Mark’s Ending

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It wasn't any "short term memory" issue as you want to pretend, but your steadfast determined resistance to comprehending the simple truth that making a prediction does not require supernatural abilities.

Those examples are not predictions, they are educated guesses by groups/individuals with an informed opinion and/or a lot of data. And such forecasts can also be wrong.

The notion that Robertson predicted the building and fate of RMS Titanic or Guinness predicted Deans' death [assuming that anecdote is even true] are nothing but coincidences, as was Swift's description of Deimos and Phobos.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Logically, by your own admission, weird and accurate predictions can happen just by coincidence. Perhaps you should consider, given that the Biblical authors do not term the prediction prophecy, the possibility that it was merely a coincidental event. After all, that is the usual hand-wave by people who are averse to acknowledging the supernatural, and have seen prophecy fulfilled.

Coincidences are not predictions.

Nor have I ever known anyone who claims to be able to predict the future come up with the exact winning numbers for a forthcoming state or national lottery.

[tabibito]

Coincidences are not predictions.

Nor have I ever known anyone who claims to be able to predict the future come up with the exact winning numbers for a forthcoming state or national lottery.

Someone says, "The time will come when a particular building will crumble and not one stone will be left on another. The time will come when a particular city will fall to a siege." (assuming that siege warfare is the practice)

Both statements are quite likely eventualities for any building and (assuming that siege warfare is in practice) any city.

In the event that the stated outcomes eventuate some will call them prophecies, some will call them curses, some will call the occurrences a conspiracy, and most will call them coincidences.

Once again, the Bible never bills the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple as prophecy. The term, prophecy, was only used after the event, and would inevitably have been used by at least one (likely two, Matthew and Luke) of the gospels' authors had the fall occurred before the gospel was written.

They were not billed as prophesied, and there is no mention of fulfilment of the predicted events. It should be readily apparent that the events had not occurred at the time of writing.

Nor does the author of Hebrews mention the events, and there is no possibility that he would have failed to refer to them in his exposition of the evidence for the termination of the Old Testament law if they had fallen: the events would have been a powerful demonstration of the truth of his claims.

[rogue06]

Someone says, "The time will come when a particular building will crumble and not one stone will be left on another. The time will come when a particular city will fall to a siege." (assuming that siege warfare is the practice)

Both statements are quite likely eventualities for any building and (assuming that siege warfare is in practice) any city.

In the event that the stated outcomes eventuate some will call them prophecies, some will call them curses, some will call the occurrences a conspiracy, and most will call them coincidences.

And some, dare say, will even call them... predictions.

Once again, the Bible never bills the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple as prophecy. The term, prophecy, was only used after the event, and would inevitably have been used by at least one (likely two, Matthew and Luke) of the gospels' authors had the fall occurred before the gospel was written.

They were not billed as prophesied, and there is no mention of fulfilment of the predicted events. It should be readily apparent that the events had not occurred at the time of writing.

Nor does the author of Hebrews mention the events, and there is no possibility that he would have failed to refer to them in his exposition of the evidence for the termination of the Old Testament law if they had fallen: the events would have been a powerful demonstration of the truth of his claims.

that.gif

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Someone says, "The time will come when a particular building will crumble and not one stone will be left on another. The time will come when a particular city will fall to a siege." (assuming that siege warfare is the practice)

Both statements are quite likely eventualities for any building and (assuming that siege warfare is in practice) any city.

In the event that the stated outcomes eventuate some will call them prophecies, some will call them curses, some will call the occurrences a conspiracy, and most will call them coincidences.

Once again, the Bible never bills the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple as prophecy. The term, prophecy, was only used after the event, and would inevitably have been used by at least one (likely two, Matthew and Luke) of the gospels' authors had the fall occurred before the gospel was written.

They were not billed as prophesied, and there is no mention of fulfilment of the predicted events. It should be readily apparent that the events had not occurred at the time of writing.

Nor does the author of Hebrews mention the events, and there is no possibility that he would have failed to refer to them in his exposition of the evidence for the termination of the Old Testament law if they had fallen: the events would have been a powerful demonstration of the truth of his claims.

The fact that in the Synoptics Jesus mentions the fall of the Temple, and in such detail, particularly so in Luke:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near

leaves little doubt that the texts were composed post eventum. We know that the forces under Titus employed their highly effective siege tactic of circumvallation and so the city was surrounded by armies.

The reference to the desolating sacrilege in all three Synoptics has been interpreted to refer to Gaius' plans to put his statue in the Temple. However, it is more likely, given that it occurs in all three texts with images of war, suffering and in Luke the destruction of the city that it refers to this from book six of The Jewish War, G A Williamson translation.

As the partisans had fled into the City, and flames were consuming the Sanctuary itself and all its surroundings, the Romans brought their standards into the Temple area, and erecting them opposite the East Gate sacrificed to them there, and with thunderous acclamations hailed Titus as Imperator.

[tabibito]

The fact that in the Synoptics Jesus mentions the fall of the Temple, and in such detail, particularly so in Luke:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near

leaves little doubt that the texts were composed post eventum. We know that the forces under Titus employed their highly effective siege tactic of circumvallation and so the city was surrounded by armies.

The reference to the desolating sacrilege in all three Synoptics has been interpreted to refer to Gaius' plans to put his statue in the Temple. However, it is more likely, given that it occurs in all three texts with images of war, suffering and in Luke the destruction of the city that it refers to this from book six of The Jewish War, G A Williamson translation.

As the partisans had fled into the City, and flames were consuming the Sanctuary itself and all its surroundings, the Romans brought their standards into the Temple area, and erecting them opposite the East Gate sacrificed to them there, and with thunderous acclamations hailed Titus as Imperator.

You have just proven (as expected) that the only explanation you can consider possible is the one that suits your own idle speculation and presupposition. You are incapable of entertaining the existence of any other possibility - keep that in mind the next time you consider accusing others of that same fault.

Nothing in Williamson's translation of the details features in the gospels.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have just proven (as expected) that the only explanation you can consider possible is the one that suits your own idle speculation and presupposition. You are incapable of entertaining the existence of any other possibility - keep that in mind the next time you consider accusing others of that same fault.

That interpretation of the texts is far more rational than the "explanation" that those verses were prophecies of things to come.

Nothing in Williamson's translation of the details features in the gospels.

Have you read his entire translation?

Of course we do know of the reaction of the Jews to Pilate permitting the standards being brought into Jerusalem:

When day dawned this caused great excitement among the Jews; for those who were near were amazed at the sight, which meant that their laws had been trampled on - they do not permit any graven image to be set up in the City – and the angry City mob was joined by a huge influx of people from the country. They rushed off to Pilate in Caesarea, and begged him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to respect their ancient customs. When Pilate refused, they fell prone all round his house and remained motionless for five days and nights.

It should be noted that for the Jews all Roman military standards were deemed cult objects not merely those bearing imperial portraits.

[tabibito]

That interpretation of the texts is far more rational than the "explanation" that those verses were prophecies of things to come.

To you, perhaps it does. I consider the statements to be prophecy, but can't deny the possibility that the other possibilities outlined by Rogue and me exist. You by contrast declare that no possibility other than a post-sacking date for composition of the gospels is possible. Your investment in the concept that almost nothing in the gospels can be accurate won't allow you to admit any other explanation.

Have you read his entire translation?

Irrelevant - my comment was directed toward the absence of any of the detail in the extract that you provided, nothing of which is mentioned in scripture.

Of course we do know of the reaction of the Jews to Pilate permitting the standards being brought into Jerusalem:

When day dawned this caused great excitement among the Jews; for those who were near were amazed at the sight, which meant that their laws had been trampled on - they do not permit any graven image to be set up in the City – and the angry City mob was joined by a huge influx of people from the country. They rushed off to Pilate in Caesarea, and begged him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to respect their ancient customs. When Pilate refused, they fell prone all round his house and remained motionless for five days and nights.

It should be noted that for the Jews all Roman military standards were deemed cult objects not merely those bearing imperial portraits.

None of which is relevant to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70CE: it has precisely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

To you, perhaps it does. I consider the statements to be prophecy, but can't deny the possibility that the other possibilities outlined by Rogue and me exist.

For all I know you may also believe in unicorns and fairies. That does not render their existence likely.

You by contrast declare that no possibility other than a post-sacking date for composition of the gospels is possible

Myself and many others.

. Your investment in the concept that almost nothing in the gospels can be accurate won't allow you to admit any other explanation.

I do not believe in unicorns and fairies either.

Irrelevant - my comment was directed toward the absence of any of the detail in the extract that you provided, nothing of which is mentioned in scripture.

I gave that earlier example of Pilate and the standards to illustrate what the Jews deemed sacrilegious.

During the siege, the Romans bringing in their the standards into the Temple area and making sacrifice to them in what was deemed holy ground to the Jews would have been a desolating sacrilege given that the city was on the point of being taken...

In that same book and shortly before the section I quoted, Josephus writes of an incident several years earlier and prior to the war "at a time of exceptional peace and prosperity for the City" when Jeshua son of Ananias "a very ordinary yokel" arrived at the Feast of Tabernacles and began to shout:

A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against the whole people

Captured, severely beaten, and eventually declared mad he was released but according to Josephus continued his lament "Woe to Jerusalem":

For seven years and five months he went on ceaselessly, his voice as strong as ever and his vigour unabated, till during the siege after seeing the fulfilment of his foreboding he was silenced. He was going round on the wall uttering his piercing cry: ‘Woe again to the City, the people, and the Sanctuary!’ and as he added a last word: ‘Woe to me also!’ a stone shot from an engine struck him, killing him instantly. Thus he uttered those same forebodings to the very end.

Also from the same book Josephus recounts an alleged event, again supposedly occurring prior to the war commencing, when "the East Gate of the inner court had opened of its own accord". He continues that "the learned perceived that the security of the Sanctuary was dissolving of its own accord" The section that I originally quoted has the Romans erecting their standards opposite that same East Gate and sacrificing to them.

That the "very ordinary yokel" who prophesied the destruction of the city was also called Jeshua might be seen as "interesting", but it was a common enough name at the time for little boys.

[tabibito]

During the siege, the Romans bringing in their the standards into the Temple area and making sacrifice to them in what was deemed holy ground to the Jews would have been a desolating sacrilege given that the city was on the point of being taken...

In that same book and shortly before the section I quoted, Josephus writes of an incident several years earlier and prior to the war "at a time of exceptional peace and prosperity for the City" when Jeshua son of Ananias "a very ordinary yokel" arrived at the Feast of Tabernacles and began to shout:

A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against the whole people

Captured, severely beaten, and eventually declared mad he was released but according to Josephus continued his lament "Woe to Jerusalem":

For seven years and five months he went on ceaselessly, his voice as strong as ever and his vigour unabated, till during the siege after seeing the fulfilment of his foreboding he was silenced. He was going round on the wall uttering his piercing cry: ‘Woe again to the City, the people, and the Sanctuary!’ and as he added a last word: ‘Woe to me also!’ a stone shot from an engine struck him, killing him instantly. Thus he uttered those same forebodings to the very end.

Also from the same book Josephus recounts an alleged event, again supposedly occurring prior to the war commencing, when "the East Gate of the inner court had opened of its own accord". He continues that "the learned perceived that the security of the Sanctuary was dissolving of its own accord" The section that I originally quoted has the Romans erecting their standards opposite that same East Gate and sacrificing to them.

That the "very ordinary yokel" who prophesied the destruction of the city was also called Jeshua might be seen as "interesting", but it was a common enough name at the time for little boys.

Joshua was and remains a very common name among Israelis. Even in America, it is among the most popular 100 names for babies.
Josephus provides witness that prophesying Jerusalem's end, in the time before the war began and when Jerusalem was seemingly at peace, was known to have occurred - together with signs that the prophecy was true. This is not the first time that you have mentioned the matter.
So - having argued against your own case, you have provided evidence that it should be dismissed. You have also repeatedly provided evidence of the truth about your self styled objectivity - before the square brackets debacle, through the meaning of the translations of Josephus comment about speaking Koine Greek among Jews (flawed they ultimately proved to be - but it is the meanings of the translations that was at issue), most recently in the special needs debate. Your claims of objectivity are demonstrated to be false, along with any claim you might make to have the ability to admit when you are demonstrated to be wrong, and no less likely to admit a possibility when you might be wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Joshua was and remains a very common name among Israelis. Even in America, it is among the most popular 100 names for babies.

And?

Josephus provides witness that prophesying Jerusalem's end, in the time before the war began and when Jerusalem was seemingly at peace, was known to have occurred - together with signs that the prophecy was true.

Josephus is referring to an alleged event that took place four years before the outbreak of the war, i.e. the 60s CE not the 30s CE. The individual being killed, according to Josephus during the siege itself.

What is probably most likely is that the author of Mark writing around 70 CE or shortly after heard a rumour or anecdote about some prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem and ascribed it to another Jeshua but placed it some thirty+ years earlier.

The rest of your post appears to contain nothing but personal animus.

[tabibito]

And?

Josephus is referring to an alleged event that took place four years before the outbreak of the war, i.e. the 60s CE not the 30s CE. The individual being killed, according to Josephus during the siege itself.

What is probably most likely is that the author of Mark writing around 70 CE or shortly after heard a rumour or anecdote about some prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem and ascribed it to another Jeshua but placed it some thirty+ years earlier.

A person with a very common name, after Christ's own life-time and after Josephus had attained adult age, prophesied that Jerusalem was doomed, and you would have us believe that Mark could not distinguish between the two?

The advent of the second Joshua would explain the flight to Pella.

The rest of your post appears to contain nothing but personal animus.

The rest of my post evaluates your demonstrated patterns of behaviour.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A person with a very common name, after Christ's own life-time and after Josephus had attained adult age, prophesied that Jerusalem was doomed, and you would have us believe that Mark could not distinguish between the two?

Your view hinges on your unassailable conviction that the name we have for the writer of that text is a supposed Mark who was a supposed secretary to Peter.

The advent of the second Joshua would explain the flight to Pella.

The flight to Pella is another later Christian tradition. There is no historical evidence for it..

The rest of my post evaluates your demonstrated patterns of behaviour.

The rest of your post has a distinct hint of peevishness.

[tabibito]

Your view hinges on your unassailable conviction that the name we have for the writer of that text is a supposed Mark who was a supposed secretary to Peter.

The conviction would be assailable if a viable argument were presented against the conviction. So far, only questionable supposition has been advanced to support the opposing view.

The flight to Pella is another later Christian tradition. There is no historical evidence for it.

Lack of evidence can reasonably be posited to result from the loss of so many sources that were extant until and during the fourth century. It has been suggested that Epiphanius and Eusebius might have relied on second century sources (Hegessipus or Ariston) for their information. The concept that Epiphanius relied on Eusebius is considered questionable at best. Argument that the Christians' line of retreat as described by Epiphanius and Eusebius would have taken the Christians directly into the teeth of the advancing Roman army seemingly ignores the records (as translated in the sources I have found) that the flight occurred before the war. Josephus' time frame for the later prophet, Joshua, places Joshua's first warnings at two years (jroughly) before the war.

The rest of your post has a distinct hint of peevishness.

A subjective evaluation on your part.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The conviction would be assailable if a viable argument were presented against the conviction. So far, only questionable supposition has been advanced to support the opposing view.

It is only "questionable supposition" to someone who holds an absolute conviction that the four canonical gospels were written by the individuals whose names they later came to bear.

Lack of evidence can reasonably be posited to result from the loss of so many sources that were extant until and during the fourth century.

That brings us back to my observation and question as to why, if these texts were believed at the time to be God inspired Scripture no one bothered to preserve the originals. Furthermore why do copies of these God inspired Scripture turn up in rubbish tips or are later discovered as palimpsests?

It has been suggested that Epiphanius and Eusebius might have relied on second century sources (Hegessipus or Ariston) for their information. The concept that Epiphanius relied on Eusebius is considered questionable at best. Argument that the Christians' line of retreat as described by Epiphanius and Eusebius would have taken the Christians directly into the teeth of the advancing Roman army seemingly ignores the records (as translated in the sources I have found) that the flight occurred before the war. Josephus' time frame for the later prophet, Joshua, places Joshua's first warnings at two years (jroughly) before the war.

You might find this 2013 article of interest. The Christian Flight to Pella: True or False? https://library.biblicalarchaeology....-true-or-tale/ Bourke has been excavating Pella for some time.

A subjective evaluation on your part.

All evaluations contain a degree of subjectivity but the question remains, What other purpose had you for writing what you did?