PaulK

Toto, your answer is a bit short of specifics. Indeed you seem to be assuming that I'm talking about the whole fo the two Gospels instead of a specific prophecy and how it relates to the events of the Jewish revolt.

So let's look at the differences with regard to major events.
The material is in Mark 13 and Luke 21

Mark refers to the "Abomination of Desolation" (13:14) - likely a Roman introduction of pagan worship into the Temple. It is given as a major sign - and it dies directly into the apocalyptic prophecies of the book of Daniel. Luke omits it entirely.

Mark refers to a great tribulation - worse than any other time in history (13:19-20), capable of wiping out all life. Luke retains some related text, but downplays it.

Luke goes on to say that Jerusalem will fall and that it's inhabitants will be taken into captivity (21:24). But Mark says no such thing. Mark proceeds directly to the darkening of the sun and moon, the Second Coming and the gathering of the elect, which Luke delays until after the return of the Jews to Jerusalem (presumably still in Luke's future).

Mark then has an event that did not occur leading into the disasters, exaggerates the suffering of the war and omits Jerusalem falling. The destruction of the (defiled) Temple cannot be attributed, then, to a foreign conqueror, but to divine - or at least devout - forces, following the rescue of Jerusalem by God, through "the Son of Man".

Luke, on the other hand, removes the "Abomination", downplays the suffering such that it is no more than might be expected in a vicious war and adds in the fall of Jerusalem - pushing events that have not ocurred into an indefinite future. All these changes make Luke's version better fit with actual events.

aa5874

First of all there is no external corrobarative evidence that there was a Jesus who made a prediction. Secondly, there is no external support for a character called Mark, a disciple of Peter.

The claim in gMark that Jesus made a prediction was written by some person, perhaps the original author of gMark. It is not necessary for a real Jesus to have existed for some-one to claim that Jesus made a prediction.

It must be taken into consideration that it was the author himself who believed or wanted his readers to believe that a character called Christ was returning after his death when people who saw or heard him was still alive.

Mark 9:1 - Matt 16:28 - So once the authors of gMark 9.1 or gMatthew 16.28 wrote when people could still be alive that could have seen or heard Jesus, then the so-called prediction is still valid at the time of writing.

Now, church writers claim a disciple called John lived up to the time of Trajan, that is, John was still standing up to or around 98-117 CE.

Mark 9.1 and Matthew 16.28 could have been written between 98-117 CE while the disciple of Jesus called John was still standing.

This is Irenaeus on the disciple called John in "Against Heresies" 2.22.5 See.http:// www.columbia.edu

Toto

As was your post Why do you assume that the Abomination of Desolation does not refer to an actual historical event?

See Michael Turton's blog: Why do you assume that Mark has exaggerated the suffering of the war, as opposed to Luke downplaying it (because of Luke's pro-Roman biases and the passage of time)?

Self-Mutation

What do we make of this verse in Mark's Gospel?:

Mark 15:33

33And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

compared with this verse in the Old Testament in Amos 8:9:

Amos 8:9

9And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:

:constern02:

aa5874

Based on the way the earth revolves on its axis and around the sun, that day, where the sun goes down at noon, in Amos 8.9 has not come and probably never will.

It is virtually impossible for the sun to go down at noon for three hours and then come back up again only to go back down again a little later.

Check NASA or your local astronomer for details.

There is a lot of BS in the Bible.

Elijah

I haven’t dug into the which gospel came first deal but the dating them after 70 AD because of the tearing the temple down prophecy doesn’t seem that rational to me. It’s like if in the future someone dated the creation of the movies Armageddon and Deep Impact to a point in our future after the next major asteroid impact. Or dating an Islamic extremist from today to the date after when the American empire actually falls. It would be one thing if it was about a roman emperor accepting him as Christ but the temple falling was nearly inevitable and in line with Jewish prophets predicting disaster on the Jews. Are the OT prophets dated to after the events they supposedly predicted?

It would be more solid theory if the prophecy was more about killing him would lead to the temple’s destruction but in the story he isn’t even talking about the actual temple but his body. The prophecy being the authors play on the actual Temple’s destruction later on is a popular theory but seems highly speculative.

I’m not sold one way or the other but I do find Matthean priority easier to believe just based on it seems easier and more justifiable to cut a text down by editing out what you don’t agree with then it does adding new material in. It’s easy enough to imagine adding in other oral traditions that the original author rejected or was unaware of it but still it would be easier to cut out traditions you don’t think are possible like a virgin birth and resurrection (if Mark originally ended at 16).

bacht

What do we make of what? Obviously Mark had a copy of the Old Testament on his writing desk, probably the Septuagint. How hard would it be to copy the bits he liked and make a story out of it?

The passage from Amos is standard fare, the Day of the Lord was described in similar terms by several prophets, though he may have been one of the first.

PaulK

I don't assume it. I've looked and found no events that fit.

None of these fit if the 70 AD destruction of the Temple is meant. Remember that the Tribulation and the Second Coming etc. have to be fitted in between the Abomination and the destruction of the Temple. Anyone writing late enough to know about the 70 AD destruction of the Temple would know that that didn't happen. I don't believe that the author of Mark - whoever he was - would invent a failed prophecy.

I find that an odd view. The author of Mark has Jesus predict that the Temple would be destroyed within a generation. 135 AD would be 100 years later - if that was what he meant why not allow a longer timespan, which would fit the events better ? And again the prophecy places the destruction AFTER the darkening of the Sun and Moon, the Second Coming etc. Anyone writing after the fact would know that that didn't happen.

I don't assume either. What I said is that Luke downplayed the suffering in the prophecy, to better fit the actual events. I don't believe that Mark's "tribulation" actually occurred.

PaulK

And neither is relevant to what I am saying. My point is that the prophecy in gMark is too inaccurate to date to after 70 AD (it is not likely that the author would invent a failed prophecy) while the version in gLuke has been changed in ways which point to at least a basic knowledge of the events of the Jewish revolt.

aa5874

If Mark 9.1 was written AFTER 70 CE it was still not yet a failed prophecy unless you can prove that no-one was alive that heard the so-called prophecy of Jesus as found in the story of gMark.

By the way, Mark 13.2 cannot be considered a failed prophecy if Jesus did make a prediction that the Temple would fall before gMark was written. You just cannot prove that the author of gLuke was more accurate than the author of gMark.

The author of gLuke may just have used another source.