The generational prophecy.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Re:

Post by neilgodfrey »

hakeem wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:07 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:07 am
JoeWallack wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:19 pmWhat is extant is Paul, a major source for GMark, who famously predicted that Jesus' Kingdom would come near to Paul's time. GMark was written about two generations after Paul wrote, again indicating that "Mark" only intended the literal fulfillment of 9:1 within his narrative.
Even though Paul wrote around 20 years after the purported transfiguration event?
gMark does not claim Jesus' Kingdom would come near to Paul's time.
I don't argue otherwise.

hakeem wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:07 am The Epistles could not have been a source for gMark ......
Funny coincidence but I have just been reading an article arguing that the author of Mark's Gospel even used 2 Thessalonians!

Bacon, B. W. (1909). The Apocalyptic Chapter of the Synoptic Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 28(1), 1–25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4617101

We seem to fluctuate wildly between seeing our GMark as a redactional product of something composed some years, even decades, earlier, on the one hand, and as a composition worth studying as if it were as it is now so it was from the beginning, on the other.

It's a complex question. The danger lies in oversimplifying it.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:50 am neil
I may have missed it, but has anyone attempted to explain how Jesus prophecy that the high priest would see Jesus coming in glory on clouds fits in with the question of the OP? Or if it doesn't have relevance, why it doesn't?
It came up recently in a related thread, IIRC.

Accepting the premise that Jesus is placing a time limit, I believe I remarked that since Mark's Jesus is on record as teaching that there are two kinds of death (the recruting speech that climaxes in the prophecy of 9:1; I might also have added that he accepts a general resurrection which undoes natural death, 12:18ff), Jesus' prophecy to the high priest, even taken literally, doesn't necessarily limit the glorious event to the priest's natural lifetime (nor that of the court members collectively; the verb is plural).

One could also reject the premise, and hold instead that the sense of sight may idiomatically refer to any cognitive apprehension whatsoever. As Wolfgang Pauli might have put it, such common-as-dirt usage is not even figurative.

One could also reject that "you'll see" is tightly bound to the specific second person(s) being addressed, or that it conveys anything at all except the speaker's confidence in the prediction being made, despite whatever disagreement might obtain. Whether those kinds of usage are better classified as figurative or idiomatic is above my pay grade.
I'm not quite sure I follow the details. Were you the only one to address this question? Was there anyone else with another or similar perspective?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

neil
Were you the only one to address this question? Was there anyone else with another or similar perspective?
The thread I was thinking of is the one linked with in the OP of this thread. The specific post of mine that I remembered is apparently this one,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3804&start=90#p81440

which comes pretty much in the middle of that respectably lengthy thread. A quick keyword search for priest on the pages that followed the post didn't turn up anything relevant, but I didn't reread the whole thread carefully.

The main issue I discussed about the priest in the above post, that Jesus' teaching of a general resurrection (or about two kinds of death) would complicate natural-lifespan-deadline interpretations of his references to human mortality, was kicked around from a variety of perspectives by others in the thread. What goes for 9:1 and chapter 13 goes for the priest as well, IMO.

Hope that helps.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Re:

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:07 am The Epistles could not have been a source for gMark ......
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:50 am
Funny coincidence but I have just been reading an article arguing that the author of Mark's Gospel even used 2 Thessalonians!

Bacon, B. W. (1909). The Apocalyptic Chapter of the Synoptic Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 28(1), 1–25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4617101

We seem to fluctuate wildly between seeing our GMark as a redactional product of something composed some years, even decades, earlier, on the one hand, and as a composition worth studying as if it were as it is now so it was from the beginning, on the other.

It's a complex question. The danger lies in oversimplifying it.
Quite a co-incidence indeed!!! I have read that 2 Thessalonians is regarded as a forgery so may not have been written before gMark.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:02 amThe specific post of mine that I remembered is apparently this one,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3804&start=90#p81440

which comes pretty much in the middle of that respectably lengthy thread. A quick keyword search for priest on the pages that followed the post didn't turn up anything relevant, but I didn't reread the whole thread carefully.

The main issue I discussed about the priest in the above post, that Jesus' teaching of a general resurrection (or about two kinds of death) would complicate natural-lifespan-deadline interpretations of his references to human mortality, was kicked around from a variety of perspectives by others in the thread. What goes for 9:1 and chapter 13 goes for the priest as well, IMO.
From that post:
And finally there's 9:1, which, when crisply separated from the rest of the speech of which it is the conclusion, sounds like a relatively clear scheduling announcement.
That would be because it is a relatively clear scheduling announcement; and the schedule that it announces is the same as the schedule announced at Mark 13.30.
However, it concludes a speech which teaches that there are two kinds of death (8:35). One kind is apparently plain language mortality and the other is something else. If you plain-language die in the line of duty, then you don't die the other way.

If anybody standing there subsequently died in the line of duty, then 9:1 in context is in the process of fulfilment. Since Christians believe that lots of people have died in the line of duty, no issue arises among the pious about whether Jesus' statement is false. Lots of people have saved their (second type) lives, and now await the glory event.
The prediction has the glory event either coming before the tasting of death or supplanting the tasting of death entirely; Christians dying and then experiencing glory (or, worse, still waiting to experience glory) reverses this sequence: first they die, and only then do they experience glory.
Oddly, however, there is now that chapter boundary which invites some readers to view the statement apart from the rest of the speech. The chapter boundary was put there by some Christian. Except for the chapter boundary, there would be no question of Jesus having made a scheduling forecast; the meaning would clearly be what it is and has always been for the "start at the beginning and read through to the end" listener....
There is no chapter boundary before Matthew 16.28, and yet the verse is still a scheduling announcement.
...that some people will avoid an extranatural kind of death by naturally dying according to the approved practice.
What does this mean?
Forecasts simply are not the only variety of future contingency statements. For example, Jonah wasn't a false prophet, he just failed to realize until afterwards that he was delivering an ultimatum, rather than a forecast.
Everything is clear in Jonah. In 3.10 God changes his mind; it is laid out explicitly. Whoever wrote the book had no problem with God changing his mind (something which is found in many of the Hebrew books). In fact, God changing his mind (out of mercy), along with the consequent need for humans to do the same, is one of the main points of the book, as chapter 4 drives home. There is no need for exegetical acrobatics in Jonah as there evidently is for the generational prediction.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by robert j »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:49 pm The prediction in 1 Thessalonians, however, is mitigated by what I take to be an interpolation in 5.1-11. The relevant portion is:

1 Thessalonians 5.1-2: 1 Now as to the times and the seasons [τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν], brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

I don’t think 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 is an interpolation because it fits so well in the wider context of the letter.

In this situation, as is often the case, I think reducing Paul’s theological machinations to a secondary position in favor of a human and cultural framework can provide a fruitful approach.

As I have argued before, each of Paul’s congregations had their own “personality”.

The Philippians liked Paul and he liked them. They faced some persecution (Philippians 1:28), but it was apparently not particularly severe. They were adequately prosperous to provide Paul with support (Philippians 4:10-19), even when he was in Thessalonica (Philippians 4:16), Corinth (2 Corinthians 11:9), and likely in Ephesus as well. Their economic position would likely provide them with a relatively secure social status.

The Corinthians, though not prone to compensate Paul, were sophisticated and prosperous. They likely enjoyed a fair amount of social status and there is no hint they suffered any significant persecution.

The Thessalonians, in contrast, experienced significant persecution (1 Thessalonians 1:6 and 3:3). Paul apparently spent a significant amount of time evangelizing among them, but had to find work (1 Thessalonians 2:9) and to rely on the Philippians for support (Philippians 4:16). Paul had to encourage them to work (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14) and his tone in the letter sounds to me as how one might talk to children.

I think the letter reveals that the Thessalonians were poorly educated, and were disadvantaged with a relatively low position of economic and social status. As in most societies, from a country to a middle-school, those of lower social status are always more vulnerable to being picked-on.

The Thessalonians glommed-on to Paul’s teaching that the Lord was coming soon to rescue them from their lowly and difficult lives. They took it quite seriously and some apparently stopped working or slacked-off. They were ready to be rescued by the heavenly Lord and they wanted it now.

Applying a cynical interpretation (justifiably I think), Paul took advantage of their vulnerabilities. He stoked their vulnerabilities with his most fantastical version of the parousia --- with the Lord arriving on a cloud with the trumpet of God and the voice of an archangel to sweep them all away into the heavens (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

But Paul, in the form of a reminder, needed to temper their expectations of an immediate rescue, or even one very soon --- starting with the verse in question here as a fitting transition and introduction, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2, for the entire pericope continuing through 5:10.

Paul encouraged them to work hard (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14) ---- getting to the crux here --- so they could pay him (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).


nota Ben --- I haven’t forgot about your comments on the period of time that Jesus suffered and died as found in Paul’s letters --- I intend to get back to that issue when I can.
Last edited by robert j on Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Ben
That would be because it is a relatively clear scheduling announcement; and the schedule that it announces is the same as the schedule announced at Mark 13.30.
Yes, when the chapter boundary is in place, I agree. Without the chapter boundary (that is, as Mark presumably wrote it), it is a fitting climax to a continuous hortatory speech from somebody who has just told us that he doesn't look upon natural death as the end of personal experience.
The prediction has the glory event either coming before the tasting of death or supplanting the tasting of death entirely; Christians dying and then experiencing glory (or, worse, still waiting to experience glory) reverses this sequence: first they die, and only then do they experience glory.
To taste death (compare to smell divorce) is an empty figure, with the same semantic status as an oxymoron: inherently meaningless (I cannot infer what it means from what the component words mean), but as with any string, I could define the string to mean something if I wished. No surprise that a realsitically drawn professional prophet doesn't define his terms, any more than he sets verifiable deadlines for his "predictions."
There is no chapter boundary before Matthew 16.28, and yet the verse is still a scheduling announcement.
It is no part of my argument that Mark and Matthew had identical goals for their writing.
What does this mean?
It is what I think "whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it" means (8:35). I take "loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel" to correspond with my "naturally dying according to the approved practice," and "will save it" to correspond with my "will avoid an extranatural kind of death."
God changes his mind; it is laid out explicitly.
When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.

Very well, then, if you prefer not to see the incident as a successful ultimatum, then God himself doesn't know his own mind, nor how people will respond to his revelations. Either way, divine ultimatum or divine ignorance, truly does the king prophesy, in the preceding verse:

God may again repent and turn from his blazing wrath, so that we will not perish.

That has some significance for confidently explaining the idea that God is the only one who "knows" the schedule. And it doesn't make Jonah a false prophet, which was the topical issue to which I spoke. He accurately reports the then-current state of God's estimate of what the future will be like, which (under your analysis) has no necessary relationship to what will actually happen.
There is no need for exegetical acrobatics in Jonah as there evidently is for the generational prediction.
What acrobatics? What the king said; verbatim.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Re:

Post by neilgodfrey »

hakeem wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:31 am
hakeem wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:07 am The Epistles could not have been a source for gMark ......
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:50 am
Funny coincidence but I have just been reading an article arguing that the author of Mark's Gospel even used 2 Thessalonians!

Bacon, B. W. (1909). The Apocalyptic Chapter of the Synoptic Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 28(1), 1–25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4617101

We seem to fluctuate wildly between seeing our GMark as a redactional product of something composed some years, even decades, earlier, on the one hand, and as a composition worth studying as if it were as it is now so it was from the beginning, on the other.

It's a complex question. The danger lies in oversimplifying it.
Quite a co-incidence indeed!!! I have read that 2 Thessalonians is regarded as a forgery so may not have been written before gMark.
2 Thess was not written by Paul or the author of 1 Thess. That does not preclude the possibility of it being written before Mark, though.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:55 amTo taste death (compare to smell divorce) is an empty figure, with the same semantic status as an oxymoron: inherently meaningless (I cannot infer what it means from what the component words mean), but as with any string, I could define the string to mean something if I wished. No surprise that a realsitically drawn professional prophet doesn't define his terms, any more than he sets verifiable deadlines for his "predictions."
To "taste of death" is just an Hebraic idiom. To "taste" in general is an idiom for experiencing something (so is to "see"):

Psalm 34.8 (33.9 LXX): 8 O taste and see [γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε] that the Lord is good; how blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!

1 Peter 2.3: 3 ...if you have tasted [ἐγεύσασθε] the kindness of the Lord.

And to "taste of death" is just one facet of that idiom:

Hebrews 2.9: 9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death [γεύσηται θανάτου] for everyone.

John 8.51-52: 51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death [γεύσηται θανάτου].’"

Genesis Rabbah 21.5.2: Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Hanina: It was like Elijah. Just as this one never tasted the taste of death, so that one never was supposed to taste the taste of death.

Sibylline Oracles 1.101-103: 101 And Hades then received them; it was called 102 Hades since Adam, having tasted death [γευσάμενος θανάτου], 103 went first and earth encompassed him around.

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Acts 2, Scene 2: The valiant never taste of death but once.

Herbert Basser & Marsha B. Cohen: The expression "taste death" is a common Talmudic form appearing some thirty times.... [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=7DRzB ... 22&f=false.]

The rest of your analysis seems to rest either upon precisely this fundamental misunderstanding of the text or upon misunderstandings of a similar caliber.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The generational prophecy.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Ben
To "taste of death" is just a Hebraic idiom.
To be an idiom does not imply being well defined, or having any fixed or precise meaning.

Consider your English example:
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Acts 2, Scene 2: The valiant never taste of death but once.
So, Shakespeare's meaning, in your view, is that the valiant die exactly as many times as everybody else dies?

Few examples could be clearer that to taste of death is not synonymous with to die.
The rest of your analysis seems to rest either upon precisely this fundamental misunderstanding of the text or upon misunderstandings of a similar caliber.
Your opinion of me is not the topic.
Post Reply