Let the reader understand... Again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

The only other option (to me) seems to be to say that Jesus was a prophet and Mark recorded his words (via Peter?). But what about seeing the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with his angels? If the prophet angle is true in these other respects, maybe Jesus was right about that too, given what Josephus says in War 6.5.3:
...a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
But what about the rest of the End Time stuff, like Hegesippus mentions in his account of the grandson's of Jesus' brother Judas in the time of Domitian:
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.


What about that kind of stuff?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

Now that I think about it, isn't Matthew (or whoever translated the original Hebrew Matthew into Greek and combined it with Mark) proof that "let the reader understand" (whether you think they are Mark's words or Jesus' words) means "let the reader of Daniel understand," since they appear to be a reader of Daniel who "understands" what the abomination that causes desolation means?
So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand ...
Last edited by John2 on Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

What would have been the point of Mark having Jesus say "let the reader understand" if what was to be understood was what detail of operations in the siege/destruction of Jerusalem was meant? Doesn't that make it all a bit of a puzzle or game for the sake of having a bit of a puzzle of game to entertain or mystify readers? Why not simply spell it out if it wasn't a statue in the temple (if it were a statue in the temple a la Antiochus then it begging the reader to understand would be silly since the abomination was obvious).

By the way, you'd think Jesus would have had a bit more foresight than to tell people to flee from Jerusalem after they had already fled there as refugees from the advancing Roman army.
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: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:33 pm Now that I think about it, isn't Matthew (or whoever translated the original Hebrew Matthew into Greek and combined it with Mark) proof that "let the reader understand" (whether you think they are Mark's words or Jesus' words) means "let the reader of Daniel understand," since they appear to be a reader of Daniel who "understands" what the abomination that causes desolation means?
Proof? Do you mean proof of Mark's intention? No, of course not, since Greek Matthew may have misunderstood Mark in the same way that modern readers misunderstand Mark (we cannot all be right about "let the reader understand," after all).

I personally think that Matthew took Mark's enigmatic "let the reader understand" as a sign that readers might not understand, and sought to clarify as best he could by making explicit that Daniel is the source of the allusion.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

By the way, you'd think Jesus would have had a bit more foresight than to tell people to flee from Jerusalem after they had already fled there as refugees from the advancing Roman army.
I suppose Jerusalem may be implied by "when you see the abomination," but the command to flee is directed to "those who are in Judea."
When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:04 pmI suppose Jerusalem may be implied by "when you see the abomination," but the command to flee is directed to "those who are in Judea."
I have elsewhere explained Judea being used here by way of the Maccabean connection: Mattathias and his sons were not in Jerusalem when they fled to the mountains, leaving all they had behind them. They were in Modin. Hence, "those in Judea," not "those in Jerusalem." Mattathias was the model.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

Proof? Do you mean proof of Mark's intention? No, of course not, since Greek Matthew may have misunderstood Mark in the same way that modern readers misunderstand Mark (we cannot all be right about "let the reader understand," after all).

I personally think that Matthew took Mark's enigmatic "let the reader understand" as a sign that readers might not understand, and sought to clarify as best he could by making explicit that Daniel is the source of the allusion.
Well, I did say Matthew seems to be guessing what it means. ("Matthew and Luke (apparently) have different "guesses" ...)
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:07 pm
Proof? Do you mean proof of Mark's intention? No, of course not, since Greek Matthew may have misunderstood Mark in the same way that modern readers misunderstand Mark (we cannot all be right about "let the reader understand," after all).

I personally think that Matthew took Mark's enigmatic "let the reader understand" as a sign that readers might not understand, and sought to clarify as best he could by making explicit that Daniel is the source of the allusion.
Well, I did say Matthew seems to be guessing what it means. ("Matthew and Luke (apparently) have different "guesses" ...)
I agree.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

Neil wrote:
By the way, you'd think Jesus would have had a bit more foresight than to tell people to flee from Jerusalem after they had already fled there as refugees from the advancing Roman army.
I've been thinking about this. Let's say the "abomination" is Titus (or, from what I imagine could have been Jesus' point of view if he did have prophetic foresight, any future Antiochus-like Roman ruler). If this were the case, then to me Jesus would effectively be saying, When you see Titus (whether you are in Jerusalem or not), get out Judea. (And if you were in Jerusalem when you saw Titus, you would still have a chance to get out, as per Josephus above.)

This seems to be more or less what happened (whether Jesus predicted it or not), i.e., there were people in Judea who fled to the mountains (such as Masada) when Titus arrived.

And there appear to be strong similarities between Daniel's "abomination" and Titus.

Mk. 13:14:
When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Dan. 9:27:
And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
Dan. 11:31:
His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
War 6.6.1:
And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.


War 6.6.2:
I [Titus] then came to this city ... I exhorted you to leave off these proceedings before I began this war; I spared you even when you had fought against me a great while; I gave my right hand as security to the deserters ... they fled to me ... I allowed you a quiet exit out of it ... I gave you leave to fight in another place.
And maybe Matthew (or the translator of the original Hebrew Matthew) and Luke were right in their "guesses" too. The "abomination" is in Daniel and did pertain to "the holy place" (as per Matthew), and it also had something to do with Jerusalem being surrounded by armies (as per Luke, even if he didn't pick up on the reference to Daniel or, if he did, did not care to point it out for some reason).

In any event, whether it is due to Jesus being an actual prophet or making a lucky guess, or because they are Mark's words written after the 66-70 CE war, the "abomination" sounds like Titus to me.
Last edited by John2 on Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

One thing I don't understand is why anyone has ever cared where Jews like to cook food. Nowadays I guess I can understand it, given the presence of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and the idea that sacrifices can be done only in that particular spot, but I think sacrifices could be made more or less anywhere you put an ark in Israel (or anywhere God chooses "to put his name"), such as Shiloh. I think Shiloh would be a great place to build another Temple today, since there are only ruins there now.

https://biblewalks.com/sites/shiloh.html

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/4817 ... d-samaria/#/
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply