Jesus in the 30's ad

[Kris]

In my posting of the rending of the veil,there was a good discussion regarding the 40 years or so between Jesus and the temple destruction. For the mythicist point of view-- do you think it is possible the Jesus was retrojected into the 30's because the gospel writers saw the destruction of the temple as him punishing the Jews--hence the sayings about this generation not passing, etc?

[toejam]

Everything's possible... I wouldn't rule it out...

But the problem I've always had with seeing the "it's coming to a generation near you" lines as post-70CE retrojection is that in the two earliest sources - Mark and 1 Thessalonians - the coming is not only the destruction of the temple, but the coming of the Son of Man (or "Lord" in Paul's case) to gather the elect, which clearly did not happen during the Jewish War. It's for this reason that I think it goes to a more primitive time.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the rending of veil is the symbol of wrath of the cruel Demiurg when he realized, too later, what was happening at crucifixion (i.e., the victory of the Son of a Stranger God).

That symbol was converted in the abandonment of his people by YHWH in our canonical Gospels, therefore in a symbol of ''destruction of the temple as him punishing the Jews''.

But then arises the question: from the proto-catholic point of view, if was not YHWH to anger against Jesus, who was showing wrath against him?

Answer: the pharisees and scribes. (It's not a coincidence that the high priest doesn't tear his garments at trial in Luke and hence in proto-Luke aka Mcn).

But if the earliest story was marcionite, why to put it in 30 CE?

The best answer in my opinion is as follows:

At the time when was written the earliest Gospel (Mcn) the people already knew that all the apocalyptic hopes about the arrival of the Jewish Messiah expected in 30 CE had all failed miserably, so the marcionites thought it well to place the arrival of Jesus exactly at that time in order to present Jesus himself antithetically as the real cause of the collective misunderstanding of the Jewish people pre-70: the end did not happen because the Messiah who had come was not actually the Davidic messiah, but the Messiah of another god that was not the creator of this world.

What better antithesis of the one that shows an apparent Davidic messiah fail miserably?

Therefore the destruction of the Temple (reflected in the rending of veil) is the symbol of the failure of the same Demiurg, the god of Jews (parallel to the beginning of the time of gentiles, the time of a God-that-all-loves).

[Peter Kirby]

Just clarifying some of the issues involved, for me, here--the issues are complex and endlessly argued (and with less-than-completely-certain evidence), so the "in my opinion" preface is necessary.

Everything's possible... I wouldn't rule it out...

But the problem I've always had with seeing the "it's coming to a generation near you" lines as post-70CE retrojection is that in the two earliest sources - Mark and 1 Thessalonians - the coming is not only the destruction of the temple, but the coming of the Son of Man (or "Lord" in Paul's case) to gather the elect, which clearly did not happen during the Jewish War. It's for this reason that I think it goes to a more primitive time.

IMO, the 1 Thessalonians letter shows the expectations of Paul and his crew for the imminent arrival of the Lord.

IMO, the 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 passage (or something close to that verse range) was not an original part of that letter but was added later.

IMO, the author of the Gospel of Mark lives in the wake of the First Jewish War and sees the (post facto) prophecies in the mouth of Jesus as genuine signs that the end was nigh. IMO, this continued a tendency of the Pauline/earlier people to expect an imminent arrival of the Lord.

Still, IMO, the author of the Gospel of Mark could have (a) retrojected these prophecies [seems very likely to me] about the destruction of the Temple and (b) retrojected the life of Jesus [seems only just possible to me] as one dead because of the Jews, which merited the destruction of their way of life (the author of Mark being less closely aligned, identity-wise, with Judaism than Paul is) with the Temple (... but not necessarily the reason for the story).

I'm not sure, actually, exactly what intent your statement had, toejam. But perhaps it will be easier to bring it out by way of contrast with what I've said above.

[toejam]

^Oh, I'd agree that Mark is post 70CE overall, and that there's lots of retrojection going on within it. But the fact that it's post-70CE gives me pause about the prediction of the arrival of the Son of Man gathering the elect. Why would a post-70CE group put that on Jesus lips if it had clearly not happened during the Jewish War? If we're already starting to get beyond a generation, why put it on Jesus' lips? I think the original prediction tradition made by the historical Jesus (or the initial "revelations" 1st generation Christians were claiming from him, if we take the Carrier/Doherty model) was the prediction of an imminent, violent, arrival of a heavenly figure to restore "true" Israel. That is why Paul seems also to expect so in 1 Thessalonians 4, which I take to be authentic pre-70CE material. When the destruction of the temple happened, the early Christians saw this as a first step of vindication - the violent overthrow. So now Mark is trying to square it all. He's aware of the earlier expectation of the imminent arrival of the heavenly figure, and is trying to fit it together with the reality of the destruction of the temple.

(It's also entirely plausible to me that the historical Jesus did predict the fall of the temple. I think such a prediction would be like someone today saying "some of you standing here today will not taste death until the next great terrorist attack on New York City" - the odds are pretty high for such an occurrence, if not higher for Jesus' time predicting the temple's fall. And it may have been such a perceived 'accurate prophecy fulfillment' that gave Christianity its initial push).

[Peter Kirby]

Why would a post-70CE group put that on Jesus lips if it had clearly not happened during the Jewish War?

This is part of why I would favor the time period of 70 to 75 CE for the Gospel of Mark, maybe 65-70 CE, if asked.

Some dates are so late that it's hard to understand the connection between the apocalypticism and the destruction of the temple.

A few go so far as to try to make the references into 135 CE references (e.g. Detering) but not very convincingly, IMO.

Of course, this--the false retrojection of the recent events in the form of a prophecy (and other gospel details, not limited to prophecy)--is completely compatible with either a phony prophecy (attributed to a real person) or a non-real person. (It's not advanced in support of either option.)

It's also entirely plausible to me that the historical Jesus did predict the fall of the temple.

According to Mark Goodacre, the heart of the matter isn't just the ability to make or 'plausibility' of making correct predictive prophecy.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleSt ... nggame.pdf
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Dating
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/da ... aries.html (etc.)
http://www.thesacredpage.com/search/label/Goodacre (a reply/analysis, etc.)

[Peter Kirby]

In my posting of the rending of the veil,there was a good discussion regarding the 40 years or so between Jesus and the temple destruction. For the mythicist point of view-- do you think it is possible the Jesus was retrojected into the 30's because the gospel writers saw the destruction of the temple as him punishing the Jews--hence the sayings about this generation not passing, etc?

If we can assume that Jesus did not exist, then this is very plausible, even somewhat probable.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be very decisive concerning whether Jesus existed. (That kind of thing would be much more interesting.)

The explanations permitted under the historicity of Jesus are, likewise, plausible.

[neilgodfrey]

I don't understand why a literal interpretation is the default for Mark 13's references to cosmic turmoil and the Son of Man's descent when their antecedents in Isaiah 13 and 2 Samuel 22 etc etc (with the same imagery of heavens being shaken and the description of God coming down in the clouds) are never interpreted literally.

If we interpret Mark 13 the way we interpret -- and the way we can be pretty sure the original audiences interpreted -- Isaiah 13 and 2 Sam 22 etc, then the simple fact of the destruction of Judean state and survival of Christians fulfils the prophecy of what that generation was to witness.

Ditto re Daniel 7. If, as many interpreters believe, the imagery of the Son of Man coming to set up the new kingdom refers to the victory of the saints/Jewish people then why interpret the images of Mark 13 (redolent with Danielic imagery) literally?

What would Jesus say if he thought his disciples interpreted his miracles literally (Mark 8:17) or expected them pray for mountains to be literally cast into the sea?

[toejam]

^Paul and members of the Thessalonian congregation seem to have taken it literally, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 4.

[toejam]

According to Mark Goodacre, the heart of the matter isn't just the ability to make or 'plausibility' of making correct predictive prophecy.

I agree. Just to clarify, I'm not saying I believe Jesus predicted the temple's destruction, only that it's entirely plausible that he did.