Ben C Smith

The aside to the reader in Mark 13.14 is explicit (providing, of course, that this is Mark directly addressing the reader of his gospel and not Jesus addressing the reader of Daniel; but I do favor the former). If the other dominical words in Mark are also direct addresses to the reader, their status as such is implicit at best.

An explicit aside in one part of the text does not make the entire text an aside.

Also, history is tangential here, I believe. The real question is to whom the generation in the generational prophecy refers. Whether Mark is fiction or history, we ought to be able to answer that question.

Ben.

Minimalist

Which applies equally to the notion that there is any fact behind any of it.
If "belief" is all that is required then Zeus is a fact, also.

judge

Chris, did I say that? No..of course not.

Do you have any evidence at all, anything, that might even suggest that Mark would have had a signifigantly different take on this passage (or it's Markan equivalent which is virtually identical)...


...than Matthew would have.

If so, than what is this evidence?

Antipope Innocent II

That's getting well beyond "figurative language". The idea of the destruction of the Temple and of the old order and Old Covenant is more of a "birth pang" of the coming rule of God, not the realisation of it. Seeing the kingship of God "coming with power" is clearly not a reference to one of the tribulations before the realisation of God's rule, but to its full, completed manifestation.

karlmarx's point is a good one and it can be extended to the rest of Jesus' apocalyptic pronouncements (which are the core of the gospel message, particularly in the synoptics) - why is this supposedly "fictional', "mythic" or otherwise non-existent Jesus, who is supposedly in some heavenly realm or created out of pagan myths or whatever, looking so much like a chiliastic Jewish end times preacher? And one who gets his prophecies wrong at that. That's a distinctly weird fictional/mythic Jesus for people to create, even Jewish people.

Unless, of course, the figure in the gospels is actually based on a historical chiliastic Jewish end times preacher. That makes much more sense.

Johnny Skeptic

What is the solution to Matthew 24:14? The verse says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." The Gospel has already been preached in all countries, right? Since hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it, I do not see why he would consider it to be important for the Gospel be preached in all nations before he sends Jesus back to earth.

John Kesler

If Mark were writing in 70 CE or shortly thereafter and believed that the parousia was imminent, then I think that the Mark-13 pericope makes perfect sense. After some time passed and it became apparent that the parousia and 70-CE events would not be concurrent, the disciples' question was revised to what we see in Matthew 24:3:

Compare this to the wording of Mark 13:4:

Thus, an indeterminate amount of time was inserted between the destruction of Jerusalem and the parousia. Matthew also added parables in vv 45 ff and 25:1-11 to explain the delay of the parousia:

The delayed parousia was also a concern of other Christian writers, with 2 Peter 3:1-11 providing the most explicit NT reference.

judge

The thing agaisnt this view is that Matthew is even more explicit than Mark (I think) about when the parousia will occur. Matthew 24:29-31

Matthew places the parousia immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem.

If Jesus was quite clear about this immediately, then do what do these parables refer?

Fortuna

I don't necessarily agree because it seems to me that Mark is talking about some event that has already happenned. Another potential explanation is that this is what they saw coming for Jerusalem (from Mark's perspective), if Mark is pro-Roman, then perhaps this refer to what they did see, the kingship of God (the Roman God) in the form of General Titus and his forces.
"The kingship of God coming wiht power". I believe that Mark is writing a fictional story that is set in actual history and this figuratively refers to a real event.

I think the story is also created from Jewish legend, Tanakh. Ands the "end times" refer only to the end of Judea and nothing more.

Actually, no, in my hypothesis Jesus's prophecies (as created by Mark in his story) are not incorrect. We just don;t understnad the language usage and the story well enough to interpret what it refers to. There is also the possibility that the original story has been altered to fit a spiritual scenario as you describe. (Hey, I could well be wrong, I'm just trying to see if it can fit, and it seems to fit as well as any other hypothesis )

I dont think so. I think this is a creation of fiction from Mark's pen. However, Jesus might very well resemble other messianic sages of the same period, from which Mark constructs his story.

And again, ther might be tampering, so we may not be reading the story as Mark originally wrote it.(but that would have to be further checked)

Antipope Innocent II

I can't see where you're getting this from. This saying is just one of many talking about the coming kingship of Yahweh - the central theme of Jesus' preaching. It's only different from the others in that it is one of only two in the synoptics that gives some indication of when Yahweh's rule is coming (other than general indications that it will be very soon).

Mark is "pro-Roman"? Sorry, but you're getting way too "creative" for me now. I think the only person writing a fictional story is you.

John Kesler

Notice the difference between Matthew and Mark:

Mark claims that in "those days" is when the cosmic events come, while Matthew states that after "those days" is when the next phase of Jesus' two-part prediction unfolds, and it is unclear how much time is supposed to elapse between this event and the "sign of the Son of Man," which even precedes the appearance of the Son of Man himself. Don't forget, too, that Matthew has also allowed for more time than Mark with verse 14--..."this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come"--a detail lacking in Mark.

The delay of the parousia.