Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I have a problem. No, not THAT problem (or those...). After about a decade and a half, I've developed a NT System, hopefully self-consistent. It is one that does not include Bar Kochba. There's a problem there.

I believe that Zakkai plays a role in the NT. If not Zakkai then perhaps Wietzman's Scribal Community from NE Galilee. Zakkai would be a better fit since he (supposedly) escaped the Destruction of Jerusalem as a Priest, was spared by Vespasian and was allowed to start the (first?) Rabbinical School at Yavneh. He was questioned by a Roman General about certain numbers in the Book of Numbers and Numbers plays a role in the NT, especially in John.

Zakkai has been reported as saying that if you are planting a sapling and someone comes to you and says, "The Messiah is near!", finish planting your sapling and then go and see the Messiah. Then there was Rabbi Akiva who believed - we are told - that he thought Bar Kochba was the Messiah. If Zakkai had input into the NT and there was tension as to who believed that B-K was the Messiah, then there is a reasonable chance that some references to B-K might have made it into the NT.

I just don't see it as others do. There is the Story of Peter and the Tragic Coup of 4 BCE (and follow-up in 9 CE) and the Roman rewrite of this Story into the Romanized Transvaluation that ended up as the NT.

What specific verses in the NT are taken as evidence - for better or worse - of Bar Kochba being referenced in the NT?

CW

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:55 am I have a problem. No, not THAT problem (or those...). After about a decade and a half, I've developed a NT System, hopefully self-consistent. It is one that does not include Bar Kochba. There's a problem there.

I believe that Zakkai plays a role in the NT. If not Zakkai then perhaps Wietzman's Scribal Community from NE Galilee. Zakkai would be a better fit since he (supposedly) escaped the Destruction of Jerusalem as a Priest, was spared by Vespasian and was allowed to start the (first?) Rabbinical School at Yavneh. He was questioned by a Roman General about certain numbers in the Book of Numbers and Numbers plays a role in the NT, especially in John.

Zakkai has been reported as saying that if you are planting a sapling and someone comes to you and says, "The Messiah is near!", finish planting your sapling and then go and see the Messiah. Then there was Rabbi Akiva who believed - we are told - that he thought Bar Kochba was the Messiah. If Zakkai had input into the NT and there was tension as to who believed that B-K was the Messiah, then there is a reasonable chance that some references to B-K might have made it into the NT.

I just don't see it as others do. There is the Story of Peter and the Tragic Coup of 4 BCE (and follow-up in 9 CE) and the Roman rewrite of this Story into the Romanized Transvaluation that ended up as the NT.

What specific verses in the NT are taken as evidence - for better or worse - of Bar Kochba being referenced in the NT?

CW

You've overlooked the connection of the star that announces Christ's birth in Matthew with Simon bar Kochba, Son of the Star.

Furthermore, the usage of Daniel's Abomination that causes desolation in Mark and Matthew alludes to the time of Hadrian/bar Kochba.

Then there is the very real possibility that Alexander, the "son" of Simon of Cyrene/Lukuas Andreas, was Julian Alexander, otherwise called Shemaiah, that is Simon, and that this Simon was following his predecessor's lead.

Christianity was itself a response to the subterfuge of the bar Kochba revolt. The Ebionites themselves were supporters of bar Kochba, while the Nazarenes were not.

Your system is misguided.

Thank you, Joseph.

I'm not after argument since I'm right and everyone else is wrong, wrong, WRONG. I neither want nor need that right now. I repeat what I asked:

What specific verses in the NT are taken as evidence - for better or worse - of Bar Kochba being referenced in the NT?

You've given some good alignments. I appreciate that. Anyone else?

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:55 am
What specific verses in the NT are taken as evidence - for better or worse - of Bar Kochba being referenced in the NT?

CW

Hermann Detering thinks the 'Synoptic Apocalypse' of Mark 13 reflects Ba Kochba -

THE SYNOPTIC APOCALYPSE (MARK 13 PAR):
A DOCUMENT FROM THE TIME OF BAR KOCHBA

JHC 7/2 (Fall 2000); 161-210 http://radikalkritik.de/wp-content/uplo ... -JHC-1.pdf

Stuart Waugh is of the opinion that applying Mark 13 is anachronistic, since, he argues, Hadrian never had an alter to Jupiter dedicated in the Temple, and in fact did not even include the Temple mount in Aelia Capitolina. He also argues that the passage to Dio Cassius which says he did is a later interpolation, and dismisses the Historia Augusta as complete fiction, something I don't necessarily agree with.

However, Hadrian did convert a Samaritan temple into a temple to Zeus.

Take this how you will.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:35 am Stuart Waugh is of the opinion that applying Mark 13 is anachronistic, since, he argues, Hadrian never had an alter to Jupiter dedicated in the Temple, and in fact did not even include the Temple mount in Aelia Capitolina. He also argues that the passage to Dio Cassius which says he did is a later interpolation ..

I presume you mean "..the passage of or by Dio Cassius .."

did what?

1. Hadrian had an alter to Jupiter dedicated in the Temple?, or
2. Hadrian included the Temple mount in Aelia Capitolina??

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:57 am

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:35 am Stuart Waugh is of the opinion that applying Mark 13 is anachronistic, since, he argues, Hadrian never had an alter to Jupiter dedicated in the Temple, and in fact did not even include the Temple mount in Aelia Capitolina. He also argues that the passage to Dio Cassius which says he did is a later interpolation ..

I presume you mean "..the passage of or by Dio Cassius .."

did what?

1. Hadrian had an alter to Jupiter dedicated in the Temple?, or
2. Hadrian included the Temple mount in Aelia Capitolina??

He is referring, I believe, to the underlined phrase, which is argued to be an interpolation in "Hadrian's Actions in the Jerusalem Temple Mount According to Cassius Dio and Xiphilini Manus," by Yaron Z. Eliav:

Yaron Z. Eliav does not really talk about the Statue. His work was on the layout and location of Aelia Capitolina, and how it was north of the City of Jerusalem of Herod's time, in open ground that the Romans preferred for building their Polis. The current Old City is actually and extension of the original Aelia, it was expanded about 1/3rd in size to the south to the current borders in the middle ages. There was likely a gap of open land between the new city Hadrian built and the city of Herod.

The Temple of Jupiter was in the same square as the Temple of Venus, where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher now sits. So any statue to Hadrian, which was not likely erected during his lifetime, would have been in that square in front of the Temple of Jupiter. The Temple Mount is to the East of that. It would be quite bizarre to hide a statue out of sight of the city behind walls up a hill, rather than at a Temple in the center of town, as was the Roman practice.

A 4th century pilgrim (Itinerarium Burdigalense) states that looking east from the Holy Sepulcher they could see the ruins of walls to the old Praetorium -- this suggests Christians in 4th century thought this was fortress/tower of Antonia. Note, the Walls were only about half as high as they are now,as the structure was built up during the Muslim era.

************
My opinion is the actual temple lay south, at the northern edge of the "City of David" around the Gihon Spring. And this is why Titus could look down into the Temple from Antonia (Temple Mount) and direct the assault. It is also why Herod could look down into the temple from his Palace, but it would require a massively tall Palace to look down on the ceremonies were they carried out on the Temple Mount. But most important having running water for ceremonies and being inside the city walls makes the most sense for the temple. But this paragraph is my opinion alone, and not part of my main argument.
***********************

Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:11 pm And this is why Titus could look down into the Temple from Antonia (Temple Mount) and direct the assault. It is also why Herod could look down into the temple from his Palace, but it would require a massively tall Palace to look down on the ceremonies were they carried out on the Temple Mount.

Mark 14: 13 - 14 (RSV):

[13] And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him,
[14] and wherever he enters, say to the householder, `The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?'

Thank you for this, Stuart.

The Mark 14 verses always interest me. To me, they cannot be a "simple description" of an event. Several others have complained as well ("Women carried water, not men so something else is implied...").

The best I could do was visualize a shadow that ascends onto a door (In Antonia...) at Passover. Where would the shadow have come from? From what? Probably at some distance but if Antonia was higher than all else in that area the puzzle remains. If it did not describe Herod's Antonia, all would be lost from that explanation, barring another document discovery. Fat chance of that.

Thnx,

CW

Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:11 pm Yaron Z. Eliav does not really talk about the Statue.
......................................................................

Eliav on the statue is here
NB the PDF seems to be missing page 614

Andrew Criddle