PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate Abe,

Thanks for the response.

There are two separate issues here: 1) the references to the war either first Jewish-Roman War (67-73) or the Second Jewish-Roman War (132-135), and 2) my description of the development of the text.

Here are the basic arguments for the proposition that the text references the bar-Kochba War, which I find persuasive as given by Herman Deterring and Neil Godfrey.

Still, even if we grant the supposition that the Little Apocalypse refers to the First Jewish-Roman, I think the reasoning about the development of the text in Mark, Mathew and Luke works just as well.

Attributing the work to 70, 75, 85 or 90 does not explain the reason for the three gospels having an unfulfilled predictions by Jesus. This hypothesis on the construction of the text does explain it fully.

The idea that originally the fulfilled terrestrial predictions were in Mark, the unfulfilled celestial predictions in Matthew and they were combined by Luke makes perfect sense. It explains how and why all three texts are so similar at this point. We may assume that Mark and Matthew were from groups so different that they didn't hesitate to disagree with one another in what they wrote. Luke's task was not only to write an authoritative third gospel to resolve the differences, but to reconcile Mark and Matthew's text. The strategy of simply combining Mark and Matthew and copying them is one strategy he followed a number of times. He uses other strategies to affect his goal of reconciling the text of Mark and Matthew.

In the last paragraph in the story, one can see Luke using a similar, but slightly different strategy to reach agreement.

This shows that Matthew was only talking about a prediction about the Son of Man coming. His prediction had nothing to do with the destruction of the temple. The last line, "24.42 Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." has nothing to do with what comes before and is a Lukan interpolation to make it match Mark.

Here is Mark's ending:

Mark's personality as evidenced by the entire gospel is that of a frightened man. Remember that the text ends with the women being too frightened to speak. Here, he just has Jesus telling everybody to watch and be afraid that they're going to be caught doing something wrong.

Note also that the last line in Matthew really fits at the end of Mark much better. Matthew has been talking about the "Son of Man" coming. It is Mark who is telling a story about "the Lord" of a house who is coming.


Luke has cut the last line from Mark and placed it in the Matthew text to make it match. Now, in his own gospel, in employs the strategy of just paraphrasing Mark and then paraphrasing Matthew:

The first part is a reaction to Mark. Luke is just explaining Marks' parable about the servant found sleeping when the lord of the house returns. The World English Bible translates it this way: "So be careful, or your hearts will be loaded down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day will come on you suddenly." Luke assures us it won't happen to just the servants in one house, but to everybody in the world. He then tells us that we should pray to escape the terrible events Mark described and to stand before the Son of Man whom Matthew promises will come.

The hypothesis that Luke (or the writer of Luke) edited Mark and Matthew to make them closer I will try to elaborate on more in the future.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

It has been discussed in several threads on this forum.
I have suggested that supporters of the Bar Kochba reference for Mark 13 are assuming things about the 135 revolt for which there is little historical evidence.

Andrew Criddle

Kapyong

Gday,

All these writers FAILED to mention a historical Jesus :


60s
Hebrews

80s
Colossians
1 John
James

90s
Ephesians
2 Thess.
1 Peter
1 Clement
Revelation

100s
The Didakhe
Jude

110s
Barnabas

120s
2 John
3 John
G.Thomas


After that, the Gospels began to circulate, and Jesus stories appeared.


K.

Steven Carr

Why 'well before'? Shirley was a man's name until very recently. There was a famous professional wrestler in the UK called Shirley Crabtree,and nobody dared call him a 'she'

Solo

I don't think he was frightened at all, Jay. Mark was pretty self-assured character and a master of disguise. Remember, this is the guy who put into his Jesus' mouth the 11th commandment !!!

The "watch" exhortation, you will recall is repeated in the Gethsemane, and actually is the key to interpreting Mark's little apocalypse. It refers to 1 Thessalonians 5:2-6 (1 Th5:6 uses gregoreo = watch), and purposely mixes up the war and disaster scenery (some of it referencing Zechariah 14) with asserting Pauline parousia, not as the apocalyptic battle which will bring Messianic kingdom to earth but as the coming of the Lord (1Th 4:16-17). Mark is just pulling leg of his proselytic rivals, the Petrines.


Mark and Matthew wrote for rival communities, the Paulines and Petrines respectively. IMHO, you will not get anything interesting out of mixing the two gospels and letting them speak for each other. For Mark, the Petrines were idiots, cowards, deniers of the cross of Christ - psychic swine. For Matthew, the Paulines-Markans were apostates, hypocrites, snake-oil peddlers and pneumatic swine.

There was no love lost between the two. Their respective Jesuses loved to hate each other ! :huh:

Jiri

ApostateAbe

It has been primarily a woman's name for decades, or else Leslie Nielsen's joke wouldn't have been funny.

ApostateAbe

I don't need to either accept or reject those assertions of silence, because it is kind of a non sequitor, regardless. It doesn't matter which sources did NOT mention the historical Jesus. What matters are the sources that did. We have the letters of Paul and all four gospels.

Kapyong

Gday,

Haha :-)

Toto pointed out the early silence.

You asked "silence of who ?" - as if Toto's point was null and void. As if you had a point.

So I listed several examples.

Now you're like - "oh, so what, I don't care about that silence."

What a laugh.


K.

ApostateAbe

I apologize that I did not comprehend your meaning. Toto was making a point about sources prior to the gospels. The only item on your list that would be relevant is the epistle to the Hebrews, which doesn't qualify, since it did indeed mention the historical Jesus.

Hebrews 5:7

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

If you have an explanation for why this does not count for a mention of the historical Jesus, then it is irrelevant, unless your explanation is more than just speculative. If silence is presented as evidence, then the burden is on you to show that the claimed silence is indeed silence, not just forcefully imagined silence.

EarlDoherty

Are you implying that this is a reference to Gethsemane?

Do you regard the Gethsemane scene as historical?

Earl Doherty