Originally Posted by Toto

It's not reasonable.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

And here, it seems to me, we have the crux of the issue. The apologetic HJ'ers come here expecting the MJ'ers, who are skeptical of the HJ for whatever manifold reasons they may hold, to simply forget the scientific underpinnings of any objective investigation into the matter.

Sorry, arnoldo, but the absence of evidence is a huge problem for the HJ, a problem that makes it difficult if not impossible to even justify an hypothesis that Jesus is, in fact, historical. In science, one needs to have previously generated evidence upon which to base a proper hypothesis. And one needs to have a database of information that is itself not corrupted, or indeed, not corruptible. . .

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

So it is your position that none take the mythicist position for ideological reasons? If so, that sounds incredibly naive to me.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

Thanks for your quick response.

I guess we have disagreements about both the interpretation of the passage in John and the interpretation of the Little Apocalypse passage in Mark.

As for the passage in the Gospel of John, I don't see a relation to Mark's Little Apocalypse. If we wish to relate it to another text, I think it fits in much better with the Gospel of Thomas and its second line - "1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Perhaps the beloved disciple is Thomas as theorized by Thomas Charlesworth in "The Beloved Disciple" (or via: amazon.co.uk). Personally, I think the beloved disciple was originally Mary Magdalene, then switched to Thomas and John as later cover stories to disguise the heterosexual romantic origins of the Passion tale.

In any case, we can hopefully agree that it is not very clear that John is responding to Mark's Apocalypse in this passage and such an interpretation is only a possibility.

On the main issue you take this position:



You apparently disagree with the majority of writers who see this as a reference to the 1st or 2nd Roman-Jewish Wars. You disagree because the prediction seems to be on a worldwide scale with signs in the heavens and talks about worldwide deaths and an invasion directly from heaven.

The Little Apocalyps begins with Jesus talking about the destruction of the "the Great Buildings." He is apparently talking about the Temple Complex in Jerusalem.
The apostles ask him, "when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?". This is really two questions: 1) When will this be, and 2) what will be the sign that this is going to happen. It was a common belief that the Gods gave signs when some great catastrophe was going to happen as a warning to the faithful to escape. If you knew the signs to could take some personal action to escape.

Jesus, answering the second question first, names these signs
1) Many will come in my name
2) you hear of wars and rumors of wars
3) nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
4) there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines
5) they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them
6) the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
7) And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
8) when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...
9) in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be
10) if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
11) False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
12) after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
13) And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
14) when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

Up till this point, we have Jesus answering the second question from the apostles about the signs that will come before the temple complex will be destroyed. Jesus now adds this about the signs, "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

He then goes on to answer the first question that the apostles asked, "
But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

I would make the case that there is significant ambiguity here. For 1-11, Jesus is talking about a sign or signs which he calls a tribulation. In 12, 13, and 14, he is talking about the apocalypse, when presumably no stone will be on no stone in the temple complex. So the tribulation will be the signs or the events in 1-11. These seem to describe the Jewish-Roman War, although it is hard to tell if the references are to the first or second one, or both. These seem to have happened and so the writer reflects on them as in the past in 10. Note that even 11, the false prophets trying to lead the elect astray seem to be happening in the present. Technically it is after the tribulation, but not the apocalypse. However 12-14, the apocalypse are in the future. These are the worldwide events that will be in the future.

When Jesus refers to "all these things" in his statement "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place," it makes the most sense to take it that he is referring to the past events in 1-10 and the present event in 11. He is not referring to 11-14. If we do this, we get a date of either post 70 or post 137. If we do not read it this way, but read 12-14 as part of the series 1-11, then we may say that it is a genuine prediction being made prior to 70.

The only question is if we can eliminate the second Jewish-roman War because the writer says that all these things will happen before this generation will pass away. If the writer is assuming that Jesus is speaking circa 30 C.E. than 137 would be 107 years later. If the writer is assuming that the life span of a generation is 120 years, then the last hearer of the generation has not passed away. He would get the idea of a generational lifespan of 120 years from Genesis 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Thus we cannot eliminate the idea that the writer might be referring to the Second Jewish-Roman War (133-137).

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by Toto

I am not a mind reader. I don't know what motives lurk in the hearts of mythicists, and I don't know why I should care.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Then maybe we shouldn't speculate on the motives lurking in the hearts of historicists either, "confessional" or otherwise?

Chaucer