Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Abomination that causes desolation: in all the religious cultures the ''maximum'' of sacrilege and heresy happens when a man proclaims himself above God or the gods.

If ''Jesus is the man who proclaimed himself God'' for the hoi polloi, then he would be rightly an ''abomination that causes desolation''. Because to proclaim himself 'God' is a sacrilege act by definition.

Was the pauline 'Mark' inventing his Jesus well knowing that an earthly Jesus is the more nihilistic negation of the celestial Jesus of Paul?
Yes.

Was the pauline 'Mark' inventing his Jesus to condemn the Pillars and their followers and to predict the destruction of Jerusalem?
Yes.

In virtue of these two simple answers, I am inclined to think that Jesus himself in Mark works as ''abomination'' that provokes ''desolation'' on who sees him.

Jesus works as the figure of the jettatore in Mark.

Giuseppe wrote:
As you note, I am interested about any interpretation of Mark's Jesus as pure allegory. Surely Titus is a good candidate as ''abomination that causes desolation'': 'Mark' is saying cryptically that the resurrection of the New Israel in the mountainous region of ''Galilee'' will happen just when Titus is entering into the temple.

Giuseppe, you suggest a simultaneousness between Titus’ desecration/destruction of the Temple and the beginning of a New Israel. I believe this is true not in an allegorical but in a plainly historical sense. Jesus was crucified and survived his execution four weeks after the destruction of the Temple, the great catastrophe (θλιψις) that Mark mentions in 13:24. Two verses further he says: ‘And afterwards they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.’ (13:26). So here the burning and desecration of the Temple and the arrival of the Christ are closely connected chronologically. This is also the answer to the question why an apocalyptic chapter has been inserted in the Synoptic Gospels: to reveal in a veiled way the real chronology of the beginnings of Christianity.

I believe that people who suggest alternative interpretations for the “abomination that causes desolation” are not really aware of the extraordinary character of what happened in 70 CE. For decades the Essenes had prepared an unprecedented pivotal point in world history in their favor: they would defeat the Romans and take over world dominion from them, an ideal Jewish king would reign the world as Gods substitute, and the whole world would worship the Jewish God instead of the Greco-Roman idols. This sky-high expectations for the ‘day of the Lord’ became the deepest thinkable disillusion: the destruction of their nation, their Temple and their capital. So when in the centuries after the first “abomination of desolation” of 168 BCE one has to look for a new extreme humiliation – one that proved to be much more devastating than the first one – the events of 70 CE should get the a priori preference. When all the concrete elements of the Synoptic Apocalypse confirm this a priori preference, in my opinion the case is closed in favor of Titus’ desecration of the Temple.

Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance. Detering’s defence of the “abomination” during the Bar Kochba revolt (which of course is not a minor event) is weak*. He uses arguments for the Bar Kochba revolt which are a fortiori true for the war of 66-70 CE. It would lead too far to discuss Detering’s whole article, but I want to mention one of his arguments: the earthquake argument. Detering mentions Theissen (p. 198 of his article): “Theissen has pointed out that in Mark 13:7 (and Mt 24:7 as well) ‘the earthquake… is synchronized with the war’, and correctly observes that the great earthquakes witnessed in the time after 37 CE took place either before or after the Jewish war.” Then Detering starts a search that looks a bit like the search for a second star of Bethlehem. He finds an earthquake which is “synchronized” with the Bar Kochba revolt … in 115 CE (and he mentions another ‘small hint’ which is totally meaningless). But I agree with Theissen that the earthquake is synchronized with the war. In fact, Mark 13:7 speaks of “earthquakes in various places” so we have to synchronize the war with multiple earthquakes. This becomes the easiest of tasks as soon as we realize that these earthquakes were part of Roman warfare. We are not compelled to translate σεισμοι (with the general meaning of violent shaking or commotion) as the natural phenomenon of an earthquake, we can also see σεισμοι as a human phenomenon, the more in an apocalyptic text. At least three elements of antique warfare provoked σεισμοι: the strike of ballista stones, the beating of battering rams, and the falling down of stones from defense walls during their demolition. So during the war of 66-70 CE there have been countless σεισμοι at least during the siege and demolition of Jotapata (during the spring of 67 CE) and Jerusalem (five months of siege with demolition shortly afterwards – April to September or October 70 CE).

* Detering, H. The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par): A Document from the Time of Bar Kochba, JHC 7/2 (Fall 2000), 161-210.

FransJVermeiren wrote:I believe that people who suggest alternative interpretations for the “abomination that causes desolation” are not really aware of the extraordinary character of what happened in 70 CE.

I am.

Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance.

Except that at the time of Jannaeus, the "...culminating point of the Great War..." hasn't happened yet. It appears that, to them, Jannaeus will bring them a True King and the production of Kings and Priests will Rule. The Mishmarot Priesthood will be centered in Galilee - Greater New Israel.

The problem here is that many are looking for "One Thing" that will explain the NT. The movement that culminates in the Slaughter of 4 BCE Passover, for instance, comes at the end of Herod and there are a LOT of Herod Stories in the NT, many of them submerged in the Transvaluation that came from the New Religion. People such as Zakkai knew the real History. Testimony is given in other Sources, as well as in the NT.

CW

FransJVermeiren wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:
As you note, I am interested about any interpretation of Mark's Jesus as pure allegory. Surely Titus is a good candidate as ''abomination that causes desolation'': 'Mark' is saying cryptically that the resurrection of the New Israel in the mountainous region of ''Galilee'' will happen just when Titus is entering into the temple.

Giuseppe, you suggest a simultaneousness between Titus’ desecration/destruction of the Temple and the beginning of a New Israel. I believe this is true not in an allegorical but in a plainly historical sense. Jesus was crucified and survived his execution four weeks after the destruction of the Temple, the great catastrophe (θλιψις) that Mark mentions in 13:24. Two verses further he says: ‘And afterwards they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.’ (13:26). So here the burning and desecration of the Temple and the arrival of the Christ are closely connected chronologically. This is also the answer to the question why an apocalyptic chapter has been inserted in the Synoptic Gospels: to reveal in a veiled way the real chronology of the beginnings of Christianity.

I believe that people who suggest alternative interpretations for the “abomination that causes desolation” are not really aware of the extraordinary character of what happened in 70 CE. For decades the Essenes had prepared an unprecedented pivotal point in world history in their favor: they would defeat the Romans and take over world dominion from them, an ideal Jewish king would reign the world as Gods substitute, and the whole world would worship the Jewish God instead of the Greco-Roman idols. This sky-high expectations for the ‘day of the Lord’ became the deepest thinkable disillusion: the destruction of their nation, their Temple and their capital. So when in the centuries after the first “abomination of desolation” of 168 BCE one has to look for a new extreme humiliation – one that proved to be much more devastating than the first one – the events of 70 CE should get the a priori preference. When all the concrete elements of the Synoptic Apocalypse confirm this a priori preference, in my opinion the case is closed in favor of Titus’ desecration of the Temple.

Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance. Detering’s defence of the “abomination” during the Bar Kochba revolt (which of course is not a minor event) is weak*. He uses arguments for the Bar Kochba revolt which are a fortiori true for the war of 66-70 CE. It would lead too far to discuss Detering’s whole article, but I want to mention one of his arguments: the earthquake argument. Detering mentions Theissen (p. 198 of his article): “Theissen has pointed out that in Mark 13:7 (and Mt 24:7 as well) ‘the earthquake… is synchronized with the war’, and correctly observes that the great earthquakes witnessed in the time after 37 CE took place either before or after the Jewish war.” Then Detering starts a search that looks a bit like the search for a second star of Bethlehem. He finds an earthquake which is “synchronized” with the Bar Kochba revolt … in 115 CE (and he mentions another ‘small hint’ which is totally meaningless). But I agree with Theissen that the earthquake is synchronized with the war. In fact, Mark 13:7 speaks of “earthquakes in various places” so we have to synchronize the war with multiple earthquakes. This becomes the easiest of tasks as soon as we realize that these earthquakes were part of Roman warfare. We are not compelled to translate σεισμοι (with the general meaning of violent shaking or commotion) as the natural phenomenon of an earthquake, we can also see σεισμοι as a human phenomenon, the more in an apocalyptic text. At least three elements of antique warfare provoked σεισμοι: the strike of ballista stones, the beating of battering rams, and the falling down of stones from defense walls during their demolition. So during the war of 66-70 CE there have been countless σεισμοι at least during the siege and demolition of Jotapata (during the spring of 67 CE) and Jerusalem (five months of siege with demolition shortly afterwards – April to September or October 70 CE).

* Detering, H. The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par): A Document from the Time of Bar Kochba, JHC 7/2 (Fall 2000), 161-210.

FransJVermeiren wrote:the great catastrophe (θλιψις)

--- or Al-Nakba


A series on the Palestinian 'catastrophe' of 1948 that led to dispossession and conflict that still endures.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/spe ... 74619.html

FransJVermeiren wrote:

Giuseppe wrote: As you note, I am interested about any interpretation of Mark's Jesus as pure allegory. Surely Titus is a good candidate as ''abomination that causes desolation'': 'Mark' is saying cryptically that the resurrection of the New Israel in the mountainous region of ''Galilee'' will happen just when Titus is entering into the temple.

Giuseppe, you suggest a simultaneousness between Titus’ desecration/destruction of the Temple and the beginning of a New Israel. I believe this is true not in an allegorical but in a plainly historical sense. Jesusx was crucified and survived his execution four weeks after the destruction of the Temple, the great catastrophe (θλιψις) that Mark mentions in 13:24. Two verses further he says: ‘And afterwards they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.’ (13:26). So here the burning and desecration of the Temple and the arrival of the Christ are closely connected chronologically. This is also the answer to the question why an apocalyptic chapter has been inserted in the Synoptic Gospels: to reveal in a veiled way the real chronology of the beginnings of Christianity.

x I presume you are referring to your induction/deduction that Jesus is Jesus ben Saphat ..(?)

I believe that people who suggest alternative interpretations for the “abomination that causes desolation” are not really aware of the extraordinary character of what happened in 70 CE. For decades the Essenes had prepared an unprecedented pivotal point in world history in their favor: they would defeat the Romans and take over world dominion from them, an ideal Jewish king would reign the world as Gods substitute, and the whole world would worship the Jewish God instead of the Greco-Roman idols. This sky-high expectations for the ‘day of the Lord’ became the deepest thinkable disillusion: the destruction of their nation, their Temple and their capital. So when in the centuries after the first “abomination of desolation” of 168 BCE one has to look for a new extreme humiliation – one that proved to be much more devastating than the first one – the events of 70 CE should get the a priori preference. When all the concrete elements of the Synoptic Apocalypse confirm this a priori preference, in my opinion the case is closed in favor of Titus’ desecration of the Temple.

Are the elements of the Synoptic Apocalypse (SA) concrete? Do the elements of the Synoptic Apocalypse confirm the events of 70 CE as the the basis for it (ie the SA). This seems to be circular reasoning & begging-the-question.

Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance. Detering’s defence of the “abomination” during the Bar Kochba revolt (which of course is not a minor event) is weak*. He uses arguments for the Bar Kochba revolt which are a fortiori true for the war of 66-70 CE. It would lead too far to discuss Detering’s whole article, but I want to mention one of his arguments: the earthquake argument. Detering mentions Theissen (p. 198 of his article): “Theissen has pointed out that in Mark 13:7 (and Mt 24:7 as well) ‘the earthquake… is synchronized with the war’, and correctly observes that the great earthquakes witnessed in the time after 37 CE took place either before or after the Jewish war.” Then Detering starts a search that looks a bit like the search for a second star of Bethlehem. He finds an earthquake which is “synchronized” with the Bar Kochba revolt … in 115 CE (and he mentions another ‘small hint’ which is totally meaningless). But I agree with Theissen that the earthquake is synchronized with the war. In fact, Mark 13:7 speaks of “earthquakes in various places” so we have to synchronize the war with multiple earthquakes.

This becomes the easiest of tasks as soon as we realize that these earthquakes were part of Roman warfare. We are not compelled to translate σεισμοι (with the general meaning of violent shaking or commotion) as the natural phenomenon of an earthquake, we can also see σεισμοι as a human phenomenon, the more in an apocalyptic text. At least three elements of antique warfare provoked σεισμοι: the strike of ballista stones, the beating of battering rams, and the falling down of stones from defense walls during their demolition. So during the war of 66-70 CE there have been countless σεισμοι at least during the siege and demolition of Jotapata (during the spring of 67 CE) and Jerusalem (five months of siege with demolition shortly afterwards – April to September or October 70 CE).

* Detering, H. The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par): A Document from the Time of Bar Kochba, JHC 7/2 (Fall 2000), 161-210.

I agree that "Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance."

But I would argue that the culminating point of the Great War is post the Bar Kochba revolt -

ie. the result of the Great War and the eventual absolute inability to rebuild the Temple, especially if it had been previously hinted at by Hadrian.

'Bar Kochba' was not not just a 'revolt' - it was a 3-year war in which Bar Kochba and his forces controlled Jerusalem.

The greatest abomination was the destruction of the Temple 66-70 CE but, to me, at least, the greatest desolation was the removal of all hope of being able to rebuild it, especially after 'Bar Kochba supremacy' had raised hope of the rebuilding.

Frans wrote: Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance.

Charles Wilson wrote: Except that at the time of Jannaeus, the "...culminating point of the Great War..." hasn't happened yet.

I'm not sure what the relevance of 'the Great War not having happened yet' is (i) to the time of Jannaeus (or to people in the time of Jannaeus), or (ii) to the Gospel-writers.

Charles Wilson wrote: It appears that, to them, Jannaeus will bring them* a True King and the production of Kings and Priests will Rule. The Mishmarot Priesthood will be centered in Galilee - Greater New Israel.

* who is 'them'?


I agree with this -

Charles Wilson wrote: The problem here is that many are looking for "One Thing" that will explain the NT. The movement that culminates in the Slaughter of 4 BCE Passover, for instance, comes at the end of Herod and there are a LOT of Herod Stories in the NT, many of them submerged in the Transvaluation that came from the New Religion.

- although I would say references to Herod may be references to more than one person: eg. Agrippa I was also known as Herod.

Charles Wilson wrote: People such as Zakkai knew the real History. Testimony is given in other Sources, as well as in the NT.

Is there any indication Zakkai or his contemporaries or successors recorded events or history that indicate the development of Christianity?

FransJVermeiren wrote:I believe that people who suggest alternative interpretations for the “abomination that causes desolation” are not really aware of the extraordinary character of what happened in 70 CE.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel and Maccabees appears to refer to the erection of an idol, to which swine's flesh was offered, in the Holy of Holies at the command of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The blanket destruction of the temple in 70 does not involve such a situation, does it? I think the reason both the Caligula crisis and the crisis under Hadrian come up so often in this connection is simply because those situations mirror the Maccabean one, insofar as both offer the specter of a foreign deity's idol being erected in the Temple (or on its site), in a way that the events of 70 do not.

Thank you, MrMacSon. A mere "Alt-Tab" away is a New Thread covering a great amount of material you bring up. I don't think I can finish it tonight. So, a comment or three:

MrMacSon wrote:

Frans wrote: Events under Alexander Jannaeus or Caligula are, when compared to the culminating point of the Great War, of negligible importance.

Charles Wilson wrote: Except that at the time of Jannaeus, the "...culminating point of the Great War..." hasn't happened yet.

I'm not sure what the relevance of 'the Great War not having happened yet' is (i) to the time of Jannaeus (or to people in the time of Jannaeus), or (ii) to the Gospel-writers.

Jannaeus, his followers, Queen Salome et. al., do not have any thought that a hundred years or so later, everything will lie in ruins. The Hasmoneans believe that their Rule is from God, that their sway over Galilee will be shortly coming and then eternal and that the Temple Service which they administer shall never end. Any Piyyutim or major work written about Yanni is for eternity. Jannaeus isn't to be compared with anything else because anything else hasn't happened yet!

Charles Wilson wrote: It appears that, to them, Jannaeus will bring them* a True King and the production of Kings and Priests will Rule. The Mishmarot Priesthood will be centered in Galilee - Greater New Israel.

* who is 'them'?

The Hasmoneans, the followers of the Temple Service, not the Pharisees or, later, Herod or the Romans. Remember, when Archelaus rules, the "People" demand a High Priest of "Greater Piety and Purity". Who answers that description?

I agree with this -

Charles Wilson wrote: The problem here is that many are looking for "One Thing" that will explain the NT. The movement that culminates in the Slaughter of 4 BCE Passover, for instance, comes at the end of Herod and there are a LOT of Herod Stories in the NT, many of them submerged in the Transvaluation that came from the New Religion.

- although I would say references to Herod may be references to more than one person: eg. Agrippa I was also known as Herod.

Correct. No Problemo. BTW, thanx.

Charles Wilson wrote: People such as Zakkai knew the real History. Testimony is given in other Sources, as well as in the NT.

Is there any indication Zakkai or his contemporaries or successors recorded events or history that indicate the development of Christianity?

This is the subject of the Thread. "How deep does this go?" I'm beginning to see that it goes to the very authorship of the NT. The people who wrote the Final Redactions did their best to hide this but the attempt was unsuccessful. Zakkai is implicated in his knowledge of the Book of Numbers and Jesus being Ritually Unclean at his death.

In other threads here, focus is on the "Cock's Crow". Zakkai is implicated here as well since "Continuous Study of Torah was to continue until "Cock's Crow" ". Other examples: Berakoth 28A reads as Peter ("The Ammonite"?) entering the Courtyard. Jesus finding the Disciples asleep three times echoes the problems of tiredness from the extra hour in each of the Three Jewish Watches instead of the Roman four [Edit: If true, this would point to the 4 BCE Passover as well if the Herodian Soldiers had Roman style Watches and the Priestly Group used three.].

I know that there is much, much more that shows this. The question is whether a Story came from Nicholas of Damascus and another from Mucianus, all rewritten for the Glory of Rome. How much of a hand did the new Rabbis have in writing the NT - that they could get through the Redactors and Guards of, for example, Yavneh? Or perhaps Weitzman's posited community.

Perhaps too much for one Thread.

Thanx,

CW

Ben C. Smith wrote:The abomination of desolation in Daniel and Maccabees appears to refer to the erection of an idol, to which swine's flesh was offered, in the Holy of Holies at the command of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The blanket destruction of the temple in 70 does not involve such a situation, does it?

Ben --

Minor Point:

Josephus, Wars..., 7, 1, 3:
Hereupon Titus ordered those whose business it was to read the list of all that had performed great exploits in this war, whom he called to him by their names, and commended them before the company, and rejoiced in them in the same manner as a man would have rejoiced in his own exploits. He also put on their heads crowns of gold [etc.]... So when they had all these honors bestowed on them, according to his own appointment made to every one, and he had wished all sorts of happiness to the whole army, he came down, among the great acclamations which were made to him, and then betook himself to offer thank-offerings [to the gods], and at once sacrificed a vast number of oxen, that stood ready at the altars, and distributed them among the army to feast on..."

The point of sacrificing swine on the Altars argues in favor of a Non-70s point of the Abomination of Desolation. Titus, no friend of the Jews he, does sacrifice on the Altars but it is oxen, not swine. One would expect a Greek General, such as Demetrius Eucerus, to have sacrificed swine, continuing the Abomination of the Greeks in the eyes of Jewish Culture- "Let the reader note this". This would explain the descriptions of Josephus as regards to the Jewish Mercs deserting Demetrius and attaching themselves to Jannaeus.

With respect, of course, YMMV.

CW

Charles Wilson wrote:The point of sacrificing swine on the Altars argues in favor of a Non-70s point of the Abomination of Desolation.

Not only that, but the term abomination (Hebrew שִׁקּוּץ, Greek βδέλυγμα) is a frequent gloss for an idol in the Hebrew scriptures.