jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

Consider this. Jesus' prediction of the tearing down of the temple (Matt. 24:2) would have to be a back reference to 68-70 CE. The alleged prophecy of rebuilding the temple Matt. 26:61 (taken literally) was not possible politically until after 118 CE, and remained until 135 CE, when the Jews were utterly defeated and scattered.

Neither Mark nor Matthew, IMO, wrote that that the destruction of the temple and the setting up of the Abomination of Desolation occurs at the same time. A disjunction exists (Mark 13:4, Matt. 24:3) between the destruction of the temple, and the "end" which includes the setting up of the AoD. But there is a thematic connection; as coins of the Bar Kochba revolt reveal, there were great hopes and plans for rebuilding the temple (Hadrian had previously promised it!) that were dashed forever by Hadrian.

Let's consider a couple of other points. From a Christian's perspective, Simon Bar Kochba fits the definition of a false Christ (mark 13:9) very nicely. The first recorded instance of persecution of Christians by Jews was in the Bar Kochba war.

"For in the present war it is only the Christians whom
Barchochebas, the leader of the rebellion of the Jews,
commanded to be published severely, if they did not
deny Jesus as the Messiah and blaspheme him." Justin
Martyr, First Apology 31.5-6.

From a historical perspective, the Bar Kotchba war corresponds to the great war of Mark 13 much better than the Nabataean war.
Also, as you have discussed in this thread, Jerome On Matthew 24.15 identified the AoD:
"So when you see the standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation: or to the statue of the mounted Hadrian, which stands to this very day on the site of the Holy of Holies."

Now, it must be admitted that Luke corresponds to the Destruction of Jerusalem, ca 70 CE.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then
recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who
are in Judea must flee to the mountains" Luke 21:20-21
NASB.

Obviously, Luke did not understand the reference to
the Abomination of Desolation, because she drops it
and replaces it with a mundane reference.

So where did Luke get 21:20, if not from Mark?
Obviously from Josephus, as she does with many other
pseudo-historical embellishments to the Jesus story.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Thanks for your response, Jake. You make some good points.

Another, related issue that occurs to me is Matthew 24.34, which promises that this generation will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled. As words upon the lips of Jesus, located in time under the prefecture of Pilate, this prediction is palpably false if most of these things in the passage refer to events from century II.

One answer I have seen on this board is that this generation refers to the Marcan or Matthean readers, not to contemporaries of Jesus. But that seems so contrived. Everything else in the passage is written from the point of view of Jesus and his disciples in the time of Pilate: The temple is standing and the predicted events are in future tense. The connection with Mark 9.1 and parallels (some standing here) makes this solution all the more problematic. In the article, Detering is intent on making things clear (the lining up of the I am the Christ lines, the identification of the both-masculine-and-neuter abomination with a statue, the filling out of the famines reference), but Matthew 24.34 and parallels would seem to introduce an amazingly unclear element.

Another answer, one popular amongst conservatives, is that this generation means this race, but again, this seems quite contrived.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Many people think that Jewish nationalism came to an end with the war of 66-70 CE. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have learned from previous discussions that many people are not aware that Simon Bar Kotchba was a Jewish messianic claimant.

This interesting link summarizes the evidence.

Now, to pivot to another point, consider the wealth of evidence for one Jewish claimant (Bar Kotchba) to be messiah (coins, letters written by him, secular historians records of his deeds) vs. another Jewish claimant, i.e. Jesus.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Yes, I am one of those that has argued that "generation" that the SYNAPOC was directed to was that of the reader. "Let the reader understand". Mark 13:14. IMO, we are dealing with the Leben der Kirche at the time the documents were written.

Jake Jones IV

Clivedurdle

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_11.html

I had forgotten about son of a star!

What comets were around in the 130s?

Ben C Smith

Unfortunately, the enigmatic let the reader understand is not directly connected with the generational promise in the synoptic apocalypse, nor does any such code accompany the other generational promise in Mark 9.1 and parallels.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Where does it say that the disciples fled to the mountains?

Before we get too far down this path, let me state my premises. The words attributed to Jesus in Mark 13 and Matthew 28 are not before the fact prophecies that were subsequently fulfilled. If it is being proposed that Jesus had amazing, even supernatural, foresight then we will have to agree to disagree on this point and move on.

Are we on the same page? If so, the "prophecies" in the SYNAPOC refelect events that happened in the writers current time (and/or slightly before), and were put back into the hoary mouth of Jesus as a prophecy. Jesus never actually said these things. Right?

There are really only two events in Jewish history that qualify for the events of SYNAPOC.
1. The destruction of Jerusalm and the temple, ca. 68-70 CE.
2. The Barchba rebellion, which ended Jewish nationalism and led to the dispersal of the Jews, ca. 132-135 CE.

... or perhaps a comibination of the two.

The Nabataean war is too trite, but my guess is that it is promoted because it occured near the alleged time of the prophecy. That way the disciples could have still been around before they went off to evangelize the world, and were exececuted, etc. :frown:

So the "prophecy" was tied to dire events (with suitable apocalyptic imagery) in the evagelists and readers recent past. Up to the point where Jesus gloriously returns. That never happened. It never happens, even though Christians continue to predict it to this day.

I was listening to a radio preacher last week, and he was ranting about the Rapture of the Church, the Great Tribulation, the Second Coming, the Great White Throne judgmenent, etc. Now, all these things were fixing to happen (remember I live in the South), based on current events in the news. You would think that Christians would get tired of making a liar out of Jesus and give it up, but each new generation see end time events portended in their own time. It's been that way since the gospels were written.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Roger,

With all due respect, you are not going to be able to prove the supernatural occured from any ancient text.
Hardly ever is progress made in scientific or historical inquiries by assuming miracles might have happened, although I will admit that it is useful to defend dogma.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

I am not sure what the pronoun it means in this question. Nor am I sure what prompted the question.

I (hypothetically) agree. However, room must be left for shrewd political analysis. Predicting the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans is not on the same level as predicting the name of the general who would enter the city and the color of the horse he would be riding. (IOW, potential dates before 70 are not automatically ruled out, especially dates from within the rebellion itself.) But no, I am not trying to smuggle supernaturalism into the debate through the back door.

Even here other combinations should be considered. For example, Theissen (IIRC) argues that the prediction of the razing of the temple in the context of the synoptic apocalypse dates to 70 or later, but the prediction of the abomination of desolation in the text of the synoptic apocalypse dates to the Caligula crisis.

I think Theissen gets the Nabataean conflict involved, not because of its proximity in time to the disciples, but rather because of its proximity in time to the Caligula crisis.

But I agree with you that the Nabataean war seems too trite.

My point on the generational prophecy, however, was that the explicit frame of reference for the final apocalyptic events is the generation contemporaneous with Jesus (some standing here will not die until they see it, this generation will not pass away until all these things happen, you will see the son of man coming). These words are easy enough to put on the lips of Jesus while at least some of his contemporaries are still alive, but they would be downright awkward placed on his lips a century after he allegedly spoke them.

And the attempt to make this generation and those standing here apply to the readers of the gospel instead of the inscribed audience of Jesus looks on its face like a twisting of the obvious meaning of those words.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

We need only look at the words, "in those days" (Mark 13:24) to see that the generation (Mark 13:30) of the apocalypse was a long time in the future of the nominal date of the discourse.

Mark 9:1-13 is not the same thing. The some of 9:1 are the Peter, James and John of 9:2a. There is no laundry list of eschatolical events to occur, only that they need to see something, as they are said to do in 9:2b ff.

According to Mark 13:3, the discourse was given to Peter, James, John and Andrew privately. IMO, the disciples were merely the author's prop to ask the question that sets up the Master's discourse, as in GThomas and many apocrypal gospels. The privately bit was to explain to Mark's audience why they had never heard this variation before (i.e Mark made it up).

But I have a question for you Ben. Do you think that the "prophecies" were meant for these four disciples alone?

Jake Jones IV