Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

FransJVermeiren wrote:
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).

Have I need of a historical Jesus (ben Saphat or ben Mary) when Paul himself called mystical ''body of Christ'' the whole his community (and note that here I can even assume your Paul talking about ''Christus venturus'' only) ? I am saying that an historical Jesus is totally useless to explain the allegory named Mark (even if you are right about the true identity of a HJ).

How do you interpret ''Son of Man'' precisely in Mark, in relation with the ''abomination'' ? Was it an essenic construct?


In my view, you are right that Titus is a better candidate than Caligola and Hadrian, but Titus cannot make us able to identity who are precisely these ''false Christs'' (Mark 13: 22) . If they are Zealots, then they are enemies of Titus, but we have already concluded that Titus is the Enemy Number 1 (and usually, as general rule, ''the enemy of my enemy is my friend''): contradiction.

While, if the ''abomination'' is Simon Magus, then the ''false Christs'' are his emulators (as false emulators of Christ). There is no contradiction but
mutual confirmation. And the hypothesis ''Simon Magus = abomination'' seems to capture the evidence of 2 Thess 2, too.

I start to think about the possibility that the construct ''son of man'' alludes to all the Pauline Christians as true legitimate emulators of Christ, against the too much (selfishly) specific ''false Christs''. Someway, Mark is introducing a dualism: 1) both pose as God himself, therefore both are accused rightly of blasphemy.

2) but the Son of Man is a collective term: the New Israel, all the mere ''brothers of Lord''. While the ''Abomination'' reserves only for himself the privilege of being the 'body' of Christ.

This may give a reason for Mark's introduction of a term absent in the epistles: Son of Man. A term used by Mark to reiterate the collective character of the pauline 'Body of Christ', against the Gnostic apostles usurpers of the concept. Something as:

the ''body of Christ'' is all the Church and not only the single human recipients (as the latter claim).

If canonical Mark is the oldest Gospel, then Paul is not Simon Magus.

But if a proto-Mark existed, then there is the concrete possibility that some dangerous individual before Mark's Jesus claimed to be adored as the 'body of Christ'. Simon Magus?

In proto-Mark himself? We don't know. But at least I can realize that Mark is introducing 'son of man' because he is in polemic against apparently megalomaniac people: emulators of the celestial Christ on the Terra firma. False apostles more Torah-free than Paul himself.

Prof Robert M Price is basically right: Jesus was historicized (=fulfilled the Jewish prophecies) in anti-Gnostic function.

The fulfillment of scriptures by the Gospel Jesus was not an apology for the destruction of Temple (Clarke W. Owens's view), not an apology for the delay of the Parousia (historicist view), but was merely an apology against the Gnostic claim to be the only human emulator of Christ. A Jesus ''Son of Man'' is necessary against Simon Magus claiming to be the Jesus ''Son of God''. And against the Pillars claiming to be the first apostles to see Jesus.

What's all this fuss over abdominal desolation?

We should go back to just calling it "Montezuma's Revenge".

What ... ? Abomination?

Giuseppe wrote:
Prof Robert M Price is basically right: Jesus was historicized (=fulfilled the Jewish prophecies) in anti-Gnostic function.

The fulfillment of scriptures by the Gospel Jesus was not an apology for the destruction of Temple (Clarke W. Owens's view), not an apology for the delay of the Parousia (historicist view), but was merely an apology against the Gnostic claim to be the only human emulator of Christ. A Jesus ''Son of Man'' is necessary against Simon Magus claiming to be the Jesus ''Son of God''. And against the Pillars claiming to be the first apostles to see Jesus.

You mean -

• The NT-Jesus - as a human emulator of Christ - was a buffer or bulwark against Simon Magus claiming to be the Jesus ''Son of God'' (??)

MrMacSon wrote:

• The NT-Jesus - as a human emulator of Christ - was a buffer or bulwark against Simon Magus claiming to be the Jesus ''Son of God'' (??)

Precisely. Mark is polemizing against the Pillars (the disciples, the scribes and pharisees) and against the first Gnostic apostles (the Independent Exorcist, the "false Christs", the "abomination of desolation") and against the Pagans (the Gerasene).

If the flight ''to the mountains'' (''Galilee'' of the Gentiles) follows the apparition of the 'abomination that causes desolation', then I wonder: was the ''ripping of the temple curtain'' what showed the 'abomination' himself ''there where it does not belong'', in the temple inner room?

“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Mark 13:14)

The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. (Mark 15:38)

This interpretation adds only more and more weight to the probability that the destruction of the temple is meant by the crucifixion of Jesus (and therefore that the ''abomination'' is Titus).


ALTERNATIVES:

A possible Marcionite interpretation is that the 'abomination of desolation' is the same God of the Jews, revealed in his true bad nature by the death of Jesus.

But maybe Mark had in mind this specific episode from Josephus:

I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

Tacitus interpreted that ''great multitude'' as the Pagan Gods defeated by the Jewish Messiah. Were they the 'abomination that causes desolation'' ?

Histories, 5.13 :

[5.13] Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by offering and sacrifice. There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing.

The problem with this view is the same problem of having Titus = ''abomination'' : the 'false Christs' are not more negative figures, as they are enemies of Titus (or of paganism) as well as the true Christ - and this is a clear contradiction. The 'false Christs' should be friends of the 'abomination' and not enemies.