Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    In some past posts, I have given evidence that Mark was not written c. 70 CE as assumed by all but a very small minority of scholars, but more like around 49
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In some past posts, I have given evidence that Mark was not written c. 70 CE
      as assumed by all but a very small minority of scholars, but more like
      around 49 CE. In the post of 8-5, "Markan Christology", it is pointed out
      that the Parable of the Vineyard appears to not only be pre-70, but very
      primitive. Further, as pointed out in the post of August 18, 2001, titled,
      "Does Mark 8:14-21 Relate to the LP?", this passage indicates that Mark was
      written c. 49 CE and that its intended readers lived in Rome and/or
      Alexandria. Finally, in a post of 8-27, it is pointed out that there is
      evidence that I Peter dates to c. 47 CE--with Mark having written his gospel
      in Rome several years later c, 49 CE.

      All this has fallen on deaf ears. Outside of a mild challange by Ron Price
      to the interpretation I make on the parable of the vineyard, the evidence
      has neither been openly challanged nor openly accepted by anybody. I know
      that this does not mean acceptance of the evidence but, rather, a studied
      indifference to it.

      For most of you I think the indifference is because, you believe,
      the Little Apocalypse proves that Mark was written c. 70 CE. As a result,
      you feel justified in giving a studied indifference to any contrary opinion
      and the evidence given to justify it--why waste one's time on such dribble
      when the Little Apocalypse proves that Mark was written c. 70 CE?

      For this reason, I am sending in a series of six posts in
      which the Little Apocalypse will be examined verse by verse. In them, it
      will be demonstrated that, far from supporting the theory that Mark was
      written c 70 CE, it indicates that Mark was, rather, written c. 50 CE.
      Hopefully, this action will end the studied indifference and open
      up a serious debate on the dating of Mark. Needless to say, if Mark does
      date to 50 CE, it has deep and profound consequences for New Testament
      studies--especially as they relate to the quest for the real Jesus of
      history.

      INTRODUCTION

      According to Mark, Jesus spoke the Little Apocalypse during his final visit
      to Jerusalem and less than a week before he was crucified. It is the final
      long discourse by Jesus in Mark's gospel.

      The Little Apocalypse is very important in dating Mark. The Jesus Seminar
      (The Five Gospels, p. 108), states, "The note about the 'devastating
      desecration' in v. 14, the warning to be on guard against counterfeit
      messiahs (vv. 21-22) and the closing admonitions to stay alert are
      undoubtedly meant for Mark's own readers and therefore point to the date of
      composition."

      There is one other reason shy it is very important in dating Mark. That is,
      Mark, in order to impress his intended readers with the prophetic powers of
      Jesus, likely focused on fulfilled prophecy in the Little Apocalypse. Hence,
      the date of the last fulfilled prophecy in it likely gives us a date close
      to when Mark wrote it.

      As we shall see, the last fulfilled prophecy in it dates to the early spring
      of 48 CE. This indicates that Mark was written soon thereafter--most likely
      c. 50 CE.

      THE PRELUDE (MARK 13:1-2)

      The Little Apocalypse thusly begins in Mark 13:1-2, "And as he (i.e., Jesus)
      was going forth out of the temple, says to him one of his disciples,
      'Teacher, see!--what wonderful stones and buildings!!!' And Jesus,
      answering, said to him, 'See you these great buildings? Not at all shall be
      left one stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.'"

      Many scholars argue that this passage regards the destruction of the temple
      by the Romans in 70 CE. Some of them go further and say that it was invented
      by early Christians after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70
      CE. If so, then Mark dates to 70 CE or later.

      However, this passage does not regard the destruction of the temple. It
      begins with Jesus leaving the temple: meaning that he was facing out to the
      city of Jerusalem. Hence, in it, (1) the remark of the disciples, "Teacher,
      see!--what wondersul stones and buildings!!!", and (2) the reply of Jesus,
      "See you these great buildings? Not at all shall be left one stone upon
      stone which shall not be thrown down.", refer to the buildings of Jerusalem
      Jesus was facing rather than to the temple complex out of his sight.
      Therefore, in Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the total destruction of Jerusalem
      rather than the destruction of the temple.

      That this is the meaning of Jesus' prophecy in 13:1-2 was recognized by
      Matthew and Luke: each of whom used Mark as a basic source and wrote his
      gospel after 70 CE. Since the Romans did destroy the temple, but didn't
      completely destroy Jerusalem (although, of course, they heavily damaged it
      and left much of it in ruins), each assumes that Jesus' original prophecy
      had to relate to destruction of the temple in 70 CE rather than to the total
      destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, each "corrects" Mark's phaseology in a
      major way so as to transform Jesus' prophecy into a prophecy concerning the
      destruction of the temple.

      Let us begin with Matthew 24:1-3, "And going forth, Jesus went away from the
      temple, and came to him his disciples to point out to him the buildings of
      the temple. But Jesus said to them, 'See you not all these things? Truly, I
      say to you, not at all shall there be stone upon stone which shall not be
      thrown down.'"

      Note that Matthew has the disciples walking towards the temple and, so, has
      them facing the temple. Further, he has them speak about not about
      "buildings" but about the "buildings of the temple" they face. These two
      changes transform Jesus' prophecy into a prophecy of the destruction of the
      temple.

      Next, let us turn to Luke 21:5-7, "And as some were speaking about the
      temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and consecrated gifts, he
      said, '(As to) these things you are beholding, days will come in which shall
      not be left stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.'"

      Here, Luke radically changes Mark's narrative. All of Mark's references to
      "buildings" are dropped. Rather the discussion is all on one building and it
      is explicitly said to be the temple. Again, this transforms Jesus' prophecy
      into a prophecy of the destruction of the temple.

      The bottom line: Mark 13:1-2 prophecies a situation which did not occur in
      70 CE (i.e., the total destruction of Jerusalem). This is why both Matthew
      and Luke, who wrote their gospels after 70 CE, believed it necessary to
      alter Mark's wording in this passage. Hence, the biblical scholars who claim
      that Mark 13:1-2 reflects Mark's knowledge of the destruction of the temple
      in 70 CE are incorrect. Indeed, this passage is strong evidence that Mark
      was
      written before 70 CE.

      THE QUESTION (MARK 13:3-4)

      The Little Apocalypse thusly continues in Mark 13:3-4, "And as he was
      sitting upon the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and
      John apart (i.e., privately) asked him, 'Tell us when these things shall be
      and what is the sign when all these things should be accomplished?'"

      Because, in Mark 13:1-2, Jesus prophecies the destruction of all the
      buildings in Jerusalem, this question of the disciples is a dual question
      of: (1) when will all the buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed? And (2) what
      will be the sign that will precede this total destruction?

      Note that, this passage states, Jesus took "Peter and James and John apart".
      Peter was Jesus' chief disciple. James and John were two sons of a man named
      Zebedee. James was executed about 44 CE, while John had a longer career. He
      was one of the three "pillars" according to Paul in Galatians (which dates
      to c. 53 CE). According to several early Christian traditions, he lived to a
      very old age.

      What is curious about Mark's wording is that he lists James before John.
      Further, he does this consistently in his gospel: see 1:19, 3:17, 5:37, 9:2,
      10:35, and 14:33. This indicates that James was more well-known than John
      when Mark wrote his gospel.

      Since James died in 44 CE, while John had a longer career, James was more
      famous than John only during his lifetime and while his memory was still
      fresh in the minds of the people. Thus, that James was more famous than John
      when Mark was written suggests that it was written about 50 CE or earlier.

      The bottom line: this passage is contrary to the theory that Mark wrote his
      gospel c. 70 CE. Conversely, it strongly supports the theory that Mark wrote
      his gospel c. 50 CE or earlier.

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 17
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    • Bob Schacht
      ... I, for one, hope that more people will respond to your claims, either positively or negatively, with critical evidence one way or the other. Of course, I
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:49 PM 8/31/01 -0500, FMMCCOY wrote:
        >In some past posts, I have given evidence that Mark was not written c. 70
        >CE as assumed by all but a very small minority of scholars, but more like
        >around 49 CE. In the post of 8-5, "Markan Christology", it is pointed
        >out that the Parable of the Vineyard appears to not only be pre-70, but
        >very primitive. Further, as pointed out in the post of August 18, 2001,
        >titled, "Does Mark 8:14-21 Relate to the LP?", this passage indicates that
        >Mark was written c. 49 CE and that its intended readers lived in Rome
        >and/or Alexandria. Finally, in a post of 8-27, it is pointed out that
        >there is evidence that I Peter dates to c. 47 CE--with Mark having written
        >his gospel in Rome several years later c, 49 CE.
        >
        >All this has fallen on deaf ears. Outside of a mild challange by Ron Price
        >to the interpretation I make on the parable of the vineyard, the evidence
        >has neither been openly challanged nor openly accepted by anybody. I know
        >that this does not mean acceptance of the evidence but, rather, a studied
        >indifference to it.

        I, for one, hope that more people will respond to your claims, either
        positively or negatively, with critical evidence one way or the other. Of
        course, I don't mean Amen posts, but critical examinations of your
        argument. Toward that end, I have one question:


        >...As we shall see, the last fulfilled prophecy in it dates to the early
        >spring of 48 CE. This indicates that Mark was written soon
        >thereafter--most likely c. 50 CE.
        >
        >THE PRELUDE (MARK 13:1-2)
        >
        >The Little Apocalypse thusly begins in Mark 13:1-2, "And as he (i.e.,
        >Jesus) was going forth out of the temple, says to him one of his
        >disciples, 'Teacher, see!--what wonderful stones and buildings!!!' And
        >Jesus, answering, said to him, 'See you these great buildings? Not at all
        >shall be left one stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.'"
        >
        >Many scholars argue that this passage regards the destruction of the
        >temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Some of them go further and say that it was
        >invented by early Christians after the destruction of the temple by the
        >Romans in 70 CE. If so, then Mark dates to 70 CE or later.
        >
        >However, this passage does not regard the destruction of the temple. It
        >begins with Jesus leaving the temple: meaning that he was facing out to
        >the city of Jerusalem. Hence, in it, (1) the remark of the disciples,
        >"Teacher, see!--what wondersul stones and buildings!!!", and (2) the reply
        >of Jesus, "See you these great buildings? Not at all shall be left one
        >stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.", refer to the buildings
        >of Jerusalem Jesus was facing rather than to the temple complex out of his
        >sight. Therefore, in Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the total destruction of
        >Jerusalem rather than the destruction of the temple....

        Let us accept for the moment your interpretation that Jesus (and his
        audience) were facing Jerusalem rather than the Temple during this
        dialogue, and that Mark has intentionally framed the dialogue with that in
        mind. Are you then claiming that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by 50
        C.E.? And on what basis would you make such a claim? Furthermore, the text
        does explicitly mention "great buildings" and "wonderful stones", so
        they're not exactly referring to residential districts of Jerusalem, but
        rather to some concentration of civic architecture near the Temple. What
        evidence do you have to date the destruction of these buildings this early?

        Bob


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • mgrondin@tir.com
        ... The difficulty with this view of John is Mk10:39, where Jesus is made to tell BOTH Zebedee brothers, The cup that I drink, you will drink; and with the
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Frank McCoy wrote:
          > Since James died in 44 CE, while John had a longer career, James
          > was more famous than John only during his lifetime and while his
          > memory was still fresh in the minds of the people. Thus, that James
          > was more famous than John when Mark was written suggests that it
          > was written about 50 CE or earlier.

          The difficulty with this view of John is Mk10:39, where Jesus is
          made to tell BOTH Zebedee brothers, "The cup that I drink, you will
          drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be
          baptized." The John who's alive in Acts, and who died a natural
          death at a ripe old age seems to be unknown to the author of this
          Markan passage. Rather, he seems to have bought into the Eastern
          tradition that both Zebedee brothers were martyred at the same time
          at the hands of Herod Agrippa. Or does he _assume_ that John will
          also be martyred? Would he really have had the chutzpah to commit
          such an assumption to writing?

          Mike
        • FMMCCOY
          ... From: Bob Schacht To: Cc: Ted Weeden Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:55
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
            To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            Cc: "Ted Weeden" <weedent@...>
            Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:55 PM
            Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I


            > >However, this passage does not regard the destruction of the temple. It
            > >begins with Jesus leaving the temple: meaning that he was facing out to
            > >the city of Jerusalem. Hence, in it, (1) the remark of the disciples,
            > >"Teacher, see!--what wonderful stones and buildings!!!", and (2) the
            reply
            > >of Jesus, "See you these great buildings? Not at all shall be left one
            > >stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.", refer to the buildings
            > >of Jerusalem Jesus was facing rather than to the temple complex out of
            his
            > >sight. Therefore, in Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the total destruction of
            > >Jerusalem rather than the destruction of the temple....
            >
            > Let us accept for the moment your interpretation that Jesus (and his
            > audience) were facing Jerusalem rather than the Temple during this
            > dialogue, and that Mark has intentionally framed the dialogue with that in
            > mind. Are you then claiming that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by 50
            > C.E.? And on what basis would you make such a claim? Furthermore, the text
            > does explicitly mention "great buildings" and "wonderful stones", so
            > they're not exactly referring to residential districts of Jerusalem, but
            > rather to some concentration of civic architecture near the Temple. What
            > evidence do you have to date the destruction of these buildings this
            early?
            >
            > Bob
            >
            Your line of reasoning appears to be this: If (1) Jesus and his disciples
            were facing Jerusalem during their dialogue, then (2) Jerusalem was
            destroyed by 50 CE. However, I don't see where (2) necessarily follows from
            (1). Is there, perhaps, a missing premise to your argument?

            In any event, to set the record straight, I do not think that Jerusalem was
            destroyed c. 50 CE.

            For people from rural Galilee, many of the buildings in Jerusalem would have
            appeared to have been "wonderful" and "great" and even the massive stones
            comprising the three walls of Jerusalem would have been "wonderful".
            Therefore, I see no problem with the idea that Jesus and his disciples were
            facing Jerusalem when his disciples said, "Teacher, see!--what wonderful
            stones and buildings!!!",

            Also, as Jesus and his disciples gazed out at Jerusalem, their eyes might
            have been especially focused on this complex of wonderful and great
            buildings and wonderful stones that is thusly described by Josephus in Wars
            (Book 5, Chapter 4, Section 4), "Now as these towers were so very tall, they
            appeared much taller by the place in which they stood; for that very old
            wall wherin they were was built on a high hill, and was itself a kind of
            elevation that was still thirty cubits taller; over which were the towers
            situated, and thereby were made much higher to appearance. The largeness
            also of the stones was *wonderful*; for they were not made of common small
            stones, nor of such large ones only as men could carry, but they were of
            white marble, cut out of the rock; and each stone was twenty cubits in
            length, and ten in breadth, and five in depth. They were exactly united to
            one another, that each tower looked like one entire rock of stone, so
            growing naturally, and afterward cut by the hand of the artificers into
            their present shape and corners; so little, or not at all, did their joints
            or connexions appear. Now as these towers were themselves on the north side
            of the wall, the king had a palace inwardly thereto adjoined, which exceds
            all my ability to describe it; for it was so very curious as to want no cost
            nor skill in its construction, but was entirely walled about to the height
            of thirty cubits, and was adorned with towers at equal distances, and with
            large bed-chambers, that would contain beds for a hundred guests apiece, in
            which the variety of stones is not to be expressed; for a large quantity of
            those that were rare of that kind was collected together....But indeed it is
            not possible to give a complete description of these palaces; and the very
            remembrance of them is a torment to one, as putting one in mind what vastly
            rich buildings that fire which was kindled by the robbers hath consumed; for
            these were not burnt by the Romans, but by these internal plotters, as we
            have already related, in the beginning of their rebellion."

            Thank you for the questions!

            Frank McCoy
            1809 N. English Apt. 17
            Maplewood, MN 55109
          • FMMCCOY
            ... From: To: Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I ...
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <mgrondin@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little
              Apocalypse--Part I


              > --- Frank McCoy wrote:
              > > Since James died in 44 CE, while John had a longer career, James
              > > was more famous than John only during his lifetime and while his
              > > memory was still fresh in the minds of the people. Thus, that James
              > > was more famous than John when Mark was written suggests that it
              > > was written about 50 CE or earlier.
              >
              > The difficulty with this view of John is Mk10:39, where Jesus is
              > made to tell BOTH Zebedee brothers, "The cup that I drink, you will
              > drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be
              > baptized." The John who's alive in Acts, and who died a natural
              > death at a ripe old age seems to be unknown to the author of this
              > Markan passage. Rather, he seems to have bought into the Eastern
              > tradition that both Zebedee brothers were martyred at the same time
              > at the hands of Herod Agrippa. Or does he _assume_ that John will
              > also be martyred? Would he really have had the chutzpah to commit
              > such an assumption to writing?
              >

              Mike:

              The interpretation you give of Mk 10:39 is plausible and, so, and might be
              correct. However, conversely, this passage might look forward to the Last
              Supper, when all the disciples drank from the cup drunk by Jesus and to the
              "baptism" of the Spirit experienced by Jesus' disciples at Pentecost in
              imitation of the "baptism" by the Spirit experienced by Jesus at his baptism
              by John. Other plausible interpretations are possible as well. This
              passage is ambiguous, and deliberately so!

              You are correct in saying that there were some early Christian traditions in
              which *both* James and John were martyred about the same time. However,
              they are contrary to the opinions of Luke and Eusebius. Luke only specifies
              that James got the axe (so to speak!) and Eusebius endorsed the early
              Christian traditions in which John lived to a ripe old age.

              If you are correct, in which case both James and John were executed c. 44
              CE, then their prominent role in Mark (second only to that of Peter) is in
              full accord with the hypothesis that Mark wrote his gospel c. 50 CE--when
              the memories of their martyrdom would still have been relatively fresh in
              people's minds.

              Frank
              1809 N. English Apt. 17
              Maplewood, MN USA 55109
            • mgrondin@tir.com
              ... But note that Eusebius also reports (in Eccl.2:9) that Clement (in Outlines, Bk. VII) tells a story of a second man being executed with Jacob. In Clement s
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Frank McCoy wrote:
                > You are correct in saying that there were some early Christian
                > traditions in which *both* James and John were martyred about the
                > same time. However, they are contrary to the opinions of Luke and
                > Eusebius. Luke only specifies that James got the axe (so to speak!)
                > and Eusebius endorsed the early Christian traditions in which John
                > lived to a ripe old age.

                But note that Eusebius also reports (in Eccl.2:9) that Clement (in
                Outlines, Bk. VII) tells a story of a second man being executed
                with Jacob. In Clement's account, this second man is one of those
                who brought Jacob into court, and is so moved by Jacob's testimony
                that he, too, confesses to being a Christian! It's hard to know
                what to make of this, except that it seems there was a tradition
                of a double execution. But aside from what actually happened, the
                question may be: what did the author of Mk10:39 _believe_ had
                happened? It's possible (especially given your dating, and the
                possibility that Johann went into hiding) that he believed that
                the second man was Jacob's brother. Whether he was right or wrong
                about that, it would explain the special status he gave to both
                Zebedee brothers in the Transfig scene and elsewhere.

                Mike
              • Bob Schacht
                ... The argument is yours. In your series on the Little Apocalypse, your arguments follow a predictable pattern: 1. The text says X 2. The Jesus Seminar
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 07:45 AM 9/1/01 -0500, you wrote:

                  >----- Original Message -----
                  >From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                  >To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Cc: "Ted Weeden" <weedent@...>
                  >Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:55 PM
                  >Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I
                  >
                  >
                  > > >However, this passage does not regard the destruction of the temple. It
                  > > >begins with Jesus leaving the temple: meaning that he was facing out to
                  > > >the city of Jerusalem. Hence, in it, (1) the remark of the disciples,
                  > > >"Teacher, see!--what wonderful stones and buildings!!!", and (2) the
                  >reply
                  > > >of Jesus, "See you these great buildings? Not at all shall be left one
                  > > >stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.", refer to the buildings
                  > > >of Jerusalem Jesus was facing rather than to the temple complex out of
                  >his
                  > > >sight. Therefore, in Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the total destruction of
                  > > >Jerusalem rather than the destruction of the temple....
                  > >
                  > > Let us accept for the moment your interpretation that Jesus (and his
                  > > audience) were facing Jerusalem rather than the Temple during this
                  > > dialogue, and that Mark has intentionally framed the dialogue with that in
                  > > mind. Are you then claiming that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by 50
                  > > C.E.? And on what basis would you make such a claim? Furthermore, the text
                  > > does explicitly mention "great buildings" and "wonderful stones", so
                  > > they're not exactly referring to residential districts of Jerusalem, but
                  > > rather to some concentration of civic architecture near the Temple. What
                  > > evidence do you have to date the destruction of these buildings this
                  >early?
                  > >
                  > > Bob
                  > >
                  >Your line of reasoning appears to be this: If (1) Jesus and his disciples
                  >were facing Jerusalem during their dialogue, then (2) Jerusalem was
                  >destroyed by 50 CE. However, I don't see where (2) necessarily follows from
                  >(1). Is there, perhaps, a missing premise to your argument?

                  The argument is yours. In your series on the Little Apocalypse, your
                  arguments follow a predictable pattern:
                  1. The text says X
                  2. The Jesus Seminar explains X with respect to the War of 66-70 C.E.
                  3. But a better explanation for X can be found in the years immediately
                  preceding 50 C.E.
                  4. Therefore the text can be dated ca. 49 C.E.

                  But in the case of these verses (Mark 13:1-2) you leave out steps 3 & 4;
                  you only claim that the Jesus Seminar is wrong. You do not give us a better
                  explanation. There are two alternatives:
                  1. That Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (as you put it) was
                  wrong and was never fulfilled; or
                  2. That the prophecy refers to some event other than the destruction that
                  occurred during the War of 66-70 C.E.

                  According to the ABD, Titus destroyed not only the Temple in 70 C.E., but
                  "most of Jerusalem." Specifically, he also destroyed the Antonia, Herod's
                  huge fortress on the NW corner of the Temple Mount. So I think your
                  argument is quite weak here. If vss. 1-2 do not refer to 70 C.E., what does
                  it refer to?

                  Besides, you are making quite a lot of Jesus' body posture on exit from the
                  temple. But Jesus is not the first speaker-- instead, "one of his
                  disciples" speaks first. If you want to make so much of body posture, this
                  disciple could have turned around to face Jesus before speaking, thereby
                  turning his face towards the Temple (or, perhaps, the Antonia.) So the
                  framing of the dialogue depends not on what Jesus was looking at, but what
                  this disciple was looking at. And I think your suggestion that the disciple
                  as a simple Galilean would place residential construction in Jerusalem on
                  the same par with the civic architecture of the Temple Mount, including the
                  Antonia, seems ludicrous to me.

                  So it seems here that your argument is rather weak, even though I would
                  like to see your date of 49 C.E. for GMark confirmed.

                  Bob




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • FMMCCOY
                  ... From: Bob Schacht To: Cc: Ted Weeden Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 3, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Cc: "Ted Weeden" <weedent@...>
                    Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 12:44 AM
                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I


                    > > > Bob
                    > > >
                    > >Your line of reasoning appears to be this: If (1) Jesus and his disciples
                    > >were facing Jerusalem during their dialogue, then (2) Jerusalem was
                    > >destroyed by 50 CE. However, I don't see where (2) necessarily follows
                    from
                    > >(1). Is there, perhaps, a missing premise to your argument?
                    >
                    > The argument is yours. In your series on the Little Apocalypse, your
                    > arguments follow a predictable pattern:
                    > 1. The text says X
                    > 2. The Jesus Seminar explains X with respect to the War of 66-70 C.E.
                    > 3. But a better explanation for X can be found in the years immediately
                    > preceding 50 C.E.
                    > 4. Therefore the text can be dated ca. 49 C.E.
                    >
                    > But in the case of these verses (Mark 13:1-2) you leave out steps 3 & 4;
                    > you only claim that the Jesus Seminar is wrong. You do not give us a
                    better
                    > explanation. >

                    Bob:

                    As respects 13:1-2, where Jesus and his disciple are in dialogue, you
                    initially state, "The (four step) argument is yours". However, you close by
                    stating that, as respects my argument regarding 13:1-2, "you leave out steps
                    3 & 4". Please make it clear, as respects 13:2, whether you think that I
                    use the four step argument (which entails that I use steps 3 & 4) or whether
                    you think that I do not use steps 3 & 4 (which entails that I do not use the
                    four step argument), so that I know how to respond.


                    > There are two alternatives:
                    > 1. That Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (as you put it)
                    was
                    > wrong and was never fulfilled; or
                    > 2. That the prophecy refers to some event other than the destruction that
                    > occurred during the War of 66-70 C.E.

                    My position is that Jesus' prophecy of the total destruction of Jerusalem is
                    an as yet unfulfilled prophecy which isn't necessarily wrong and which, if
                    true, won't be fulfilled until the coming of the Son of Man.
                    .


                    > According to the ABD, Titus destroyed not only the Temple in 70 C.E., but
                    > "most of Jerusalem." Specifically, he also destroyed the Antonia, Herod's
                    > huge fortress on the NW corner of the Temple Mount. So I think your
                    > argument is quite weak here. If vss. 1-2 do not refer to 70 C.E., what
                    does
                    > it refer to?
                    >

                    It refers to what will happen to Jerusalem when comes the Son of Man--see
                    the discussion in Part IV.

                    How can the prophecy that no stone will be left unturned refer to the events
                    of 70 CE? The destruction of *most* of Jerusalem means that, while most of
                    the stones of the city were overturned by the Romans, a lot of them were
                    left unturned. One can't even say that the temple complex was completely
                    destroyed with no stone left unturned for one part of the temple complex,
                    i.e., the wailing wall, is still in existence with its stones unturned.

                    > Besides, you are making quite a lot of Jesus' body posture on exit from
                    the
                    > temple. But Jesus is not the first speaker-- instead, "one of his
                    > disciples" speaks first. If you want to make so much of body posture, this
                    > disciple could have turned around to face Jesus before speaking, thereby
                    > turning his face towards the Temple (or, perhaps, the Antonia.) So the
                    > framing of the dialogue depends not on what Jesus was looking at, but what
                    > this disciple was looking at.

                    If one wants to engage in speculation as to the body posture of the
                    disciple, then perhaps he was walking beside Jesus, and holding up one of
                    his arms and pointing, with his index finger, towards the city when he made
                    his statement.

                    The bottom line, though, is this: The disciple's remark begins with
                    "Teacher, see what..." and, without any clarification from Mark, the most
                    natural interpretation is that the disciple is referring to what Jesus is
                    seeing as he leaves the temple and faces outward to the city of Jerusalem.

                    >And I think your suggestion that the
                    disciple
                    > as a simple Galilean would place residential construction in Jerusalem on
                    > the same par with the civic architecture of the Temple Mount, including
                    the
                    > Antonia, seems ludicrous to me.
                    >
                    > So it seems here that your argument is rather weak, even though I would
                    > like to see your date of 49 C.E. for GMark confirmed.
                    >
                    This is a mis-representation of my position. To set the
                    record straight, my position is that Jesus and the disciple, as rustic
                    rubes, would have deemed the buildings of the Herodian castle-complex and
                    the mansions of the high priestly aristocracy to be great buildings. They
                    also would have deemed the buildings of the temple complex to be great
                    buildings. It does not necessarily follow from this, nor do I mean to imply
                    this, that they would have found the great residential buildings to be just
                    as great as the great buildings of the temple complex. Indeed, this is
                    patently false since the temple was the greatest building in Jerusalem. If
                    Jesus had said, "See you the greatest building in Jerusalem?", then it would
                    be clear that he had been referring to the temple. However, what he
                    actually said is, "See you these great buildings?" As he states this while
                    going forth out of the temple and, so, is apparently facing the city, I
                    think it most likely that he is referring to the great residences in the
                    city.

                    I deeply appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts
                    and I hope that you and some of the
                    other XTalk listers will ask some further questions and/or make some
                    further criticisms on the intepretation of the Little Apocalypse I have
                    suggested in the six posts. The implications of the hypothesis that Mark
                    wrote his gospel c. 49 CE are revolutionary in nature, so I think it
                    warrants further discussion.


                    Frank McCoy
                    1809 N. English Apt. 17
                    Maplewood, MN USA 55109
                  • Jim Bacon
                    ... Frank, How do you account for early Christian tradition (Papias as quoted by Eusebius) that Mark based his gospel on the teachings of Peter? Conventional
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Frank McCoy said:
                      >
                      > I deeply appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts
                      > and I hope that you and some of the
                      > other XTalk listers will ask some further questions and/or make some
                      > further criticisms on the intepretation of the Little Apocalypse I have
                      > suggested in the six posts. The implications of the hypothesis that Mark
                      > wrote his gospel c. 49 CE are revolutionary in nature, so I think it
                      > warrants further discussion.
                      >
                      >
                      Frank,

                      How do you account for early Christian tradition (Papias as quoted by
                      Eusebius) that Mark based his gospel on the teachings of Peter? Conventional
                      scholarship place Mark and Peter together in Rome in the 60s C.E.

                      Jim Bacon
                    • mgrondin@tir.com
                      ... This is a test, right? To see if anyone was paying attention? Good one, Frank! I love the juxtaposition of scholarly caution ( if true ) with patently
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Frank McCoy wrote:
                        > My position is that Jesus' prophecy of the total destruction of
                        > Jerusalem is an as yet unfulfilled prophecy which isn't necessarily
                        > wrong and which, if true, won't be fulfilled until the coming of
                        > the Son of Man.

                        This is a test, right? To see if anyone was paying attention?
                        Good one, Frank! I love the juxtaposition of scholarly caution
                        ("if true") with patently absurd religious doctrine! Well done! LOL

                        Mike
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.