brenmcg
From 41:50 – “the concept of an idol desecrating the temple fits only in the 40s or hadrian – it doesn’t fit 70 (AD)”
This is correct.
But the conclusion of the panel that therefore the gospels fit better to Hadrian’s actions in the 130s is incorrect. By then christians didnt’t care about the temple.
The correct conclusion is that it fits caligula’s actions in the 40s.
Steefen
What is the citation for the mention in the Works of Josephus?
= = =
Mark 13: 14
So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Steefen
I am overtaken by “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” so I do not connect the verse and similar verses to the 40s as you do, brenmcg. People did not need to flee Judea then because Caligula died before hell broke loose. People should have fled Judea when the Jewish Civil War started.
“Aelia Capitolina – Roman Jerusalem” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Of the 97,000 Jewish survivors from the siege, thousands were forced to become gladiators in the arena, with many others forced into slavery to build the Temple of Peace (also called the Forum of Vespasian), and the Colosseum in Rome.
In the ruins of Jerusalem, Emperor Hadrian ordered the construction of Colonia Aelia Capitolina in dedication to Jupiter Capitolinus, and to Hadrian himself.
Aelia Capitolina was built in the form of a typical Roman city, consisting of a grid system separated by two pairs of main roads, the cardines (north-to-south) and the decumani (east-to-west) which has been preserved in parts of the layout of the Old City of Jerusalem today.
At the junction of the main cardo and decumanus, Hadrian placed the city’s main forum and a large temple dedicated to Venus (where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is now situated).
Where Herod’s Struthion Pool (a large cuboid cistern) was originally constructed, the structure was vaulted and paved over, being later turned into a secondary forum. The remains of the paving can still be seen under the Convent of the Sisters of Zion.
Aelia Capitolina had no defensive walls but was instead protected by a light garrison of the Tenth Legion that encamped on the western hills. The garrison was responsible for enforcing a ban on Jews entering the city, except for one day each year, during the holiday of Tisha B’Av.
Wikipedia entry for Aelia_Capitolina
There is controversy as to whether Hadrian’s anti-Jewish decrees followed the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt or preceded it and were the cause of the revolt.[9] The older view is that the Bar Kokhba revolt, which took the Romans three years to suppress, enraged Hadrian, and he became determined to erase Judaism from the province. Circumcision was forbidden and Jews were expelled from the city. Hadrian renamed Iudaea Province to Syria Palaestina, dispensing with the name of Judaea.[10]
Jerusalem was renamed “Aelia Capitolina”[11] and rebuilt in the style of its original Hippodamian plan although adapted to Roman use. Jews were prohibited from entering the city on pain of death, except for one day each year, during the holiday of Tisha B’Av. Taken together, these measures[12][13][14] (which also affected Jewish Christians)[15] essentially secularized the city.[16] The ban was maintained until the 7th century,[17] though Christians would soon be granted an exemption: during the 4th century, the Roman emperor Constantine I ordered the construction of Christian holy sites in the city, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Stephen said
brenmcg wroteAlso there is some highly suggestive material in Paul that he knew Matthew.
For example?
Romans 13:8-11
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.“
Linking of shalt not commit adultery, murder, steal … with Love thy neighbor as yourself occurs only in Matthew’s version of the rich young ruler. Not Mark or Luke’s
Paul talks of “fulfillment of the law” – only occurs in Matthew also. Why is Paul talking about fulfilling the law? Who else talks about that?
1 Thess 5:1-2
“Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.“
In the context of the endtimes Paul says he has no need to write to them regarding the times and seasons. Presumably because they already know that no one knows. He expects them to know that the day of the lord will come like a thief. Why does he think they’ll know this and why does he use a derogatory phrase to describe it? Is it because he’s paraphrasing a widely read written material? He talks about labor pains and darkness and light, about not falling asleep of getting drunk. All imagery taken from Matthew’s account of the endtimes and not Luke/Mark.
Steefen said
I am overtaken by “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” so I do not connect the verse and similar verses to the 40s as you do, brenmcg. People did not need to flee Judea then because Caligula died before hell broke loose. People should have fled Judea when the Jewish Civil War started.
Matthew 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation spoken of through the prophet Daniel let the reader understand then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
waiting until the abomination was set up (which it wasn’t) in 70 AD would have been far too late. The war had gone on for 4 years and the Romans had besieged Jerusalem for months, crucifying anyone attempting to leave, long before they destroyed the temple.
Its the events of 40 that gave the gospel writers inspiration for what would bring on the endtimes – the fact that it didn’t happen in 40 didn’t change that. That’s still where the inspiration came from. As Tacitus says the fear remained that some other emperor would order the same.
brenmcg said
Steefen said
I am overtaken by “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” so I do not connect the verse and similar verses to the 40s as you do, brenmcg. People did not need to flee Judea then because Caligula died before hell broke loose. People should have fled Judea when the Jewish Civil War started.
Matthew 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation spoken of through the prophet Daniel let the reader understand then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
waiting until the abomination was set up (which it wasn’t) in 70 AD would have been far too late. The war had gone on for 4 years and the Romans had besieged Jerusalem for months, crucifying anyone attempting to leave, long before they destroyed the temple.
Its the events of 40 that gave the gospel writers inspiration for what would bring on the endtimes – the fact that it didn’t happen in 40 didn’t change that. That’s still where the inspiration came from. As Tacitus says the fear remained that some other emperor would order the same.
#1
The Romans moved south from the Battle of Galilee (April – December 67 C.E.).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
#2
The people should have fled Judea due to the Jewish Civil War between rebellious factions. Vespasian and Titus held back on their attack on Judea while the Jewish Civil War between rebellious factions was under way there.
For me, the abomination of desolation is more how the Jewish rebels desecrated the Temple making it desolate, unfit for its intended purpose. When the infighting stopped to address the mutual threat from Rome, the rebels further made the Temple desolate by backing themselves into the Temple complex as a defensive tactic against Rome. So, what was standing in the holy place–not what could have been standing there but did not, not what was standing there after the Temple was destroyed–was the atrocities of the Jewish rebels making the Temple a military fortress.
brenmcg commented on the Wikipedia entry for abomination of desolation.
It included this:
While Daniel’s “abomination” was probably a pagan altar or sacrifice, Mark uses a masculine participle for “standing”, indicating a concrete historical person: several candidates have been suggested, but the most likely is Titus [not Caligula].
and this:
Luke 21:20–21 drops the “abomination” entirely: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it.”[31] In all three it is likely that the authors had in mind a future eschatological (i.e., end-time) event, and perhaps the activities of some antichrist.[31]
Steefen
and perhaps the activities of some bad actors abusing the Temple, the Jewish rebels, one of whom killed two high priests at the Temple and stood on their bodies. That was a sacrilege. As for desolation, the priests had been killed: without priests, there is desolation.
Stephen said
brenmcg wrote
Also there is some highly suggestive material in Paul that he knew Matthew.
For example?
Romans 13:8-11
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.“
Linking of shalt not commit adultery, murder, steal … with Love thy neighbor as yourself occurs only in Matthew’s version of the rich young ruler. Not Mark or Luke’s
Paul talks of “fulfillment of the law” – only occurs in Matthew also. Why is Paul talking about fulfilling the law? Who else talks about that?
Interesting although the references seem rather thin to me. There is another issue however which makes me question why Paul would reference Matthew of all the gospels. In his account of the “rich young ruler” Matthew has Jesus say, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” This is precisely the point of view that Paul spends most of his time attacking in his letters, that one can be saved by observing the Law. In another passage he has Jesus say that his followers must observe the law even more stringently than the Pharisees. The author of Matthew would have agreed with James and Peter and was of the “Party of Circumcision”.
Stephen said
Interesting although the references seem rather thin to me. There is another issue however which makes me question why Paul would reference Matthew of all the gospels. In his account of the “rich young ruler” Matthew has Jesus say, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” This is precisely the point of view that Paul spends most of his time attacking in his letters, that one can be saved by observing the Law. In another passage he has Jesus say that his followers must observe the law even more stringently than the Pharisees. The author of Matthew would have agreed with James and Peter and was of the “Party of Circumcision”.
They are thin, but if Paul was reading Matthew then these passages would make an awful lot of sense.
In Matthew’s account after Jesus says to keep the commandments the young man responds “Which ones?”
Jesus does not say “All of them!” but gives a list of six which most cultures in any era would accept. (No murder, adultery, stealing, lying. Honor parents and love your neighbor”
The point of the passage however is that the rich young man goes away grieving because it is “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”. But why if the young man has kept these commandments?
It’s because keeping the commandments isn’t enough (as Paul says). He must leave everything and go follow Jesus. For the one’s who leave everything
“for the sake of my name … will inherit eternal life”. Matthew 19:29
(also he doesn’t say followers must follow the law more stringently that the Pharisees he says their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. This righteousness will be determined by following his own commands which he is about to give in the sermon on the mount.)
Leaving aside for a second the subject of who is using whom, the differences between these two accounts is very illuminating.
Mark 10:17-22
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not defraud. Honor your father and mother.’ ” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Matthew 19:16-22
Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Read them carefully. They are NOT saying the same thing. Hint: note the bolded words.
This is precisely the point of view that Paul spends most of his time attacking in his letters, that one can be saved by observing the Law.
But mark has “you lack one thing”
It needs to be emphasized that when Jesus said that man lacked “one thing”, Jesus contradicts Paul. Paul taught that everybody is sinful all day, every day, Romans 3:19-20. Paul would never have said that any certain person’s obedience to Mosaic law lacked “one thing”. On the other hand, if Jesus knew that the rich man lacked many things in his attempted obedience to Mosaic law, he would not have characterized such omissions as “one” thing.
Stephen said
Leaving aside for a second the subject of who is using whom, the differences between these two accounts is very illuminating.Mark 10:17-22
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not defraud. Honor your father and mother.’ ” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Matthew 19:16-22
Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Read them carefully. They are NOT saying the same thing. Hint: note the bolded words.
Well the discussion is about Paul reading Matthew so I’m not why it matters that Mark is different.
But anyway in Matthew the young man asks what good or what good thing must he do to inherit eternal life. The young man is asking about works. Jesus rejects the question and says only God is good – ie works in themselves aren’t good and cannot bring you to eternal life (just as Paul would say). Only God is good and you must head for him to enter eternal life – that is he must sell and leave everything and follow Jesus.
Luke/Mark edit this to have the Jesus ask the young man “why do you call me good only god is good?” – compare “who can forgive sins but god alone?”, “Who is this? even the wind and the waves obey him”, “who do you say I am?”.
In terms of who’s editing who we just need to read the opening line of the pericope
Matthew “A man having come up to Jesus asked him … “
Luke “A certain ruler asked him … “
Mark “A man ran up to Jesus and fell down on his knees to him …”
jakejones said
But mark has “you lack one thing”
It needs to be emphasized that when Jesus said that man lacked “one thing”, Jesus contradicts Paul. Paul taught that everybody is sinful all day, every day, Romans 3:19-20. Paul would never have said that any certain person’s obedience to Mosaic law lacked “one thing”. On the other hand, if Jesus knew that the rich man lacked many things in his attempted obedience to Mosaic law, he would not have characterized such omissions as “one” thing.
Neither Jesus nor the young man claim that the young man has kept the mosaic law and now lacks just one other thing.
In Mark’s version Jesus lists 5 commandments to keep and says the young man lacks one other thing besides these. Surely if there are 613 commandments he is lacking more than one?
your assumption is that mark knew of 613 commandments and thought that all of them were important to keep? when mark lists 5 commandments he doesn’t mention the following :
‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
“this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices”
‘You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not defraud. Honor your father and mother.’ ” 20 He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing
marks jesus separates important from unimportant commands and says to the man, “you lack one thing,”
when did paul say “you lack one thing” ?
jakejones said
marks jesus separates important from unimportant commands and says to the man, “you lack one thing,”
when did paul say “you lack one thing” ?
Paul might not use these exact words but he has the same general idea.
Is the one thing the young man lacks easy or difficult? It leaves him walking away upset – it is more difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the young man to do this one thing.
Paul had the idea that you must die to the world or die to sin so that you can live in christ. Romans 6:8 “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him“. Gal 2:19-20 “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.“
In Mark’s story the young man must sell and leave everything and go be with Christ, for anyone who “has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions and in the age to come eternal life.” Mark 10:29-30
Same idea just written differently. Following the law isn’t enough.
It’s this faith, described by Matthew/Mark, that Paul first tried to destroy but then joined and preached.
“Paul might not use these exact words but he has the same general idea.”
“Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the moneyto the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come….
where is the same “general idea” ?
“In Mark’s story the young man must sell and leave everything and go be with Christ,”
because it seems mark has leviticus 19:18 in mind and makes that more important than following jesus.
“it is more difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the young man to do this one thing.”
marks jesus never says it was impossible to do.
“
Same idea just written differently. Following the law isn’t enough. “
how are they the same idea?
what must “i DO….?”
where is “faith” in any of this?
jakejones said
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the moneyto the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come….
where is the same “general idea” ?
The general idea is the law is not enough. Those who only follow the law and lacking something. That something is to give up everything and follow Jesus. Or as Paul says die to the world and live for Christ.
As Peter says in Mark 10:28 “We have left everything to follow you”
Is this that brings eternal life Mark 10:30
What’s translated as “then follow me” is really “and follow me”
“One thing you lack he said. Go sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven and come follow me.”
“it is more difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the young man to do this one thing.”
marks jesus never says it was impossible to do.
Its impossible with men but not God. “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Entering the kingdom of heaven takes more than the law.
how are they the same idea?
what must “i DO….?”where is “faith” in any of this?
Yes and what does Jesus tell him to do? Obeying the Law isn’t enough.
He must leave everything and follow Jesus.
Mark 8:34-35 “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.“
Mark 13:13 “and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.“
Exactly as Paul would say. You must leave everything and put your faith in Jesus that he will save you.
Romans 10:9 “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.“
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)