Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 6:19 pm
This is all beside the point, John2.
For the Flavian hypothesis,
ex hypothesi, historical details about Jerusalem, its factions, and what "might" have happened there
are not relevant. If gMark is imperial propaganda, then of course it isn't accurate history. (Anyone who would have read Josephus or Philo about Pilate could see that the Gospels' depiction of him is pure fantasy.)
I think what Mark says about Jesus, Jerusalem and its factions is quite in keeping with the Dead Sea Scrolls and what Josephus says about the Fourth Philosophy, so if Mark is "pure fantasy" in these respects then so are the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus.
What is relevant is what the broad stroke, empire wide conceptions were about the temple destruction, what was going on in Rome in the last third of the first century, how imperial cults work, what the millions of diaspora Jews thought and felt (most of whom would never have been to Jerusalem, and certainly not around 30 CE), etc.
It's not just the passion story. Jesus consistently opposes the Herodians (who were appointed by Rome) and the Jewish sect and leaders they favored, like in Mk. 8:15:
And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
And in Mk. 12:12-13 the tables are turned and the Jewish leaders are afraid of the crowd that supported Jesus:
At this, the leaders sought to arrest Jesus, for they knew that he had spoken this parable against them. But fearing the crowd, they left him and went away. Later, they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch Jesus in his words.
This, coupled with how the Romans are portrayed makes me think that Mark is not pro-Roman in the sense that you think it could be, since all the Romans and these toadies do is oppose and ultimately kill Jesus and all Jesus does is oppose them.
I think a better way of promoting the Flavians is the account of Rabban ben Zakkai in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, who sent a message to Vespasian's camp saying that "Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai is one of the Emperor's friends" before escaping from the siege of Jerusalem and proclaiming Vespasian as king (like Josephus, who was a Pharisee too):
Art thou Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai?" Vespasian inquired; "tell me, what may I give thee?"
"I ask naught of thee," Rabban Johanan replied, "save Jamnia, where I might go and teach my disciples and there establish a prayer [house] and perform all the commandments."
"Go," Vespasian said to him," and whatever thou wishest to do, do" ...
Said Rabban Johanan to him, "Lo, thou art about to be appointed king."
"How dost thou know this," Vespasian asked.
"Rabban Johanan replied, "It has been handed down to us, that the Temple will not be surrendered to a commoner, but to a king; as it is said, "And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon [i.e., the Temple] shall fall by a mighty one" [Is. 10:34].
Why would the Flavians need Mark when they had guys like this and Josephus?
And if Mark was written for Jews, then why does it explain Jewish customs?
Mk. 7:3-4:
Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.
Is the passion story too embarrassing to the Romans to serve their imperial purposes? History shows otherwise.
But that took a lot of time and after much Roman persecution of Christians (who thus seem to have been oblivious to Mark's intention all the while), long after the time of the Flavians. And by then Mark was only successful with Gentiles (who had presumably previously been okay with emperor worship, so there is a lot of irony there), because Jewish Christians are said to have only used Matthew.
So if Mark was meant to be Roman propaganda for Jews, it couldn't have been less successful because most Jews did not become Christians and in any event Jewish Christians did not use Mark.
And I find it ironic that post-70 CE Roman-favored Rabbinic Judaism pronounced a curse on Jewish Christians that effectively banned them from synagogues. One would think they would have been more on board with Christianity (or Mark) if it was Roman propaganda, considering accounts like the above.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.