List of arguments to date Mark after Hadrian

[MrMacSon]

It's "a fact". Hadrian revamped emperor worship to unprecedented levels in the Greek world. All homes were required to have a shrine to the emperor for offerings/sacrifices. https://vridar.org/2022/04/18/emperor-w ... evelation/ This was usually placed at the entrance of the house and as an imperial procession passed by people were expected to respond by attending to their household shrine. It was not easy to hide one's refusal to do so.

Hadrian did not, as other emperors had for the most part done, oversee worship of himself alongside a god, but he identified himself as Zeus himself: https://vridar.org/2022/05/28/hadrian-the-god/

Hadrian, like Nero, was wildly popular with "the people", especially the Greeks. And Jews, too, before the war, appear to have highly honoured him.

Hadrian is known as the "traveling emperor", but those travels were not mere sight-seeing excursions. Every place he entered responded to him as the epiphany of a god making his "parousia" to them. His stay with them guaranteed them "salvation" - and he often left coins depicting his ongoing "presence" as their saviour god still abiding with them.

That level and extent of emperor worship was unprecedented.

I should add: some historians have seen in the evidence of the geographic spread of the Jewish uprisings under Trajan (along with key personalities associated with them, and the types of destruction they wreaked (especially on pagan temples), and some of the literature of the time, that there were real hopes among Jews for a rebuilding of the Temple and messianic restoration.

I can accept all that is fact (as well as varying/relative requirement of citizens to worship the supreme Roman god, Jupiter (ie. relative to the requirement to worship the emperor, depending on the emperor))

But my questioning was not of that. It was of:

"pressure Christians were made to face...as a result of Hadrian's revamped policy of "hyper" emperor worship"

You're assuming there were Jesus[-of-Nazareth]-following Christians in Hadrian's time ("if the Pliny-Trajan-Christian correspondence is genuine")

eta:
So, perhaps,
'If the Pliny-Trajan-Christian correspondence is genuine, 'Christians' would have still been made to face Hadrian's policy of "hyper" emperor worship'

(and, as I referred above, there is still the question of what 'Christians' might have been in Pliny's, Suetonius' and Tactitus' time (& even either side of it)

[neilgodfrey]

It's "a fact". Hadrian revamped emperor worship to unprecedented levels in the Greek world. All homes were required to have a shrine to the emperor for offerings/sacrifices. https://vridar.org/2022/04/18/emperor-w ... evelation/ This was usually placed at the entrance of the house and as an imperial procession passed by people were expected to respond by attending to their household shrine. It was not easy to hide one's refusal to do so.

Hadrian did not, as other emperors had for the most part done, oversee worship of himself alongside a god, but he identified himself as Zeus himself: https://vridar.org/2022/05/28/hadrian-the-god/

Hadrian, like Nero, was wildly popular with "the people", especially the Greeks. And Jews, too, before the war, appear to have highly honoured him.

Hadrian is known as the "traveling emperor", but those travels were not mere sight-seeing excursions. Every place he entered responded to him as the epiphany of a god making his "parousia" to them. His stay with them guaranteed them "salvation" - and he often left coins depicting his ongoing "presence" as their saviour god still abiding with them.

That level and extent of emperor worship was unprecedented.

I should add: some historians have seen in the evidence of the geographic spread of the Jewish uprisings under Trajan (along with key personalities associated with them, and the types of destruction they wreaked (especially on pagan temples), and some of the literature of the time, that there were real hopes among Jews for a rebuilding of the Temple and messianic restoration.

I can accept all that is fact (as well as varying/relative requirement of citizens to worship the supreme Roman god, Jupiter (ie. relative to the requirement to worship the emperor, depending on the emperor))

But my questioning was not of that. It was of:

"pressure Christians were made to face...as a result of Hadrian's revamped policy of "hyper" emperor worship"

You're assuming there were Jesus[-of-Nazareth]-following Christians in Hadrian's time ("if the Pliny-Trajan-Christian correspondence is genuine")

eta:
So, perhaps,
'If the Pliny-Trajan-Christian correspondence is genuine, 'Christians' would have still been made to face Hadrian's policy of "hyper" emperor worship'

(and, as I referred above, there is still the question of what 'Christians' might have been in Pliny's, Suetonius' and Tactitus' time (& even either side of it)

Yes, I am assuming that there were Christians based in the Greek world during the early second century. The Book of Revelation, if written in the time of Hadrian as I strongly suspect it was, testifies to Christians of long-standing in Asia Minor, so presumably since at least the late first century.

(Even if the Pliny persecutions were not historical, that would still stand.)

[MrMacSon]

Yes, I am assuming that there were Christians based in the Greek world during the early second century. The Book of Revelation, if written in the time of Hadrian as I strongly suspect it was, testifies to Christians of long-standing in Asia Minor, so presumably since at least the late first century.

(Even if the Pliny persecutions were not historical, that would still stand.)

OK. Cool
(though I wonder about the nature of 'Christians' before Hadrian, but may be [more] off-topic & I don't think it's a worthwhile exercise at present)

FWIW, Alan Garrow has recently argued "that the imagery of Revelation is richly and directly informed by...reports of the eruption of Vesuvius. This [may have] consequences not only for our understanding of the relationship between the visions of Revelation and the events of history but also for our estimate of the date at which Revelation was composed." https://www.alangarrow.com/bntc-2022---revelation.html

[neilgodfrey]

Yes, I am assuming that there were Christians based in the Greek world during the early second century. The Book of Revelation, if written in the time of Hadrian as I strongly suspect it was, testifies to Christians of long-standing in Asia Minor, so presumably since at least the late first century.

(Even if the Pliny persecutions were not historical, that would still stand.)

OK. Cool
(though I wonder about the nature of 'Christians' before Hadrian, but that'd be more off-topic & I don't think it's a worthwhile exercise at present)

FWIW, Alan Garrow has recently argued "that the imagery of Revelation is richly and directly informed by recent reports of the eruption of Vesuvius. This has consequences not only for our understanding of the relationship between the visions of Revelation and the events of history but also for our estimate of the date at which Revelation was composed." https://www.alangarrow.com/bntc-2022---revelation.html

Yes, I have heard of the Mount Vesuvius explanation but find Witulski's thesis overrides it because of the cogency with which it aligns the historical events of the early second century with the chapters on the 7 churches, the four horsemen, the beast and false prophet, the two witnesses and measuring the temple. Setting the time of Rev to the generation of Vesuvius would raise more questions than it answers, I think.

[MrMacSon]

Yes, I have heard of the Mount Vesuvius explanation but find Witulski's thesis overrides it because of the cogency with which it aligns the historical events of the early second century with the chapters on the 7 churches, the four horsemen, the beast and false prophet, the two witnesses and measuring the temple. Setting the time of Rev to the generation of Vesuvius would raise more questions than it answers, I think.

Fair enough / good point.

---

One thing I'll note (which, although it inadvertently obliquely involves Neil, is not a dig at Neil) is what Garrow says and what I changed in what Garrow said.

I note this to make the point about nuance of claims, propositions, statements, etc. about events in or perceptions of ancient history.

I initially posted what Garrow said verbatim before editing it. Neil captured that verbatim quote [underlining added below]:

FWIW, Alan Garrow has recently argued "that the imagery of Revelation is richly and directly informed by recent reports of the eruption of Vesuvius. This has consequences not only for our understanding of the relationship between the visions of Revelation and the events of history but also for our estimate of the date at which Revelation was composed." https://www.alangarrow.com/bntc-2022---revelation.html

Yes, I have heard of the Mount Vesuvius explanation but find Witulski's thesis overrides it because of the cogency with which it aligns the historical events of the early second century with the chapters on the 7 churches, the four horsemen, the beast and false prophet, the two witnesses and measuring the temple. Setting the time of Rev to the generation of Vesuvius would raise more questions than it answers, I think.

I changed it to

FWIW, Alan Garrow has recently argued "that the imagery of Revelation is richly and directly informed by...reports of the eruption of Vesuvius. This [may have] consequences not only for our understanding of the relationship between the visions of Revelation and the events of history but also for our estimate of the date at which Revelation was composed." https://www.alangarrow.com/bntc-2022---revelation.html

• even if Revelation was based on 'reports' of the eruption of Vesuvius they need not have been 'recent reports'

• 'has consequences' (versus 'may have consequences') highlights Garrow's view his view is correct: somewhat understandable, but somewhat arrogant

Furthermore, Garrow's major claim—major premise—should probably be:

"that the imagery of Revelation [may have been] richly and directly informed by...reports of the eruption of Vesuvius

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

hence the unnamed woman may be just Magdalene.

No. Mark's use of his source (Song of Songs) makes this clear.

LXX Song of Songs 1:3	Mark 14:3	Mark 16:1
And the smell of thine ointments (μύρων) is better than all spices (ἀρώματα)	a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment (μύρου) of pure nard	When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices (ἀρώματα), so that they might go and anoint him.

Mary Magdalene is one of the women with the less good spices. The fact that the unnamed woman arrives beforehand in time and Mary Magdalene too late further supports Mark's intentional contrast between the unnamed woman in Mark 14 and the three women at the tomb.

I have great understanding that even mythicists are unable to detach themselves from the interpretations of later gospels and apocrypha and read them obsessively into GMark.

[Giuseppe]

Mary Magdalene is one of the women with the less good spices. The fact that the unnamed woman arrives beforehand in time and Mary Magdalene too late further supports Mark's intentional contrast between the unnamed woman in Mark 14 and the three women at the tomb.

What about this point?

D'où vient cette femme? Vous chercherez en vain Magdala, son pays d'origine: il s'agit très probablement de la Magd-Helena, la vénérable ou la merveilleuse Hélène aux longs cheveux, compagne de Simon le magicien. L'homme chez qui Jésus la rencontre ne s'appelle-t-il pas précisément Simon?

(G. Fau, Le puzzle des evangiles, p. 352)

We know as a fact that the Magdalene was interpreted as the woman of the Magus. Even assuming Markan priority here (not exactly my view, but assuming it only for sake of discussion), we have that in later gospels Simon the Leper considers her a prostitute, that Jesus exorcized from her 7 demons, that the risen Jesus saw first her, etc. I can explain why Mark could introduce her from a background knowledge about the Magus, but the vice versa, that a mere figure had inspired later Christians to invent stories about her, it is more hard to explain.

In addition, the detail apparently useless about the Syrophoenician woman, "She was HELlENnic",

ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς

(Mark 7:6)

...resembles too much the legend of the Magus who saves Helen from demonic possession in a bordel of the syrophoenician Tyre, as it has been argued by Roger Parvus.

[andrewcriddle]

pressure Christians were made to face in the Greek world as a result of Hadrian's revamped policy of "hyper" emperor worship

- is that an assumption or a proposition??

• A proposition(?) as in:
  
  • "pressure Christians [might have been] made to face in the Greek world as a result of Hadrian's revamped policy of "hyper" emperor worship" ??

It's "a fact". Hadrian revamped emperor worship to unprecedented levels in the Greek world. All homes were required to have a shrine to the emperor for offerings/sacrifices. https://vridar.org/2022/04/18/emperor-w ... evelation/ This was usually placed at the entrance of the house and as an imperial procession passed by people were expected to respond by attending to their household shrine. It was not easy to hide one's refusal to do so.

Can we have a primary source for this please ?
It seems prima-facie implausible.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

pressure Christians were made to face in the Greek world as a result of Hadrian's revamped policy of "hyper" emperor worship

- is that an assumption or a proposition??

• A proposition(?) as in:
  
  • "pressure Christians [might have been] made to face in the Greek world as a result of Hadrian's revamped policy of "hyper" emperor worship" ??

It's "a fact". Hadrian revamped emperor worship to unprecedented levels in the Greek world. All homes were required to have a shrine to the emperor for offerings/sacrifices. https://vridar.org/2022/04/18/emperor-w ... evelation/ This was usually placed at the entrance of the house and as an imperial procession passed by people were expected to respond by attending to their household shrine. It was not easy to hide one's refusal to do so.

Can we have a primary source for this please ?
It seems prima-facie implausible.

Andrew Criddle

Anyone who travels through east and south Asia will not see it as implausible given that it is very difficult in various countries to find any house or business that lacks a shrine and/or photo of a member of the ruling family -- both inside the house/building and another outside at the entrance.

I took the information originally from page 130 of Kaiserkult in Kleinasien, available in archive.org -- translated:

With reason, it is to be noted that the consecration of the Athenian sanctuary of Zeus Olympus and the associated foundation of the institution of the Panhellenion also led to altars524 being erected in private houses525 to the reigning emperor Hadrian in the Greek-influenced east of the imperium Romanum. The geographical focus of the erection of these altars was obviously in the Greek motherland and in the western Asia Minor, i.e. in the Roman province of Asia.526 It is remarkable that the inscriptions carved on each of these altars have essentially the same wording: The reigning emperor Hadrian is given the title ‘Ολύμπιος [=Olympos] and worshipped as σωτήρ καί κτίστης [=Saviour Founder]. The regularity of the form of the altar inscriptions, expressed in the parallelism of wording and phrasing, and the large number of altars erected “imply the official nature of the occasion on which the altars were dedicated to Hadrian Olympios, Savior, and Founder“. In view of the Ολύμπιος title attached to Hadrian in these inscriptions, it is difficult to deny a connection between the content of the corresponding altars and the statues of the emperor erected in the temenos of the Athenian sanctuary of the Ζευς ‘Ολύμπιος, on the bases of which the Όλύμπιος title is also found within the imperial titulature. Therefore, the occasion that led to the erection of the house altars dedicated to Hadrian can be assumed to be the consecration of the Ζεύς Όλύμπιος sanctuary in Athens or an event closely related to this consecration, such as the founding of the institution of the Πανελλήνιον.

[andrewcriddle]

It's "a fact". Hadrian revamped emperor worship to unprecedented levels in the Greek world. All homes were required to have a shrine to the emperor for offerings/sacrifices. https://vridar.org/2022/04/18/emperor-w ... evelation/ This was usually placed at the entrance of the house and as an imperial procession passed by people were expected to respond by attending to their household shrine. It was not easy to hide one's refusal to do so.

Can we have a primary source for this please ?
It seems prima-facie implausible.

Andrew Criddle

Anyone who travels through east and south Asia will not see it as implausible given that it is very difficult in various countries to find any house or business that lacks a shrine and/or photo of a member of the ruling family -- both inside the house/building and another outside at the entrance.

I took the information originally from page 130 of Kaiserkult in Kleinasien, available in archive.org -- translated:

With reason, it is to be noted that the consecration of the Athenian sanctuary of Zeus Olympus and the associated foundation of the institution of the Panhellenion also led to altars524 being erected in private houses525 to the reigning emperor Hadrian in the Greek-influenced east of the imperium Romanum. The geographical focus of the erection of these altars was obviously in the Greek motherland and in the western Asia Minor, i.e. in the Roman province of Asia.526 It is remarkable that the inscriptions carved on each of these altars have essentially the same wording: The reigning emperor Hadrian is given the title ‘Ολύμπιος [=Olympos] and worshipped as σωτήρ καί κτίστης [=Saviour Founder]. The regularity of the form of the altar inscriptions, expressed in the parallelism of wording and phrasing, and the large number of altars erected “imply the official nature of the occasion on which the altars were dedicated to Hadrian Olympios, Savior, and Founder“. In view of the Ολύμπιος title attached to Hadrian in these inscriptions, it is difficult to deny a connection between the content of the corresponding altars and the statues of the emperor erected in the temenos of the Athenian sanctuary of the Ζευς ‘Ολύμπιος, on the bases of which the Όλύμπιος title is also found within the imperial titulature. Therefore, the occasion that led to the erection of the house altars dedicated to Hadrian can be assumed to be the consecration of the Ζεύς Όλύμπιος sanctuary in Athens or an event closely related to this consecration, such as the founding of the institution of the Πανελλήνιον.

I'm sorry, I don't see anything here to imply that the erection of domestic altars was compulsory.

Andrew Criddle