ApostateAbe

Cool, thanks, I found the book on Google Books, and I plan on reading it. My opinions are grounded largely in the writings of Bart D. Ehrman, especially Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. That book is published on Google Books, too, I just discovered.

spamandham

Very good. I think you'll enjoy Talbert's book, well, I did...and it's an easy read unlike a lot of scholarly texts. (I think it's out of print, but used copies are widely available). I've read some of Ehrman's works, but not this one. I should probably pick it up.

IamJoseph

You have well proven against your case in nominating a defector and one under the total mercy of Rome. To boot, there is every plausability the latin document referred to was heavily doctored later: Josephus never wrote in latin.

IMHO< it is a poor resorting to say a Judean Jew [with not an iota of evdence] would revel in his own nation's demise or say such things in a pink fit - and told us by Romans, when the fact shows who would win this war was absolutely not in doubt and hardly worthy of categorising this as a "prophesy". Any honest mind would conclude the bad guys were the depraved Romans, and the good guys were those who alone stood up to them to protect the freedom of a right to one's beliefs. So no thanks Europe is in order here - well evidenced by its follow-up history.

show_no_mercy

Keep in mind that the gospels were read out loud in house-churches by the few Christians who were literate. It was very rare for Christians to actually know how to read and to read these gospels on their own.

So "some standing here" might actually be refering who whoever is listening to the gospel reader speak.

aa5874

The words "some standing here" are supposedly from Jesus whom the author placed at the time of Pilate. Jesus was presented to be talking to the disciples at around 26-36 CE based on gMatthew.

Matthew 16.24-28 If Jesus did live during the time of Pilate and said those words, the prediction would have been known to have failed if the author of Matthew wrote after all the disciples had died.

However in gMark, the prediction would have been known to have failed only if the author of gMark wrote his story after all the persons listening to Jesus, including disciples and the crowd of followers, had died.

Contextually, the time of the predictions in gMark and gMatthew are not dependent on where their stories were read. They were all made during the time of Pilate based on their stories.

bacht

Joseph do you think the Romans overthrew Judea without cause? If you've read Josephus you'll know his perspective: that foolish 'brigands' and messianists forced the moderates into (hopeless) open conflict. As an eyewitness he saw how far the radicals could go, killing their own countrymen and refusing any surrender terms from Titus' siege force. The final mass sucide in Masada is a sad symbol of the whole bloody mess, an unnecessary waste the Jews brought on themselves.

ApostateAbe

There is a rule within hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation), and it is: "If plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." Those who strictly adhere to a theory of the Bible almost never follow it, but it strikes me as a useful rule for everyone else. Where Jesus says, "...some standing here will not taste death...", the usual entourage of disciples is mentioned as accompanying Jesus. If there is a very good reason to believe that "Jesus" was talking to the listeners in the churches, such as the reason that spamandham gave (it was a usual practice at the time), then the "plain sense" interpretation can be thrown out. But you shouldn't throw out the plain sense interpretation with no reason except to make your own theory consistent, because any historical writing becomes a rubber band that you can stretch any way you like.

IamJoseph

No.

One can have faults - its natural. But quoting from a Jew who defected under pressure, and had no way of saying anything negative about Rome, does not change anything. Rome was a depraved mass murdering nation, and the so-called radicals are owed big time by humanity for defending the right to freedom of belief single handedly. The inter-battles were a result of Rome appointing unacceptable rulers in Judea, and the war was a result of upholding Monotheism. Rome lost.

spin

Texts mean what the text community say they mean.

Do you think your Jesus actually said the stuff in Mk 13 (which is considered as reworked Jewish apocalypse)? Did he say "Many shall come in my name, saying I am he, and shall lead many astray"? Or is this the early church trying to gain control of the religion? Did he say Mk 13:9 & 11, or is it a description of the sorts of things that were already happening to early christians? Isn't the discourse in Mk 13 merely another example of vaticinium ex eventu, as already seen in Jewish literature such as Daniel and Enoch?

Plain sense is often plain wrong. I agree that one must confront the plain sense of the text, but it doesn't dictate. We should be forewarned by many examples that say beware.


spin

ApostateAbe

I think you make a very good point about Mark 13:9 and Mark 13:11. There would be no reason that Jesus would warn Christians of false Christs or to tell them about what to do when they arrested, because Jesus could not have anticipated such things, and future church leaders certainly would have an interest in making such an interpolation. Therefore, those verses are unlikely to have originated with Jesus. That is the sort of reasoning that needs to back up the hypothesis that the passages such as, "...this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened...", did not originate with Jesus, because on the surface it seems very much like Jesus would have an interest and a likelihood in saying such a thing, more than church leaders after 70 CE.