Robert said
 

Mark believes the end times have already started. They have already been living in the time of the Judean War and perhaps the temple is already destroyed (13,2.4). These are already the “beginning of the birth pangs (ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, 13,8), they are living at a time when the gospel must first be preached to the the nations (13,10). Addressed to those who are already witnessing all these things that have begun, the discourse is focused on when “the end” (τὸ τέλος) will be (13,7.13). Seeing all these things taking place they already know that he is near, at the gates 13,29), which is why they must stay awake (13,35.37). They do not know when the end will happen, and not even Jesus knew that, but the end is coming soon. If Jesus knew how many days it would be, and if he has already told them everything (he knows), why didn’t he just tell them how many days it was going to be?

Well this is where we disagree then – Mark believes he and his readers can see signs of the end-times but they have not already begun. There will be wars and talk of wars, famines and earthquakes, but the end is still to come, they are just the beginnings of the birth pangs.

It is the days of tribulation never before seen since the beginning of the world that are the end-times. These days may take place in winter – they don’t take place over years or decades.

Its the beginning of these end-times that the disciples need to stay awake for. Need to stand on guard, not fall asleep for lack of action. There’s no danger of them falling asleep during the days of tribulation never before seen, waiting for the end to come.

Jesus doesn’t know when these days of tribulation will begin but he knows when they do begin they’ll be cut short by the lord of the house returning.

The day of the lord of Isaiah 13 is when all of this happens. A cruel day with wrath and fierce anger lay the land desolate. Its this day of wrath that will be cut short for the sake of the elect. And its this day they’re need to keep guard for and not fall asleep.

Robert said

Right, you believe Matthew the apostle wrote his gospel in the 40s, then Luke, then Mark sometime in the early 60s, or something like that? Tell me again, how many critical scholars agree with your view? Hint: none. And why exactly should we take your view seriously?

I think the gospels should be understood internally first and only then checked against the historical claims. And in Mark the days of tribulation “unseen since the beginning” haven’t happened yet; the disciples/readers take away point is to “keep watch”.

You’re still changing the text of Mark to fit your fancy. The Markan Jesus does not say that he will shorten the days when he returns; rather he says the Lord has already shortened the days.

Jesus tells them the days have already been shortened, but they certainly haven’t happened by the time Jesus is speaking. So the only sense in which they can have been foreshortened by the time Jesus is speaking is that the Lord has decreed their foreshortening. The son of man’s arrival is the determining factor of their ending. When he arrives the days of tribulation are over.

And, again, if he has told them everything, why hasn’t he told them how many days it will last? Wouldn’t that be good to know? 

Possibly. But they only asked in 13:4 “when will these things happen and what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled. He told them he didn’t know when they would happen but told them all the signs of their fulfilment.

Alternatively he may intend them to read Daniel – “let the reader understand”.

Daniel 12:11-12 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.“

Robert said

brenmcg said

Robert said

Right, you believe Matthew the apostle wrote his gospel in the 40s, then Luke, then Mark sometime in the early 60s, or something like that? Tell me again, how many critical scholars agree with your view? Hint: none. And why exactly should we take your view seriously?

You did not answer my question. 

Yes to the first. I don’t know for the second, possibly none.

Jesus tells them the days have already been shortened, but they certainly haven’t happened by the time Jesus is speaking. So the only sense in which they can have been foreshortened by the time Jesus is speaking is that the Lord has decreed their foreshortening. The son of man’s arrival is the determining factor of their ending. When he arrives the days of tribulation are over.

You’re still changing the text of Mark to fit your interpretation. The interpretation should be based on the text, not the other way around. 

What part of those 4 sentences do you think isn’t based on the text?

So the Markan Jesus was was lying when he says he has told them everything? 

No – he told them everything he knew pertaining to their two questions.

You actually think Jesus (not Mark) is telling the disciples (not the reader) this???  Seriously? 

I think its probable that its Mark telling the readers this but possible its Jesus telling the disciples.

Robert said

Sure, you can ask and wonder about that all you like, but it doesn’t allow you to change the text you are supposedly trying to interpret.   

Interpreting a text is not the same as changing.

If I say Mark’s Jesus claims to be the Son of Man – I’m not changing the text I’m just interpreting what’s written.

JAS said

Interpreting text is at least potentially changing what is written. How can you be sure that you are recreating what the original author intended, or you have wandered astray from that?

  

No what’s written is written. But every single line in a text needs to be interpreted. “The Lord has shortened the days” needs to be interpreted. How can he shorten what doesn’t exist yet?

Robert said

brenmcg said

Robert said

Sure, you can ask and wonder about that all you like, but it doesn’t allow you to change the text you are supposedly trying to interpret.   

Interpreting a text is not the same as changing.

If I say Mark’s Jesus claims to be the Son of Man – I’m not changing the text I’m just interpreting what’s written.

Your interpretation actually adds to and otherwise change the text when you say something like this:

Jesus doesn’t know when these days [or hour] [of tribulation will begin] but he knows when they [Lord] do begin they’ll be cut [has] short[ened] by the [days] lord of the house returning.”

When undisturbed by your additions and changes, and when these two phrases are put in the proper order, the meaning of the text is very clear:

The Lord has shortened the days, … but the Son does not know the day or hour.

  

How do you reconcile the statement “the lord has shortened the days” with the fact that the days hadn’t yet occurred when Jesus is speaking?

Ok so its a prediction of future events. We agree we cant read too much into the tense being used?

The days will be shortened means the beginning and end of the days will be moved closer together. If its to save the elect who won’t survive if the days last too long, doesn’t that suggest it will be the end that gets moved closer to the beginning rather than the other way around?

Robert said
By definition one should never do “too much,” but neither should one change a verb in the past tense into the future tense, ie, change a text, to make it say something different, just because one doesn’t like what it says.

But who’s changing it? We both agree its speaking about future events? 

The beginning of the end has already started for Mark and his audience. I don’t think you’ve answered my previous question as to why we should ignore scholarship with respect to dating the gospel of Mark. Nor does Mark engage in your wanton sophistry. So your question is moot.

It has begun for Mark’s audience nor for Jesus’s audience in the story. Not agreeing with scholarship is not the same as ignoring it.

Instead, why not answer some of the questions you’ve ignored?

Why didn’t you want to report back on Bart’s text-critical judgment?

Did you take my advice to also consider the insights of those who have studied this text-critical issue in depth and published on it?

Since you ignore the work of scholars, ignore difficulties with your position, and many other similar things you do, why should we take your views seriously?

It never occurred to me to. “his” being original to mark 13:27 was a central to the debate. 

No just asked Bart – I think here the issue will come down to whether it is more likely a scribe added the word “his” to Mark to make it match Matthew or a scribe removed it. On balance scholarship will I’m sure generally favor its being added by a scribe. However seeing as this opinion will be arrived at assuming Markan priority I think the conclusion won’t be correct.

The arguments expressed in the forum should be assessed on their own merit. Their assessment shouldn’t depend on who is making them.

Which difficulties with my position am I ignoring?