Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:16 pm
... adding to it's historical credibility
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Not sure how good this answer is, but the "temple of God" could be in heaven and the "seat" be on the ark in heaven.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:25 pm 2 Thessalonians 2.1-4:
2.1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
Is this the kind of thing an author would say while the temple actually lay in ruins? Or is this evidence that the letter predates 70? Does not the author come across as innocent of the knowledge that the temple had been destroyed? Or is a rebuilding implied in this text somehow?
Points in favor:Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19 ESV)
"Let no one deceive you. It will not come until the man of sin exalts himself above God and takes his seat in the temple of God." In the interests of avoiding being deceived, how could the intended readers be expected to know what has happened in heaven? Or do you think the revelation of the son of destruction is supposed to be a shared vision of some kind?Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:19 amNot sure how good this answer is, but the "temple of God" could be in heaven and the "seat" be on the ark in heaven.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:25 pm 2 Thessalonians 2.1-4:
2.1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
Is this the kind of thing an author would say while the temple actually lay in ruins? Or is this evidence that the letter predates 70? Does not the author come across as innocent of the knowledge that the temple had been destroyed? Or is a rebuilding implied in this text somehow?
Points in favor:Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19 ESV)
I'm not entirely sure. But the ancient cosmology wouldn't require it to be a shared vision. "Heaven" was "up there" but concealed. For this activity to be seen, it could be "opened" for ordinary view.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:28 am"Let no one deceive you. It will not come until the man of sin exalts himself above God and takes his seat in the temple of God." In the interests of avoiding being deceived, how could the intended readers be expected to know what has happened in heaven? Or do you think the revelation of the son of destruction is supposed to be a shared vision of some kind?Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:19 amNot sure how good this answer is, but the "temple of God" could be in heaven and the "seat" be on the ark in heaven.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:25 pm 2 Thessalonians 2.1-4:
2.1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
Is this the kind of thing an author would say while the temple actually lay in ruins? Or is this evidence that the letter predates 70? Does not the author come across as innocent of the knowledge that the temple had been destroyed? Or is a rebuilding implied in this text somehow?
Points in favor:Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19 ESV)
Josephus
"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; 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 armour 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" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).
Tacitus
"13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).
Therefore not only 2 Thess, but also all the Gospels are post-Bar-Kochba.[Mt.24.15] So when you see the standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation:
or to the statue of the mounted Hadrian, which stands to this very day on the site of the Holy of Holies.
(my bold)Note, however, that according to both schools of thought, the founding of Aelia Capitolina is related to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The question, of course, is which event caused the other - a question we aim to answer on the basis of archeological evidence.
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence supporting an earlier founding of Aelia Capitolina comes from coins minted by the city before or during the revolt and found in hoards and numismatic assemblages concealed in refuge caves in the Judean Desert before the end of the revolt.
These finds suggest that urban reconstruction of Jerusalem began in the first quarter of the second century and certainly not after 130 CE. Therefore, it seems that Hadrian started rebuilding Jerusalem as a Roman, pagan city soon after he was appointed emperor in 117 CE. However, the 'official' founding of the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina should be dated to the imperial visit to Judaea in 129/130.
(my bold)A large fragment of a monumental Latin inscription commemorating Hadrian's visit in 129/130 CE has been recently uncovered in an IAA salvage excavation just north of the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.
...
The fact that this inscription was part of such a large structure attests to public construction on a monumental scale in Jerusalem prior to the emperor's visit of 129/130 E - two years before the outbreak of the revolt. The rebellion would therefore have erupted in reaction to the result of these construction activities - a pagan Roman city on the ruins of Jerusalem.
In a recent study, Giovanni B. Bazzana suggests a somewhat different explanation: Hadrian was acting according to a benevolent policy consistent with his broader attitude to his polytheistic Empire. In Hadrian's eyes, the foundation of the Roman colonia and the rebuilding of the Temple were acts of euergetism intended to integrate the Jews into the Empire.
The possibility is concrete that Hadrian wanted to build a Pagan temple in situ before the 135 CE. The revolt moved him to put only the his statue and not an entire temple.We emphasize that we do not have a reliable soruce to back up the theory that Hadrian intended to rebuild the Jewish Temple; if that was, indeed, his intention, it it hard to understand why the Jews revolted.
But I suppose this depends on which letters Ignatius quotes 2 Thessalonians in (i.e., whether they are "authentic" letters or not), and whether or not Ignatius was Peregrinus (who is said to have died in 165 CE), as Parvus discusses here: http://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-p ... -ignatius/... it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ep ... ssalonians
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2017/0 ... tioch.htmlthe Short Recension only gives us three names: Ignatius himself (not listed here) as author of the letters and the two addressees, Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus, and Polycarp. Ignatius – his cognomen ‘Theophoros’, as shown above, seems to be a 6th c. addition – is introduced and right in the beginning of IgnEph 1 etymologically (ܪܬܚܢ; ἀναζωπυρήσαντες) explained. ‘Ignatius’ means the one who is ‘kindled’, ‘sparked’ or ‘heated’ by God’s blood. Likewise, the name of ‘Onesimus’ has an etymological meaning which is indicated by the way he is introduced when mention is made that Ignatius has ‘received your abundance in the name of God’, ‘Onesimus’ meaning ‘aiding, succouring, beneficial’ (LSJ). The only person’s name that is not etymologically explained is that of Polycarp, an indication that this might have been the only self-explanatory one with a historical figure behind it.