Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: gmark digest: January 03, 2001

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Antonio Jerez" <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: gmark digest: January 03, 2001
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:03:09 +0100


Doug Jantz wrote:

> MY apologies. I forgot to leave off my sigfile at the end of my previous
> note.
> It is now off. Doug
>
> "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote:
>
> > Then too, the author of Mark certainly knew that the Son of Man
> > had not come apocalyptically by the time when he wrote. And I
> > take Mark to have been written after the destruction of the temple,
> > which explains why it plays such a crucial role in the account here.
> >
>
> I still have to ask and wonder about this. Does this "coming" have to be
> literal? Is it not a coming in judgment? I see in the OT several "comings"
> referring to judgment, not literal. The presence of Yahweh or Jesus was/is
> seen
> in the judgment on the wicked nation(s).

I have followed this thread of discussion with particular interest, since
gospel
of Mark and the authors apocalyptic ideas have always fascinated me. Before
I get embroiled myself in the discussion I would also like to admit that so
far my
sympathies are with Prof. Hurtado - his arguments are the most persuasive
and I also believe that he has put them forward in a more extensive manner in
his
excellent book/commentary on Mark.
That said I turn to the words by Doug Jantz. He asks why the second "coming"
(the Parousia) in Mark has to be taken literally. I agree with him that Mark
13:24-27
doesn't have to be taken literally, nor should it. But then an important
distinction
has to made. Does the fact that everything in Mark 13:24-27 doesn't have to
be taken
literally mean that Jesus (or the author of GMark - which I deem is much more
probable) is just talking about mundane, wordly, non-supernatural happenings
like the destruction of Jerusalem, the punishment of the Jews by the romans or
Jesus death on the cross (a hypothesis put forward by somebody on the list,
but
actually already there to read years ago in Ched Myers "Binding the strong
man".
(A book that I might add is in my opinion is one of the most nonsensical ever
written
on GMark - specially when it comes to decoding Mark's apocalyptic worldview).
Of course not. Despite the efforts of scholars like Ched Myers and NT Wright
to
read new things into the apocalyptic imagery of Mark and the other synoptic
writers
I think he fail in their argumentation. As a non-religious historian I smell
too much of
apologetics and discomfort with traditional readings of Mark 13:24-27 et.al
in their
positions. NT Wright claims that NO firstcentury Jew would have taken a
passage like
the one in question literally, a claim which was patently absurd when he
wrote it years
ago and hasn't become less absurd after the evidence to the contrary that
Dale Allison
unearthed in "Jesus - millenarian prophet". Wright claims that Mark 13:24-27
is a metaphorical
description of God's punishment on the Jewish people and specially the
destruction of
Jerusalem. I happen to disagree. The fact that Mark is in a sense using
metaphorical imagery
in 13:24-27 does not therefore mean that these verses are solely referring to
wordly, non-
supernatural happenings. Many apocalyptic-minded Jews in the first century
appear to
have taken the "prophecies" in Daniel 7 in a quite literall manner as
referring to God's
supernatural intervention at the End Time (which of course doesn't mean that
the author
of the book of Daniel took his own imagery literally or that all firstcentury
Jews took it
literally). One of those apocalyptic-minded Jews was the author of GMark (+
his collegues
Matthew, Luke). The message he wanted to transmit to his audience through
verses like
Mark 13:24-27 was that though they may have been persecuted and would probably
suffer more hardships as Christians they have nothing to fear since the
resurrected Jesus
has shown himself to be the heavenly Son of Man prophecized about by Daniel
(in combination
with the Suffering Servant prophecized about by Isaiah). As the heavenly Son
of Man Jesus
will return on the day of the Parousia (which is not the same thing as the
destruction of
Jerusalem) and wreck God's ultimate vengeance on both Jew's and heathens,
while God's
people (the Church) will have their ultimate reward and be clothed in
heavenly bodies and
gain everlasting life. This may not be the scenario for the End Time most
Christians believe
in today, but it was definitely the scenario Mark, Matthew, Luke, Paul and
other early Christians
with roots not far from the early Jerusalem Church fervently believed in and
hoped for.
It might also be helpful for the discussion not to focus solely on Mark 13
but also on the
way Matthew and Luke alter Mark's apocalyptic scheme. Luke, if anybody, does
appear
to have been keenly aware about the real meaning of the Parousia and does his
best to distance
the destruction of Jerusalem from the stillawaited and non-fulfilled return
of Jesus as the
heavenly Son of Man. Also take a closer look at Luke 17 where the author
deals with the
ridicule heaped by contemporary Jews on the Christians non-fullfilled
expectations and
the disappointment and doubts many Christians were having at the time Luke
wrote his
gospel (probably around 100 AD).
I could also add that my studies have led me to the conviction that not a
single
word in Mark 13 (the little Apocalypse) goes back to the historical Jesus.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Göteborg, Sweden





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page