Another Apocalypse from the Kitos Era?

In my last article on changing the title description I tackled the mini-Apocalypse from Luke. My placement of of the after the Tumulto Iudaico was in part based on the phrase, "People will rise up against People, and Kingdom against Kingdom" (Ἐγερθήσεται ἔθνος ἐπ' ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν). Unfortunately in my analysis I forgot one important potential and even possible source for the phrase, the document known as 4 Ezra (Greek Προφήτης Εσδρας or Αποκάλυψις Εσδρα) has much the same phrases found in 2 Ezra 13:31 - the English and surviving Latin (Vulgate) below,

And they shall plan to make war against one another,
city against city, place against place, people against people, and kingdom against kingdom
et in alisalio cogitabunt bellare,
civitates civitatem et locus locum et gens ad gentem et regnum adversus regnum

There is a problem, in that this document is considered, and for very good reasons to be dated from about 100 CE, some 15 years  too early to be aware of either the Parthian War or the Tumulto Iudaico. So what is going on here, have I missed something?

Changing the Blog Title Description to Post Kitos War

Every now and again in my studying the development of Christianity I stumble over some fact or event which over throws a good portion of the work I have done. It is extremely frustrating to face, but I like to think I am less pig headed and more scientific than most. I know certain so-called scholars will spend years attempting to belittle the evidence arrayed against their pet position, or end run it, rather than face the fact that much of their work is lost. For me, this happened in the mid-1990s and what I was doing was so off base I care not to even acknowledge it today. [1] But in the scientific model its all part of finding the truth. And so it is today that I conclude one of my blogs fundamental assumptions is wrong. Fortunately the impact is mostly to a couple charts and the description at the top of the page. Whatever else is simply a matter of adjusting a footnote here and a comment there, nothing to major.

Mystery of Mark, Part One Non-Priority

Mark, Echternach c. 690CE

Mark's non Priority:

The Gospel of Mark poses a difficult problem for me, as there is very little unique material in the book that can be ascribed to Mark. Only a baker’s dozen verses are unique to Mark, and beyond that only a small number of phrases and some individual words. And some of this unique material is most likely part of a later Catholic layer that all books of the New Testament seem to have.

When I look at the Synoptic Problem, the one Gospel which presents a problem is Mark. This may sound surprising, as the bulk of scholarship is focused on the so-called double tradition of Matthew and Luke, trying to explain their common which is in Mark, and thus have determined that Mark has priority. But this assumption is wrong, and leads you to some very bizarre conclusions. [1] The truth is something entirely different and quite surprising.