For JWs and other Fundementalists the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ce is a unquestionably the fullfillment of the words in Mark 13.19. However to see the city's leveling as the " tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now" as referring to death numbers we must surmise the death toll to have been horrific indeed! Josephus is of course oft quoted for the numbers. According to him 97,000 were taken prisoner while 1,100,000 were killed. Horrific indeed. (not that outstanding if you believe that the Isrealite army supposedly killed 1,000,000 Ethiopians in a single battle ceturies earlier) And not that impressive when we consider other pograms of the past and present.
Another problem is this, these numbers are grossly exaggerated. According to other calculations using population figures there were arround 180,000 posssible attendees of the Passover, with around 125,000 being pilgrims. 50-80,000 being residents of Jerusalem. Why would Josephus so exaggerate? Maybe he was given, like the OT writers, to dramatize. Maybe it played up to the Romans (whom he was working for)to inflate their victory. Maybe he didn't write it at all, but a later Xtian apologist did to locate the "prophecy" closer to the supposed time of Jesus. Elsehwere I mentioned that it is possible that the apocalyptic verses in Mark 13 were written not after 70 but after 135. As Leolaia pointed out there are problems with this but yet it fits the events around the Bar Kochba rebellion at points even better than 70. The destruction of 70 did not break the nation nor it's hatred for Roman domination. Many still retained hope that the Temple (athird) would be rebuilt. There is a tradition that work had begun to do this. The rebellion against the Romans achieved independence for 3 years werein Jewish nationalism was again at an all time high. In 135 the Romans came back with a vengence, many ,many were killed, the final result being that Jews were banished from Jerusalem for the next 300 years or so. In this way the devastation was worse than that of 70, and the worse that the nation had ever experienced, hope was crushed and the back of Jewish independence was forever broken. I am therefore proposing that the passage about the extent of the tribulation be understood as a late reference to event of 135 not 70 ce. Mark seems to show dependence upon Matt for the wording. Evidence to me of late reworking of text. Interestingly Luke does not refer to a great tribulation, but "great necessity upon the land". Obviously this wording doesn't play as well with those who see the "prophecy" as having a modern worldwide fullfilment. Also perhaps the part about "those in the country not coming in to Jerusalem " fits well the banishment from Jerusalem imposed by the Romans in 135. The Pella tradition is recognized fiction. (another time).
OK, let me have it.
Greatest tribulation upon Judaism?
by peacefulpete 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
Satanus
PP
Thankyou for that bit of research.
SS
-
Leolaia
PP.....I agree that Mark has been reworked but not necessarily to refer to the events of 135. As one of my recent posts suggests (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/65283/1017510/post.ashx#1017510), Luke preserves the more original version of the Markan text which more specifically refers to the events of A.D. 70. This text mentions "Jerusalem surrounded by armies," the fleeing of Judeans to the mountains, with Jerusalemites falling "by the edge of the sword" and survivors being "led captive" as the city is "trodden down by the Gentiles," as well as the razing of the Temple. All these references are missing in the Mark-Matthew version except for the mention of those fleeing into the mountains. The problematic thing about this "prophecy" is that it goes right into the heavenly signs, without any break. This suggests to me that the original version of the Markan Apocalypse was written just after the events of 70, say between 70-75, as it expects (like the Society did for WWI and WWII) these events in Judea to lead right into the end of the world. But it was later revised when the end did not come. The reference to "Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies" was replaced with the "desolating sacrilege" from Daniel -- which reflects the expectation from the time of Caligula that the Romans would establish a pagan statue or worship the Emperor in the Temple precincts. This same expectation appears in 2 Thessalonians, Revelation, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Apocalypse of Elijah. This expectation was tied in these apocalyptic works with the belief that Beliar would reveal himself as (or use as his puppet) the "Son of Lawlessness" or Antichrist (cf. also the Didache, Ascension of Isaiah and Apocalypse of Peter). This type of end-times apocalyptic material in Mark and Matthew suggests that the fulfillment of this prophecy was still viewed as future, and the "Great Tribulation" that occurs when the Desolating Abomination appears was also viewed as still future and referred not to a literal event in the past but the myth of how the world would finally end -- taken directly from Daniel. The same theme appears in the Didache apocalypse which is constructed from these traditional apocalyptic notions and has no reference to the events of A.D. 70 or 135:
"Then the Deceiver of the world will appear as a son of God and will perform signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit abominations the likes of which have never happened before. Then all humankind will come to the fiery test, and many will fall away and perish, but those who endure in their faith will be saved by the accursed one himself." (Didache 16:1-8)
Revelation also repeatedly refers to the Beast (="Son of Lawlessness") who establishes his image that people worship, performs miracles and signs, makes "war against the saints" and leads the kings of the earth into war, and ushers in the Day of the Lord that brings such "woes on the earth" and a "tribulation" so great "who could survive"? (Revelation 6:17; 7:15; 8:1-9:21; 13:3-18; 19:1-19) The theme of the Great Tribulation also appears throughout the Sibylline Oracles on the end of the world. It is ultimately rooted in the persecution of Antiochus Ephiphanes IV which appears in Daniel 11 as following the installation of the Desolating Abomination:
"Forces of his will come and profane the sanctuary citadel; they will abolish the perpetual sacrifice and instal the disastrous abomination there. Those who break the covenant he will corrupt by his flatteries, but the people who know their God will stand firm and take action. Those of the people who are learned will instruct many; for some days, however, they will be brought down by sword and flame, by captivity and by plundering. And thus brought down, little help will they receive, though many will be plotting on their side. Of the learned, some will be brought down, as a result of which certain of them will be purged, purified and made white -- until the time of the End, for the appointed time is still to come...He will reach out to attack countries: the land of Eygpt will not escape him....reports from the East and the North will worry him, and in great fury he will set out to bring ruin and complete destruction to many.... At that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who mounts guard over your people. There is going to be a time of great distress, unparalleled since nations first came into existence. When that time comes, your own people will be spared." (Daniel 11:31-12:1)
The apocalypse in Mark-Matthew was then reshaped with direct influence from Daniel. It does not refer to an actual historical tribulation but the expectation that an existing crisis (like the persecution of Epiphanes) would escalate eventually into a worldwide conflict. As it develops the themes in a manner similar to Relevation and 2 Thessalonians, I see a date in the 90s or 100s as quite consistent with revising a prophecy relating to a traumatic event receding rapidly into the past to refer to something still in the future. Does this make sense? The changes seem to obliterate the references to Jerusalem and its destruction, which seem to pertain better to a period between destructions than a period right after 135.
-
peacefulpete
First I want to apologize for ommitting a comma between the phrases, "As Leolaia pointed out there are problems with this , but at points the ...
Without the comma it appeared that Leolaia agreed with my dating the final redaction of Mark 13 to post 135.
Leolaia..I agree thta it seems most likely that Mark 13 was initially written post 70. I also agree that obviously it was reworked at a later time. I just disagree that the changes made were in "expectation" of developements. I see the work as having been done after the events occured.
2 Thess and Revelation are most likely about Nero and his brazen self adoration and so must seprate them from Mark 13. The Sibylline Oracles (150ce)refer to him (Nero) as declaring himself a God and making himself a God and leading many astray thru his miracles.
Of course the S.O reflect a broad tradition from 1rst c.BC to 6th CE. I don't know what part specifically deals with the Great Trib, but naturally each generation would make the famous passges in Danny fit their own experiences. Ultimately we understand that the words in Daniel were written after the events that they describe, why assume different for the use of these words in Mark? -
Narkissos
There is always a point in eschatological apocalypticism where the author slips from a coded description of past events (although described as future from a fictional, antidated perspective) into a prophetic scenario of the absolute end. At this point (which corresponds to his historical situation) he gets fantastic, cosmic and so on (and of course we lose the track in history). In Daniel 11 it occurs in v. 40. I think this is exactly the logic Leolaia applies to Mk 13//, and to me it is quite plausible, notwithstanding the possibility of later additions historical references to the second revolt. But the really eschatological part of the apocalypse is just unrelated with history.
-
Leolaia
Narkissos...You say elegantly in few words what I longwindedly take paragraphs and paragraphs to say! :)
-
gumby
Why would Josephus so exaggerate?
For the same reason that words he never spoke were added to his writings by the third century. The Jesus paragraph didn't exist in his early writings. If his words were interpolated by ripoff church authorities in the 'Jesus paragraph'......then other sayings of his could have been added to by others.
Gumby......of the dumbshit class.
-
peacefulpete
Gumby...at another thread I mentioned an article that really impressed me. It discussed the Josephan context for the Jesus reference you speak of. The Jesus of Josephus was a priest who was involved in a struggle for power. Likely the only part of the Flav.Test. that was interpolated was the clause,"who was the Christ". This was added by a Xtian mistakenly or deliberatly confusing the two Jeuses. Either way of course the passage has no bearing upon the search for an historical Jesus.
-
peacefulpete
I agree Narkissos, however do not the celestrial miracles and return of the Son of Man serve that purpose? My comments were pertaining to the Daniel quotation about the extent of the devastation. The description of the devastation seems quite sober and lodged in historical events, (135 ?). whereas Leolaia sees the use of Daniel as in anticipation of a unparalleled destrucion.
I feel it was the events that were expected to follow the devastation that comprise the visionary indulgences of the author. -
Leolaia
PP.....Was this in one of the threads we were discussing? I was just reading this morning Wells' discussion of the Testimonium and the evidence he presented strongly suggested that the entire text relating to "Jesus" was a late interpolation. Or are you referring to the separate text relating to the execution of James?