gstafleu

That would depend on the level of detail in the predictions. E.g. a bunch of predictions about simultaneous attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon would be unlikely. A bunch of predictions about planes being used as bombs would not be beyond chance, as that was a not too difficult to foresee scenario. As I pointed out, that scenario had been foreseen, and in one case acted upon, before 9/11. Similarly, a generalized destruction of the temple (the center of Jewish life) was not all that difficult a doomsday idea.

Gerard Stafleu

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Please keep in mind that the Romans built the temple and defended it with troops. Josephus speaks of two million people making sacrifices in it at Passover, so it was an important religious site for a great mass of people.

If a writer in the 50's and 60's had suggested that Jesus had predicted the temple would be destroyed, wouldn't that make Jesus look like a) a false prophet who predicted things that did not come true, and b) a supporter of anti-Jewish terrorism and anti-Roman terrorism?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Possibly, but in that case we are reaching beyond the parameters of the OP, the purpose of which is to evaluate the probability of the prediction itself coming true, as it were, not actually whether any given class of person would have had good reason to make the prediction. Besides, the example I gave was of the parable in Matthew, not the apocalyptic discourse. In the parable the city is burned down; that might imply the destruction of the temple, but, then again, maybe not. It is possible to burn a city yet spare one or two spots for special purposes.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

My own view is that these sorts of vague parallels are very risky, and almost any other form of evidence is to be preferred to them. If there is simply no evidence, then these must be mentioned, but only with a caution that they are very liable to give false answers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I think that policy makes a lot of sense. I might express it thus: Potential allusion X seems more compatible with a date after Y, but it is not incompatible with a date before Y.

This works pretty nicely with the Lone Gunmen example; the mention of planes being flown into the WTC is actually more compatible with a date after 9/11, but is not incompatible a date before 9/11. All bases are covered here. Admitting that it is not incompatible with a date before 9/11 allows us to (firmly and accurately) date it to six months in advance, while admitting that it actually seems more compatible with a later date covers that weird feeling we get when we ponder the coincidence; the correspondence is indeed a bit uncanny.

Ben.

PS: Jay Raskin, it might be possible in the Lone Gunmen example to argue that no one would base a TV pilot on the events of 9/11 so soon after the event (if, for instance, we became aware of the pilot episode within about 5 years of 9/11; TV pundits have often discussed how 5 years seems to be the accepted time period during which such topics are virtually taboo; after that time period, movies such as Flight 93 and the one by Oliver Stone become possible). This kind of argument would be analogous to yours that nobody in the fifties or sixties would be inclined to place a prediction of the fall of the temple on the lips of Jesus for various social and political reasons. However, I think both of these arguments are beside my original point, which was more along the lines of whether the coincidence itself, on its own statistical merits, is or is not enough to date the work.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Yes, the Lone Gunmen plot certainly represents a fantastic coincidence and if the date was unknown, we would certainly incorrectly place it after 9/11. Another good example of this is the movie "Suddenly" (Lewis Allen, 1954), in which Frank Sinatra plots to assassinate the United States president during a motorcade using a rifle. If the date of the film was unknown, one would have to place it after the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. However, we should take into account the many films that were made on this subject after this date (e.g., In the Line of Fire (Clint Eastwood, 1993). Probably, we could find 50 films and television episodes portraying a presidential assassination plot. Only one of them (Suddenly) would be prior to 1963. By assigning them to post 1963, we would be right 98% of the time. Likewise, we will probably be able to find 100 references in movies and television shows to flying airplanes into the World Trade Center, and by placing them all post 9/11/2001, we would be right 99% of the time.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

hatsoff

Exactly what I was thinking.

Solitary Man

Philosopher Jay is wrong. A perfect case in point is Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. In it, Card predicted a) the mass use of a series of "nets" which a person can log into to chat with others around the world, and b) a stalemate between Russia and its allies and America and its allies.

Both unwittingly came true. This was in 1985, when the internet was barely coming into existence (and yet Card recognized its extreme importance) and at the very height of the Cold War, with a "Star Wars" coming into effect. Many analysts claimed that nuclear war was inevitable, but apparently, Card realized that both countries would be smarter. Twenty years into the future and both have become actualized, even when it looked like Russia's demise was ultimate.

I still think that Matthew post-dates 70 CE. Perhaps subsequent studies will change that. I cannot say.

Solitary Man

Gamera

I think what we are missing here is the power of pattern recognition. Each of these cases involved predictions that seem apropos now because we know that the Temple indeed fell. If it had not fallen, these predictions would likely be applied to some other historical event (assuming one is in the mood to allocate predictions to historical events).

Thus, the predictions don't need to be latter retrojections. Rather, we --knowing what actually happen -- apply them to actual events. And if the events were different, we'd use our pattern recognition to apply them to the other events.

Technically, this is called confirmation bias. And is the basis of much irrational thought in our society.

Thus, in Ben's example, the X-File episode is kind of like 9-11. The details are way off. If 9-11 never happened, but some other terrorist event did, we might see parallels with the episode and those events. Or we might latch on to other thriller shows for details. You can always find parallels, if you're inclinded to do so.

Getting to the NT, here again, we know what happened to the Temple, so we naturally attribute the predictions as relating to those events. But if something else happened, we could find parallels and attribute the predictions to those events.

Accordingly, I doubt that scanning the NT for often obscure references to the fall of the Temple is useful to dating the text.

Solitary Man

Matthew's statement that the Temple will be destroyed and rebuilt in three days is no mere "obscure reference".