Saturday, June 13, 2009
Boid on the Obscuring of the Destruction of 70 CE as the original context of the Gospel of Mark
It could be argued that by leaving out the explicit mention of the end of the world, you hide the importance of the date of 70 A.D. Then you can stop mentioning the uncomfortable fact that Daniel didn’t prophesy the birth or death of Jesus. Aside from this, I have the feeling you have given the answer yourself in your fictionalised autobiography of Agrippa. Think of what you depict as having happened after 70 A.D. Whatever happened then was later somehow nullified. And aside from this, the phrase “the world’s destruction” could easily have been interpreted as the end of the world by fire if not connected with the passage in Luke I mentioned last time, and Church leaders might not have liked such a concept either in itself or in regard to how the authorities in civil power might see the implications.
Please let me know what you think.
The reading of the Luik Diatessaron is supported by shorter and less clear equivalents in Syriac quotations, which must derive from this.
Please let me know what you think.
The reading of the Luik Diatessaron is supported by shorter and less clear equivalents in Syriac quotations, which must derive from this.
Email stephan.h.huller@gmail.com with comments or questions.