Prophecy re-visited

as prompted by purpledawn at Message 40, let's have a look at specific prophecies, specifically part of the Olivet discourse, as given in [Mk:13:1 - 13:37, Mt:24:1 - 24:35: ,Lk:21:1 - 21:33].In these passages, Jesus predicts, amongst other things, that the Jerusalem temple will be destroyed :

quote:

---

Mk:13:2: And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

---

quote:

---

Mt:24:2: And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

---

quote:

---

Lk:21:5: And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
Lk:21:6: As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

---

Jesus, even goes as far as giving a timescale for the prophecy : the generation of his audience (the disciples) [Lk:21:32, Mt:24:34, Mk:13:30].The part of the prophecy about the destruction of the temple meets ,IMHO, the Specificity and Timescale criteria (Message 1). The question is, does it meet the Precedence and Probability criteria? Was the prophecy made before 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed by the Romans?The dating of the Gospels merits a thread of its own, but I find the following dates plausible (Dating the gospels ):
Gospel of Mark: +65-70 CE
Gospel of Matthew: +75 CE
Gospel of Luke: +80-90 CE
Gospel of John: +95-100 CEAssuming -and that's a big assumption- that at least one of the Gospels was written before the destruction of the temple, leaves us with one criterion to be met : Probability. How probable did it seem, at the time the prophecy was made, that the temple would be destroyed ? If the Gospel of Mark was written only a few years before the temple destruction, as indicated above, could its destruction be a predictable outcome, given the geopolitical conditions at that time ?My take on this is, simply, I don't know. I need to do some research on this before I form a opinion. Anyone who's already done this and/or has some insight into this feel free to enlighten me.In anticipation,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

The Jewish Revolt started in 66 AD. While a judgement of the outcome might be affected by religious belief, I would say that a Jewish defeat was all but inevitable and destruction of the Temple would be quite probable. Afer the later Bar Kochba revolt all Jerusalem was levelled.That said I beleive that the prophecty fails on criterion A of fulfilment. Other parts of it did not happen, so this the prophecy is a failure (see the "Prophecy for Buzsaw" thread).I believe that Mark's version was likely written before the actual fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple became known - and it is possible that Matthew was, too (at least it was not changed greatly from Mark). Luke's version is quite different - in ways which give credence to the idea that it was written with knowledge of the events of 70 AD.

quote:

---

Gospel of Mark: +65-70 CE

---

I think the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-12) would suggest that Mark may have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem.As a parable, where the characters should stand on their own, the story doesn't make sense.An owner wouldn't risk the lives of his servants after several had already been beaten and killed, let alone send his son into that situation. Plus the comment in verse 7: is unrealistic. Killing the son doesn't make any inheritance theirs, since the tenants are not related to the owner.As a parable it doesn't teach a lesson, but as an allegory it does make sense.So now the representations are:
Owner = God
Tenants = Jews
Killing of Servants = Rejection of Earlier Prophets
Son = Jesus
Killing the Tenants = Destruction of Jerusalem
Giving Vineyard to Others = Spreading Good News to GentilesGiven the above conditions of the allegory, Mark was written after the Gentiles considered themselves to be joint heirs with Jerusalem, which I believe is one of Paul's teachings.The killing of the tenants would suggest the destruction of Jerusalem and place the writing after 70CE.So the possibility exists that the prophecy was written after the fact or the book was tampered with after 70CE which IMO would invalidate any possible prophecies.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I agree. I just thought it would be interesting to see if it met the validity criteria, to begin with.How does Luke's version give credence to the idea that it was written after 70 AD ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Essentially in what it adds in and leaves out compared to the accounts in Mark and Matthew. Things that did not happen have been left out and things that did happen have been added in.More details in my post here.
EvC Forum: Prophecy for Buzsaw

Yes, they are written as if they were predicting the future. However, the majority of people think those gospels were written AFTER the jewish revolt.Something written after the fact is not a prediction for the future.

Hi PD,Thanks for your insight into this.In my previous posts I've been using the terms 'allegory' and 'parable ' interchangeably. I apologise for the confusion this may have caused.I accept that the wicked servants 'parable' has allegorical meaning. I also accept the following symbolisms:Owner = God
Tenants = Jews
Killing of Servants = Rejection of Earlier Prophets
Son = JesusWhat I don't accept is that the killing of the tenants represents the destruction of the temple. This representation can only be applied with post-hoc reasoning. The context in which this allegory is given is : Jesus is back in the temple, having trashed it the day before. He is confronted by the priests and pharisees, who -it's fair to assume- are quite angry and upset with him. He is questioned about his authority by an angry crowd.Given this context, Jesus -with this allegory- achieves two purposes: (a) Demonstrates his authority (son of the landowner), (b) carries across the message of punishment for those who reject / mistreat God's prophets and son.It's interesting that he even changes his style to ask a rhetorical question "What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do?", hoping -no doubt- to elicit some emotional response from the crowd, many of whom would have been likely to be tenants or landowners themselves. In that sense, the passage is very much like a parable.The point is obviously taken, as :

quote:

---

Mk:12:12: And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

---

In light of the above, these symbolisms would make more sense :Killing the tenants = an (unspecified) punishment to befall the Jews.
Giving Vineyard to others = others will be given the opportunities, until now given to the chosen people.My view is that this allegory doesn't lend any more credence to the probability of the gospel been written after 70 CE, as it would stand perfectly well even if the temple hadn't been destroyed.sincerely,L.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

Killing the tenants = an (unspecified) punishment to befall the Jews.

---

Do you consider the destruction of Jerusalem to be punishment for the death of Jesus or was there an earlier punishment?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I consider the destruction of Jerusalem to be the result of an effective suppression of the Jewish rebellion by the Romans, nothing more nothing less.I understand how one could see it as punishment for the death of Jesus, but then the same could be said for the Bar Kochba revolt (132 CE), the anti-Jewish measures of Christian Emperor Constantius (337 CE), the Holocaust, etc.With hindsight, any one of these events could be symbolic of the killing of the tenants. Why this particular one?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

With hindsight, any one of these events could be symbolic of the killing of the tenants. Why this particular one?

---

Because we are dating the writing and the Temple destruction is the earliest possibility that I know of.For the symbolism to teach or make a point, the target audience would need to understand the symbols.The tenants killed the son, but Jesus hadn't been killed yet.
Did the Pharisees believe or understand Jesus to be the Son of God or even a prophet?IMO it would be hard for the Pharisees to see themselves in the story at the time the story was supposedly spoken.So since the story mentions the death of the son, it was probably written after the crucifixion. Given the earliest date you listed (64CE) the author obviously knew nothing had happened to the Jews following the death of Jesus. It would be unwise for the author to write a story with an unfulfilled threat. That's why I feel it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.Even a post 70CE date doesn't necessarily preclude the verse since they were probably still waiting for the world to end and it hadn't come yet.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I think the point of contention here is the assumption that every allegoric symbol must represent a specific event / person that is already known, or has already occurred, for it to make sense.You're saying that because of this assumption, the allegory must have been written after the death of Jesus and after the destruction of Jerusalem, otherwise no specific representations for the two symbols exist.The implication of this is that the author of Mark didn't quote Jesus in this passage (as you claim it wouldn't have made sense at that time) but rather inserted it long after the alleged events took place, when the symbols could be represented by specific events.IMHO, an allegory may symbolise not just specific persons and events but also personality traits, human conditions and other abstract representations. If we don't make the above assumption, the allegory makes perfect sense in the time and place where it is alleged to have been said. The killing of the Son symbolises harmful intent to Jesus. The killing of the tenants synbolises God's vengeance. What Jesus is saying is 'If you harm me, you will bear God's vengeance'. I think the audience understood this well, as Mark:12:12 says. What the Pharisees believed Jesus to be is irrelevant at that moment; what they thought the crowd believed is important, as they feared the people would turn against them, as the crowd was obviously on Jesus's side.

quote:

---

Mk:11:18: And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
Mk:11:32: But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

---

Mk:12:12 implies that they got the message. I know I would have, in their position. I agree with this, I just think that this allegory by itself doesn't give us any indications for dating this gospel, as I believe it to stand well in the context in which it was allegedly said.In any case, I can't help but feel that this thread is veering away from the topic, though I do appreciate your input on this allegory passage.Dear All,
If anybody wants to talk about what a valid prophecy should be, or about specific prophecies, now's a good time....L.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."