Fleeing multiple times is not multiple fulfillments of the vaticinium ex eventu prophecy but all part of the time (singular extended period) of tribulation.
Right, I don't see why multiple flights, on the hypothetical Ben proposes, would be a problem for the persecution hypothesis.
Sorry, Ken. I interrupted....
.
It's not a private conversation. Actually, it's nice to know that someone else is following the thread and Ben and I haven't (yet) exhausted everyone's interest on the topic.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:00 pmI don't see why multiple flights, on the hypothetical Ben proposes, would be a problem for the persecution hypothesis.
Because, on my best reading of the text, "those days" (of tribulation) are inaugurated by the event which precipitates the flight:
Mark 13.14-20: 14 "But when [ὅταν] you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then [τότε] let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 And let him who is on the housetop not go down, or enter in, to get anything out of his house; 16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak. 17 But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days! 18 And pray that it may not happen in the winter. 19 For [γάρ] those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, and never shall. 20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days."
So, if the event which inaugurates the tribulation happens twice, that makes two tribulations. If it happens thrice, three tribulations. If there is more than one potential abomination of desolation in view, then more than one potential tribulation is in view; but verse 19 rules out more than one.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That does seem simple. Too simple for me, given that "let the reader understand" sounds like it should not be quite that simple. You and I both have pointed out in various ways how very Danielic the time period in question was. Mark rarely names or points out the scriptural sources of other allusions in his gospel; why this one? Could it have been any clearer already that "the abomination of desolation" was an allusion to Daniel and to 1 Maccabees?
But isn't Mark writing for people who don't know much about Judaism, e,g., 7:3-4 ("The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles)? If this is so, why would he expect his readers (as opposed to those who heard Jesus, who probably would know) to understand that the abomination that causes desolation is in Daniel?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
That does seem simple. Too simple for me, given that "let the reader understand" sounds like it should not be quite that simple. You and I both have pointed out in various ways how very Danielic the time period in question was. Mark rarely names or points out the scriptural sources of other allusions in his gospel; why this one? Could it have been any clearer already that "the abomination of desolation" was an allusion to Daniel and to 1 Maccabees?
But isn't Mark writing for people who don't know much about Judaism, e,g., 7:3-4 ("The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles)? If this is so, why would he expect his readers (as opposed to those who heard Jesus, who probably would know) to understand that the abomination that causes desolation is in Daniel?
If Mark's purpose here is to point to Daniel, then why does he not actually point to Daniel?
Matthew did; he wrote of "the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet."
But Mark does not do this. He instead mysteriously says, "Let the reader understand." Why do that instead of asking the reader to consult Daniel? What is the point of leaving out Daniel's name?
If Mark's purpose here is to point to Daniel, then why does he not actually point to Daniel? ...
But Mark does not do this. He instead mysteriously says, "Let the reader understand." Why do that instead of asking the reader to consult Daniel? What is the point of leaving out Daniel's name?
But I'm suggesting that Mark isn't saying this, but rather Jesus is, to his hearers, who would know what it refers to.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
But Mark does not do this. He instead mysteriously says, "Let the reader understand." Why do that instead of asking the reader to consult Daniel? What is the point of leaving out Daniel's name?
But I'm suggesting that Mark isn't saying this, but rather Jesus is, to his hearers, who would know what it refers to.
Why does Jesus call his hearers "a reader," then?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I admit, that is possible. There are several things which I do not find satisfying about it, however. For example, when Jesus later speaks of his hearers, he calls them "you," in the plural (verse 37), whereas in verse 14 "reader" is singular. Also, frankly, I read this passage for years, trying to figure out its meaning, and it never occurred to me that Jesus would address his hearers as readers of a certain book without even naming that book; such an interpretation strikes me, therefore, as awkward, at best. Moreover, if Jesus' hearers "would know what it refers to," as you say, then the same old question comes up: why does Jesus need to highlight it?
But doesn't Jesus often say "as it is written" and such, including about "son of man" stuff, without saying Daniel's name?
9:12: "Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?
14:21: "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him."
14:48-49: “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”
Now, just because Jesus says "let the reader understand" doesn't necessarily mean that his hearers did understand his Danielic reference, but they could have (if they weren't "blind"), like in 8:31-32: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
