Let the reader understand... Again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:33 pm

to Ben,
But regardless: Mattathias and his sons also fled to the mountains, leaving their possessions behind them (exactly as Mark 13 instructs), only after the abomination of desolation was set up.
From 1 Mac. 2:1 "In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin."
It does not look Mattathias fled from Jerusalem and went to Modin.
And Modin cannot be considered to be in the mountains.
Also, Mark (ungrammatically, ad sensum) makes a masculine participle ("standing") modify a neuter noun ("abomination"). Why, in your view, does he do that?
I don't know. What do you make out of that?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5541
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:36 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:33 pm
to Ben,
But regardless: Mattathias and his sons also fled to the mountains, leaving their possessions behind them (exactly as Mark 13 instructs), only after the abomination of desolation was set up.
From 1 Mac. 2:1 "In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin."
It does not look Mattathias fled from Jerusalem and went to Modin.
Yes, that is exactly my point. Mattathias and his sons fled from Modin (not from Jerusalem) to the mountains; and 1 Maccabees makes it clear that the issues affected all of Judea. Hence Mark's instructions: "those in Judea" must flee to the mountains.
And Modin cannot be considered to be in the mountains.
Exactly so. You are making my points for me.
Also, Mark (ungrammatically, ad sensum) makes a masculine participle ("standing") modify a neuter noun ("abomination"). Why, in your view, does he do that?
I don't know. What do you make out of that?
What I make of it is that the abomination of desolation, according to Mark, is (at least in some way) a person (hence the masculine participle), just as the "man of sin" who takes a seat in the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2 is a person.

Would the abomination of desolation being a person (in some way) fit into a prediction of the fall of the temple in 70, in your judgment?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:10 pm

to Ben,
Yes, that is exactly my point. Mattathias and his sons fled from Modin (not from Jerusalem) to the mountains; and 1 Maccabees makes it clear that the issues affected all of Judea. Hence Mark's instructions: "those in Judea" must flee to the mountains.
OK. So "Mark" thought the same would happen, or was happening, or will happen, after the Romans conquered Jerusalem, as after Antiochus IV's 2nd foray in Jerusalem, with looting and destruction, and then massacres of Jews all over Israel by his men.
What I make of it is that the abomination of desolation, according to Mark, is (at least in some way) a person (hence the masculine participle), just as the "man of sin" who takes a seat in the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2 is a person.
I think of Titus. But if it is a person, that abomination of desolation cannot refer to (anticipated) pagan sacrifices on the temple altar as in 'Daniel' & 1 Mac.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5541
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:25 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:10 pm
to Ben,
Yes, that is exactly my point. Mattathias and his sons fled from Modin (not from Jerusalem) to the mountains; and 1 Maccabees makes it clear that the issues affected all of Judea. Hence Mark's instructions: "those in Judea" must flee to the mountains.
OK. So "Mark" thought the same would happen, or was happening, or will happen, after the Romans conquered Jerusalem, as after Antiochus IV's 2nd foray in Jerusalem, with looting and destruction, and then massacres of Jews all over Israel by his men.
Are you asking me my opinion or telling me yours?
But if it is a person, that abomination of desolation cannot refer to (anticipated) pagan sacrifices on the temple altar as in 'Daniel' & 1 Mac.
Sure, it can. How could it not? If it is either a person himself sitting in the Temple or a statue of the person standing in the Temple, then of course pagan sacrifices are going to be offered to him in the Temple. That is essentially what happened in Maccabean times: a statue of Zeus Olympios was put up in the Temple, and then pigs were sacrificed to it/him.
I think of Titus.
By the time Titus was standing in Jerusalem or in the Temple precinct ("where he ought not to stand"), his entry would have signaled something close to the end of the tribulation, not the beginning, would it not? That was at the very end of the war.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:07 pm

to Ben,
Are you asking me my opinion or telling me yours?
My opinion.
Sure, it can. How could it not? If it is either a person himself sitting in the Temple or a statue of the person standing in the Temple, then of course pagan sacrifices are going to be offered to him in the Temple. That is essentially what happened in Maccabean times: a statue of Zeus Olympios was put up in the Temple, and then pigs were sacrificed to it/him.
So now, the person who is standing would be a statue. But I did not find a statue of Zeus Olympios in the whole of 1 & 2 Maccabees.
By the time Titus was standing in Jerusalem or in the Temple precinct ("where he ought not to stand"), his entry would have signaled something close to the end of the tribulation, not the beginning, would it not? That was at the very end of the war.
When Titus stood in the temple precinct, most of Jerusalem was still not conquered and most of the massacres & enslavement had not started.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

gmx
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by gmx » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:14 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:30 pm
As for the tribulation and the shortening of days, I have posted stuff about that elsewhere. Basically, the tribulation idea comes from Daniel 12.1, and the shortening of the days is an apologetic measure (inserted as a gloss into the text) taken to make up for the fact that the tribulation did not end with the coming of the son of man and all the glories which ought to have attended him.
I did read that post Ben, when it was posted. It was what prompted this post. I freely admit that sometimes I find the detail in your posts overwhelming, and end up skimming them. I think that's fine. I don't pretend to have the depth of education in the field that you and a few others clearly have, but I also don't mean to waste your time.

Is there any weakness in the manuscript record of Mk 13:20, that would support your view that it started life as a marginal gloss?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5541
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:18 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:07 pm
to Ben,
Are you asking me my opinion or telling me yours?
My opinion.
Sure, it can. How could it not? If it is either a person himself sitting in the Temple or a statue of the person standing in the Temple, then of course pagan sacrifices are going to be offered to him in the Temple. That is essentially what happened in Maccabean times: a statue of Zeus Olympios was put up in the Temple, and then pigs were sacrificed to it/him.
So now, the person who is standing would be a statue. But I did not find a statue of Zeus Olympios in the whole of 1 & 2 Maccabees.
In 2 Maccabees 6.2 the Temple is converted into a temple for Zeus.

But that is not actually what I had in mind for this particular detail. I will develop my notes further and hopefully be able to post more on this topic soon.
By the time Titus was standing in Jerusalem or in the Temple precinct ("where he ought not to stand"), his entry would have signaled something close to the end of the tribulation, not the beginning, would it not? That was at the very end of the war.
When Titus stood in the temple precinct, most of Jerusalem was still not conquered and most of the massacres & enslavement had not started.
You are right about that to some extent. But is Titus' entrance into the Temple precinct the best signal one could give in a prophecy (granted that one is making this up after the fact) to flee Judea? In 1 Maccabees the flight of Mattathias and his sons is the first spark of resistance, so flight makes sense as a way to avoid the main action. But in 70, why would one who wished to avoid the main action not have already fled long before? Luke 21.20-21 makes a lot more sense here as a prophecy after the fact: when the armies start to gather around the city, get out. Once again we are forced to suppose that Mark was using something real in the War (Titus' entrance, if you are correct) as a guidepost, when Mark himself has not made that guidepost any more likely or useful than an actual prophecy in advance would have been. Why bother inventing prophecies after the fact if they end up looking no better than the guesses of prophets before the fact?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5541
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:23 pm

gmx wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:14 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:30 pm
As for the tribulation and the shortening of days, I have posted stuff about that elsewhere. Basically, the tribulation idea comes from Daniel 12.1, and the shortening of the days is an apologetic measure (inserted as a gloss into the text) taken to make up for the fact that the tribulation did not end with the coming of the son of man and all the glories which ought to have attended him.
I did read that post Ben, when it was posted. It was what prompted this post. I freely admit that sometimes I find the detail in your posts overwhelming, and end up skimming them. I think that's fine. I don't pretend to have the depth of education in the field that you and a few others clearly have, but I also don't mean to waste your time.

Is there any weakness in the manuscript record of Mk 13:20, that would support your view that it started life as a marginal gloss?
Not that I am aware of, no. My postulate depends in great measure on my estimate of the likelihood of textual modifications before such changes might show up in the manuscript record. If you are of the opinion that the texts went relatively unchanged between the "publication" (however we might imagine that) of the autograph and the penning of the archetype (which is not usually identical to the autograph), and started to accumulate textual variants only after that point, then you should reject my idea on the spot. (You should also reject it if you simply do not feel the idea itself has much merit; that is, if you have a better explanation for the form of the condition found in verse 20.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

gmx
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by gmx » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:52 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:23 pm
gmx wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:14 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:30 pm
As for the tribulation and the shortening of days, I have posted stuff about that elsewhere. Basically, the tribulation idea comes from Daniel 12.1, and the shortening of the days is an apologetic measure (inserted as a gloss into the text) taken to make up for the fact that the tribulation did not end with the coming of the son of man and all the glories which ought to have attended him.
I did read that post Ben, when it was posted. It was what prompted this post. I freely admit that sometimes I find the detail in your posts overwhelming, and end up skimming them. I think that's fine. I don't pretend to have the depth of education in the field that you and a few others clearly have, but I also don't mean to waste your time.

Is there any weakness in the manuscript record of Mk 13:20, that would support your view that it started life as a marginal gloss?
Not that I am aware of, no. My postulate depends in great measure on my estimate of the likelihood of textual modifications before such changes might show up in the manuscript record. If you are of the opinion that the texts went relatively unchanged between the "publication" (however we might imagine that) of the autograph and the penning of the archetype (which is not usually identical to the autograph), and started to accumulate textual variants only after that point, then you should reject my idea on the spot. (You should also reject it if you simply do not feel the idea itself has much merit; that is, if you have a better explanation for the form of the condition found in verse 20.)
It's a very clumsy insertion, if your "postulate" is correct. When is the verse first attested externally? If there is only a short period of elapsed time between the autograph and archetype, then I think an apologetic gloss is less likely, primarily because the author/compiler is more likely to still be alive, and I'm not sure that he/she/they would tolerate it. However, if the archetype is much later than the autograph, and glosses and interpolations are more permissible, then I think your explanation is more likely. But I don't know if there is enough data concerning the verse to constrain what that time interval was.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:57 pm

FWIW it has been suggested that Mark 13:1-2 does not necessarily predict the destruction of the temple itself as distinct from the surrounding buildings. http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2014/01/ ... emple.html

Andrew Criddle

Post Reply