Let the reader understand... Again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:56 pm But doesn't Jesus often say "as it is written" and such, including "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.”
Sure, but I would not argue in those cases that either Mark or Jesus had to clear anything up. The only point was that scripture was being fulfilled.

But "let the reader understand" implies that a misunderstanding may be possible, does it not?

I think you are caught in a logical contradiction of sorts. "Let the reader understand" is not enough to point to Daniel for someone who needs scriptural pointers (Mark's readers?), but is more than enough, and therefore unnecessary, for someone who knows the scriptures (Jesus' hearers?). The "abomination of desolation" is just too Danielic to be missed.
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.
So it is a test of sorts? That must be your way of striking that balance (that "sweet spot") I was talking about.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

I think you are caught in a logical contradiction of sorts. "Let the reader understand" is not enough to point to Daniel for someone who needs scriptural pointers (Mark's readers?), but is more than enough, and therefore unnecessary, for someone who knows the scriptures (Jesus' hearers?). The "abomination of desolation" is just too Danielic to be missed.
But so are all the "son of man" references, right? (Unless you think they could refer to 1 Enoch -which itself is based on Daniel- or not to Daniel at all but just in the "regular guy" sense. But that seems controverted by "Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer" and such.)

I reckon "let the reader understand" would not be enough for Mark's (presumably Gentile) readers, but it could have been for Jesus' hearers (if they weren't so "blind").

Regarding the singular reader/plural hearers, you know I'm not a grammar guy, but is it not "natural" that there would be multiple hearers but only one reader? Assuming it was not being read out loud (as I gather was a common way to "read"), isn't "reading" more of a solitary activity?
Last edited by John2 on Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:26 pm, 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
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: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:49 pm
I think you are caught in a logical contradiction of sorts. "Let the reader understand" is not enough to point to Daniel for someone who needs scriptural pointers (Mark's readers?), but is more than enough, and therefore unnecessary, for someone who knows the scriptures (Jesus' hearers?). The "abomination of desolation" is just too Danielic to be missed.
But so are all the "son of man" references, right? (Unless you think they could refer to 1 Enoch -which itself is based on Daniel- or not to Daniel at all but just in the "regular guy" sense. But that seems controverted by "Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer" and such).
Yes, the son of man references are clear enough, too. But, again, I do not think that the "it is written" was attached to this saying in order to point out that "son of man" comes from scripture. Most son of man sayings lack "it is written," anyway. The purpose here is to fulfill scripture, not to make sure that the hearer/reader knows what "son of man" means. There is nothing about "understanding" in this son of man saying. "Let the reader understand" implies the possibility of a misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding of what? That the reference comes from Daniel? Why is that needed?
I reckon "let the reader understand" would not be enough for Mark's (presumably Gentile) readers, but it could have been for Jesus' hearers (if they weren't so "blind").
My question is why they would need anything at all for "the abomination of desolation" in verse 14, which is an obvious reference. (Why not for "coming in clouds" in verse 26? It seems no more or less obvious.)
Regarding the singular reader/plural hearers, you know I'm not a grammar guy, but is it not "natural" that there would be multiple hearers but only one reader? Assuming it was not being read out loud (as I gather was a common way to "read"), isn't "reading" more of a solitary activity?
Reading in antiquity is a debated topic, both on this point and on many others (literacy rates, for example).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:34 pm
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.
Ken, if I may ask a broader question of you, what is your "hook," so to speak? What is the internal or external datum (or set of data) that makes you look at Mark 13.14 and say, "Ah, that abomination thing must be official Roman persecution of Christians, and 'those in Judea' must mean 'Christians across the Roman empire.'" My own "hook" is the reference to Daniel and 1 Maccabees; since the abomination of desolation in those texts has something to do with the temple, and since the disciples are asking specifically about the temple, I say to myself, "Ah, I bet the abomination of desolation has something to do with the temple here."

Just to be clear, I am not asking where to find Roman persecution of Christians in Mark 13. I can spot it easily as one of several elements in verses 9-13. But its presence there, on its own, no more means that verse 14 has to deal with Roman persecution than the presence of earthquakes in verse 8 means that the flight to the mountains in verse 14 will be accompanied by an earthquake. So what, beyond the mere presence of the theme in verses 9-13, "hooks" you into interpreting verse 14 as Roman persecution? What sparks the idea in the first place? (I know you are reading Haenchen, but he is not here to interrogate; you are. :))
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
"Let the reader understand" implies the possibility of a misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding of what? That the reference comes from Daniel? Why is that needed?
To me it means, "Let the reader [of Daniel] understand what the abomination that causes desolation is or means." If I heard someone say this today I would say it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes (and/or his statue and/or the associated pagan sacrifices) from the time of the Maccabees, when I think Daniel was written. What Jesus (from my point of view) or Mark had in mind, I don't know. No one seems to know (or to have ever known). But it sounds like something Jesus said to me, rather than Mark.
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 »

That Matthew and Luke (apparently) have different "guesses" is interesting and I thought I'd put them here and take a fresh look at them.

Mk. 13:14:
When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong--let the reader understand ...
Mt. 24:15:
So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand ...
Lk. 21:20:
When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.
I see there's no "reader" in Luke, and Matthew (or whoever translated the original Hebrew Matthew into Greek and combined it with Mark) "gets" that it's something in Daniel (which makes sense given its OT-savvy Jewish Christian background); and Luke's "guess" (from my point of view) that it refers to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies makes sense since I think Luke used Josephus. But what did it "originally" mean (to Jesus or Mark), I'm not sure.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:58 pm, 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 »

Given all the similarities between what Jesus says in Mark 13 and what Josephus says about the Fourth Philosophy (whether it is due to Jesus simply being aware of the climate of his times -which is what I lean towards- and perhaps even through genuine prophetic foresight, if such a thing exists, or because Mark knew Josephus and/or was aware by other means of the Fourth Philosophic climate of the times and the outcome of the war, which doesn't seem implausible to me either), I'm inclined to think that the abomination that causes desolation refers to the Romans sacrificing their standards by the Temple (since it is said to be something that is "set up" in Daniel and "standing" in Mark).

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.
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 »

Just out of curiosity I'm making notes of some things that follow War 6.6.1.

War 6.6.2:
But as for the tyrants themselves [i.e., Jewish rebels], and those that were with them, when they found that they were encompassed on every side, and, as it were, walled round, without any method of escaping, they desired to treat with Titus by word of mouth. Accordingly, such was the kindness of his nature, and his desire of preserving the city from destruction, joined to the advice of his friends, who now thought the robbers were come to a temper, that he placed himself on the western side of the outer [court of the] temple; for there were gates on that side above the Xystus, and a bridge that connected the upper city to the temple. This bridge it was that lay between the tyrants and Caesar, and parted them; while the multitude stood on each side; those of the Jewish nation about Sinran and John, with great hopes of pardon; and the Romans about Caesar, in great expectation how Titus would receive their supplication. So Titus charged his soldiers to restrain their rage, and to let their darts alone, and appointed an interpreter between them, which was a sign that he was the conqueror, and first began the discourse ...

I then came to this city, as unwillingly sent by my father, and received melancholy injunctions from him. When I heard that the people were disposed to peace, I rejoiced at it; 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; I observed what I had promised faithfully. When they fled to me, I had compassion on many of those that I had taken captive; I tortured those that were eager for war, in order to restrain them. It was unwillingly that I brought my engines of war against your walls; I always prohibited my soldiers, when they were set upon your slaughter, from their severity against you. After every victory I persuaded you to peace, as though I had been myself conquered. When I came near your temple, I again departed from the laws of war, and exhorted you to spare your own sanctuary, and to preserve your holy house to yourselves. I allowed you a quiet exit out of it, and security for your preservation; nay, if you had a mind, I gave you leave to fight in another place.
Hm. Maybe the abomination that causes desolation is Titus (or, from what I imagine could have been Jesus' point of view, any Antiochus-like future Roman ruler) instead of the standards. "I then came to this city ... I gave my right hand as security to the deserters ... I allowed you a quiet exit out of it ... I gave you leave to fight in another place." Maybe this was the time to "flee" from Jesus' point of view (whether by genuine prophetic foresight or by a lucky guess) or from Mark's point of view after the war (which would require no prophetic foresight or lucky guess).

In any event, it's curious to see these references to "fleeing" in Josephus in this context.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:37 pm, edited 2 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 »

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.
War 6.6.2:
I gave you leave to fight in another place.
For decades, archaeology at the site has been calling the story of the suicide, so central to Israel’s national myth, into question. Now new discoveries may force a revision of the notion that the group atop the fort was much more diverse than the heroic band of brigands celebrated by the cherished story.

“We’re actually excavating a refugee camp,” said Guy Stiebel, the archaeologist leading excavations carried out earlier this year by Tel Aviv University. Masada’s inhabitants during the seven years of the revolt were “a sort of microcosm of Judaea back then,” comprising refugees from Jerusalem and across Judaea, including priests, members of the enigmatic monastic group from Qumran that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, and at least one Samaritan.

https://forward.com/news/382132/exclusi ... op-masada/
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 »

Maybe it's the non-believer in me, but I'm starting to think that these similarities between Mark 13 and Josephus are a little too similar and that maybe Mark knew Josephus (or knew about the outcome of the 66-70 CE war and the events leading up to it by some other means) and that these are Mark's words and not Jesus'.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply