Kata Markon

["Antonio Jerez" <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>]

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