2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
schillingklaus
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by schillingklaus »

Bar Abbas and Bar Kochba could be conflated easily, so the late gospels make the Jews cause the liberation of the Marcion-style Son of the Father at the expense of the Jewish messiah.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12071
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by Giuseppe »

schillingklaus wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:40 am Bar Abbas and Bar Kochba could be conflated easily, so the late gospels make the Jews cause the liberation of the Marcion-style Son of the Father at the expense of the Jewish messiah.
possibly in virtue of this easy syllogism in the mind of the catholics:
  • the "man of sin" is Bar Kokhba, and he is the anti-Christ.
  • but the anti-Christ is also "whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist" (1 John 2:22), an obvious portrayal of Marcion
  • therefore: Barabbas is in the same time Bar-Kokhba and the caustic parody of the marcionite "Son of Father"
lsayre
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by lsayre »

A couple brief comments:

1) Philo died circa 50 CE.

2) 2 Thess., chapter 2 verse 5: "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?". This is one of the passages which led me (a good number of years ago) to believe that Paul was effectively speaking from beyond the grave through his letters. This would indeed open the door to placing some of the purported words of Paul into the mouth of Jesus. Wherein this would only have historically occurred once the risen god Paul was intentionally demoted to the status of being a living follower of Jesus. And wherein Marcion may be the one who demoted Paul. And wherein Paul may have originally been a localized pagan deity who was at some juncture merged into the fold of Christianity as part of the assimilating catholicism (lower case 'c') which was percolating at the time.
Last edited by lsayre on Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:18 am
Turmel identifies the "man of sin" with Bar-Kokhba:
https://vridar.org/2011/05/31/identifyi ... salonians/
This fit the same enemy found in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: the Jews.
rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:53 am Ok, this does make some sense. Yet I wonder if Mark nevertheless misinterpreted the passage as being about Caligula? This would of course place the writing of Mark after the 2nd Jewish-Roman War. Which is not necessarily an obstacle.
A few scholars have thought Mark 13 is about the aftermath of the bar Kokhba revolt eg. Herman Detering.

Mark 13:14b, "then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains", would suggest that (afaik, there was no compulsion to flee after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD/CE, not even for the Temple's priests, though there might have been in the subsequent 2-3 yrs the First Roman-Jewish War smouldered on).

It's possible some of these passages in Mark 13 +/- other similar passages in other texts refer to multiple events over multiple years/generations.

I wonder if reflections of one of two of three acts of Pilate could also have been a contributing factor:
  1. In the Affair of the Standards (26 AD), Pilate moved one of his military cohorts to the fortress adjacent to the Temple in Jerusalem. The standards of this cohort included the image of the emperor, a violation of the Jewish prohibition of graven images. Jews protested; Pilate threatened them with swords; they are said to have bared their necks; Pilate relented.

    (this event may also have involved effigies or statues of the emperor +/- coins bearing pagan religious symbols)
    .
  2. The Affair of the Shields probably happened in 31 or 32, about a year before the trial of Jesus. In this case, Pilate commissioned some golden shields in honor of his benefactor, Tiberius, hanging them inside the courtyard of his palace in Jerusalem, [but this time] he did not include a graven image of the emperor, but he did include an honorary inscription, probably utilizing the standard imperial language of “son of god” for Tiberius. In response, a number of Jews took offense and sent some Herodian princes to request the shields’ removal. When Pilate refused, probably because he feared offending Tiberius at a very delicate time in Rome, the Herodians sent off a letter of protest, to which Tiberius responded with frustration, ordering Pilate to move the shields to the imperial temple in Caesarea.
    .
  3. The final case was at the end of Pilate's prefecture. He heard of a group of Samaritans gathering in Mt. Gerizim. Fearing a potential insurrection, he ordered his soldiers break up the group, and upon further examination, executed the ring-leaders. Samaritans in turn complained to the senior governor/legate of Syria, Vitellius, who sent Pilate off to Rome to answer charges before the emperor. But by the time Pilate arrived in Rome, Tiberius was dead (apparently Eusebius says Caligula ordered Pilate to kill himself, but that seems fanciful).

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168311

    https://www.livius.org/articles/person/ ... -pilate-4/

Some say Mark 13:21-23 is a reference to bar Kokhba and not repeating the reverence for him:

21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ’; or, ‘Behold, He is there’; do not believe him; 22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

"I have told you everything" suggests reflection on *everything*. And, of course, history could have been seen to have been repeating given Jewish lore has much rehashing of previous accounts as new midrashim as, indeed, Christian lore seems to be.
rgprice
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by rgprice »

In 2 Thess 2 was written in Bar Kokhba in mind, one can see how "Mark" may have misinterpreted this if he thought it were genuine. If Mark thinks that Paul lived in the mid first century, but has a collection in hand in which this letter now exists, he couldn't have understood it to be talking about Bar Kokhba, as it would have been written in the middle of the first century if it were genuine. So perhaps, thinking that it was genuine adn that Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, Mark associated the prophecy with Caligula.

I dunno.

But, even if that is the case, it still means that "Mark" wouldn't have written his Gospel until after the Bar Kokhba revolt, which puts his Gospel a bit later than I had conceived. And I still think that Mark came first for a number of reasons, and that Marcion is derived from Mark or that Mark is in fact Marcion's Gospel.

But assuming that Marcion's Gospel is more like Luke and is derived from Mark, that would mean Mark's Gospel would had to have been written between 135 and 140 and that the other Gospel would all had to have followed quickly thereafter. This is actually not much different than what Vinzent proposes I suppose.

We would have to take Ch2 of the Apology of Aristides as later interpolation, with the main part of the Apology of Aristides actually being evidence of a pre-Gospel Christianity that was more rooted in philosophy.

Hmm....
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:17 am
the main part of the Apology of Aristides actually being evidence of a pre-Gospel Christianity that was more rooted in philosophy (We would have to take Ch2 of the Apology of Aristides as later interpolation)
Hmm....

Interesting. Any configuration of the role and relationship of these early texts is possible (and Markus Vinzent has cautioned about the Apology of Aristides being reworked over the years, though he still considers it a 2nd century text). See viewtopic.php?p=149175#p149175

rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:17 am
If 2 Thess 2 was written with Bar Kokhba in mind, one can see how "Mark" may have misinterpreted this if he thought it were genuine. If Mark thinks that Paul lived in the mid first century, but has a collection in hand in which this letter now exists, he couldn't have understood it to be talking about Bar Kokhba, as it would have been written in the middle of the first century if it were genuine. So perhaps, thinking that it was genuine and that Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, Mark associated the prophecy with Caligula.

I dunno.

2 Thess 2 wouldn't have needed to have been written after the Bar Kokhba Revolt; Mark or whoever wrote or later redacted the relevant verses in Mark 13 would just have to have considered 2 Thess 2 in light of Mark 13. It doesn't matter when 2 Thess 2 was written as long as it was before the Markan author or redactor/s.

rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:17 am
But, even if that is the case, it still means that "Mark" wouldn't have written his Gospel until after the Bar Kokhba revolt, which puts his Gospel a bit later than I had conceived. And I still think that Mark came first for a number of reasons, and that Marcion is derived from Mark or that Mark is in fact Marcion's Gospel.

But, assuming that Marcion's Gospel is more like Luke and is derived from Mark, that would mean Mark's Gospel would had to have been written between 135 and 140 and that the other Gospel[s] would all had to have followed quickly thereafter. This is actually not much different than what Vinzent proposes, I suppose.

rgprice
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by rgprice »

Thanks again for the link Giuseppe. I agree with Joseph Turmel's assessment that 2 Thess 2 is a prophecy about a specific real individual. Having read now hundreds of ancient prophecies and having some understanding of how and why they were produced, I had drawn the exact same conclusions as Turmel regarding the nature of the prophecy in terms of it having been written with knowledge of details about the "man of lawlessness".

I did not, however, know much about Bar Kokhba. If what Turmel says is correct about Bar Kokhba, then I agree with his assessment of the identity of the man of lawlessness.

If that is indeed true then I think its a very big deal, because I think certainly Mark 13:14 is based on 2 Thess 2.

But, this does create a bit of confusion. However, this type of confusion was common regarding ancient prophetic material, precisely because people were misled about the origin and date of authorship of the materials.

So here is what I think may have happened:

The bulk of the Pauline letters, the so-called authentic letters, were written prior to the First Jewish-Roman War. There actually was some Pauline ministry, but it was ultimately insignificant in its own time.

In the lead up to the Bar Kokhba revolt, perhaps beginning with Hadrian's actions in Jerusalem, there was a renewed interest in Paul and the Pauline letter collection was formed. As a part of this process 2 Thessalonians was written and added to the collection, very likely by the person who made the collection.

This collection now garnered some interest.

The person who wrote what we call the Gospel of Mark obtained the collection and understood Paul to be a figure who lived in the mid first century, prior to the First Jewish-Roman War. This person did not know that 2 Thess was a later forgery and read it as if it were written by the "real Paul" prior to the First Jewish-Roman War. This person did not realize that the the "man of lawlessness" was supposed to be Bar Kokhba and mistakenly identified him as Caligula.

This misunderstanding is what led to the setting of his story during the reign of Pilate per Philo's works that covered the reign of Caligula. The writer of Mark then sets up the Caligula Crisis as the prelude to the First Jewish-Roman War.

24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.

So the first tribulation is the Caligula Crisis, then "after that tribulation" is the First Jewish-Roman War, which is described in Mark by relating Josephus' description of the armies in the clouds to the prophecy of Daniel.

But the use of 2 Thess 2 by Mark then necessarily means that Mark had to have been written between about 135 and 140, which I find quite astonishing. I had long been holding out that Mark was written at least prior to 120.

But I've seen this exact type of temporal misplacement among ancient writers when interpreting prophecies over and over again, leading exactly to these types of confusing and convoluted outcomes. This was quite common in interpretation of the Sibylline prophecies for example, leading to the creation of stories with confusing timelines. I think Mark 13 is so confusing and enigmatic precisely because of this.

The writer was having a hard time understanding 2 Thess 2 and the best he could figure was the 2 Thess 2 was talking about Caligula, even though the statue was never actually setup in the temple. But he shoehorned the reference in anyway because he thought it was authentic Paul.
ABuddhist
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: 2 Thess the Man of Lawlessness?

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:42 am In the lead up to the Bar Kokhba revolt, perhaps beginning with Hadrian's actions in Jerusalem, there was a renewed interest in Paul and the Pauline letter collection was formed. As a part of this process 2 Thessalonians was written and added to the collection, very likely by the person who made the collection.
Are you familiar with the argument that the Revelation to John dates to Hadrian's reign (as argued in Witulski, Thomas. Die Johannesoffenbarung Und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien Zur Datierung Der Neutestamentlichen Apokalypse. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007)? How would that affect your theies, if at all?
Post Reply