Kata Markon

["Professor L.W. Hurtado" <hurtadol AT div.ed.ac.uk>]

Stever Black wrote:
>perhaps we can read the
> passages that are suggesting that the end is not yet as a way of dealing
> with past (for Mark) disappointments regarding the parousia's delay -
> which may have been experienced in his communities history. Now (for
> Mark)m the destruction ( or even the eminent destruction) of the temple
> suggests the real end. As if he were saying, "I know that you all thought
> it was going to happen in the past, and it didn't. This time, however,
> prophesy is fulfilled, and it will really happen. In other words a way of
> legitimizing what may of been de-legitamized by previous disappointments.
> Does that make sense? Any comments?
At the risk of taxing the patience of this list, I reiterate (and clarify) 
an earlier point:  Mark 13 does *not* (in my view) make the temple-
destruction *the* sign of the end.  The whole thrust of 13:14-20 is 
(a) when "the desolating sacrilege" happens, simply take evasive 
action such as one ordinarily takes in war-time (get the hell out of 
the way!  flee to the mountains, etc., and hope that it isn't in winter 
and pity those with infants, etc.), and (b) don't believe those who 
say "he's here" or shows "signs and wonders to deceive the elect" 
(v. 21-22).  I.e., the whole thrust is to *de-apocalypticize* the 
temple-destruction.  It is only well *after* an indefinite (but 
*prolonged*) time of great suffering (v. 20) that the apocalyptic 
events will take place (v. 24)
The only condition for (and thus sign of) the end mentioned in Mark 
13 is the proclamation to all nations (v. 10).  
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  L.Hurtado AT ed.ac.uk