Robert said:
It proves Jesus was a great prophet, perhaps even a greater heavenly figure who exacts revenge, or at least justice, against those who opposed and had him killed. This legacy has scarred the church for thousands of years. Luke repeats Mk 13,26 in Lk 21,27 and repeats the substance of Mk 14,62 in Lk 22,69. The destruction of the temple, when the people who remained in Jerusalem and the high priests saw the Son of Man coming in judgment upon them occurred within a generation of Jesus’ death.
With respect, this is not what Mark 13:26 says. There is nothing about exacting revenge or imposing judgment upon those who remained in the Temple. And this interpretation is wildly inconsistent with every other depiction of Jesus by Mark.
Robert said
What do you think those left behind in Jerusalem (13,26) and, more specifically, the the high priest, all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes who condemned Jesus to death (14,62) would experience when they see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power coming with the clouds of heaven’?
No, I do not see this as revenge prophecy.
Your interpretation here — which essentially places Jesus in charge of the Roman legions — is tough to square with virtually any other verse of Mark.
Robert said
In principle, I am a minimalist with respect to what can be known about the historical Jesus, but I pretty much accept the commonly held view of many scholars that Jesus was almost certainly an apocalyptic preacher; his moral teachings fit both an apocalyptic context as well as an interesting amalgamation of teachings later attributed to Shammai and Hillel (which could have been somewhat controversial) and other early Jewish teachers. He probably sought out a baptism for the forgiveness of sins from John the Baptizer and became one of his disciples. He may have been an exorcist, working psychosomatic cures in a cultural milieu where miracles were somewhat expected. I’m not sure if Jesus considered himself to be the messiah, but that is a distinct possibility and seems probable. He may have preached about a coming Son of Man, who would judge the world and set up God’s Kingdom on earth, into which some gentiles might be admitted and some fellow Jews might not. The biggest difficulty with this Son of Man scenario is that the closest thing we have to a 2nd-Temple text possibly referring to such a son of man probably uses this terminology as merely descriptive (ie, not titular) for a Chosen One who is to be identified with a messiah. And these texts are only known from an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation, whose earliest extant texts date from the 14th century in a Christian milieu. Jesus’ messianic teachings seem to have got him crucified by Pontius Pilate as some kind of royal pretender or insurrectionist. His followers believed that God raised him from the realm of the dead and exalted him to a heavenly divine status and eventually the author of the gospel of Mark (perhaps following an earlier idea) identified him with the divine son of man figure of Daniel 7,13. Mark probably considered that this Jesus, the Son of God, the heavenly son of man was already responsible for the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and that the rest of the Kingdom of God would also soon come, ‘though he was hedging his bets about when exactly that might be.This seems the most plausible scenario to me, but very little if any of it can really be based on certain independent multiple attestation, which is the topic of this thread, specifically whether or not the author of the gospel of John was familiar (perhaps even indirectly) with the synoptic gospels.
This Jesus was already responsible for the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple–from something that happened in the early 30s?
Come on.
And I was about to ask you do you have articles or one or more books available for reading or purchase. Well, I put the question to you anyway.
Robert said
Steefen said
I am not going to respond because this thread is messed up chronologically.
Sorry, I moved my posts here since they really pertain to the dating of Mark’s gospel and have nothing to do with John’s familiarity with the synoptic gospels.
Fine, but like I said, doing that messed up the chronology of the correspondence, the flow of the discussion. I am not continuing the discussion under the conditions you imposed.
Linda said
Steefen said
GAME OVER: Mark has been dated after AD 70. Bart says look at Mark 13. Do U see the rationale?
No, I do not see it.
Well the short version is that the writer of the gospel of Mark seems aware of the First Revolt and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem and regards them as signs of an imminent parousia. For the long version, where actual scholars give the rationale for such views – go ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Stephen said
Linda said
Steefen said
GAME OVER: Mark has been dated after AD 70. Bart says look at Mark 13. Do U see the rationale?
No, I do not see it.
Well the short version is that the writer of the gospel of Mark seems aware of the First Revolt and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem and regards them as signs of an imminent parousia. For the long version, where actual scholars give the rationale for such views – go ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Thanks, I thought that may be the rationale. Here is the thing though. It is easy to think that the writer of Luke knew Jerusalem was attacked, he speaks directly of Jerusalem’s attack in Luke 21. But the writers of Matthew and Mark use enigmatic terms. Matthew uses “in the holy place”, Mark “where it ought not”, if they wanted to make it appear that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem why do so using cryptic language?
If there were shared sources, Q for instance, why the differences on such a major prophecy? If it was after the fact there was no need to fear saying it as it was because it had already happened and the whole world knew about it.
On the other hand, if they were written before the fall of Jerusalem then perhaps the use of cryptic terms were considered a safe guard.
Just a thought sent into the ether.
Linda
On the other hand, if they were written before the fall of Jerusalem then perhaps the use of cryptic terms were considered a safe guard.
Just a thought sent into the ether.
Steefen
The ether is saying your thought is erroneous.
There is no, if they. Only one of the four canonical gospels was dated 67.
Most scholars date Mark to closely after AD 70.
most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74).
Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE. Jun 25, 2019
At the moment, I am unable to identify how or who used the year 67.
If messianic rebels were wrongfully sure and stubborn, to start a war with an empire,
the handwriting on the wall was that, the empire would put a stop to it.
If somehow, the messianic rebels of Temple Judaism, ran to the Temple for protection,
the Romans would have to destroy the Temple.
As I said earlier, there was NO indication of this in the 20s/early 30s. Jesus did not exist as a unique, biological human being.
Maybe he was an angel before he incarnated and with no political savvy, got in trouble with the Temple Establishment and the Roman Establishment.
Incarnating angels or hero fiction about these “angels”?
A god and that god’s begotten first angel son would be smarter than the Jesus in the gospels.
For some reason I was holding on to a pre-70 dating of Mark. But the GAME IS OVER.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)