Kata Markon

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

Phil Campbell wrote:

> Antonio makes several interesting points here. One comment on the idea that
> the apocalyptic imagery of Mark 13 can't refer to "mundane" things like the
> cross and the destruction of Jerusalem... why are they so "mundane"?

Thanks for your answer, Phil. But I think we need more precision in the 
discussion¨.
I never claimed in my earlier message that none of the imagery in chapter 13 
refers
to "mundane", natural historical happenings. Lots of passages certainly do, 
like 13:9
which appear to point towards the trials of Paul and James and 13:14-20 which 
appear
to allude to the Jewish war. What I claimed was that a particular passage, 
Mark 13:24-27
(+ 13:28-37), is a metaphorical description of a supernatural event - the 
second coming of
Christ - that Mark and other Christians were still waiting for at the time 
the gospel was written

> 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 text
> 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 identified
> 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, I have absolutely nothing against people who have "sensitivity to the 
narrative".
I myself have a great interest in using narrative criticism in conjunction 
with other
tools like source criticism and form criticism. The problem is when you are 
so sensitive
that you start seeing links and threads in the texts that are not really 
there. I believe
your reading of  Mark 13:24-27 is such a case. Does really 13:24 have to 
point forward
to Jesus death at the cross just because the sun is also darkened in 15:33? 
C´mon, these
are standard litterary features in antique litterature. Great portents often 
were accompanied
by darkened skyes, such as the death of a hero and the apocalypse. This does 
not mean that
one event refers to another. The "stay awake and keep watch" motif in 13:33 
is another matter.
Here I think you have a point, although I believe you haven't quite come to 
the right conclusion.
The "keep awake" theme in the Gethsemane narrative is probably a reflection 
of the practice
of the earliest Christians who appeared to have held a vigil during Easter 
night to commemorate the
passion of Jesus and specially keep in mind that he was to return as the 
heavenly Son of Man in the
near future. In this sense you could say that the passion narrative links 
back to Mark 13:24-37 which
explicitely deals with the expectations Christians like Mark had each and 
every Easter. 
I'm not quite sure either that you have captured the essence of early 
Christian thought when you
claim that they saw the cross as "centrepoint of the apocalyptic battle 
between God and Satan". Maybe
that claim could be valid for the author of GJohn who in a sense sees Jesus 
death at the cross as his
greatest moment of glory and his enthronement. But even John knows that 
though Jesus may in a sense
already have vanquished Satan through the cross the ultimate victory will not 
be acomplished until
his second coming at the Parousia (John 5:24-30). I don't see any signs at 
all that Mark is trying to
portray Jesus death as a glorious event like John. On the contrary, Mark 
offers the bleakest and most
realistic picture of Jesus anguish and desolation. The cross was indeed 
important for Mark (since 
according to Mark and many other Christians God's salvific plan for mankind 
required that Jesus
blood must be shed), but it is not the climax of God's story - that is Jesus 
second coming in glory as
the heavenly son of Man. This is the event referred to in 13:24-37. Or do 
you, Phil, or others want
to claim that Mark didn't expect anything more from God than the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the
punishment of the Jews. Is this supposed to be the Victory of God? Quite a 
"Victory" indeed! 
No, Mark expected a lot more from God, and that expectation is aptly decribed 
in 13:24-37.
If you want a more detailed description of the events in Mark 13:24-37 you 
just have to turn to
another evangelist, Matthew, and Matt 24:29-25:46. In light of Matthew's 
additions and clarifications
in those passages I do not see how anybody can go around claiming that Mark 
13:24-37 is referring
to the destruction of Jerusalem or Jesus death on the cross. There is of 
course a possibility that Matthew
totally misunderstood what Mark was trying to say, but I doubt it very much. 
He was a lot closer to
Mark both in time and in worldview than either you, Phil, or I will ever be. 
So take a close look again at
Matt 24:29-25:46 and tell me in what way the metaphorical language and 
symbolism in scenes like
Matt 25:1-13 (The ten maidens) and 25:31-46 (The last judgement) even 
remotely refers to the destruction
of Jerusalem or Jesus death on the cross. What angers me so much about a 
scholar like NT Wright is that
he is so intent of proving his point that neither Jesus or the earliest 
Christians were really wrong in their
expectations about the Parousia that he spends over 600 pages on a book on 
Jesus rereading the evidence
in a very selective way without going to the bottom with the connections 
between Mark 13:24-37 and
Matt 24:29-25:46 and the light both evangelists cast on each other and the 
interpretation of the passages.
Don't do the same mistake!

In another message Phil Campbell wrote:

<Further, Steve's perplexity about the "angels" gathering the elect is easily
<addressed. Isn't that EXACTLY what the MESSENGERS of the gospel are sent out
<to do? This is the regathering of Israel as per the promise of Dt 30:1-6.

This is another instance were I can indulge in one of my favourite hobbies - 
bashing NT
Wright. Actually he proposes the same non-supernatural interpretation of Mark 
13:27
as Phil of the passage - the "angelos" are simply christian missionaries sent 
out all over
the world. This is a nonsensical reading and can easily be refuted on many 
grounds.
1. Do you find any other passage in the gospels where christian missionaries 
are called
"angelos". Isn't the simplest explantion that in apocalyptic jewish imagery 
"angelos" are
just that - supernatural beings called ANGELS? Or does Phil or NT Wright want 
to claim
that Mark did not believe in real angels flying trough the sky?
2. In what way can the destruction of Jerusalem be described as the start of 
the ingathering
of the people of God (the Christians) and the mission around the world by 
Christian missionaries?
We know and Mark must certainly have known that the Christian mission started 
long before
70 AD? Doesn't Acts and Paul's letters prove that. So why would any Christian 
gospel writer
in his right mind metaphorically claim that the mission started after 70 AD 
through a verse like
Mark 13:27.
3. Why not take a close look again at the parallel passages in Matthew. What 
light
does Matthew cast on the meaning of "angelos"? Where Christian missionaries 
regularly
sent out either before 70 AD or after that date by the sound of a heavenly 
"basoon"?

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg University, Sweden