Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

(In an article I haven't) ...., argues so based on the fact that Trajan placed his own statue on the place of the Temple.

Perhaps you should read the article, as that would seem to be a strange claim. Origen and Jerome (Commentary on Matthew 24.15) both report that there was an equestrian statue of the emperor Hadrian (ruled 117-139 CE) on the site of the Holy of Holies. Hadrian was the emperor who re-founded the city of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and constructed a temple to Jupiter there (129-130 CE, just prior to the outbreak of the Second Jewish War/Bar Khokhba Revolt c. 132-136 CE). You could date all the synoptic gospels after the Second Jewish War and take either the statue of Hadrian (a possibility Jerome allows) or the temple of Jupiter as the abomination of desolation. Hadrian's full regnal name was Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, so it included the name Trajan. Possibly that led to some confusion.

Best,

Ken

ETA: I haven't been able to get my hands on the new Oxford edition of Origen's Commentary on Matthew edited by Ronald Heine, but Tzamilikos' edition gives the Greek text and and English translation of the pertinent passage (pp. 322-323):


It seems clear that Origen is Jerome's source for the passage.

Origen : new fragments from the commentary on Matthew : Codices Sabaiticus 232 & Holy Cross 104, Jerusalem (Brill,2020) edited by Panayiotis Tzamalikos.

I have a question for those who take the abomination of desolation, or desolating sacrilege in Mark 13.14 (or Matthew 24.15) to refer to the statue of Hadrian or the temple of Jupiter or something else in the reign of Hadrian such as the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

On this reading, to what does Mark 13.1 refer:


This would seem to refer to the temple and the buildings which were destroyed in 70 CE in the fist Jewish War. The temple was not rebuilt after the first war, so it would seem that Mark 13.1 would have no clear referent to events in the second war. Did Mark's Jesus (or Matthew's) 13 refer to events about 60 years apart in chapter 13, conflating events of the two Jewish Wars? That is, of course, possible. Does it seem likely to you?

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:14 am Did Mark's Jesus (or Matthew's) 13 refer to events about 60 years apart in chapter 13, conflating events of the two Jewish Wars? That is, of course, possible. Does it seem likely to you?

what seems to me more probable is that Jesus is describing the entire sequence of events between the 70 and the 135.
If Mark was writing after the 70 or after the 90, there would be no reason for him to write:


...immediately after the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in verse 1.

The expression 'wars and rumors of wars', in particular a war involving 'kingdom against kingdom', can only capture the wars between Romans and Parthians, of which even Bar-Kokhba was afterall only a proxy (as Ukraina would be today for the Nato).

Along the same line of argument, the warning:



...appears to be a repetition of a similar caustic warning:


(Matthew 11:17)

...addressed polemically against the 'disciples of John' by the Marcion's Jesus.

The abomination standing there is Simon Magus (the standing one) alias Marcion alias Paul alias the False Christ.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:29 am If Mark was writing after the 70 or after the 90, there would be no reason for him to write:

When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come

...immediately after the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in verse 1.

The expression 'wars and rumors of wars', in particular a war involving 'kingdom against kingdom', can only capture the wars between Romans and Parthians, of which even Bar-Kokhba was afterall only a proxy (as Ukraina would be today for the Nato).

You and schillingklaus do have a way of stating possibilities you prefer as authoritative pronouncements and objecting when other state their opinions confidently.

I think Mark may well be referring to the Jewish War of 66-73/4 CE when he wrote of wars and rumors of wars in Mark 13.7. His point, as i have argued before on this list, is to reassure Christians that, while the Jews lost the war with the Romans and God's house in Jerusalem was destroyed, this does not mean they should give up hope. Mark is concerned that Christians will apostatize because it might seem that, if the kingdom of God were coming, it ought to have come already. Mark is assuring his audience that God's plan has not gone astray ('I have already told you everything' in 13.23) and the kingdom of God will arive in the immediate future.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:05 am His point, as i have argued before on this list, is to reassure Christians that, while the Jews lost the war with the Romans and God's house in Jerusalem was destroyed, this does not mean they should give up hope.

My problem with your view is that it doesn't explain why Mark13 talks also:

• 1) about Christians being persecuted;

• 2) about divisions between the same Christians.

The last point, about children enemies of the parents, talks to me about the anti-family ethics preached by anti-demiurgists.

Note also the emphasis on who has to be seen as the supreme god:


So, if Mark is worried about not only what happens to Israel, but also about the sectarian conflicts among the same Christians, he has in mind a more long interval of time than the one that is meant traditionally.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:20 am

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:05 am His point, as i have argued before on this list, is to reassure Christians that, while the Jews lost the war with the Romans and God's house in Jerusalem was destroyed, this does not mean they should give up hope.

My problem with your view is that it doesn't explain why Mark13 talks also:

• 1) about Christians being persecuted;

• 2) about divisions between the same Christians.

On the contrary, that is the very focus of my view, which was discussed extensively in the "Let the reader understand' thread, starting here:

viewtopic.php?p=83217#p83217

Best,

Ken

From memory the only source that identified Jews as connecting Bar Kochba to the 70 weeks prophesy is Luther (I could be wrong but even if it is found it is obscure). The evidence seems to suggest that BOTH Jews and Christians interpreted Daniel as predicting 70 CE. The evidence is overwhelming almost to the point of it being accepted orthodoxy on both sides. I always found it curious that both agree to this degree while disputing who is the messiah. Hard to explain. Now to come along and say Christians originally understood the prophesy to pertain to Bar Kochba or the Bar Kochba revolt. How does that work exactly? Giuseppe please walk through Daniel 9:24 - 27 and take me through who is the messiah and how it all fits within a second century framework? I have never seen it spelled out.

This proves once morte the falsity of Markan Prioritism, for overall more consequently Jewish Mt does not identify God as a creator although certainly thinking so.