Jesus in the 30's ad

[Tenorikuma]

IMO, the 1 Thessalonians letter shows the expectations of Paul and his crew for the imminent arrival of the Lord.

Burton Mack actually argues against this interpretation, although I'm not really swayed by his position.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't understand why a literal interpretation is the default for Mark 13's references to cosmic turmoil and the Son of Man's descent when their antecedents in Isaiah 13 and 2 Samuel 22 etc etc (with the same imagery of heavens being shaken and the description of God coming down in the clouds) are never interpreted literally.

That is a great point, Neil. The Jewish scriptures are full of apocalyptic imagery that was intended to be interpreted in socio-political terms, not in terms of a literal end to the physical world. (2 Samuel 22 = Psalm 18 has long been my go-to passage for demonstrating this to those who are skeptical of the concept.)

If we interpret Mark 13 the way we interpret -- and the way we can be pretty sure the original audiences interpreted -- Isaiah 13 and 2 Sam 22 etc, then the simple fact of the destruction of Judean state and survival of Christians fulfils the prophecy of what that generation was to witness.

While agreeing with you regarding the overall nature of the symbolism, I myself am not certain that the predicted realities symbolized by Mark 13.24-27 can be said to have been fulfilled at any time while Christians were still scattered about, subject to ostracization and persecution. What, in other words, is Mark pretending to have Jesus predict in these terms that was the case after Jerusalem fell but was not the case before it fell? Is there any sense in which the elect might be said to have been gathered, for example, after the fall of Jerusalem but not before? (Preterist theologians have made a case for such fulfillments in Christianity itself, whether as the church triumphant or as the church persecuted, but I have always found them a bit wanting; the events these symbolic images point to seem to me to be intended, not only as judgment on the temple, but also as a very public vindication of the elect in socio-political terms; it seems to me to mean more than the mere survival of Christianity.)

Mark 13.24 inserts a gap after the abomination of desolation and the accompanying tribulation and before the final round of predictions (son of man coming, the elect gathered). To me, at present, it makes sense to suppose that the author is writing in that gap, with the destruction of the temple behind him but the other predictions still unfulfilled, yet near (13.29). For me, then, the main issue is how long we can imagine that gap lasting before the author has to write something other than what we see before us in Mark.

I am all ears, however, when it comes to interpretations of Mark 13.24-27 that find complete fulfillment somehow before someone like Constantine comes along.

Ben.

[neilgodfrey]

^Paul and members of the Thessalonian congregation seem to have taken it literally, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 4.

What is the argument to explain 1 Thessalonians 4 as a derivative of a genuinely pre 40s prophecy by Jesus that eventually leapfrogged to the Mark 13 format?

[Peter Kirby]

^Paul and members of the Thessalonian congregation seem to have taken it literally, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 4.

What is the argument to explain 1 Thessalonians 4 as a derivative of a genuinely pre 40s prophecy by Jesus that eventually leapfrogged to the Mark 13 format?

Good point. Paul does refer to the temple cult but does so in a sense of the ongoing present (in 1 Cor and Rom), with absolutely no hint that he expected it to cease. Neither do the letters of Paul anticipate that the 'parousia' will be preceded by the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Indeed the saying about it arriving like a thief in the night appears in 1 These, albeit without attribution to Jesus. And this is not the kind of thing that was easily forgotten, easily omitted, or readily suppressed with any real expected probability.

Which implies, if there were a HJ known to Paul, that HJ probably did not predict the temple's destruction.

[neilgodfrey]

Which implies, if there were a HJ known to Paul, that HJ probably did not predict the temple's destruction.

A simpler explanation and one consistent with other content in Paul's letters is that the revelation of the Christ in visions (and in scriptures?) and charismatically preached (with various "signs") was the sign of the imminent real appearance of that figure.

[neilgodfrey]

While agreeing with you regarding the overall nature of the symbolism, I myself am not certain that the predicted realities symbolized by Mark 13.24-27

I don't like those verses. They give me headaches and ache my eyes with more reading. I will have to refresh my memory of Hanhart and other suggestions before replying, or maybe just pass for now.

Meanwhile, recall that the Maccabean rule can be described thus:

Dan 7:26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

[toejam]

^Paul and members of the Thessalonian congregation seem to have taken it literally, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 4.

What is the argument to explain 1 Thessalonians 4 as a derivative of a genuinely pre 40s prophecy by Jesus that eventually leapfrogged to the Mark 13 format?

You're missing the point. This isn't really about historical Jesus vs. mythical Jesus. The point is that Paul and the Thessalonians seemed to think the arrival of some heavenly figure to gather the elect was imminent. Mark 13 predicts the same. To me, this throws a spanner in the works of the idea that the "this generation" stuff was used by post-70CE proto-Christians to invent a Jesus to have lived in the 30s. Post-70CE proto-Christians may well have done that, but I don't think the "this generation"-as-retrojection argument is strong enough to show it. If the early post-70CE Christians did that, I don't see why they would put the prophecy of the elect gathering on Jesus' lips, given that they knew it didn't happen. It seems more likely to me that Mark is taking over an earlier tradition of which there was a "this generation" prophecy associated. And I think the original "this generation" prophecy was what Paul and his congregation were waiting on in 1 Thessalonians 4 (hence the concern by his congregation as to what is to happen to believers who have died before it has happened). It doesn't matter whether this prophecy was derived from a historical Jesus or a 'revelation' by a cosmic-Jesus (under the Carrier/Doherty model). The point is the "this generation" / imminence motif seems to predate the temple's destruction. And if that's the case, then that bungles the idea that Jesus was placed in the 20s/30s based on 70-40=30. When the temple was destroyed, the Christians took this as a sign that their imminence predictions were coming to pass. But was the temple's destruction specifically part of the original prophecy? Maybe, maybe not. Mark seems to be trying to square that - trying to include the temple's destruction into the "this generation" prophecies that predate him. At least that's the way I see it.

[Peter Kirby]

Which implies, if there were a HJ known to Paul, that HJ probably did not predict the temple's destruction.

A simpler explanation and one consistent with other content in Paul's letters is that the revelation of the Christ in visions (and in scriptures?) and charismatically preached (with various "signs") was the sign of the imminent real appearance of that figure.

I did not mean to exclude that explanation (or any other compatible explanation) with the statement "... if there were ... that HJ probably did not predict the temple's destruction." I did not even intend to provide an explanation by the statement.

[Ben C. Smith]

While agreeing with you regarding the overall nature of the symbolism, I myself am not certain that the predicted realities symbolized by Mark 13.24-27

I don't like those verses. They give me headaches and ache my eyes with more reading. I will have to refresh my memory of Hanhart and other suggestions before replying, or maybe just pass for now.

Fair enough.

Meanwhile, recall that the Maccabean rule can be described thus:

Dan 7:26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

Right. Maccabean rule. The end of Seleucid rule and the beginning of native Jewish rule. I agree that Mark 13.24-27 is probably referring to something socio-political like this, but something in clear favor and vindication of the elect.

Ben.

[neilgodfrey]

Which implies, if there were a HJ known to Paul, that HJ probably did not predict the temple's destruction.

A simpler explanation and one consistent with other content in Paul's letters is that the revelation of the Christ in visions (and in scriptures?) and charismatically preached (with various "signs") was the sign of the imminent real appearance of that figure.

I did not mean to exclude that explanation (or any other compatible explanation) with the statement "... if there were ... that HJ probably did not predict the temple's destruction." I did not even intend to provide an explanation by the statement.

I know -- I didn't mean to come across as suggesting anything like that. Was only using your comment as a springboard to my own afterthought -- which no doubt is not original, either, and not intended to imply anything amiss with your own words. Just responding as in a conversation....

Appears I may have things to learn about exchanges in a forum of this format.