In Matthew 24:34 there is this famous prediction about destruction of the temple: ”Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”.
How long is one generation? Numbers 14:34-35 says :” For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you. I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this wilderness; here they will die.”
So, is it 40 years? Because that was the lifespan of the generation which left Egypt. I dont know how old they were at the moment of their departure, of course.
[edit: Oops, i posted in a wrong place]
Odd that the first gospel is dated NEARLY forty years after the time Jesus is said to have ministered? When the Romans were rampaging throughout Judea to put down the rebellion?
One explanation is that followers of Jesus Christ may have been getting worried that those who witnessed Jesus Christ were dying, with very few left. So they had to write things down for posterity.
Yes traditionally a generation was 40 years.
My own pet hypothesis is that the gospel of Mark was begun in the afterglow of the Neronian persecution and the deaths of the first generation of Christians (Peter, Paul etc), and then completed against the backdrop of the First Revolt. Writing a gospel would have been the work of years not months. The author thought he was living near the beginning of the Parousia.
Vesa Lähde said
Stephen said
Yes traditionally a generation was 40 years.
Why is that? Is it because normal lifespan of people during biblical times or because that story of israelites wandering 40 years in wilderness?
A bit of both. Get a concordance of the Hebrew Bible and investigate the number 40. It had a real significance for them in their lives and in their thought.
A mythicist explanation might be that Mark, writing in troubled times, creates a physical Jesus narrative precisely one generation back, where the character Jesus predicts the end of days.
Hardly an explanation. More a supposition unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Look I have to be honest. I’ve read all the mythicist books, seen the videos and thought long and hard about it and I don’t take it seriously as an explanation of the origins of Christianity. It’s too ad hoc and relies too much on stretched reinterpretations. At this point the arguments have become tedious. I’ve filed it with Creationism, Flat Earth, Jesus went to India, astrology and Ancient Astronauts. If you want to debate it I’m not going to be the one.
On the other hand, if you really want to discuss the Gospel of Mark I’m your man!
Stephen said
Vesa Lähde said
Stephen said
Yes traditionally a generation was 40 years.
Why is that? Is it because normal lifespan of people during biblical times or because that story of israelites wandering 40 years in wilderness?
A bit of both. Get a concordance of the Hebrew Bible and investigate the number 40. It had a real significance for them in their lives and in their thought.
Good idea. I have jewish study bible and Harper Collins study bible, but neither of them tells anything about the subject. Do you recommend anything special? Strong’s concordance?
I searched on Bible Gateway:
Isaac married Rebekah at 40
Esau married Judith at 40
The Israelites ate manna for 40 years
8 times the 40 years wandering is mentioned in the Torah, not including the manna reference above.
Joshua was 40 when he spied out the land (they spied for 40 days, and because of the fear of the other scouts God punished the Israelites for 40 years)
Othniel the Judge created peace for 40 years.
The land rested under Deborah for 40 years.
The land rested under Gideon for 40 years.
Abdon son of Hillel had 40 sons.
Yahweh gave Israel over to the Philistines for 40 years.
Eli died after judging Israel for 40 years.
Ishbaal was 40 when he took over Israel from Saul.
David reigned 40 years.
Jehoash reigned 40 years.
Solomon reigned 40 years according to chronicles.
Ezekiel thought Egypt would be desolate for 40 years.
Saul reigned for 40 years according to Acts
All told 54 mentions with the search “forty years.”
By contrast there are 19 mentions of the word “fifty years”, and 8 of those are talking about retirement age.
Not in the Bible but supposedly Ptolemy reigned 40 years (only 23 as Pharaoh)
Stephen said
Yes traditionally a generation was 40 years.My own pet hypothesis is that the gospel of Mark was begun in the afterglow of the Neronian persecution and the deaths of the first generation of Christians (Peter, Paul etc), and then completed against the backdrop of the First Revolt. Writing a gospel would have been the work of years not months. The author thought he was living near the beginning of the Parousia.
I’m not convinced that the author of Mark truly believed the Parousia was at hand since why write a gospel when it was happening soon? While Jesus states it will happen in “this generation”, it also says “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father. “
What I think was happening is that Christians were trying to establish themselves as credible with Romans so they needed an authoritative book like the Jews, particularly one that lays the death of Jesus at the hands of Jews and not Pilate.
I do agree that it was a serious project, not slapped together by one person in a hurry.
cstu said
I’m not convinced that the author of Mark truly believed the Parousia was at hand since why write a gospel when it was happening soon? While Jesus states it will happen in “this generation”, it also says “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father. “
What I think was happening is that Christians were trying to establish themselves as credible with Romans so they needed an authoritative book like the Jews, particularly one that lays the death of Jesus at the hands of Jews and not Pilate.
I do agree that it was a serious project, not slapped together by one person in a hurry.
But it should be noted that Mark did not write a book; it is a fairly short essay. By the time it was written down, surely the idea that the end was really imminent must have shifted, at least a bit. The initial composition clearly did not anticipate what we have today as the NT. The trigger for writing things down presumably occurred because that first or second generation that had heard the message first hand was aging or dying off, and someone realized that a record should be made. How good or useful a record we got is the main question of debate.
But it should be noted that Mark did not write a book; it is a fairly short essay. By the time it was written down, surely the idea that the end was really imminent must have shifted, at least a bit. The initial composition clearly did not anticipate what we have today as the NT. The trigger for writing things down presumably occurred because that first or second generation that had heard the message first hand was aging or dying off, and someone realized that a record should be made. How good or useful a record we got is the main question of debate.
Agreed plus I don’t think Mark was writing for posterity. He was apparently writing for his own community. This view explains a lot of the problems with Mark that Matthew and Luke thought they were correcting.
Also we realize that the author of Daniel was writing in the shadow of the imminent apocalypse he expected in his day.
Stephen said
But it should be noted that Mark did not write a book; it is a fairly short essay. By the time it was written down, surely the idea that the end was really imminent must have shifted, at least a bit. The initial composition clearly did not anticipate what we have today as the NT. The trigger for writing things down presumably occurred because that first or second generation that had heard the message first hand was aging or dying off, and someone realized that a record should be made. How good or useful a record we got is the main question of debate.Agreed plus I don’t think Mark was writing for posterity. He was apparently writing for his own community. This view explains a lot of the problems with Mark that Matthew and Luke thought they were correcting.
Also we realize that the author of Daniel was writing in the shadow of the imminent apocalypse he expected in his day.
I’m not convinced of that. There were also people skeptical that the end would arrive soon in Thessalonica ~15 years earlier so there had to have been more skeptics by 70 CE. It was written 40 years after Jesus died (the generation he said would not pass) and after Christians were being scapegoated for the fires in Rome. Christians weren’t being taken seriously as a religion and needed a text to compete against the Jews. Perhaps the author(s) of Mark wasn’t the most talented (after all not many of the early Christians were from the elite class) and did the best he(they) could.
JAS said
I do not see how “having a text” successfully helps in competing “against the Jews”. I think it is clear that no one envisioned anything like the NT when the earliest books for it were written.
BDE discusses this in his books (wish I could remember which). Christians were at a disadvantage to Jews since they were claiming to be a continuation of an ancient religion (necessary for respect from the Romans), but didn’t have a written text of their own to prove it.
Think about it from Roman perspective: some upstart group is claiming they are the continuation of an ancient religion they tolerate, but have no evidence that it’s true except the books of the other religion and “stories” they tell each other. They simply wouldn’t be able to accept them as legitimate.
I’m not convinced of that. There were also people skeptical that the end would arrive soon in Thessalonica ~15 years earlier so there had to have been more skeptics by 70 CE. It was written 40 years after Jesus died (the generation he said would not pass) and after Christians were being scapegoated for the fires in Rome. Christians weren’t being taken seriously as a religion and needed a text to compete against the Jews. Perhaps the author(s) of Mark wasn’t the most talented (after all not many of the early Christians were from the elite class) and did the best he(they) could.
The Thessalonians weren’t worried the end wasn’t coming. They were worried that when it came their dead fellow believers would miss it. Belief in personal immortality wasn’t all that common in the ancient world and gentiles had a hard time with the idea of a bodily resurrection. (See Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.) Paul was providing relief and assurance.
The gospel of mark is thoroughly apocalyptic. The author was in an elite class simply because he could read and write.
Stephen said
I’m not convinced of that. There were also people skeptical that the end would arrive soon in Thessalonica ~15 years earlier so there had to have been more skeptics by 70 CE. It was written 40 years after Jesus died (the generation he said would not pass) and after Christians were being scapegoated for the fires in Rome. Christians weren’t being taken seriously as a religion and needed a text to compete against the Jews. Perhaps the author(s) of Mark wasn’t the most talented (after all not many of the early Christians were from the elite class) and did the best he(they) could.The Thessalonians weren’t worried the end wasn’t coming. They were worried that when it came their dead fellow believers would miss it. Belief in personal immortality wasn’t all that common in the ancient world and gentiles had a hard time with the idea of a bodily resurrection. (See Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.) Paul was providing relief and assurance.
The gospel of mark is thoroughly apocalyptic. The author was in an elite class simply because he could read and write.
Stephen said
I’m not convinced of that. There were also people skeptical that the end would arrive soon in Thessalonica ~15 years earlier so there had to have been more skeptics by 70 CE. It was written 40 years after Jesus died (the generation he said would not pass) and after Christians were being scapegoated for the fires in Rome. Christians weren’t being taken seriously as a religion and needed a text to compete against the Jews. Perhaps the author(s) of Mark wasn’t the most talented (after all not many of the early Christians were from the elite class) and did the best he(they) could.The Thessalonians weren’t worried the end wasn’t coming. They were worried that when it came their dead fellow believers would miss it. Belief in personal immortality wasn’t all that common in the ancient world and gentiles had a hard time with the idea of a bodily resurrection. (See Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.) Paul was providing relief and assurance.
The gospel of mark is thoroughly apocalyptic. The author was in an elite class simply because he could read and write.
I agree, although my guess is that if Paul doesn’t write to reassure them then they start to wonder about it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)