Gospel of John a Forgery, Johannine Communities Never Existed

[Joseph D. L.]

Irenaeus wrote that Matthew, Luke & John were used by different "heretics" (and not "gives to "heretics""). I do not see why would that affect Mark.

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judæa, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that knowledge falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable.

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6

[Note: Nicolas and Nicodemus mean the same thing. Nicodemus appears only in John and Gospel of Nicodemus (obviously).

Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

But what does Ireaneus have to say about Mark?

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

Irenaeus doesn't give a group or sect ownership of Mark, neither the Montonists or the Carpocratians.

Why is this? Why is he ready to assign the other Gospels to heretical groups, yet not Mark? Is that he doesn't know one who uses it?

I do not agree: since you are criticizing my dating of the gospels and my take on Revelation, you should have read what I wrote about them. If not, abstain.

I don't have to anything to be honest and can criticize you if I want. Who are you? A nobody. I don't have to care what you think.

My conclusions about the gospels and Revelation are not based on opinions but on thorough analyses which I spelled out on my relevant web pages.

And so is mine, but I have to give your opinion consideration? Says who? You? How convenient!

Yes, I may feel like an authority on others, that is the ones who based their conclusions of opinions backed up by very debatable and vague evidence.

Have you not been paying attention to this thread? The main issue I brought up is that everything in Christianity is debatable and vague. If you want to have your opinion then that is fine. Don't expect others to hold them or consider them when they don't have to.

[Joseph D. L.]

And where would these reasons be given?

Look around the fucking site.

Gittin 57 is a long text and after browsing through it, I did not see anything about "Hadrian building a vineyard from the bodies of Jews".
By the way, there is no vineyard mentioned in Revelation.

Talmud Gittin, 57 A-B

Rev 14:14-20

His head was brought to Hadrian, who asked: “Who killed him?” A Cuthite came forward and said: “I did.” Hadrian told him: “Go and bring his body.” He went and brought it, and they found a snake curled around his neck. Hadrian declared: “Had his G‑d not killed him, who would have been able to do so?” Eighty thousand Romans entered Betar and slaughtered the men, women and children until blood flowed from the doorways and sewers. Horses sank up until their nostrils, and the rivers of blood lifted up rocks weighing forty se’ah [approximately 700 lb.], and flowed into the sea, where its stain was noticeable for a distance of four mil [approximately 2.5 miles]. Hadrian had a large vineyard, eighteen mil [approximately 11.5 miles] by eighteen mil—the distance between Tiberias and Tzippori—and he surrounded it with a wall made from the bodies of those slain in Betar. He also ordered that they not be brought to burial. The sages taught: for seven years the gentiles harvested their vineyards without having to fertilize them, because of the blood of Israel.

Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped. Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse's bridle, for 1,600 stadia.

I could say the same things about your conclusions. And how can you say that when you did not bother to read my page on Revelation?

Because I am familiar with the Daniel prophecy and how it has been applied and fudged to get these results. I don't need your imput.

You need a lot of imagination to make such statement about the Antonine plague recorded in Rev 18, 21 and 22.

I'm just going to let X. take this one. It's honestly easier on me and my nerves right now.

I did not see anything in these two chapters dealing with the kitos' revolt. Can you guide me on some specific verses pointing to that kitos' revolt?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3624&p=77953&hilit=Kitos#p77953

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6293&hilit=hadrian#p106692

You don't have to read these. I don't begrudge anyone for not reading what they don't want to. I'm putting these here as references.

That's news to me. And even if it is true, what does that have to do with Revelation?

Ben already addressed this for me. This is a different issue.

And why would you think the events around 135 AD mattered a lot for Christianity?

Christianity didn't care about Temple destruction. Yet they did care about certain policies of Hadrian (banning Torah, circumcision, annexing Jews from Palestine) that created the perfect soil for Christianity to grow.

If you read my web pages on the dating of Mark, you' ll see what triggered the writing of the mini apocalypse is not directly the fall of Jerusalem, but the fact Christians in Mark's community were considering leaving it in order to become followers of false Christs and false prophets in the wake of the events of 75 AD.

There were false Christ's and false prophets during the time between Kito and bar Kochba.

Why I dismiss you is because it's the same tripe pedaled by people like Erhman and Carrier who want a first century Mark, despite having zero evidence for it, just to save face with mainstream academics.

Again, it shows that you did not read my relevant web page on that issue. I did not use desperation but solid evidence showing that "Clement" knew about Mark.

I don't have to read your page to understand a text I can read myself. Get that through your head.

Reading is not the same as studying.

Since 1 Clement is a forgery anyway, what does it fucking matter?

I have more important things to study and read than your little pet projects.

At least, I demonstrated my dating on Luke and Matthew. But you did not for yours. And your comments about my dating come from someone who did not read my relevant web pages. And how can you say I have failed?

Luke is a redaction of Gospel of the Lord, a text which didn't come about until Marcion.
Matthew is a redaction of Gospel of the Hebrews which didn't come about to the Ebionites, a second century sect.
John is admitted to be late even by the mainstream and shows signs of heavy editing, such as the double endings.
Mark, like Matthew, is first written about by Papias, an extremely dubious source, and Justin.

There is zero evidence that these texts existed in the first century, because Christianity didn't exist in the first century. That's a fact right there, unless you want to give a first century witness that contradicts that. And Acts isn't first century.

Even taking Pliny's account for granted, who has no knowledge as to what these Christians are about or if they even use written texts.

It's that simple.

No, Irenaeus never ascribed Matthew, Luke and John to heretical sects. You are fudging here.

Then why did he do just that, as I proved above?

Begone and suffer me your presence no longer.

[Ben C. Smith]

He means this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5321. But he never responded to my criticism of the idea (in the last post on the thread).

I honestly never saw that.

This is a quick response to it, but the difference between Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud seems arbitrary. In fact, isn't the Jerusalem Talmud older than the Babylonian Talmud? I don't know. But why should the one be discounted when it is still apart of at least one textual tradition?

This point of mine was the secondary one, but let me pursue it here because it was the one that you have responded to. The date of the Talmud itself (in whichever version) is not as important as the date of the traditions passed on within each section. What is the date of this story about blood fertilizing vineyards? If it dates to century II, then you are free to make your case. But what if it dates, say, to century III? Surely then it would be too late to bear upon anything in the Revelation of John, right? And the story can hardly be blithely assumed to be historical without argument. I myself do not know the date of this story; do you? If so, how? (It is theoretically possible for the internal connections to be so strong that they demand an early enough date, but see below.)

My primary point, however, was that the connections between Revelation 14.14-20 and the prophetic passages I listed seem to me, so far, to be demonstrably stronger than the connections between Revelation 14.14-20 and Gittin 57:

1. It is certain from other indications that the author of Revelation knew Isaiah, Joel, and 1 Enoch from that list, at the very least. It is not certain from other indications that he knew the Talmudic story or history.
2. Therefore, the internal connections are paramount; and I can see at least one thematic connection between the prophetic literature and Revelation 14.14-20 which Gittin 57 lacks: the grape harvest as symbol of divine judgment. Blood being used as fertilizer is not the same thing as blood being squeezed from humans as juice is from grapes. Are there any such thematic connections between Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20 which the prophetic texts lack, so as to even the score?
3. The prophetic literature and Revelation 14.14-20 share imagery and details which are lacking in Gittin 57, most notably the winepress and the sickle.
4. Of the details which all three (sets of) texts share, such as the blood rising to a certain height on a horse, are there any which are better fits for the Talmudic connection than for the connection to the prophetic texts?

I cannot see (as yet) how the story in Gittin 57 is a better fit for the imagery in Revelation 14.14-20; on some matters it appears to be a draw, while on others it seems clearly to lose the match. YMMV.

[Bernard Muller]

to Joseph D. L.,

Then why did he do just that, as I proved above?

Irenaeus did not ascribed (attributed) the gospels (except Mark) to groups of "heretics", just that those heretics made use of these gospels. how many time I have to repeat that.

Luke is a redaction of Gospel of the Lord, a text which didn't come about until Marcion.

I got a webpage against that: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html, I know you won't read it, but some on this board might be interested

Matthew is a redaction of Gospel of the Hebrews which didn't come about to the Ebionites, a second century sect.

And you believe in that! good for you. BTW, Eusebius put the Ebionites appearing in the 1st century, after the fall of Jerusalem.

There is zero evidence that these texts existed in the first century, because Christianity didn't exist in the first century. That's a fact right there, unless you want to give a first century witness that contradicts that. And Acts isn't first century.

There is evidence from Tacitus and Suetonius, among others such as Paul. Your fact is not a fact.

Even taking Pliny's account for granted, who has no knowledge as to what these Christians are about or if they even use written texts.

I don't see how you can claim that. What Pliny did not know (or was not sure) is how to punish the Christians, investigate them, etc.
"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished."

And then Pliny wrote "Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years.
Christianity existed in that remote place of the Roman empire into the 1st century.

Since 1 Clement is a forgery anyway, what does it fucking matter?

1 Clement was written by a prominent Christian of Rome. Was he called "Clement" of something else, that does not matter.

There were false Christ's and false prophets during the time between Kito and bar Kochba

Maybe, but were they operating right after the fall of Jerusalem, when "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down", a fact which was later confirmed by Josephus, who was an eyewitness of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Christianity didn't care about Temple destruction. Yet they did care about certain policies of Hadrian (banning Torah, circumcision, annexing Jews from Palestine) that created the perfect soil for Christianity to grow.

"Christianity to grow". That does not mean Christianity did not exist before 135 AD.
And the events of 70 AD were likely to do the same, after the destruction of the temple. Mark and more so Matthew used that to their advantage:
Mat 21:41 "He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen [Christian presbyters], who shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

You don't have to read these. I don't begrudge anyone for not reading what they don't want to. I'm putting these here as references.

But I read the whole thing and I still don't see much parallels about the Kitos' revolt and Hadrian's history and the chapters of Revelation. That call for a lot of twisted imagination in order to claim that Revelation was inspired was inspired by the Kitos' revolt and facts about Hadrian.
Same comments about Gittin 57 and Revelation 14:14-28.

Cordially, Bernard

[Joseph D. L.]

This point of mine was the secondary one, but let me pursue it here because it was the one that you have responded to. The date of the Talmud itself (in whichever version) is not as important as the date of the traditions passed on within each section. What is the date of this story about blood fertilizing vineyards? If it dates to century II, then you are free to make your case. But what if it dates, say, to century III? Surely then it would be too late to bear upon anything in the Revelation of John, right?

Not necessarily but I will concede the point for now.

And the story can hardly be blithely assumed to be historical without argument. I myself do not know the date of this story; do you? If so, how? (It is theoretically possible for the internal connections to be so strong that they demand an early enough date, but see below.)

Well it is after bar Kochba's defeat. That is certain. And the Talmud was codified ca. 200-600 ad. A large margin to work with for sure.

My primary point, however, was that the connections between Revelation 14.14-20 and the prophetic passages I listed seem to me, so far, to be demonstrably stronger than the connections between Revelation 14.14-20 and Gittin 57

I don't dispute that the author(s) used imagery that was typical of such writings. My overall argument is that it is specifically the bar Kochba revolt that is the inspiration for ch 14:14-20.

1. It is certain from other indications that the author of Revelation knew Isaiah, Joel, and 1 Enoch from that list, at the very least. It is not certain from other indications that he knew the Talmudic story or history.
2. Therefore, the internal connections are paramount; and I can see at least one thematic connection between the prophetic literature and Revelation 14.14-20 which Gittin 57 lacks: the grape harvest as symbol of divine judgment. Blood being used as fertilizer is not the same thing as blood being squeezed from humans as juice is from grapes. Are there any such thematic connections between Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20 which the prophetic texts lack, so as to even the score?

There's a major component that I feel you are leaving out in your analysis. Revelation is fundamentally eschatological and so what it describes has significant religious implications to the author(s). Talmud, particularity Gittin 57 A-B is concerned with history. Made up history? Exaggerated history? Probably, as it's doubtful Hadrian would even had done such a thing. The point is that each text has its own aim and agenda.

[*]The prophetic literature and Revelation 14.14-20 share imagery and details which are lacking in Gittin 57, most notably the winepress and the sickle.

The sickles are an imagery of death, which is present in Gittin 57. Blood flowing up to a horse's bridal is present in both. The use of a winepress/vineyard in relation to death is present as well.

[*]Of the details which all three (sets of) texts share, such as the blood rising to a certain height on a horse, are there any which are better fits for the Talmudic connection than for the connection to the prophetic texts?
[/list]

The Talmud isn't concerned with prophecy, at least not Gittin 57.

I cannot see (as yet) how the story in Gittin 57 is a better fit for the imagery in Revelation 14.14-20; on some matters it appears to be a draw, while on others it seems clearly to lose the match. YMMV.

I'm sorry but I cannot abide with you on this one. I have a huge respect for your opinion on these matters, but on this I have to disagree. Maybe it's my own bias speaking. But to my mind, the two show too much of a similarity to simply be a coincidence.

Now I'm not saying that one lifted from the other, but that both are at least witnesses to the same event but are interpreting it differently. If I'm being redundant here it's because I feel the need to clarify what my position in the matter is.

[Joseph D. L.]

Irenaeus did not ascribed (attributed) the gospels (except Mark) to groups of "heretics", just that those heretics made use of these gospels. how many time I have to repeat that.

Are you this inept? Irenaeus states that these heretics used the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, and gives specific groups in the process. He does not do the same for Mark. Why??????

I got a webpage against that: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html, I know you won't read it, but some on this board might be interested

What do you have to offer that these men above don't?

And you believe in that! good for you. BTW, Eusebius put the Ebionites appearing in the 1st century, after the fall of Jerusalem.

I should be asking if you believe that?

Not that you care, but Ebionites were just a convenience for later Christian writers to distinguish between the ultra-Jamesians (deniers of the virgin birth), and the Nazarenes (who accepted the virgin birth and Protoevangelium of James)

There is evidence from Tacitus and Suetonius, among others such as Paul. Your fact is not a fact.

Major fail right there. Tacitus? Suetonius? Are you going to next say fucking Josephus??? Paul is a made up figure. You are arguing in circles now.

I don't see how you can claim that. What Pliny did not know (or was not sure) is how to punish the Christians, investigate them, etc.

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Pliny makes it clear that wasn't sure what they believed, and had to be told by former Christians what they believed, and gives no text and written creed to them, in fact, could just consult it instead of torturing them for information.

You dummy.

Christianity existed in that remote place of the Roman empire into the 1st century.

There's pottery going as far back as the first century bc of a Christian/Chrestian sect. What's you point?

1 Clement was written by a prominent Christian of Rome. Was he called "Clement" of something else, that does not matter.

No, what does matter is when it was written and why it was written, neither of which helps your case.

Maybe, but were they operating right after the fall of Jerusalem, when "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down", a fact which was later confirmed by Josephus, who was an eyewitness of the destruction of Jerusalem.

I grow weary of your back and forth.

Acts of the Apostles and Hegesippus proves that Christians looked to Josephus as a source of information. But you think it's impossible for Mark to have done the same?

What's your point? Either Josephus lifted from Mark or Mark lifted from Josephus.

"Christianity to grow". That does not mean Christianity did not exist before 135 AD.

Christianity as an autonomous idea didn't exist until after ca 140 ad, when Antoninus Pius began his reforms on Judaism. The Nazarenes had already tried to placate to the Roman state by distancing itself from bar Kochba and other zealous Jews, but now wanted their own identity. Hence why Justine began his appeals to Marcus Aurelius.

And the events of 70 AD were likely to do the same, after the destruction of the temple. Mark and more so Matthew used that to their advantage:
Mat 21:41 "He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen [Christian presbyters], who shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

The only thing the Temple destruction did was create rabbinical/gnostic Jews, or at least made them more prominent. The Dositheans and Essenes could be called proto-Christians, but this implies that they didn't have their own identities.

But I read the whole thing and I still don't see much parallels about the Kitos' revolt and Hadrian's history and the chapters of Revelation. That call for a lot of twisted imagination in order to claim that Revelation was inspired was inspired by the Kitos' revolt and facts about Hadrian.
Same comments about Gittin 57 and Revelation 14:14-28.

You are creating a strawman. I did not and do not and have not said that Revelation was written because of the Kitos and bar Kochba revolts. What I did say and do say is that certain portions are witnesses to these events. I think that is clear.

As far as twisting goes, there is no more twisting done here than what anybody else has done. (And that the Sybilline Oracles proves me right about Hadrian, everything just slides into place. That cannot be said for some of these other theories being thrown about.) The only difference is that I acknowledge the uncertainty, something that many, including you, fail to do.

But you are free to make your own judgement.

Peace comrade.

[Joseph D. L.]

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay, or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury: (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done:) Cæsar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city, and temple: but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency, that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne: and so much of the wall as in closed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison: as were the towers also spared in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valour had subdued. But for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground, by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to, by the madness of those that were for innovations. A city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.

Did you see that? Enough of Jerusalem was left in order for the Roman army to establish a garrison, as opposed to "There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." That wasn't until Hadrian made Aelia Capitolina and turned Jerusalem into a Roman city.

So what are we left with? Either Mark is relying on Josephus and twisting what he is saying, or Mark is a witness to the bar Kochba revolt and Hadrian turning Jerusalem into a Roman city.

[Charles Wilson]

Did you see that? Enough of Jerusalem was left in order for the Roman army to establish a garrison, as opposed to "There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." That wasn't until Hadrian made Aelia Capitolina and turned Jerusalem into a Roman city.

Thank you for that point. I will consider it.

So what are we left with? Either Mark is relying on Josephus and twisting what he is saying, or Mark is a witness to the bar Kochba revolt and Hadrian turning Jerusalem into a Roman city.

There is another alternative and that is that Josephus twisted what he was saying - or had someone else twist what he was saying - and that Mark twisted what he read in Josephus when he wrote Mark. As a nod to the OP, John appears to correct what is in Mark and rewrites what is left. See Teeple. Mark certainly twisted what was in Josephus. John appears to correct what is in Mark, yet the Undercurrent of the Priesthood is gone. Josephus won't even tell who performs Sacrifices in the Temple. Now that's twisted! All that is left is a Joke about Bilgah not being Worthy and that the "Jesus "Character" (Immer) comes after John (Bilgah) yet ranks before Bilgah. Therefore, the Knowledge of the Priesthood is there but it simply must be hidden, hence the third alternative.

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

My overall argument is that it is specifically the bar Kochba revolt that is the inspiration for ch 14:14-20.

There's a major component that I feel you are leaving out in your analysis. Revelation is fundamentally eschatological and so what it describes has significant religious implications to the author(s). Talmud, particularity Gittin 57 A-B is concerned with history. Made up history? Exaggerated history? Probably, as it's doubtful Hadrian would even had done such a thing. The point is that each text has its own aim and agenda.

Yes, that is true. And it would help explain differences in the approach if there were not such obvious precedents for Revelation 14.14-20 in the prophetic literature. My point is that there is no single detail or image which has to derive from Gittin 57 instead of that literature. This is not, so far, just an opinion; it is a basic observation.

The sickles are an imagery of death, which is present in Gittin 57.

There is death in all three (sets of) texts. Death does not set Gittin 57 apart from the prophetic literature as a possible connection. The sickle, however, as a specific image for death is something that Revelation 14.14-20 shares with the prophetic precedents over and against Gittin 57. That is what I am looking for in reverse: something in Gittin 57 which better explains one of the details in Revelation 14.14-20 than the prophetic passages.

Blood flowing up to a horse's bridal is present in both.

Not exactly true. Gittin 57 has blood up to a horse's nostrils; Revelation 14.14-20 has blood up to a horse's bridle; 1 Enoch 100.1-3 has blood up to a horse's breast; and 4 Ezra 15.35-36 has blood up to a horse's belly. The horse is common to all of these, as is the measurement of blood somewhere upon its height, but there is nothing, again, specific both to Gittin 57 and to Revelation 14.14-20.

The use of a winepress/vineyard in relation to death is present as well.

Gittin 57 has a vineyard as a burial site. The prophets and Revelation 14.14-20 both have a winepress as a specific sign of divine judgment. Once again, the prophets and Revelation 14.14-20 are closer to each other than either is to Gittin 57.

I'm sorry but I cannot abide with you on this one.

That is fine, but my findings so far are basically mathematical. Gittin 57 never once comes off as closer to Revelation 14.14-20 than the prophetic literature. This creates a situation in which the prophetic literature serves as a middle term between Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20, rendering any direct connection between the latter two completely superfluous.

But to my mind, the two show too much of a similarity to simply be a coincidence.

You are right about that. It is not a coincidence: if the prophetic literature is really the middle term,then both Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20 drew upon the prophetic literature; everything shared by the two texts is found therein. The event itself probably never happened. Gittin 57 invented it (or embellished it) against Hadrian and the Romans on the basis of the prophetic literature, while Revelation 14.14-20 lifted the imagery more directly from the same prophetic literature. Once those prophets are taken into account for both passages, nothing remains between them to be explained.

It is fine if you disagree; but I am not certain what you would be disagreeing with. It is standard, when connecting two texts or traditions, to find something shared by them that cannot be explained by other, more obvious texts or traditions, and I cannot find any such thing between Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20.

Gitten 57	Prophetic Literature	Revelation 14.14-20
Rivers of blood flowing to the sea.	Blood filling up a lake. (Vats overflowing.)	Blood flowing.
Blood up to a horse's nostrils.	Blood up to a horse's breast/belly.	Blood up to a horse's bridle.
Vineyard as a burial site.	Winepress as a symbol of God's wrath.	Winepress as a symbol of God's wrath.
Death.	Sickle as a symbol of death.	Sickle as a symbol of death.
Harvesting without fertilizer.	Harvest as a symbol of death and judgment.	Harvest as a symbol of death and judgment.

The only possible correspondences between Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20 lacking in the prophetic passages are tiny and probably coincidental. For example, the bridle of a horse is of closer height to the nostrils of a horse than to its breast or belly; but it is still not the same measurement. This is not enough for me. If it is enough for you, so be it.

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the OP, it is noteworthy that on Facebook Candida and Hugo are getting SAVAGED by a lot of academics. I know Bernard said there is nothing new in the article but there is a gap between what we talk about here and the situation in academia. Highly controversial to say the least. Of course at this insane asylum where we are inundated each day with crazy theories it all seems rather tame.