Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 10-20-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The problem with any Bar Kochba revolt hypothesis is that we have absolutely no reliable information about what caused the rebellion, what took place and how it ended. It is one of the strangest historical events on - or not on - record. I think there are more historical references to Jesus than this rebellion. To this end, those who argue for a link with the gospel are free to make whatever inferences they want because it is basically a tabla rasa.

My sense from the rabbinic literature is that the rebels abandoned traditional Jewish usage. But that in itself is not an argument for anything substantial or for that matter a link with Christianity (even though I privately am very supportive of that because I see tenuous evidence in favor of the presence of similar rituals).

If only Christianity could contain ritual! Wouldn't that be good news!

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 07:13 AM

Quote:

While later writers may have attempted to link Daniel's 7 or 62 "weeks" prophecy to the time between Jesus' death and the first revolt

Let's look at how the abomination of desolation is referenced in other sources. The Yosippon for instance makes it clear that Jerusalem - in reference to Daniel 9:26 - is NOT holy at the present time (= Josephus's age), but that it can be made holy. It seems to me that this is part of the rationale behind the welcoming of the “abomination” in the temple. I think this means The desecration has to be completed before it can be ended.

With respect to it being the sign of the destruction of the world. I’ve had a better look at the context, and I think there are three or four separate times, or at least two. There is the setting up of the abomination, which is a sign that the end times within history and the end of days outside history must come. This makes three times. I think there is a more immediate historical time, when Jerusalem is encircled by armies. The key to the understanding is in the word “sign”. The setting up of the abomination is not the time of all the rest (the destruction): it is the sign of all the rest, and perhaps the start of the capture of Jerusalem and its immediate consequences. Now we can see a deeper reason for leaving the important phrase out. All connection with expected events is lost, as the historical and eschatological are fused. Everything is conveniently vague.

There is extensive Syriac evidence for watered-down forms of this phrase. Ephrem has “When you see the sign of the terror of its (Jerusalem’s) desolation”. Pseudo-Ephrem has “the frightful sign of the destruction of Jerusalem”. (The Syriac texts tend to render shomem as “frightening” or “terror”). The Old Syriac Gospel, under the influence of the Diatessaron, has “the sign of abomination” in Matthew and “the sign of abomination of desolation” in Mark. Ephrem in another place has “the unclean sign”.

The Luik Gospel Harmony “And when you see the abomination of which Daniel the prophet spoke, which is to be the sign of the world’s destruction, standing in the holy city … flee to the Mountain." (singular) The singular “mountain” is supported by the Arabic Diatessaron, as well as the Old Syriac and the Peshitta.

The insertion of the reminiscence of Luke 21:18, which radically changes the meaning or at least the implications, is supported by the the Western Text of the Greek in in Matthew, and also by the Arabic Diatessaron.

Whichever reading is right, the Yosippon is emphatic that the erection or appearance of the Abomination is the direct consequence of the execution of Agrippa on false evidence. The Abomination and Agrippa are inseparable, according to this text.

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 07:26 AM

This connection of identifying Daniel 9:26 with the destruction of 70 CE with the events of the first rebellion is universal. Are there any examples of identifying it with the Bar Kochba revolt?

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 07:36 AM

Actually come to think of it, here is a decisive reason to dismiss the Bar Kochba revolt context. No actual fighting is ever reported near the city of Jerusalem itself. In other words "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near" cannot possibly be applied to the second revolt. It is reference to Titus and his armies rather than Hadrian and his. The second revolt was basically a guerrilla campaign where - according to our sketchy reports - Hadrian took a massive scorched earth policy and killed everyone and everything in his way.

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 07:39 AM

The same thing applies to these lines:

The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.

So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand

While none of these references come from Mark it would assume that Matthew and Luke were changed after 140 CE (or whatever date you propose for this Bar Kochba revolt referenced gospel. So 150 - 160 CE. Why the sudden change in the second century not to make it about the second revolt?

Iskander · 10-20-2012, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

N/A

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But let's suppose that the Bar Kochba revolt was caused by an Imperial ban on circumcision (or castration

You have repeated this castration slur so many times!

I have consulted a rabbi on this point and he said <edit>, I took this to be a polite ‘not true’

maryhelena · 10-20-2012, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

<snip>
Whichever reading is right, the Yosippon is emphatic that the erection or appearance of the Abomination is the direct consequence of the execution of Agrippa on false evidence. The Abomination and Agrippa are inseparable, according to this text.

The execution of Agrippa connected with 70 c.e. and an interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks?

Agrippa II executed in 70 c.e.??

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

Quote:

Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias,4 entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias.5 He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod 6 and the last of the kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of the reign of Trajan, when the history ends.

Agrippa II

Quote:

According to Photius, Agrippa died, childless, at the age of seventy, in the third year of the reign of Trajan, that is, 100,[5] but statements of historian Josephus, in addition to the contemporary epigraphy from his kingdom, cast this date into serious doubt. The modern scholarly consensus holds that he died before 93/94.[1] He was the last prince of the house of the Herods.

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 08:01 AM

read the literature. the ban was for castration. the rabbinic literature say the jewish rebels instead of following traditional practices "removed their finger" do the math

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 08:03 AM

Iskander · 10-20-2012, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

read the literature. the ban was for castration. the rabbinic literature say the jewish rebels instead of following traditional practices "removed their finger" do the math

Not good enough

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-20-2012, 07:26 AM	#73
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This connection of identifying Daniel 9:26 with the destruction of 70 CE with the events of the first rebellion is universal. Are there any examples of identifying it with the Bar Kochba revolt?

10-20-2012, 07:36 AM	#74
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Actually come to think of it, here is a decisive reason to dismiss the Bar Kochba revolt context. No actual fighting is ever reported near the city of Jerusalem itself. In other words "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near" cannot possibly be applied to the second revolt. It is reference to Titus and his armies rather than Hadrian and his. The second revolt was basically a guerrilla campaign where - according to our sketchy reports - Hadrian took a massive scorched earth policy and killed everyone and everything in his way.

10-20-2012, 07:39 AM	#75
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The same thing applies to these lines: The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand While none of these references come from Mark it would assume that Matthew and Luke were changed after 140 CE (or whatever date you propose for this Bar Kochba revolt referenced gospel. So 150 - 160 CE. Why the sudden change in the second century not to make it about the second revolt?

10-20-2012, 08:01 AM	#78
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	read the literature. the ban was for castration. the rabbinic literature say the jewish rebels instead of following traditional practices "removed their finger" do the math

10-20-2012, 08:03 AM	#79
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	<removed>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.