Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

In any discussion of the Synoptic "Little Apocalypse" (Mark 13, Matt 24, Luke 21) it should not be forgotten that a prominent trope found throughout ancient literature (including classics known to those literate in Greek, and novellas from the era of the gospels) was the "divinely inspired prophecy" warning of great dangers before the happy plot denouement. Lead characters and/or their followers were to come face to face with death through repeated horrific tests and genuinely risked failure and death before/if they came through. It is found in well-known epics about Odysseus, Aeneas, Jason, and many characters in the "novels" from certain Hellenistic and Roman times.

That such an "apocalyptic prophecy" should be put in the mouth of Jesus on the eve of his passing through death, with its warning to his disciples who must themselves do likewise, is quite in keeping with the literary and narrative tastes and expectations of the times. In support of this is the mimicking of the images of sun and moon going dark, famines and wars, etc etc -- all these are typical "apocalyptic" metaphors and tropes found throughout both Jewish and Greek literature from the days of Isaiah and Hesiod. They are drawn from the literature well-known at the time, not from "current news events".



Neil

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Yes, I am "reading" literary traditions "into" the gospels here, particularly Mark's. But I am attempting to show that the apocalyptic reading is equally a "reading into" the sayings and actions found in this gospel in particular.

Originally Posted by Switch89

Hi all,

I have been trying to research and understand Jesus. I have been impressed with some Earl Doherty's writings, however, I think that the view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet has some merit (and also leads me to believe that there was a historical Jesus after all). Bart Ehrman has expounded on this in a book called "Jesus". An excellent blog post about the topic can be found here:
http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2007...y-i-think.html

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Are not the "sayings" an explanation brought in to explain the time gap from the thirties to at least the sixties when Mark is thought to have been written? Would we even be thinking about oral traditions if this gap had not been pointed out?

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The reason I think that Jesus was a historical person is due to the teachings of the Ebionites. They taught that Jesus was a normal human being - albeit a prophet - and rejected his divinity, virgin birth, and his resurrection. They also taught that only Jesus' relatives were the true leaders of the church like James.

The Ebionites seem to be a thorn in the side of both MJers and Pauline Trinitarian (ie modern) Christians alike, IMO.

Originally Posted by Switch89

apocalyptic prophet

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

It is not "reading into" by the modern exegete. It's simply what the story is. If you find the "apocalyptic prophet" model unpersuasive, you aren't arguing that the modern exegete doesn't understand what Mark is saying, you're arguing that Mark didn't understand what was meant.