Thank you for your response, Bernard Muller!
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:11 pmDid Demetrius Eucerus destroyed thoroughly Jerusalem buildings as Mark claimed Jesus prophesied (13:2)? I don't think so.
As Kant stated, "I grant the entire argument". No, Demetrius did not destroy Jerusalem and I never would imply that he did. What I argue is that the SynApoc is a
Construction that contains elements of the Judaic Story surrounding Jannaeus AND the Roman Rewrite of the Ascension of the Flavians.
You yourself state the problem with Mark 13 et.al. with the "Jesus Prophecy" of Mark 13: 2.:
A. We could argue the existence of "Jesus" but right now, let's not.
B. I believe the word "Prophecy" should be "Post-Diction" since, to me, it's obvious that the
Construction demands it.
That is, was the NT:
1. "Real", in the sense that the Son of God came down to earth and etc., etc., etc.
2. Created out of "Whole Cloth"? Have we found no words, phrases, descriptions or details in the NT that appear to have come from prior writings?
3. Created by a Synthetic Process, whereby prior works of Jews, Greeks, Romans and other were woven into what we have today as the NT.
To me, #1 is a Non-Starter. #2 should be demonstrably false, although Apologetix
(R) will always find reasons for denying the premise.
#3 works just right, to get all Goldilocksian about it. Our argument, then, should be about the appropriateness of apparent veridical statements in, especially, Mark 13.
Since, to me, it's not Prophecy, what was produced for Mark 13 and why?
However that corresponds of what Josephus wrote in Antiquity:
VII, I, 1 "Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple"
VII, I, 1 "there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to"
Mark 13: 2 (RSV):
[2] 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."
QED.
That, however, is not the sum Total of Mark 13. What follows in Mark 13 is some Vagueness of Intention that could describe my old next door neighbors before the divorce. To me, all the Family Fightin' comes from Antiquities, 13, 13, 4. Them Greeks sure do fight amongst themselves lots. YMMV. Theirs did.
Which is all well and good - sorta' - until you get to verse 11:
[11] And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Uh-Oh!!!
"DANGER, Will Robinson, DANGER!!!" The "Holy Spirit" is a Marker for Domitian and that seals the Guest List for the Cotillion. I have the finishing of Mark at no earlier than around 110 and here's one of the reasons. The "Holy Spirit" has no discernible physical features, reflecting the so-called "Damnatio Memoriae" that was voted to him after his death. This puts the Authorship squarely after the death of Domitian and further a little time more as well, since there are no explanatory statements as to why there might have been a "Holy Spirit" in the 30's-ish (Given that popular time line). We now have a further reason to consider Mark 13 as Composite in organization.
Mark 13: 12 (RSV):
[12] And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
This "Family Feud" is markedly different from the Greekie Version. It is reflective of Josephus and the hatred of Jannaeus:
"As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice,
the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons [which they then had in their hands, because] the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related.
They also reviled him, as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and of sacrificing...From thence he fled to Jerusalem, where, besides his other ill success, the nation insulted him, and he fought against them for six years, and slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them. And when he desired that they would desist from their ill-will to him,
they hated him so much the more, on account of what had already happened; and when he had asked them what he ought to do, they all cried out, that he ought to kill himself.
They also sent to Demetrius Eucerus, and desired him to make a league of mutual defense with them..."
Mark 13: 14 (RSV):
[14] "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains
The Moffatt Translation has that very intriguing translation:
[14] But whenever you see the appalling Horror standing where he has no right to stand (let the reader not this), then let those are in Judaea fly to the hills
"...where
he has no right to stand..."
How can we know that this is about Demetrius Eucerus? One very suggestive reason is that Eucerus camped out at Shechem before nearly ending Jannaeus. Where is Shechem? Very near the Temple at Gerizim.
If this were all there was then I would be more than happy to entertain the suggestions that this is a continuous story and not a Composite. The "Woe to women who are with child and give suck" verse would be an interesting coincidence. This, however, is paralleled in Revelation. The "half hour of Peace" marks the end of Jannaeus and the Reign of Salome (I simply MUST also say, "Salome, not Salome Alexandra").
The Tribulation must not be Transvalued. The Tribulation came for those who survived with Jannaeus. It also is told in Revelation and the start of this time between Jannaeus and Salome is also hidden a bit. The sequences of both Mark and Revelation follow the Josephan Chronology forward and backward from the important Anchor Verses.
In short, sir, this all could be a single story and in that case, the road grading of Jerusalem could be written that way (Let the reader note this).
However, I believe it should be read as a Composite Story, maybe the most important Original Passage in Mark. It is not written "from whole cloth" but was dismembered, rearranged and Transvalued, from other, Original Prior Documents. There are (at least) two Stories here. The Original came from Judea and described events wholly from a Judean Point of View with no knowledge of the End of the Julio-Claudians and the Rise of the Flavians. The Ascension of the Flavians had to show that these Favors this God had given the Jews (and Israel!) had been taken from the Jews and given to the Romans after the Fall of the Temple.
Thank you, Bernard Muller,
CW
