This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1richardbsmith
Mark 13:1-8, 14-23
As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!”
Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”
When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?”
Then Jesus began to say to them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.
“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not be in winter.
For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. And if the lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days.
And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is !’— do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead stray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.
As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!”
Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”
When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?”
Then Jesus began to say to them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.
“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not be in winter.
For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. And if the lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days.
And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is !’— do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead stray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.
2richardbsmith
This passage, and the Matthew and Luke parallels, is key to most theories for the dating of the Gospels. Pointing the reference in the first verses to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.
Does such an argument make the assumption that the Jesus did not predict the Temple's destruction.
Does such an argument make the assumption that the Jesus did not predict the Temple's destruction.
3richardbsmith
LT Johnson in Writings of the New Testament , pg 149, writes about the use of C13 for dating purposes.
"The absence of anachronism in his description of the temple's end (13:5-23) suggest a time (of composition of Mark) before the end of the Roman War (67-70 CE); how long before, and whethe connected to those hard circumstances, we do not know."
Johnson has a newer edition of this book than the copy that I have. In my copy, Johnson does not list what "anachronisms" might be expected to call for a dating after 70CE.
David de Silva in his NT Introduction lists some "anachronisms" in Luke's gospel, on pg 308. I thought it might be helpful and interesting to review the Mark and Luke parallels of this passage.
"The absence of anachronism in his description of the temple's end (13:5-23) suggest a time (of composition of Mark) before the end of the Roman War (67-70 CE); how long before, and whethe connected to those hard circumstances, we do not know."
Johnson has a newer edition of this book than the copy that I have. In my copy, Johnson does not list what "anachronisms" might be expected to call for a dating after 70CE.
David de Silva in his NT Introduction lists some "anachronisms" in Luke's gospel, on pg 308. I thought it might be helpful and interesting to review the Mark and Luke parallels of this passage.
4richardbsmith
There are numerous differences between this passage in Mark and in Luke, and also in Matthew's parallel. My first focus though is to work out the anachronisms and see if it seems right to use their existence or absence as a tool to date the composition of the gospels.
WRT to these anachronism, the significant differences are in verse 14 and subsequent verses.
13.14 "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains"
Luke 21:20 changes "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know that its desolation has come near."
WRT to these anachronism, the significant differences are in verse 14 and subsequent verses.
13.14 "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains"
Luke 21:20 changes "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know that its desolation has come near."
5richardbsmith
The differences in listed in #4 are said to imply that Luke had more knowledge of the specifics of the siege of Jerusalem.
Desolating sacrilege is an allusion to the prophecy in Daniel. The cryptic note to the reader is always interesting to consider.
My thoughts are that it asks the reader to read the Daniel prophecy and apply it to contemporary circumstances. And with the Mark gospel, I look to the time of Nero's persecution.
As far as dating, then the lack of specific reference to the presence of armies and the desolation of the city which occured in 70CE, is seen by some scholars as calling for a date for Mark before 70CE. The specific references are used to date Luke post 70CE.
Matthew pretty much keeps these Mark verses intact.
Desolating sacrilege is an allusion to the prophecy in Daniel. The cryptic note to the reader is always interesting to consider.
My thoughts are that it asks the reader to read the Daniel prophecy and apply it to contemporary circumstances. And with the Mark gospel, I look to the time of Nero's persecution.
As far as dating, then the lack of specific reference to the presence of armies and the desolation of the city which occured in 70CE, is seen by some scholars as calling for a date for Mark before 70CE. The specific references are used to date Luke post 70CE.
Matthew pretty much keeps these Mark verses intact.
6richardbsmith
Mk 13:15 "the one on the house to must not go down or enter the house to take anything away."
Luke changes to a more specific reference to the city. Lk 21:21:those inside the city must leave it and those out in the country must not enter it"
Mk 13:18 "Pray that it may not be in winter."
Luke omits this verse. The actual siege was in the summer.
Has anyone read the Josephus accounts of the siege?
Again these changes are thought to be specifics known to Luke but not Mark because Mark wrote before 70AD and Luke after.
Luke changes to a more specific reference to the city. Lk 21:21:those inside the city must leave it and those out in the country must not enter it"
Mk 13:18 "Pray that it may not be in winter."
Luke omits this verse. The actual siege was in the summer.
Has anyone read the Josephus accounts of the siege?
Again these changes are thought to be specifics known to Luke but not Mark because Mark wrote before 70AD and Luke after.
7richardbsmith
Luke adds in verse 21:23-24 specifics:
"great distress ... and wrath against this people"
"they will fall by the edge of the sword"
they "will be taken away as captives"
"Jerusalem will be trampled on by Gentiles"
These additions are seen as based on the actual events, which took place after Mark was written.
"great distress ... and wrath against this people"
"they will fall by the edge of the sword"
they "will be taken away as captives"
"Jerusalem will be trampled on by Gentiles"
These additions are seen as based on the actual events, which took place after Mark was written.
8richardbsmith
de Silva also suggests that Luke 19:43-44 point to that gospel's composition post 70.
"for the first time in a Gospel we have explicit explanations offered for the event (destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE), suggesting that one of Luke's minor purposes is to explain how God could have allowed God's holy city to be destroyed and God's holy place to be trampled as it had been."
de Silva seems to prefer the theory that the composition of Mark was earlier than 70CE, though in his NT Introduction text he does not state this. He more presents both sides of the question.
"for the first time in a Gospel we have explicit explanations offered for the event (destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE), suggesting that one of Luke's minor purposes is to explain how God could have allowed God's holy city to be destroyed and God's holy place to be trampled as it had been."
de Silva seems to prefer the theory that the composition of Mark was earlier than 70CE, though in his NT Introduction text he does not state this. He more presents both sides of the question.
