Bart Ehrman Blog Readers Forum

A A A
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_TopicIcon
In Jesus' Vision of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Why Didn't He Identify Rome as the Destroyers?
Avatar
Steefen
7710 Posts
(Offline)
1
May 20, 2016 - 11:12 am

In Jesus’ Vision of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Why Didn’t He Identify Rome as the Destroyers?

He says armies would surround the city.

Why Did He not Identify the Idumeans as Co-destroyers?

What would have happened if he did identify the Romans?

What would have happened if he did identify the Idumeans who were involved in the Civil War that took place simultaneously with the First Jewish-Roman War?

Avatar
Steefen
7710 Posts
(Offline)
2
May 21, 2016 - 1:04 pm

Mark Replied:

He does identify the Romans when he says in The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:28

“For wherever the carcase may be, there shall the eagles be gathered together.”

The insignia for the Romans was THE EAGLE.

Avatar
Steefen
7710 Posts
(Offline)
3
May 21, 2016 - 1:35 pm

Some Bibles, probably incorrectly use vulture instead of eagle.

I finally found three eagles that do eat carrion: The African Fish Eagle, the Steppe Eagle, and the Tawny Eagle.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

~ ~ ~

Alright: wherever the dead shall be, there shall the eagles be because they or another/others did the killing.

So, the Eagle said, upon arrival and found civil war, let them kill themselves, why lose our soldiers, carrion is our benefit.

Avatar
FocusMyView
4
May 24, 2016 - 12:24 pm

If I had two interpretations of eating the dead, vultures and eagles, I would assume vultures was meant. It seems more likely that eagles would have been the incorrect substitution simply because it so conveniently fits the Roman insignia. Motive.
Either way it is moot if we can look up the original.

Ok. Eagle it is. ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Avatar
Stephen
4548 Posts
(Offline)
5
May 25, 2016 - 12:52 pm

FocusMyView said
If I had two interpretations of eating the dead, vultures and eagles, I would assume vultures was meant. It seems more likely that eagles would have been the incorrect substitution simply because it so conveniently fits the Roman insignia. Motive.
Either way it is moot if we can look up the original.

Ok. Eagle it is. ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Oh good grief.  Everyone has a pet theory or an axe to grind.  Here’s mine.  Matthew didn’t know that eagles don’t eat carrion and the “mistranslation” is to cover that gaffe.     

Forum Timezone: America/Indiana/Indianapolis
All RSSShow Stats
Administrators:
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
Top Posters:
Steefen: 7710
Stephen: 4548
Porphyry: 1835
godspell: 1827
DavidFord: 1349
BJH1960: 1189
brenmcg: 1184
Colin Milton: 1142
JAS: 948
Jarek: 936
Newest Members:
Rory
DavidTharp
1stadam1stantiochian
Socoflyer
rbaird120
JosephusButJoDontBelievePhus
StoosterRooster
philohistor
LindaW
Erinmprater
Forum Stats:
Groups: 2
Forums: 13
Topics: 2606
Posts: 46054

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 65
Members: 65837
Moderators: 0
Admins: 4
Most Users Ever Online: 3559
Currently Online: BJH1960
Guest(s) 72
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)