Bernard Muller wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:11 am
The bar Kochba revolt? Why not the revolt of 70 AD? See Revelation 11:1-2:
11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise
[implying the vision came as a dream during sleeping]
` and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.
[the author was in Jerusalem before its destruction]
2 "But leave out the court
[of the Gentiles] which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they
[the Romans] will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.
I've already given my reasons why chs 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Revelation
are responses to the Kitos revolt and bar Kochba revolt. Indeed, ch 14 is almost a parallel of the same account found in Gittin 57 about Hadrian building a vineyard from the bodies of Jews after bar Kochba was defeated.
Note: that's three & a half years and inspired from the revised book of Daniel. The apocalypse was foreseen for the winter of 73-74 C.E., after the Romans conquered & destroyed the city in the summer of 70 C.E., with the 10th legion staying behind in the ruins of Jerusalem (Josephus' Wars, VII, I, 2). The later statement could NOT have been written after 74 C.E.
Absolute rubbish. The conclusions are based from fudging the prophecy and rounding up to preconceived conclusions.
There was a plague during Titus' reign according to Suetonius:
Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum--Divus Titus, c. 110 C.E.:
"There were some dreadful disasters during his reign [Titus], such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania [August 79C.E.], a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights , and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before . In these many great calamities ..."
The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and the following plague are recorded in Rev
15 and 16. The Antonine plague is recorded in 18, 21 and 22. The point is that Revelation
was still being added to as late as the reign of Commodus. Hell I'm not even ruling out the reign of Severus.
Where did you see allusion to the Kitos revolt?
Chapter 11, and chapter 13.
Seinfeld or not, what does that have to do with my dating of Mark? That's certainly not a valid argument against it. But it shows you did not bother to read my aforementioned web page on the dating of the gospels (http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
I'm selective on who I bother to read. Just because someone writes something doesn't mean I have to give my time over to it to form an opinion.
Hell, I've only ever read one thing Kirby wrote (Papias and Hegesippus being the same book) and that's it. Time is valuable to me and if I feel so inclined to read something then I will.
Why do you think the little Apocalypse would point to something else than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?
Because the Roman-Jewish war means very little to Christianity. It was a direct response to the policies enacted by Hadrian on Jews in Palestine.
Well, there were very few if any Christian writers up to Papias who could suggest they knew about Mark. The only exception is the author of 1 Clement who very likely knew about it, even if it used Mark as just material.
Papias is the firt direct mention of a text written by a fellow named Mark. 1 Clement
in no way indicates, insinuates, or implies that he knows of Mark
. That is your own desperation looking for answers.
About 1 Clement and Mark, once again, I addressed the issue in my aforementioned web page, more precisely at http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#1clement
. I also analysed the internal evidence evidence in the epistle and determine it was written into the 1st century AD.
I don't need your analysis to understand a text I can read myself.
And if "Luke" and "Matthew" wrote their gospel in the 1st century (as I ascertained in the same web page), that should count as early witnesses of Mark.
Well they didn't and all the internal and external evidence points to them being second century works as well.
So you have failed.
By the way, I studied the issue in depth, not by guessing as you do.
If the above is any indication as to the quality of your study then I won't bother reading it any further.
I still have to find out your observation on Irenaeus in relation with Mark. That's news to me.
I can save you the trouble. Irenaeus readily ascribes Matthew
to heretical sects, yet doesn't for Mark
. The reason for this can only be because he couldn't find one that used it. It's only later through Clement of Alexandria and the Letter to Theodore
that we know the Carpocratians prefer this text, albeit in a truncated form.
There. You have assured that I will never take you seriously.