neilgodfrey

I am quite sure it was not a problem to the original authors and audience. My problem is not being able to explain or understand what it meant to them -- why it was not a problem to them. (I won't presume without evidence they had the same views as modern fundamentalists.)

Neil

JoeWallack

JW
I think the main Christian reaction than is the same as now. They Ignore it. If you look at E-Catena there no references to the "this generation" verses. The only difference now is that the Christians no longer have the power to prevent the preservation of discussion of the issue. I suspect this is one of the arguments by Celsus/Porphyry El-all that was so good all the Christians could think of in response was to prevent preservation of these arguments.




Joseph

neilgodfrey

But my problem is with the authors of the narrative claim. They didn't ignore it. They wrote it. What WERE they thinking?

Neil Godfrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Hmmm, that's a tough one. Let's see, if "Matthew" placed his Jesus c. 30 and was writing c. 130 and believed the Jewish Bible when it said that the maximum life span was 120...



Joseph

neilgodfrey

That's the problem. Every answer I see is like yours here -- ad hoc speculation. No evidence.

JoeWallack

JW:
So you realized after your initial post that "Matthew's" genealogy does have evidence of a 120 year life span. The Reaction you are looking for is not until "John", after the 120 year Statute of Limitations has expired:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_21

23 "This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?"

Note that "John", as usual Reacting to the Markan original, has exorcised the references to imminency and here Denies the "this Generation" prophecy. I think than, that we can safely date final "John" post c.150.



Joseph

neilgodfrey

Hoo boy, no, I actually added the reference to Matthew 1:17 after my initial post and then chose to delete it, realizing it could be equally used to point both ways and could settle nothing. (Although it would be quite a forced interpretation to apply the years of the first three patriarchs to the length of generation in question. Seems to me it would be just as logically valid to go for Luke's Methuselah and extend the possibility of the generation continuing on up to near 1000 ce. Was he getting worried he needed to fit in the possibility of a longer generational span than Matthew had allowed for?? )

I don't accept without argument that one can apply John's gospel to explain Matthew or Luke since John does after all appear to studiously distance itself from the whole theology implicit in the "little apocalypse" of the synoptics. In John the resurrection and judgement and revelation of Jesus as the glory of God have already come. I don't think John anywhere speaks of a parousia.

So the problem remains. If we argue that Mark was attempting to discredit the theology of the parousia (is that your claim? -- I'm neither denying nor accepting that proposition -- but I cannot escape that it raises many questions) then it seems we have a lot to explain. Why would he seem to have Jesus himself make a liar of himself for starters? The problem here is of a different magnitude entirely from his claim to go before "them" into Galilee.

We have Matthew and Luke appearing to repeat a known falsehood. Ad hoc arguments and glib proof-texting from miscellaneous texts won't cut it for me. That's the level of argument we expect from apologists.

Neil Godfrey

neilgodfrey

and further -- what do we do with Jesus telling the high priest that he would personally see the parousia, presumably in that generation? How far are we prepared to think Mark would go towards embarrassing Jesus in order to discredit the parousia doctrine?

Neil

Clutch

Earlier source documents (i.e., written within the original generation) + constraints on the ability to universally elide unwelcome verses once entrenched (e.g., the existence of multiple streams of document-copying). Both are perfectly plausible hypotheses. The third ingredient is that already mentioned by JW -- once the passage was already in print, the lack of doctrinal concern with reproducing it need be no more baffling for early copyists than it is for modern translators and copyists.

neilgodfrey

The difference between then and the time of modern translators and copyists is that we know texts were edited and doctored for quite some time before becoming set in stone.

Neil Godfrey