Robert said

You seem to have skipped over this part of my post: “If it were only the addition of ‘his’ elect in Matthew, that could easily be an unconscious scribal assumption based on the prior use of ‘his’ angels in this verse in Matthew (but not in Mark).” And if Matthew had not made the other changes to Mark’s text, we would still have to read this verse in the Markan context, where there is no indication that the Son of Man’s elect is any different from God’s elect, and where the most sensible reading of Mk 13,20 in context indicates that God shortened the days and chose the elect.

The immediate question here is whether Matthew has altered Mark so that his version now explicitly states that Jesus does the selecting. Only what is actually present in the text can count towards what is being explicitly stated. What’s removed is can’t and isn’t relevant. Matthew is not producing a gospel and expecting people to read it in conjunction with Mark to see what he has removed. And in the immediate context the only thing Matthew has in his text is “his elect”.

If “his elect” doesn’t on its own explicitly state that Jesus does the selecting then matthew has produced an olivet discourse with no explicit statement of Jesus doing the selecting.

Regarding the most sensible reading of Mk 13:20 the phrase “If the Lord had not cut short those days … ” implies the original set up was a longer period of days. Its suggestive of a change. And would be better applied to a lord who is raised to heaven to receive authority and returns on the clouds with the angels. He will be the one cutting them short. Its for the sake of the elect (those standing firm in Jesus’s name) that the days will be shortened. Its suggestive of a transfer of authority to a new figure who will change the original set up (for the sake of those who stand firm in his name). 

What about Mark’s phrase in 13:20 “but for the sake of the elect whom he chose“? What’s your explanation for Mark having the part in the bold?

Mark attributed the shortening of the days and the selection of the elect to God. As we’ve already seen in the previous thread, which you have refused to review for some ungodly reason, this is makes so much better sense in the Markan context than your silly reading. Mark, as far as we know, was the first to identify the earthly Jesus with the heavenly Son of Man, and he only went so far. When Matthew includes additional teaching of Jesus about the heavenly Son of Man, he is forced to extend more prerogatives of the heavenly Son of Man to the resurrected Jesus. To do this, he needed to change Mark’s text.

I don’t see what difference it makes if we post here or the other thread?

Anyway the question is – why have the part in bold? Do you agree that it clears up an ambiguity? That without it the reader might ask “who selected the elect?”

He could do but he could also use the two different words intentionally. If he’s talking about God he normally sticks with “God”

** you do not have permission to see this link ** “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? … have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

If he’s talking about the beginning and end why not stick with God – God creates and God elects the righteous.

Why not 13:19-20 – why is it not an intentional change?

Because it would result in a very silly reading of Mk 13,20 in the larger Markan context, as I have already demonstrated in the previous thread that you stubbornly refuse to revisit. And, again, the repeated use of God in Mk 12,24-27 is required by the fact that he is quoting scripture and drawing a conclusion from that same scripture, unlike in Mark where he alludes to scripture and then introduces a new thought unrelated to the scripture alluded to.

No the repeated use of God is not required. “how God said to him” and “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living” aren’t quotes of scripture.

Shame on you! How can we take you seriously if you continually ignore the work of scholars and then expect us to listen to your own attempt to refute the views of scholars that you have not even read?

If I was arguing that “his elect” was original to Mark 13:27 without knowing the arguments against it being original that might be shameful. But I’m not arguing that. 

What’s the majority opinion? Original or not original?

Robert said

Sorry, but you’re changing the question. You had previously asked if the presende of one single pronoun was sufficient to make explicit your interpretation of Matthew. The inclusion by Matthew of his unique sheep and goats parable in this context goes a long way in making clear Matthew’s intent in using this pronoun. And for the vast majority of critical scholars who are rightly convinced of Markan priority, Matthew’s modification of the earlier text of Mark is very helpful in understanding Matthew’s redactional perspective. The additition of the previous pronoun also introduces additional issues around understanding Matthew’s addition of the second pronoun. But the original question here had nothing to do with Matthew. Rather it was understanding Mark’s text, right?

Yes the discussion is whether Mark thinks Jesus selects the elect.

We’re only talking about Matthew because you posted that “his” might not be original to Mark but added by Matthew. So I’m seeing if you’ll agree that “his elect” in Matthew means Jesus does the electing. 

Untrue. Matthew has also included in this very discourse a parable that describes the Son of Man separating the sheep and goats and giving his rationale for why they were so separated. Without that Matthean parable, the simple indication that the elect belong (exclusively?) to him does not necessarily mean that he was the one who chose them. Who knows? Perhaps in some sense they themselves selected themselves by their faithful response to Jesus’ teachings. Or perhaps they were chosen by the Father but then entrusted to the Son of Man after he was resurrected from the dead, ascended to heaven where he was seated at the right hand of God and was given all authority on heaven and earth, and then sent on the clouds of heaven to go and gather them together. A single pronoun expressing possession does not make explicit how these chosen ones were selected or acquired.

They are elected ones. Someone did the electing. And whoever did the electing they are then the elect of that person.

ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο

They are his elect. Or his elect ones. Or the chosen ones of him. 

Because it is very tedious to be required to repost the same points over and over again in multiple threads. I’ve responded to these points previously. If you think you can effectively critique my previous responses, do so. Otherwise, one gets the impression that you are not paying attention or do not value responses made by others. Why should I even bother to respond over and over again if you never respond on point?

But sometimes threads can get bogged down and its more productive to start afresh.

You were arguing about the meaning of Mark’s text based especially on the meaning of a single word that very well may not have been part of Mark’s text. That type of lackadaisical approach to the meaning of a text without any attention to establishing what the actual text is cannot be taken seriously. At least not by someone who has such a cavalier attitude toward dismissing the serious work of real scholars.

I’m basing it on two verses 13:20 and 13:27

You haven’t responded to this question yet 

What about Mark’s phrase in 13:20 “but for the sake of the elect whom he chose“? What’s your explanation for Mark having the part in the bold?

“the elect that he elected?” Is this not very strange? Why would anyone need to clarify that its God doing the electing?

Some critical texts omit it for good reasons, others include it but only within brackets for the same good reasons that make its inclusion doubtful.

  

Its in Sinaiticus.

I’ll ask Bart Ehrman what he thinks.

Robert said
 

Untrue. Matthew has also included in this very discourse a parable that describes the Son of Man separating the sheep and goats and giving his rationale for why they were so separated. Without that Matthean parable, the simple indication that the elect belong (exclusively?) to him does not necessarily mean that he was the one who chose them. Who knows? Perhaps in some sense they themselves selected themselves by their faithful response to Jesus’ teachings. Or perhaps they were chosen by the Father but then entrusted to the Son of Man after he was resurrected from the dead, ascended to heaven where he was seated at the right hand of God and was given all authority on heaven and earth, and then sent on the clouds of heaven to go and gather them together. A single pronoun expressing possession does not make explicit how these chosen ones were selected or acquired.

They are elected ones. Someone did the electing. And whoever did the electing they are then the elect of that person.

ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο

They are his elect. Or his elect ones. Or the chosen ones of him. 

You’ve just ignored my response and offered no rebuttal. Are you also going to bring this up again and again in future threads without showing any awareness or understanding of this discussion.

Why do you think I’ve ignored your response?

You’ve offered possible alternative understandings for “his elect” and I’ve responded with why they don’t work for “elected persons”. If the father elected them they are his elect. If they are then entrusted to the Son of Man they are “the elect”.

Whoever elects them they are then “the chosen of him”. Its the natural reading. 

Why say “gather his elect”? Why not say “gather the elect”? Why would they belong to the son of man? Why not “Gather God’s elect” “Gather the elect of God”. 

“The Son of Man will gather the elect”

“The Son of Man will gather God’s elect”

“The Son of Man will gather his elect”

Do they all mean the same thing? What’s the natural reading of the third one?

Why is it strange? Why not clarify that God has selected the elect, who are nonetheless still at risk of being led astray, still at risk of not being able to endure persecution and other tribulations? A text might seem strange to your preconceptions of what it should say, but until you actually engage the text in depth and wrestle with the author’s point of view, who are you say whether or not it is strange? 

So you agree that it functions to clarify who does the selecting? The reader might have thought it was someone else?

What’s more likely to require clarification? That God is the judge of judgement day or that Jesus is the judge of judgement day? 

Robert said

 

Your insistence upon the only natural interpretation of τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ] would actually be much more clearly expressed in Greek as τοὺς ἐκλεγθἐντους ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ. I know that at one time you were interested in improving upon your Greek, so do you see the difference? Do you realize that τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ] does not necessarily mean τοὺς ἐκλεγθἐντους ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ? The first phrase merely indicates possession, which may have been acquired or shared in a variety of ways. Only the second phrase indicates by whom the select were selected.

It may have been acquired or shared – but nowhere in the text does it say that.

The only reason discernible in the text to write “his elect” is if the son of man did the choosing.

οὺς ἐκλεγθἐντους ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ – “those being elected by him”? is that what it means? That might be more explicit but doesn’t change the ordinary natural understanding of “his elect”. Whether in english or greek.

And if he has already stated ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο in v2 there’s no need to further clarify.

So you agree that it functions to clarify who does the selecting? The reader might have thought it was someone else.

No.

I asked for your explanation of why he adds “whom he has chosen” in v20

Was this not your explanation? “Why not clarify that God has selected the elect“?

If not, what is your explanation for why he adds “whom he has chosen”?

—

You agree the Jesus is the “Lord of the house” who goes away and gives authority to his servants and tells them to keep watch? And that when he returns he had better not find them asleep?

Presumably if he finds them asleep he will punish them right? He will be the Lord of the house that is doing the judging and punishing?

Robert said

brenmcg said

It may have been acquired or shared – but nowhere in the text does it say that.

Nor does it say in the text of Mark that the elect had been chosen by the Son of Man. Nor does it say that the elect belonged exclusively to Jesus and not also to the Father. You want to read Matthew into the text of Mark, but that’s not proper. You have to interpret the text of Mark based on the text of Mark.

If we agree that the text never states that elect have been acquired or shared and nor does it state the they have been chosen by the son of man then we should just read “his elect” in the ordinary natural sense.

Now you’re getting at the heart of the problem. Do you think that the elect were already chosen in the past or will be chosen in the future? I’ve told you how to understand this issue in terms of the evolution of Jesus’ view of the Son of Man into the evangelists’ identification of Jesus as the Son of Man. When were the elect chosen? Will it be in the future by the Son of Man? Or in the past by the Father? If even the elect can be led astray, it must have been in the past, right? On the other hand, if Matthew’s Son of Man will separate the sheep from the goats based on how they have behaved toward the poor, hungry, thirsty, naked, and in prison, there’s something more going on whereby the elect are chosen on the basis of their behavior, they are in some sense choosing themselves by their behavior. Mark 13,20 says the elect were chosen in the past, but even they can be led astray if the Lord had not shortened the days. You think Jesus as the Son of Man has chosen the elect in the past. I have shown you in the past how ridiculous that view is in context, but you neglected to respond in the past. What will be your current behavior? You decide: sheep or goat?

  

I thought we had to interpret the text of Mark based on the text of Mark? But here you can carry into your interpretation of the text your views of the historical Jesus?

I don’t think too much should be read into the tenses being used in 13:20, the subject is eternal salvation (true for all time).

“And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days“

Is everything happening in the past? Shortening of days, electing, and saving? v13 tells us “those who endure to the end will be saved” (future tense). Is v20 contradicting v13 or do the tenses being used not particularly matter for eternal salvation issues?

They will be persecuted on account of his name but the ones who endure to the end will be saved. The persecutions or the false messiahs might make “the elect” fall away. But this can just be understood as those who were on the path to election that fell away. There’s no consistent reading that would work for God making the election but not the son of man.

What’s important is who has the authority. Who sets the rules governing eternal salvation? Even if the elect in Matthew could be said to have chosen themselves, its whoever set the rules whereby they are chosen, or the one who judges whether the rules have been passed or not is the one with the final authority of selection.

And the implication of v36 is that it is Jesus who has this authority. Lest he find you sleeping when he returns as Lord of the house. The authority is returning and that authority better not find you sleeping.

Robert said
Sure the text needs to be interpreted in terms of the text and in context (and there are a variety of contexts), but you had asked, “why [Mark] adds ‘whom he has chosen’?” The text cannot fully answer why a writer wrote the text in a specific way. That requires a broader approach to historical context.

The text may full answer why a writer wrote it in a specific way. But if you need to go outside the text to explain it then it weakens it the claim. Just as Jesus not knowing the hour needs to be explained outside the text.

I still don’t know what your explanation of “whom he has chosen” is. If its supposedly obvious that the Lord in v20 is God why then the need to say the elect whom he has chosen? Who else would be choosing them?

Of course you do not want to pay attention to the tenses used in Mk 13,20, because they contradict the way you want to misread it.

The tenses contradict each other. “will be saved”v13 and “have been saved” v20. Necessarily if we want to understand it as a consistent narrative we can’t pay too much attention to the tense.

Everything does not happen in the past, but Mark clearly says that the elect were chosen in the past, ‘though they were still in danger of being led astray. The Lord has shortened the days, but Jesus admits that he also does not know the time. How could Jesus have been the one who shortened the days, but also not know the time of the end? There’s no contradiction there, other than the typical difficulties of anyone who tries to explain religious ideas of predestination and free will.

The point of saying Jesus does not know the hour is not to show a limitation of Jesus’s authority its to explain why the apostles don’t know the hour. They can’t have Jesus say he knows the hour but wont say. Jesus must go to God and find out the hour and then return with authority to act as he pleases. Shortening the days, choosing the elect and saving whomever hasn’t fallen asleep.

I can’t think of a single critical Markan scholar who agrees with you. That should tell you something. But it won’t. You will go on believing that you alone understand the text in the only rational and natural way that it can be understood and that everyone else is just wrong because … well because. At the very least, Bren, when all these scholars disagree with you, why wouldn’t you have the common sense not to make such absurd claims about your reading being the only natural one, the only rationale one, the most obvious one, etc? 

I’m not sure what the statistics are but anyone who disagrees that Jesus does the electing in Mark is wrong because Jesus is the Lord of the house who will return at the end of time to judge between those of his servants whom he left in charge who fell asleep and those who did not.

Robert said

Once again, I certainly do not need to go outside the text to explain it. But you asked a different question. Are you unconsciously trying to obscure this fact that I called you on?

I don’t understand. I just asked you to give an explanation for why Mark added “whom he chose”? Why would he put that in? Is it not obvious who did the electing?

Here you go again, asking a question about why a writer wrote what he did in his text. You are asking me to speculate about what’s in the mind of the writer in his historical context.

Why does that require an answer in terms of its historical context? 

I could give my explanation for “why” Mark wrote it. The “Lord” in v20 is Jesus and Mark wants to be sure his readers know it was Jesus that chose them not God. No historical context needed. 

Why does your answer require historical context?

And if I answer it (again), are you again going to once again act like it is wrong to let extra-textual considerations enter into an extra-textual question that you yourself asked? Make up your mind what your method is, if you have any methodological principles whatsoever. The only reason you do not my reasoning about this text is because you are unable to counter it so you pretend it isn’t clear. Of course, I can’t be sure whether you’re genuinely unable to understand or if you’re just being coy about your inability to adequately defend your untenable position.

Can you give a link to where you’ve answered? I don’t know what your explanation is.

The point of saying Jesus does not know the hour is not to show a limitation of Jesus’s authority its to explain why the apostles don’t know the hour. They can’t have Jesus say he knows the hour but wont say. Jesus must go to God and find out the hour and then return with authority to act as he pleases. Shortening the days, choosing the elect and saving whomever hasn’t fallen

You are loathe to acknowledge any limitation on Jesus’ knowledge, but that is entirely your problem. The text is crystal clear here. You just can’t acknowledge what it clearly says. 

I do acknowledge the limitation on his knowledge but that’s not the purpose of the verse. The purpose is to provide an explanation for why Jesus didn’t tell the disciples when the end-times would come. (He didn’t know).

v20 is about the decision to shorten the end-times. The decision to shorten them may have been made in the past but the actual shortening happens in the future. The lord doesn’t need to know when that will happen in order to have already decided to shorten them for the sake of his elect (whenever that might occur).

God sets the time of their beginning, the Lord determines when they end. The lord of the house.

Robert said

I could give my explanation for “why” Mark wrote it. The “Lord” in v20 is Jesus and Mark wants to be sure his readers know it was Jesus that chose them not God. No historical context needed. 

You’re answer is essentially the same; it’s an expression of his beliefs. Only problem is, you’re assuming your beliefs are those of the author.

I claim the Lord of v20 is supposed to be Jesus. You claim it is supposed to be God. With my claim, Mark’s adding of the words “whom he has chosen” is understandable. The tradition Mark is drawing from, the old testament he quotes from, would have it that God is the elector and judge of judgement day. If the “Lord” is Jesus for Mark in v20 it then understandable that he would clear up a potential ambiguity. Its the Lord electing, not God.

But taking your claim that the Lord is God in v20 why would Mark need to add “whom he has chosen”? 

Can you give a link to where you’ve answered? I don’t know what your explanation is.

Read this post. It’s the simplest answer I can give you. If you want a more expanded answer, try again to read my post above that compares Mark’s view with those of Jesus and Matthew. You criticized that answer because it was putting Mark’s views in their historical context rather than speaking only about the text. But you asked me not about the text, but about why the author wrote it.

Is it this? “Mark, as far as we know, was the first to identify the earthly Jesus with the heavenly Son of Man, and he only went so far. When Matthew includes additional teaching of Jesus about the heavenly Son of Man, he is forced to extend more prerogatives of the heavenly Son of Man to the resurrected Jesus. To do this, he needed to change Mark’s text.“

This is an explanation of why Mark might think God selects the elect and Matthew might change his text. But it is not an explanation of why Mark would add “whom he has chosen”. There’s no need for it if Mark is continuing with the tradition he is drawing from. God elects the elect. There’s no need to point that out.

If Jesus did not know the time of his return, how could he also have been the person who shortened the days? You avoided this (and other problems) with your view in the previous thread and you’re continuing to do so now. Next, you’ll insist upon your view in another thread without ever addressing any of the issues you still cannot address here.

v20 is about the decision to shorten the end-times. The decision to shorten them may have been made in the past but the actual shortening happens in the future. The lord doesn’t need to know when that will happen in order to have already decided to shorten them for the sake of his elect (whenever that might occur).

This is not what the text says. These are just your changes and additions to the text to try and make it say what you want it to say.

But I haven’t avoided it – you quoted my response. The Father/God sets the time they will occur, the Lord sets how long they will take. That’s what the text says. You say the Father and Lord are intended to both be the same here but there’s no necessity for them to be. There’s no logical error in them being different.

Robert said

If the Father sets the time it will occur, he is obviously the one who has shorted the days. It it was Jesus who had shortened the days, he would have been the one who set the time the end would occur. You have not dealt with that issue. 

And you did change the text. Mark says the Lord has already shortened the days. You ignore that and say the days will be shorted in the future by Jesus. You say the text is merely about a decision to shorten the days, but that is your addition to the text. The text says nothing about a decision. The text says the Lord shortened the days in the past and Jesus says that the Son does not know when this will be. 

In what sense can the days have been shortened if they haven’t occurred yet? 

An inquisitor might set the length of a trial but require approval from the Pope on when they can actually go ahead. A general might set the length of a war but need to wait on the marching order from a king. And a Lord might set the length of the days of tribulation but not know what day the Father will order them to begin.

Aren’t ‘setting the time’ and ‘setting how long it will take’ the same exact thing? 

No of course not. The “endtimes will last for 6 foreshortened days” is different from the “endtimes will start in 2072”.