do establish a timeline, because the events had already taken place and the audience knew that.

But from your perspective, where they refer to nothing in particular, I can't see how they help to establish a timeline. They seem to conflict with the idea that Jesus' return was eminent, if anything.

I don't feel like you're paying any attention. The destruction of the temple is a concrete absolutely specific prophecy, as is the prophecy of another 'desecration of desolation'. Neither of these are even slightly vague. Some of the rest of it is vague, but we could ignore the entire rest of the chapter and come to the same conclusion.

Of course it's about dating the text. We have not established that the text is actually a prophecy until *after* we date it. Describing current events via the mouth of an ancient prophet was part of Jewish culture at the time, the same thing happened with Daniel. Every indication is that's what we're seeing in Mark as well.

aa5874

Do you understand that based on the Jesus story that your self-sacrificing meme would not work?

The disciples were hiding when Jesus was crucified, it was when they supposedly saw Jesus alive or resurrected that they came out of hiding.

But, the resurrection did not happen.

No religion can survive where the members are all expected to commit suicide.

Elijah

This is coming from your imagination about what happened not from any texts you’ve presented so far. Cassius Dio described the razing of Jerusalem and a building of a new temple on top of the old one. He doesn’t describe all the buildings being torn down to no stone left on top of another. Maybe if you find that looking for gold reference you mentioned earlier it would clue us into a date but so far you haven’t presented information that coincides with the theory you are presenting that Jesus accurately foretold some impossible event to predict.
From your perspective is the key point here. Your perspective doesn’t allow for the possibility of someone making such inevitable prophecies so it must be added in later. Good lord everyone knows buildings don’t fall down given enough time. Once you build one they are up there forever. <end sarcasm>
I don’t think he was predicting an imminent return was he? That’s what’s with all the far out in time prophecy, right?
I’m paying attention, I’m just not impressed with the prophecy like you seem to be. They are inevitable conclusions based on previous experience. Build a temple to god eventually someone is going to come tear it down. The prophets who predict that shouldn’t be dated to the date after the destruction if all they are doing is predicting what they fully expect to happen based on logic, reason and previous experiences/history.

No the point I was making is that I don’t have a problem with the actual dates you are putting forward, I have a problem with how you are coming to those dates. I truthfully don’t know if Daniel is a better example of what you are suggesting or more of the same kind of thinking. What I do know is that those prophecies by Jesus are easy predictions to make and it would be foolish to think that someone couldn’t make them and waaaaaaaay more foolish to use that as your evidence to date the person who made them to after the time they actually occurred. You’re using the same reasoning a superstitious Christian would use to try to say Jesus was an actual prophet except you’re using the argument to push him to a later date instead of to make him magical. When the reality of the situation is that they are easy prophecies to make and nothing to base a theory around.

Elijah

What do you think I am suggesting happened?