While waiting for the second part of Dune I was watching its next trailer when Dave Allen spoke up. Dave cut Testimonium Flavianum into 4 layers in an intriguingly interesting way. But about that another time…
I reached for Flavius for the first time using the Polish translation and started laughing because earlier I read in Dave’s work:
“Mark is steeped very deep in reaction to Temple destruction of 70CE.”
Directly or indirectly.? That is the question… The Question written with a capital letter
Most biblical scholars answer directly. Here, being impressed by the information about this event, he immediately expressed his emotions.
Accepting this reconstruction, biblical scholars date the Gospel of Mark around 70 CE.
It is absolutely possible. Mark could see the temple, he could marvel at it, and he could break down hearing about its destruction.
But ..
An indirect inspiration variant is equally likely.
What if Mark hadn’t seen the Temple, hadn’t been to Jerusalem. It is difficult to evoke an emotion about something completely unknown and difficult to imagine without description. This is the moment when you reach for reading to help your imagination. Heard an inspiring story or
He read Josephus’ poignant, emotional account and thought, “What a great dramatic and grand story. I must use it.”
Why do I choose Indirectly?
Writers are most often inspired by the emotionally arousing words of others. They are not often eyewitnesses.😀
Direct inspiration by the destruction of the Temple or indirect inspiration are equally possible. Mark might as well have heard or read an account of the destruction of the Temple 30 years later.
You don’t change anything by choosing between direct and indirect inspiration. Mark was touched by this event.
But if you’re trying to date the gospel on that basis, 70 CE is the lower bound and the upper bound depends on who’s right – Zwierlein or BDE. Even if BDE is right, the upper limit is 100 CE. If not the upper bound is about 140 CE according to Klinghardt.
No experience or education of the interviewee will change this state of affairs.
BTW Denis Villeneuve’s Dune is the third adaptation of the same great book.
My understanding is that James Tabor claims that Marks gospel was written because the parousia failed to materialize when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. I havent seen his arguments yet but I’m interested in his reasoning. At any rate the destruction is pretty clearly on the author’s mind whenever it was written.
I dont agree that the author had to either witness the destruction or read Josephus. Mark is more interested in the idea of its destruction. Chapter 13 is pretty standard boilerplate apocalyptic not eyewitness testimony.
The only question that matters is “when”. The author’s motivations are pure speculation. Tabor says one thing and I will say that Mark wanted to deliver a product that would be considered the most reliable. The oldest and original anonymous testimony. It didn’t quite work out for Mark. Chapter 13 is one of the problems. I used to think that only Hermann Detering and Basil Lourie believe that 13 depends on Matthew. BtW Lourie recognizes Mark’s precedence beyond 13. This has proved to be a popular argument among researchers of the synoptic problem. It seems that the arrows in the diagrams should be bi-directional because they both sat at the same table in the scriptorium.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)