judge

Firstly Hi to another Sydneysider.:wave:

I have wondered the same thing myself. One could I suppose posit as Chris did that Mark was written around 70CE, but why would Matthew tell his readers Christ was to come in glory "immediately after the distress of those days".

After all Matthew is supposed to have been written 80 CE at the earliest ,according to earlychristianwritings.
On the surface it doesn't seem to make any sense that Matthew writing in 80 CE or later would tell people that Christ was to come in glory, on clouds, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, around 70 CE.

Unless of course first century folk had a totally different understanding of what this might mean, than the believers that followed in further centuries.

Chris Weimer

Moreover, you'll still have to distinguish between Markan "first-century folk" and Matthean "first-century folk" and see how each gospel deals with the passage in context.

judge

There seems no compelling evidence to speculate they would be signifigantly different. In the absence of this evidence, why speculate?

Ben C Smith

I have never really understood, on this hypothesis, why Mark, if he intended his own generation as the original (as it were) audience for this saying and was writing much later than 70, would place it on the lips of Jesus in a private discourse explicitly marked out as directed toward four specific disciples in circa 30, nor why he would simultaneously (and redactionally?) connect the events in question with the fall of the temple.

Mark 13.1-5, 30:

And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings! And Jesus said to him: Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down. And, as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning him privately: Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled? And Jesus began to say to them: See to it that no one misleads you.

....

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Nor do I really understand how the same way of reading the text is supposed to disarm Mark 9.1:

And he was saying to them: Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.

Anything is possible. Sure, Mark could have intended Jesus to be stepping out of the story and addressing the readers directly without any marker whatsoever to indicate that he is doing so. (He could also have intended his text to be taken as some sort of code that we just have not broken yet; perhaps reading every fourth letter yields some message that would have meant something to his original readers.)

But such hypotheses ought to be seen immediately for what they are. They are unlikely scenarios that would never have been invented apart from the need to push the original composition of these words as far away from 30 as possible. If Mark is writing in, say, century II, I think it is pretty clear that he has uncritically taken over this dominical prediction from some earlier source; the original composition of the prediction can not very feasibly postdate 70 by very much.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

No difference between Mark's and Matthew's gospel message? Are you serious?

Clouseau

'This generation' could refer to ourselves and our descendants. And the gospel could have been written in 40 CE.

Tartantyco

-Or.... Maybe it was unintentional? He's making up this story and while writing this prophecy he's thinking of having Jesus reference the current generation and writes "this generation" because it is from Mark's POV. A minor slip that goes uncorrected, simple as that, happens all the time to me(When I'm writing prophecies... ).

Clouseau

That must be it.

Toto

Why should this not be read the same way as this:aMark was writing to his own generation here. Is there any reason to read Mark as writing history in any part of his work?

Fortuna

Good point, but there is an explanation that partly makes sense. That is, in fact, Mark did write just after 70CE and the events he is describing are the destruction of the temple and Judea. What is interesting about it is that, he places Jesus circa 30CE and remember that a "generation", back from Exodus is about 40 years. So, if we assume that Jesus is in fact addressing the people of the time of the story 9and it is they to whom the "generation' should be applied0 then this timeline makes sense and the temple prophecies in the story (Mark writing them ex eventu) seems to fit well with this explanation.

Or, some of you standing here will likely see this take place. Jesus is adressing the people in front of him at the time in the story and the "things" to which he refers is the seige of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple, as well as events that lead up to it.

Could this also be a reference to the aftermath of destruction of the temple expressed in figurative language ? Could it be that Jesus's "Kingdom of God" as referred to here would begin with the destruction of Judea and the temple. More figuratively, the elimination of the "old Covenant" ? In other words, God, acting through the Romans, destroys the temple, and it is then that Jesus's "Kingdom" can begin ?

Alternatively, could he be saying that Rome somehow is representative of this Kingdom of God ? I cannot help b ut remember that there are many pro-Roman and anti-Judean things in these gospels. Could it be that Mark sees that Rome, or some aspect of it is the civilizing force that can bring about the Kingdom ? Is the kingdom perhaps not a spiritual afterlife but a Utopian sort of ideal ?

Yes, EXACTLY ! This reference of "abomination of desolation" does seem to fit very well with that event. Remember also that, these people did know very well the story of the revolt of Judas Maccabee. But ,this story has a twist, Judea must be destroyed in order for the kingdom to come. (or perhaps, for the "Pax Romana" to finally settle onto Judea)


The problem with this view is some of the other stuff in the Olivet. But perhaps we just don;t understand the language or some of the idiomatic usages or the analogies. After all, Koine died in the West, and in the East it more or less evolved into Byzantine greek and eventually modern greek No ?

Let's look over Mark 13 and see what fits in with this hypothesis, and what doesn't. (doesn;t according to our understanding, or the modern translations)

MARK 13

So far so good, all this fits with the hypothesis.


This is strange, but doesn;t give our hypothesis much trouble, we could also consider that perhaps it was added in (then see if we can find any other evidence to support that).

Still ok. 8 could be referring to othe events going on at the time.

This could be a statement that anyone who believed in this prophecy (that the temple and Judea would be destroyed) would surely be censured. Synagogue is obvious (there is a side issue here), but "rulers and kings" could refer to the local Judeans rulers.

Strange this part, Was it added later ? Or could it mean that Jesus prophecy, or his message must be known first ?

This refers back to 10 and 9. Still not much problem for our hypothesis.

This seems to refer to the Siege of Jerusalem.

does this just figuratively say, I (Jesus) foretold all of this, don;t let anyone else take credit for it. Or perhaps it refers to the rebels who ignoted the revolt.

Figurative language that refers to the seige and the aftermath ?

But the question is, WHO will SEE this ? does it mena that the Judeans will finally see the power of Jesus's prophecy ? Or does this refer to something much more pro-Roman ?

More figurative language talking about his prophecy ?


All of this last part fits beautifully with the hypothesis.


so, with the exception of just a few parts, the hypothesis that Mark wrote this after 70CE, and that this refers to the destruction of Judea and the temple as if it were the end of the old covenant, and the beginning of Jesus's figurative "kingdom of God" (which really refers to living people, not an afterlife) does seem to fit fairly well with what we read here.