** you do not have permission to see this link **
Although the predictions of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in gMark are accurate, they are also quite vague. As ** you do not have permission to see this link **, vague predictions about future doom and devastation are virtually always bound to come true eventually. gMark essentially portrays Jesus as predicting simply that the Temple will be destroyed at some point in the future, without any specific details about when or how this would happen. Jesus didn’t need to have the supernatural gift of prophecy to make this prediction, since, quite simply, this prediction was bound to come true eventually, since all buildings will ultimately be destroyed at some point.
This argument, however, has a major flaw that Christian apologists have, for the most part, ignored. The most significant part of the passages I have quoted above is not actually Jesus’s prediction itself, but rather the way gMark describes his prediction. You see, in gMark 13:14, the author inserts his own authorial comment to the reader: “ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω.” This means “Let the reader understand.” In making this comment, the author of gMark is clearly hinting to the reader in his own voice that the prophecy Jesus has just made had recently been fulfilled.
Iskander Robertson said
** you do not have permission to see this link **Although the predictions of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in gMark are accurate, they are also quite vague. As ** you do not have permission to see this link **, vague predictions about future doom and devastation are virtually always bound to come true eventually. gMark essentially portrays Jesus as predicting simply that the Temple will be destroyed at some point in the future, without any specific details about when or how this would happen. Jesus didn’t need to have the supernatural gift of prophecy to make this prediction, since, quite simply, this prediction was bound to come true eventually, since all buildings will ultimately be destroyed at some point.
This argument, however, has a major flaw that Christian apologists have, for the most part, ignored. The most significant part of the passages I have quoted above is not actually Jesus’s prediction itself, but rather the way gMark describes his prediction. You see, in gMark 13:14, the author inserts his own authorial comment to the reader: “ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω.” This means “Let the reader understand.” In making this comment, the author of gMark is clearly hinting to the reader in his own voice that the prophecy Jesus has just made had recently been fulfilled.
13:14 So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Let the reader understand history is repeating itself. The abomination of desolation standing where it should not be refers to something that precipitated the the Maccabean revolt.
Result:
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
Even if you interpret the phrase “ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω” to mean that the reader should not correct the apparent grammatical error, then that still doesn’t necessarily get you out of gMark hinting that the prophecy has already come to pass. If this prophecy does indeed go back to Jesus, then he almost certainly delivered the prophecy in Aramaic. This means that any grammatical incongruities in the Greek text must originate with the author of gMark or one of his Greek-language sources, not with Jesus himself. If the author of gMark is hinting to the reader not to correct the apparent error, this indicates that the “error” is a deliberate hint by the author of the gospel to the meaning of the prophecy, which means that the author thinks he knows what Jesus was predicting. If we assume that the author does not have supernatural insight into the meaning of the prophecy, this makes most sense if he believes that the prophecy has already been fulfilled.