PaulK

I'm not talking about Mark 9:1. I'm talking about Mark 13.

Just as well that I didn't say that Mark 13:2 considered alone was a failure.

Really ? Perhaps you would like to tell me how - for instance - the author of Mark could not have known that Jerusalem fell, or that the Second Coming hadn't happened by 70 AD. Or perhaps you are under the (badly) mistaken impression that I am talking about the accuracy of the text in reproducing some original rather than the fit of the "prophecy" to events. Because that is the only way the source would matter. But I don't need a source. It matters not to my argument if the author of Mark made the whole thing up.

spamandham

I don't think this is true at all. Let's go through it (Mark 13)

2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

The author was aware that the temple had already been destroyed. I don't see the fact that some stones were left on top of eachother as failed prophecy, and I don't think Mark or his readers would either. The point is that the temple would be annihilated, and it was.

5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.

At the time the author was writing, many were claiming to be the returned Christ. This is certainly compatible with the first half of the 2nd century leading up to the Bar Kochba revolt.

8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

Not useful in helping us date.

9"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.

When were Christians being persecuted by Jews? Early 2nd century fits this as well (Bar Kochba revolt).

10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

So we know that Christianity was already wide spread....again, 2nd century.

12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

Sounds like the Bar Kochba revolt to me.

14"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation'[a]standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Notice that the author carefully avoids saying "in the temple fortress" as Daniel did? Why? Because the temple fortress obviously didn't exist when the author was writing. This is the clearest reference yet to a post 70 CE writing.

21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[c]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. 23So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

Again, we have false Christs ....consistent with Bar Kochba.

24"But in those days, following that distress,
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[d]

Standard literary devices of the time.

29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

...and it wraps up with Jesus conveniently predicting the fall of the temple in 70CE, a nice symbolic 40 years after his ministry.

So, no, I don't see anything here that is a "failed prophecy", as long we place Mark in the 1st half of the 2nd century. If we don't do that, then we need alternative explanations for that which fits a 1st half 2nd century dating, and a hand waving "he probably just guessed pretty good" is not going to cut it. The author is clearly not guessing. This section of Mark (as a minimum) was, without doubt, written after the fall of the temple.

PaulK

I'll comment on a few points.

But it isn't. At this point in the "prophecy" the Temple still stands, so your reason for not mentioning it doesn't stand up. And "let the reader understand" indicates that there is some small puzzle here - I believe that the reader is meant to look to the Book of Daniel for more information, and will there discover that the Temple is the place.

But you are omitting verses 26 and 27 - both of which are part of my argument:
Did these happen ? I don't believe that they did. And these are supposed to precede the destruction of the Temple.

Jesus didn't come back, gather the Elect or destroy the Temple - although the prophecy states or implies all three. That seems like a failure to me. But it all comes from Daniel and the assumption that the end times are coming soon. So I suppose that there was a bit of luck in that the Temple did get destroyed at about the right time. But that's all that is needed.

bacht

But Mark was addressing gentile Christians. He had little reason to faithfully echo the Jewish messianic prophecies, in fact his messiah was completely untraditional. There's very little conventional eschatology in this gospel compared to intertestamental Jewish writings like the DSS.

andrewcriddle

Most NT scholars would regard dating Mark welll after 100 CE as a drastic (and unlikely) solution to the problem. Assuming (at least FTSOA) that Mark was written before 100 CE, is a date before or after 70 CE most plausible ?

Andrew Criddle

PaulK

However, the references to Daniel are there in the text - the Abomination is a direct reference to Daniel, and "the Son of Man" is another reference to Daniel. Moreover there is good reason to appeal back to Jewish scriptures - antiquity is important to the gentiles.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

bacht

Just that we shouldn't expect Mark to go into a lot of detail considering that his audience were Hellenistic gentiles. All he needed was a bit of colouring to establish the "once upon a time" flavour. If he had been addressing Jews then we should expect more scriptural analysis, maybe similar to the epistle to the Hebrews.

Also wouldn't these writers be leery of attracting negative attention from Rome by rehashing the war in gory detail? And if Mark was written during or after the bar-Kochba revolt who would be anxious to go around quoting a recently destroyed enemy of the emperor?

PaulK

I still don't see what point you are trying to make.

bacht

I thought you were just making a big deal about the details of the Little Apocalypse in Mark vs Luke?

PaulK

A big deal is overstating it. However you don't seem to be dealing with any of the differences I've stated so I still don't see what your point is.