Kata Markon

["Phil Campbell" <philcam AT tpg.com.au>]

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by buffy.tpgi.com.au id 
PAA11358

Antonio makes several interesting points here. One comment on the idea th=
at
the apocalyptic imagery of Mark 13 can't refer to "mundane" things like t=
he
cross and the destruction of Jerusalem... why are they so "mundane"?
Particularly as in early Christian thought, the cross is seen to be the
centrepoint of the apocalyptic battle between God and Satan. Besides this=
,
when I introduced the idea in this discussion thread that the Mark 13 tex=
t
was pointing ahead to the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem, I
identified NARRATIVE CLUES in the gmark text that gave rise to this.  It'=
s
all very well to say "first centry Christians believed THIS so it must be
THIS..." - but there are so many narrative links from Mark 13 to the
following chapters that there MUST be continuity of thought. Especially
notice the time notes - will it be cock-crow, dawn etc - are ALL identifi=
ed
in the following narrative, leaving the reader asking "is it going to be
NOW?" The "stay awake and keep watch" motif is another from Mark 13 that =
is
picked up almost immediately in the Gethsemane narrative. There are more.

Is sensitivity to the narrative no longer in fashion?

Phil Campbell










----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Jerez" <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, 5 January 2001 9:03 am
Subject: [gmark] Re: gmark digest: January 03, 2001


> 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 t=
o
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, sin=
ce
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 tha=
t
so far my
> sympathies are with Prof. Hurtado - his arguments are the most persuasi=
ve
> and I also believe that he has put them forward in a more extensive man=
ner
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 importan=
t
distinction
> has to made. Does the fact that everything in Mark 13:24-27 doesn't hav=
e
to be taken
> literally mean that Jesus (or the author of GMark - which I deem is muc=
h
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 str=
ong
man".
> (A book that I might add is in my opinion is one of the most nonsensica=
l
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 h=
e
wrote it years
> ago and hasn't become less absurd after the evidence to the contrary th=
at
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 referr=
ing
to wordly, non-
> supernatural happenings. Many apocalyptic-minded Jews in the first cent=
ury
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 GMar=
k
(+ his collegues
> Matthew, Luke). The message he wanted to transmit to his audience throu=
gh
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 heavenl=
y
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 heathen=
s,
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 mo=
st
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 do=
es
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 autho=
r
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 L=
uke
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 Jes=
us.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Antonio Jerez
> G=F6teborg, Sweden
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: phil AT mpc.org.au
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>