ApostateAbe

Yes. The theory I accept is that the apocalypticism of Jesus was essential and foundational to his teachings, and that is what his cult was all about in the beginning. He set a deadline, and the passing of that deadline brought embarrassment to Christians. The deadline is found in the synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark and Luke--but it is not found in the gospel of John. Critical scholars tend to date the synoptic gospels to around 70 CE, which is still within the deadline. 90 CE is past the deadline, and that is where we start to get a "reinterpretation" of the deadline. It is found in the 21st chapter of John.

²⁰Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") ²¹When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

²²Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." ²³Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

²⁴This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

The writer of the Gospel of John explains the prophecy, with the deadline of the disciples' deaths, as a rumor that spread from a misunderstanding. The group of Christians who had the Gospel of John did not have the synoptic gospels (they were compiled together at a later date). So they took this explanation as a way to deal with the rumors among Christians and their critics.

The New Testament, because it is a journal of early Christian thinking, becomes much more damning in this matter as time progresses. Christianity became more popular, the Christian churches became more unified, and the critics likewise became much more organized and vocal, so they had to confront the embarrassments contained in their own scriptures. Let me show you 2 Peter 3:3-8, which is dated to the middle of the second century CE.

³First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. ⁴They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." ⁵But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. ⁶By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ⁷By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

⁸But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

In other words, God broke the deadline because He has different ideas about time than the rest of us. Christianity was apparently founded on a promise that was immediately broken, but the irony stays alive for the entire history of the religion. The history of Christianity is filled with apocalyptic anticipation of the immediate future, a series of popular preachers who claimed that the return of Jesus is just around the corner, a long series of disappointments.

spamandham

This does not suggest that the synoptics were penned ~70CE. It only suggests that John is significantly later than the other canonicals, and thus needs to spin the lack of Jesus' return.

The same scenario is painted if the portions of Mark we are discussing were penned ~130CE, and John in the latter part of the 2nd century. So I guess I don't see how this helps anything. In the end, what we seem to have are two different interpretations, both of which can fit the evidence to a degree.

However, I think the apocalypse too closely matches the events ranging from 70 to 135 CE to be a coincidence. The simplest explanation in my mind, is that these events had already happened when that apocalyptic ideas were penned (at least in the form we know them). I think this is an acceptable interpretation that takes into consideration the way the ancients put quotes into the mouths of their legendary figures as a matter of course, and that the practice was known by all.

The proper interpretation here, is that by the time 2 Peter was penned (late 2nd century IMHO rather than middle), it was an embarrassment that Jesus had not returned.

I contend it would have been an embarrassment in 70 CE as well.

The real story may be quite a bit more complex than we are discussing. I'm allowing for a general expectation of the return of Jesus prior to 70 CE, with details about the a spinning of the fall of the temple and the events of the Bar Kochba revolt being added later.

ApostateAbe

Cool, so you think that the apocalypse described by Jesus too closely matches the events ranging from 70 to 135 CE to be a coincidence. I compiled a list of the prophecies Jesus made in Mark chapter 13:

• Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.
• Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.
• wars and rumors of wars
• the end
• Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
• earthquakes in various places
• famines
• You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues.
• On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.
• Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
• All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
• 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong
• let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
• How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
• those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive.
• he has shortened them.
• the sun will be darkened
• the moon will not give its light
• the stars will fall from the sky
• the heavenly bodies will be shaken
• men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
• he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
• this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened

You think that the prophecies were penned to match what already happened, and I guess that could be true for some of the items, just not the bit about the Son of Man coming in the clouds, sending the angels, gathering the elect, and "the end." Jesus said that all of those these will happen before "this generation" passes away. I am of the inclination to explain things in a unified manner, making the theory fit the most likely inferences of the facts, doing little to stretch a set of facts onto a theory. I hate to be pompous and all, but the apocalyptic prophet theory of Jesus seems like such an obvious conclusion given the facts that it is very difficult for me to fathom why anyone would conclude anything else looking at the same evidence. I have that difficulty in understanding even when I am showing this stuff to fundamentalist Christians, because the evidence seems so strong. I feel something like a candle in the dark, because the non-Christians don't seem to accept it either.

spamandham

Right, and that's how this apocalypse stuff always works. You spin the story to show your prophet having a 100% prophetic record, and that all prerequisites have been fulfilled, and that is then used to give credence to the final unfulfilled aspect of the prophecy which is always just around the corner. The same thing is going on today.

2012? The End Times series? The Late Great Planet Earth? and on and on ad infinitum.

This means that the return of Jesus, rather than the fall of the temple, is the unfulfilled aspect of the story.

I've already explained that "this generation" is not Jesus talkign to his disciples, it's the author talking to his audience. Both the author and the audience knew that, because it was a widespread practice to use quotes as a literary device for the author to speak to his audience. This is why the anachronisms are blatant.

You are not required to accept this, but I hope you can at least understand why it should be considered.

Consider the possibility that it is not really all that compelling, and that it is rejected for that reason.

IamJoseph

Did the Gospels predict the first temple's falling in 586 BCE? Obviously not - obviously someone anticipated this event, and took measures to hide its most sacred item [The Arc]. The Gospel writers did not appear anywhere near the war with Rome: that says the Gospel writers are either a fiction of Rome - or we're hell bent on someone's destruction, and I don't mean Rome. I don't trust a document which says jews are born of the devil and never confronted Rome!

ApostateAbe

OK, so if you think "this generation" refers to the generation of the readers instead of the generation of Jesus' listeners, then how do you square that with, "But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."?

spamandham

The same way. This is still the author talking to his readers, and his readers would understand it that way. Before trying to analyze these texts, IMHO, it's important to try to step into the mindset of these people as best we can. That attempt will always be imperfect of course, but we do know it was common practice for authors to use quotes as a literary device. Both the author and the readers understood these quotes were not intended as dutiful historical records (a concept that really didn't exist), but were instead the author talking to his audience directly, under assumed authority of the legendary figure.

This is bizarre by modern standards, but it appears to have been common at the time and is not exclusively an early Christian way of thinking. To some degree, this odd assumption of authority still exists in "Confucius says" type sayings, and is similar to the WWJD idea. These quotes should be seen as "if jesus were here today, this is what he would say".

ApostateAbe

OK, I don't know about what you take to be common practice in that time and place. Do you happen to know where I can find a more explicit example of what you are saying? I ask because it was at least also common practice to quote people according to what they were really thought to have said, I know plenty of examples of that sort of thing, and the bit about "...some of those standing here..." really strikes me as falling into that category.

aa5874

This prediction, as written, can only be considered to have failed when all who were standing there had died.

If it can be determined or proven that by the time the story was written that all who were standing there were dead, then the prophecy can be deemed a failure.

Now who all were standing there and when did they all of them die?

spamandham

I would have to go searching for examples. But instead, I would point you to "What Is a Gospel" by Talbert ( a well qualified scholar ), who describes this in much greater detail in his analysis of the genre of the Gospels. If he's wrong, then so am I, since I'm leaning on him here.

I'm sure there are cases where quotes are really used to convey what was believed to have been actually said, but is that the case in the types of biographies represented by the Gospels? I'm not aware of any examples of that.