“Mark seems aware of the destruction of the Temple in 70”
Evidence?– how did you come to that conclusion?
Mostly through a close reading of the text supplemented by the opinions of historical/critical scholarship. For example, see ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and commentaries by Joel Marcus and Adela Yarbro Collins.
Not just Mark 11 on, where the Temple assumes an obvious role in the narrative, but earlier through the imagery the author uses to describe Jesus and his ministry. For example, notice how at Jesus’ baptism the sky is described as being torn open. Compare that to the moment when Jesus dies 0n the cross. The Temple Curtain, traditionally covered with imagery of the heavens, is torn in two. The destruction of the Temple hovers over the entire narrative. This gets obscured mostly by Mark’s reinterpretation of the role of the Davidic Messiah.
If there’s an afterlife I know which of these ancient writers I’m going to look up first. Mark, or whoever, the most original thinker of the entire bunch.
Do Matthew and Luke seem “aware of the destruction of the Temple in 70”?
Matthew 24 (NABRE)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 Jesus left the temple area and was going away,
when his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings.
2 He said to them in reply,
“You see all these things, do you not?
Amen, I say to you,
there will not be left here a stone upon another stone
that will not be thrown down.”
Luke 21 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God.
But Jesus said,
6 “As for what you see here,
the time will come when
not one stone will be left on another;
every one of them will be thrown down.”
Well we know Jewish Christianity survived the revolts. There had to be some chain of transmission. I’ve always wondered if Jesus didn’t leave behind some sort of community of indeterminate size in the Galilee. Interesting that Mark has Jesus command the disciples to return to Galilee for his resurrection appearance. Haunting though to consider the possibility that the community with direct lineage to the original Jesus community might have been swept away in the destruction of 70 AD. It’s probable that Eusebius was doing exactly what the author of Acts did, create a bridge where none existed, to connect with the past.
So, my half-educated suspicion is that there was a connection between Pella and the Jerusalem church.
I say this because (a) geographical proximity makes it at least plausible, (b) Epiphanius makes the connection even though he also identifies Pella as the source of heresies (in other words it would be somewhat embarrassing for him to give his theological enemies this pedigree as direct offspring of the mother community). Moreover, those heresies he says came from Pella tended strongly in the Jewish-Chriistan direction, which fits with what we can easily surmise from Paul about the sort of Christianity that flourish in Jerusalem–namely it tended to be a more Jewish form of Christianity.
It just seems like there are too many pieces that fit to dismiss the connection entirely.
Now what was the nature of that connection? Did all the Christians in Jerusalem flee on very the eve of the siege of the city? Or was the migration more modest and spread over time? I have no way to guess.
Epiphanius makes the connection even though he also identifies Pella as the source of heresies…
Of course it’s useful to remember that by the end of the First Century the practices and beliefs of the original Jesus movement would have been considered heretical. One of the great ironies of history.
_The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero_ (1903) by Bernard W. Henderson (1872-1929), 531pp., on 443
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Throughout this discussion I have had no wish to incur, _e.g._, such reproaches as Salmon’s on the score of ‘assurance,’ ‘scepticism,’ and the like.
But the historian cannot, like the theologian, leave the question undecided as to the _probable_ date of a document which he is compelled to use, and must give his reasons even in so fierce and unpromising a controversy.
I propose therefore to use the Apocalypse as a work of the end of the year 68 A.D. and as produced largely by the Neronian persecution, for the reasons as now explained.
I claim no conviction for any but myself in the matter, unless the reasons seem valid, and necessarily admit that many matters remain unexplained.
If I have affronted prophecy by supposing it to be based on, or at least largely influenced by, and reproductive of, the
circumstances of the prophet’s day, I cannot help it.
I can but hope that all may not regard this, which appears to a historian as a gain, as an affront.
If the expectations of the writer were not fulfilled, it seems to the historian to tend to the writer’s credit to prove them at least very reasonable, credible, intelligible and not unintelligible.
The question of authorship does not here concern the historical discussion at all.
_The Apocalypse of John_ (1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Date of the Book
The chief grounds for determining the date of composition of this Apocalypse are plain and very definite historical allusions, similar to those which give the basis for dating the prophecy of Daniel.
In each case the author depicts in unmistakable terms a period of history which is brought down to his own day.
…
“If there’s an afterlife I know which of these ancient writers I’m going to look up first.
Mark, or whoever, the most original thinker of the entire bunch”
Is there “an afterlife”?
Who was “the most original thinker of the entire bunch”?
_Redating the New Testament_ (1976), 369pp. by John A.T. Robinson, on 14
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Bo Reicke begins a recent essay with the words:
“An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies is the belief that the Synoptic Gospels should be dated after the Jewish War of AD 66-70 because they contain prophecies _ex eventu_ of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70.”
[B. Reicke, ‘Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem’, in D. W. Aune (ed.), _Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Alien P. Wikgren (NovTest_ Suppl. 33), Leiden 1972, 121-34.]
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)