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

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

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    ... From: Bob Schacht To: Cc: Ted Weeden Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:55
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.