How old are the questions re "this generation shall not pass till" all things fulfilled, etc?

[Ben C. Smith]

...no offense Ben, the Marcionites and Gnostics saw the Jewish God as just a tribal God, or Great Angel; nay, leader of the angels, maker of the visible world, giver of the Law, but through whom there is no salvation, and worse he hides the true God, the father of Christ....

Why would I find that offensive? (I am asking seriously; I have no clue why this might be thought to cause me offense.)

[Ulan]

Further Jerusalem is now regarded as Holy, so we are probably well past Constantine.

Here just a remark regarding this line of reasoning: I wouldn't really draw such a conclusion. Keep in mind that the Greek transliterations of Hebrew Yerushalaim in the Bible were Hierousalēm, Ierousalēm (Ιερουσαλήμ), or Hierosolyma, Ierosolyma (Ιεροσόλυμα). Although this is a transliteration, it intrinsically carries the meaning "holy" in the resulting Greek word, even if the original meaning is completely different.

I meant the physical city in Judea was now called Jerusalem again and no longer Aelia Capitolina. It was called Aelia Capitolina until at least the end of the Aelius dynasties, which would be Commodus to the last day of 192 AD, and probably longer. I would be willing to speculate that Jerusalem was not title to that city "again" until well into the Severan dynasty and in fact probably a bit after that. So the earliest the name was stamped on the Polis is early in the 3rd century, and the latest is before Julian the Apostate, and I would argue a few generations prior. Nicene seems like a good upper bound. Christians and Jews may have been giving the Polis the appellation Jerusalem prior to Nicene, and it would not surprise me if the city had "reacquired" that name sometime around Decius in the middle of the 3rd century from the expanding Christian community as well as the Jewish. For certain the city was rechristened as Jerusalem no later than Constantine's reign, and that seems a fair time to place it. This seems to be when the first church was placed there, replacing or perhaps just alongside the pagan temple of Venus and the Temple Capitolina from Hadrian's era. This to me seems the logical time.

I'm not sure about this. Josephus also uses "Hierosolyma", so anyone who knew Greek should be acutely aware of the apparent word "holy" in its name. Also, the name of the existing city actually didn't change in Constantine's time. G.A. Smith writes in his "Jerusalem - The Topography, Economics and History..." , London 1907, pp. 270f.:

To complete this list of names we may add, though it really lies beyond our period, the name imposed on Jerusalem by her Roman conquerors. When the Emperor Hadrian destroyed so much of the City and gave her another shape than that of her native growth, he strove also to destroy the native name, by substituting Aelia Capitolina? Till the time of Constantine, and for at least two centuries later, Aelia remained the official name and usual geographical designation ; was still longer continued in Christian writings; and even passed over into Arabic as Ilyia.

The Canons of the Council of Nicea or Eusebius in his Onomasticon still use "Aelia", and so does Jerome. It kept this name even after the Arab conquest. "Hiero"solyma was more of an idea than a real place.

[Stuart]

Ulan that is correct.

https://archive.org/details/canonsoffirstfou00brig (Greek)
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/nicea1.txt (English)

CANON VII.

Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Ἐπειδὴ συνήθεια κεκράτηκε καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαία, ὥστε τὸν ἐν Αἰλίᾳ ἐπίκοπον τιμᾶσθαι, ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς τιμῆς, τῇ μητροπόλει σωζομένου τοῦ οἰκείου ἀξιώματος.

The earliest definite reference is around 420 AD where a Bishop of Jerusalem succeeds another, probably around 417 AD. We maybe can say the switch over came earlier with Julian the Apostate. Although reading the accounts of his wanting to let the Jews rebuild the temple strike me as questionable myth, postmortem character assassination (like that never happened with Roman Emperors), and also as excuse to persecute Jews and give Christians priority in Aelia/Jersusalem (when the Holy Sepulcher Church replaces the Temple of Venus).

I was able to confirm that the church of the Holy Sepulcher was originally the Temple of Venus, which we can probably trace that to about 380 AD when Christianity became the official religion. The current church in that spot is the second one, as it was downsized. They have found the temple of Venus foundations and some artifacts underneath it. This confirms my map reading of Aelia layout. (This by the way is the square where any statue of Hadrian would have been placed by Antoninus, where there any, as this is where such things were always placed in Roman cities.) This conversion to a church would also coincide with the beginning of the pilgrimage movement with Egeria sometime in the 380s. So yes we are narrowing down the time frame to between 325 AD and 380 AD when the name changed to Jerusalem, probably closer to the latter date (my WAG around 370 AD). Mind you Christians may have called it Jerusalem earlier. But prior to the pilgrimages this would not have been a priority. And before it was the official religion Christianity existed side by side with Paganism, whose temples still would have been the center of Aelia Capitolina.

You also see a series of laws getting written and repealed and then reinstated in the last half of the 4th century which show the fight over the established religion with varying levels of tolerance and intolerance into the the 5th century (Manicheans are mentioned as well as Jews and Pagans). I suspect concurrent to the State throwing its weight decidedly in Christians favor to be the religion of the empire would be the time the named changed to Jerusalem, since that has to come from an Emperor. Note, this is also an era that we would expect to produce the most virulent propaganda against Jews and Manicheans; the stakes were highest and the need immediate.

I think people today are surprised at how slowly and late everything formed. They are also surprised how much smaller cities were in those days, especially in physical size, as everyone was crammed together. I say this because Archeology very much confirms the Jerusalem of the Herodian era didn't seem to extend north to the old city, and Aelia Capitolina didn't reach the southern border of the Old City until well into the middle ages. We can see that in comparing maps, that the two main thoroughfares have extended a number of blocks south from the Madaba map of the 5th century. There actually seems to be a physical gap between where Aelia reached south and Jerusalem reached north - and not inconsiderable. Views on especially the myths of Bar Kokhba need to be reexamined in light of archeological evidence, and taking a more critical view of the church father writings. Myths and truths for tourist of the middle ages seem not to have a lot of foundation in fact, but rather pointed tourists to where current buildings and shrines were - hey it's about the money after all.

[neilgodfrey]

There is quite a bit in the replies above for me to read and follow up. Until I can do that, a few questions (My perusal of the above suggests they are not yet addressed but will apologize if I find in next day or two I am wrong) . . . .

Would we not expect some reference to the "generational prophecy" put in the words of Trypho or Celsus or in the works of Julian or Porphyry (and of course rebutted by Christian authors) given other flaws they saw in the Christian teachings?

As Stuart says, my question necessarily pertains directly to the Gospel of Mark/Matthew than Luke/Marcion. But does not this avenue raise more complex questions? How to account for the generational passage appearing in GMark? Was it added to rebut a rival tradition or deleted in Marcion's line of texts to rebut a rival tradition? What is the connection with teachings of Basilides, if any? Do we return to questions of Mark 13 being inserted into an ur-Mark? But if so, is not such a later insertion, given our understanding of the prophecy of the generation not passing, only introducing a problem into the text -- the problem we are asking ourselves about today but that was not asked in its own time?

My suspicion is that the generational prophecy is a problem that only surfaced quite some time subsequent to the problematic verses being written in Mark and Matthew. Does this not suggest that something of the original meaning or understanding or context of those verses has been lost?


(By the way, I earlier spoke of the falling heavens, darkening sun and moon, etc as metaphorical of the collapse of earthly powers as per Isaiah 13. But there may be a more cogent argument suggesting they refer to the end of demonic powers over the earth. But if so then that brings us back to questions of Pauline and Markan theology.)

[Bernard Muller]

About Matthew 16:28 "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom [see Mt 25:31-34]."

From Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XII (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)

31. The Simpler Interpretation of the Promise About Not Tasting of Death.[Mt 16:28]
Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death. Some refer these things to the going up — six days after, or, as Luke says, eight days — of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coming in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that His face shone, etc., they saw the kingdom of God coming with power. For even as some spear-bearers stand around a king, so Moses and Elijah appeared to those who had gone up into the mountains, talking with Jesus. But it is worth while considering whether the sitting on the right hand and on the left hand of the Saviour in His kingdom refers to them, so that the words, But for whom it is prepared, were spoken because of them. Now this interpretation about the three Apostles not tasting of death until they have seen Jesus transfigured, is adapted to those who are designated by Peter as new-born babes longing for the reasonable milk which is without guile, to whom Paul says, I have fed you with milk, not with meat, etc. Now, too, every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot receive greater truths might reasonably be called milk, flowing from the holy ground of the Scriptures, which flows with milk and honey. But he who has been weaned, like Isaac, worthy of the good cheer and reception which Abraham gave at the weaning of his son, would seek here and in every Scripture food which is different, I think, from that which is meat, indeed, but is not solid food, and from what are figuratively called herbs, which are food to one who has been weaned and is not yet strong but weak, according to the saying, He that is weak eats herbs. In like manner also he who has been weaned, like Samuel, and dedicated by his mother to God, — she was Hannah, which is, by interpretation, grace — would be also a son of grace, seeking, like one nurtured in the temple, flesh of God, the holy food of those who are at once perfect and priests.

35. Scriptural References to Death.
But since here it is written in the three Evangelists, "They shall not taste of death, ...

Cordially, Bernard

[Ulan]

There actually seems to be a physical gap between where Aelia reached south and Jerusalem reached north - and not inconsiderable.

Maybe, the people of those times were still aware of the point that they didn't live in Jerusalem proper. That may be the reason why the name Aelia didn't go away till the 10th century. Even in late Byzantine times, "Helia" was still used in official documents, especially of military nature. The Arabs kept the name after 638 (the full official name of the city was "Iliya madinat bayt al-maqdis", "Aelia, the city of the sanctuary"). Only in the 10th century, al-Quds started showing up instead.

[neilgodfrey]

FYI, the Marcionite text is missing "this generation" in verse 21:32 of Luke. Epiphanius makes explicit note that verses 21:18, 21:21-22 are not present. Zahn in his reconstruction also omits 21:23-24 (correctly). Further the text of verse 21:31 reads 'heaven and earth' instead of 'this generation'

Here is the passage in Marcionite form of Luke 21:20-33

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. "

And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees; as soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, Heaven and earth will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Two comments. The desolation is Jerusalem with the armies surrounding it, clearly nothing to do with any sacrilege. This even carries over into Luke's version as verses 21:21-24 add nothing to it. Second, this generation is not present instead "heaven and earth,' meaning the entire concept of a present generation seeing the end is not present in Marcion. So your question is more about Matthew/Mark than Luke/Marcion.

Stuart,

It's a long time since I delved into anything Marcionite so do be patient with my questions.

The first verses of what you quote as the Marcionite form of Luke 21:20ff appears to be Jesus warning what the Demiurge god of this world is about to do -- wreaking fear and havoc on this earthly creation. Is that really likely to be a Marcionite passage?

Does not the same "Marcionite" passage indicate that Jesus is going to return in 70 CE? If so, in what sense did Marcion mean that return?

How old/early are the texts that are the basis of that reconstruction of Luke 21:20ff and how early is that reconstruction testified? I understand Marcionism evolved, modified, adapted, over the years. What was known as Marcionism in, say, 300 ce, may not have been the same set of specific detailed beliefs as Marcionism in, say, 140 ce.

How did Marcionites understand the Luke 21:20ff passage about the second coming -- and when did they have this understanding?

(More to come as time and opportunity permit)

[Bernard Muller]

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. "

"And there will be ..." does not have to follow closely in time the desolation of Jerusalem, but can happen much later in the future.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Now onto your question. Book 5 of the Irenaeus writings Against All Heresies discusses the passage in chapter 25. . . .

Hippolytus (Mark 13:14) mentions the passage in a fragment . . . .

Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, . . . .

Book 1 of the Recognitions of the pseudo-Clementine literature is the first to see this as historically tied. . . . .

. . . . .

We have basically covered the era up to Eusubius and found that prior to the 4th century it seems not to have been the opinion that the abomination had yet occurred, it was still an event to come. I would conclude from the references above that while the concept of pertaining to the Bar Kokhba era or the Jewish War may be prior to Eusubius' writings (circa 2nd quarter of the 4th century), it was probably not mainstream to seem them as events in the past.

Thanks for this detailed response, Stuart.

Is not all of this something of a mystery? How is it that Mark and Matthew seem to us to be so clearly pointing to Jesus' return in or very close to the year 70 CE yet there appears to be no surviving ancient commentary addressing this point? Surely it is something that we would expect critics to latch on to as well, and surely we would therefore also expect some surviving rebuttal of the critic's attack on Christianity with such passages.

How is this disconnect best explained?

[Charles Wilson]

Is not all of this something of a mystery? How is it that Mark and Matthew seem to us to be so clearly pointing to Jesus' return in or very close to the year 70 CE yet there appears to be no surviving ancient commentary addressing this point

Neil --

Hope yer OK.

If the savior is to come and his name is "Jesus", then it is indeed a mystery.
If the savior is to come and his name is "Titus", then he came. No mystery. The Roman Court did what it was supposed to do.

If the savior came and left and there was Another to follow, then his name was "Domitian" and "Lord God Domitian" supplanted the savior that Domitian himself poisoned. After the Damnatio'd, bodiless, Holy Spirit with no Attributes died, the realization came that the Game did not have to end.

The "ancient commentary" survived in the form in which it was created - in the NT documents themselves. When seen as "Things-in-Themselves", the Commentariat at the time had no reason to look deeper.

CW