Mark 13:30 'The Most Embarrassing Verse in the Bible'

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by RJM Corbet, Sep 20, 2020.

  1. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    735
    I agree; the confusions in The Olivet Discourse are a good indicator of the authenticity of transmission of the the NT. If 'people' were just cutting and adding and editing the NT over the centuries The Olivet Discourse would be one of the first passages to want attention?

    Unless it was deliberately and cleverly constructed later after the destruction of the temple as @Miken suggests? Is there other evidence for a later dating for the Gospel of Mark -- to after AD 70?
    The abomination of desolation referred to in the prophecy?
    After the original abomination of desolation referred to in Maccabees and Daniel -- the statue of Antiochus Epiphanes erected in the temple.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,551
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    You know as well as I (if not better) the tensions between an Hellenic dualism and a Hebrew holism, in terms of the creation.

    From a Christian perspective, the Greeks offer a philosophical lexicon with which to address a contemplation of the Incarnation, but the inevitable stumbling block would be the concept of a demiurge, as you say an 'intermediate' deity, with all the problems that qualification brings to the discussion.

    The Hebrew, it seems to me, is metaphysically more fluid and flexible (if that's a viable analogy) concept, with terms like nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chaya, yechida.

    And who can blame him :D The object under discussion is essentially a Mystery.

    Nicely stated! I would qualify it and say 'the origins of the Trinity can be traced to Scripture, the explanation of it to Greek philosophy' but that would be me trying to make clear the erroneous assumption you headed off with your final phrase.

    Quite. The impetus of the debate was the necessity to preserve and define a quite complex understanding. Speaking as Roman Catholic, I doubt many lay people could offer, or have even sat down and wrangled with, the idea of the Trinity. I recall the glee with which Father Michael, one of the brothers of the local Dominican Priory, would rub his hands together with glee when preparing for a homily on Trinity Sunday!

    And the Fathers and the more mystically-minded utilised the Hebrew schema, although overall I think it's a tragedy we lost our connection to our Hebrew heritage.
     
    Miken likes this.
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,551
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Don't think so, Miken might know more?

    Generally dated early after AD70, based on earlier sources (Often believed a 'sayings' or logia document, but not 'Q' nor Thomas) I follow the idea of Mark as a recorder of Peter's preaching, while under arrest, in the mid 60s.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  4. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    209
    Exactly! 'son of God' as in God's appointed Messiah, as God had appointed other 'sons of God' before him.

    Oh, I don't know about that. Constantine reinforced a failing empire by using shrewd political moves
    involving Christian theology. Interestingly, when his career as emperor drew to a close, he approached Arian relatives in order to repent before his death.
     
  5. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    Interesting…:)

    Sorry, but I do not see the spiritual meaning you refer to. Nor do I see any reason to change my stance on a near term eschaton being implied in the Synoptic Gospels.

    ***

    Mark 9:29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

    The word γένος (Strong’s G1085) means kindred. This can be literal or figurative, e.g., as in having the same nature. In Mark 9:29 it is used in reference to unclean spirits. But in Matthew 13 it is used in reference to fish.

    Matthew 13:47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.

    Sorry, but I do not see the relevancy.
    ***

    Mark 13:30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

    Matthew 23:36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

    The word γενεὰ (G1074) has a multitude of subtly different meanings.

    I fathered, birth, nativity

    II that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

    II A the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy

    II B metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
    esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

    III the whole multitude of men living at the same time

    IV an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

    The verse from Mark is part of the Olivet Discourse. The verse from Matthew is part of the lengthy diatribe against the Pharisees. For Matthew the appropriate meaning would seem to be II B, the group of men like each other, i.e. the Pharisees whom Jesus is talking about. However, Mark has not singled out any particular group of like people. This would make meaning III the most appropriate, the whole multitude of men living at the same time.

    In Mark, the context is the end of days when the Son of Man has returned. Remember, Mark says “until all these things take place” and he says it after the dramatic Son of Man in the clouds passage. In Matthew the time context is unclear, this not being part of the Olivet Discourse. What is it that Matthew is threatening the Pharisees with? Being condemned to hell (Mt. 23:33). When will that be? Presumably at the end of days, when Matthew has condemnations take place as per the Sheep and the Goats. When will that be? In his version of the Olivet Discourse, Matthew echoes the words of Mark.

    Matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation (G1074) will not pass away until all these things take place.

    In Matthew 23, the word refers to a specific group, but in Matthew 24 it appears to refer to everyone alive at the end of days.

    ***

    Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

    The word γέννημα (G1081) is sometimes confusingly translated as generation but it merely means offspring. Brood is the more appropriate translation. It is interesting that Matthew uses the word viper, which is a venomous snake, implying that the Pharisees and Sadducees poison others with their teachings. Whether he had the serpent of Genesis in mind is not clear, but it could be. However, despite the common mistranslation, this has nothing to do with the several words discussed above.


     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  6. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    It does not make John the Baptist Elijah. It only has John saying that somebody super important is coming. Prior to this, there is nothing that connects any kind of baptism with either Elijah or the Messiah.

    Mark begins his Gospel with scriptural quotes.

    Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
    “Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
    who will prepare your way,
    3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
    ‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
    make his paths straight,’”

    The quote in verse 2 is not from Isaiah at all. It is from Malachi and it refers to the return of Elijah, last seen going to heaven in a flaming chariot, as the precursor of the Lord.

    Mark 1:6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist

    2 Kings 1:7 He said to them, “What kind of man was he who came to meet you and told you these things?” 8 They answered him, “He wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his waist.” And he said, “It is Elijah the Tishbite.”

    Although not explicitly connected with the Baptist, there are other references to Elijah.

    Mark 9:11 And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” 12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”

    Shortly before this John was executed.

    In Mark’s Last Supper narrative, Jesus does not drink the Fourth Cup, the final act of a Passover Seder. The Fourth Cup is an invitation to Elijah to come, to be followed quickly by the Messiah. But for Mark, Elijah has already come.

    There is considerably more subtlety in Mark than he is usually given credit for,
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  7. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Sorry, not Elijah...but precursor to Jesus...Prepping the road...
     
  8. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    Can you explain the clear references to Elijah if Elijah is not meant?

    Here is a discussion of Elijah as precursor of the Messiah.

    "The climax of Elijah's activity is his appearance shortly before the Messianic time."

    Also consider the angel talking to Zechariah about John the Baptist, yet to be born.

    Luke 1:16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, 17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

    The references are to Malachi talking about Elijah as the precursor of the Lord.
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    No, that is not what I am saying, sorry. I cant speak to the two...

    I was simply stating what my brain recalls John having been reported to have said...

    It was a recollection not an exact quote...as if there is one.
     
  10. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    Now I understand what you are referring to. The Gospel of John has John the Baptist deny that he is Elijah. Each of the Gospels deal with the Elijah issue differently.

    As I have discussed above, Mark identifies John the Baptist with Elijah only by implication, not explicitly.

    Matthew likes to present things a little plainer, like all those scriptural quotes. In addition to Mark’s implications he says:
    Matthew 11:13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

    Mark’s avoidance of specifically identifying the Baptist as Elijah and Matthew’s “if you are willing to accept it” seem a bit odd. Is he or is he not Elijah? However, if John is literally Elijah, did he come down from heaven in his blazing chariot the way he left? John the Baptist was a real historical figure mentioned in other sources. A flaming chariot story does not fit in well.

    Luke recognized the issue and provides a birth narrative in which it is said that John will have “the spirit and power of Elijah”. That is, not literally Elijah so no need to explain the absence of a chariot.

    John in his Gospel changes the story completely, as he often does.

    John 1
    19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”

    In the Gospel of John, the Baptist is not Elijah in any way at all. Why? Because Elijah as the precursor of the Messiah is a strongly Jewish concept and John is moving away from Judaism. He does not deny the Jewish roots of Christianity. In fact, he emphasizes them in having Jesus attend several pilgrimages to Jerusalem. But John is the only Gospel writer to consistently refer to the Jews as “the Jews”. It is not the Pharisees and the scribes who argue with Jesus. It is “the Jews”. It is not the Pharisees and the elders who want to kill Jesus. it is “the Jews”. For John Christianity has moved beyond Judaism. And having John the Baptist be Elijah would be, as Mel Brooks would put it, too Jewish.
     
  11. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    That was hundreds of years after the time period we were discussing.

    In any case, it was not the theology itself that Constantine was interested in but that arguments over theology were turning violent. In Alexandria in particular, things had gotten bad enough that there was concern that grain imports and tax revenues from Egypt might be impacted. And that would be a really big problem. There were similar concerns about the easternmost provinces, where civil unrest could tempt the Persians, rattling swords once again, to take action against Rome.

    Constantine thought he could resolve the situation by arriving at a single interpretation of the sore point, which was the relationship of Christ to God the Father. Western bishops tended to favor a divine Christ, while Eastern bishops of the more humanist tradition favored a more human Christ. Emperor Constantine naturally preferred the viewpoint of a divine Christ with its implication of favoring strong centralized power more than a human Christ. The original Nicene Creed of 325 AD favored this understanding but ultimately resolved nothing, being so vague that it could be presented to ‘the folk back home’ as being what each bishop had said all along. Mention should be made that the Holy Spirit was only mentioned in passing in the 325 Creed, this not really being about the Trinity very much at all.

    That Constantine was not really very interested in the theology per se is seen in the fact that although he banned Arianism, he was ultimately baptized by an Arian bishop. I do not see Constantine as repenting of anything. He avoided being baptized until he was dying because he did not want to be subject to Christian constraints on his actions as Roman Emperor, a mistake Theodosius would later make.
     
  12. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    209
    I understand that his mother was a Christian. Yes, I would agree that he was caught up in being an emperor, and that made his duties to God i.e. not being a hypocrite, much harder.

    My point being that he helped to establish the modern Roman creed, but did not die with that belief.
    I don't think most people realise that.
     
  13. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    I am not aware of any other legitimate evidence that places the writing of Mark’s Gospel after 70 AD. I say ‘legitimate’ because there are arguments made that Mark copied from Josephus, who wrote later. However I see these arguments as mistaken in details and more wishful thinking than real.

    One example is that Mark says that the Temple buildings will be all knocked down. Josephus describes the towers of the city as demolished. The argument usually tries to make Mark talk about the city and not the Temple, as he clearly does. Any argument to the contrary ignores both Mark’s plain language and his ongoing fig tree imagery.

    Another is that both Mark and Josephus describe the death of John the Baptist. Yet the details each provides are significantly different. This points to separate sources. i.e., historical accounts. After all, where did Josephus get his information about it?

    Other arguments I have seen are likewise inappropriate.

    While I am unable to provide evidence outside the Gospels of a post-Temple origin of the Olivet Discourse, it would seem very clear that Mark wrote no earlier than the late 60s. There is a school of thought than places Mark in the early 40s but that does not appear tenable. The main argument for an origin in the 40s is that the description of the world in which Jesus lived differed greatly from the world of the 60s and definitely the 70s. Yet the tradition is that Mark got much of his material from Peter in prison in Rome in the 60s, Peter of course would recall how things were when Jesus was alive.

    In addition, it is clear that Mark read 1 Corinthians usually date in the range 53-57 AD. His Last Supper narrative is closely related to the Lord’s Supper institution (on the night Jesus was betrayed Paul tell us) described in 1 Cor 11, combined with Paul’s earlier reference to Jesus as the Passover sacrifice. The result is that Mark has the trial of Jesus planned for the first night of Passover complete with all the attendees and witnesses. This would never have happened. Mark got his Last Supper story from Paul in 1 Cor, not from Peter.

    In his Olivet Discourse, Mark mentions persecutions of Christians, which he also mentions elsewhere.

    Mark 13
    12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

    This sounds similar to the events described by Tacitus concerning the persecution of Christians following the fire in Rome in 64 AD.

    But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called "Chrestians" by the populace.

    Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

    https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-christians/

    Recall that Mark addresses his Gospel both to Gentiles, explaining Jewish customs, and to Jews, with subtle references that only Jews would ‘get’. A mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians sounds like the community in Rome that Paul wrote to. If so, in the later 60s they would be very familiar with the Neronian persecutions and not miss the reference.

    In his Olivet Discourse, Mark refers to the abomination of the desolation, probably Caligula’s attempt to put his own statue in the Temple in 40 AD. Yet he also has “let the reader understand”. Mark uses subtleties elsewhere to make his points. Why would he need to nudge the reader at this point is he were writing in the early 40s when this was a very recent event? But writing in the late 60s he might very well want to jog the reader’s memory.
    I am of the opinion that Mark provides a reference to an event that took place in 67 AD during the Jewish revolt. I see in the ‘I am Legion’ narrative in Mark 5 a connection with the battle of Gamla.

    Mark 5
    1They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, 4 for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country[/b][/u]. 11 Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, 12 and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea.

    Compare to this.

    Country of the Gerasenes

    The town itself is not named in Scripture, and is referred to only in the expression, "country of the Gerasenes" (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26,37; see Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Appendix, 11). This describes the district in which Christ met and healed the demoniac from the tombs, where also took place the destruction of the swine. It was on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and must have been a locality where the steep edges of the Bashan plateau drop close upon the brink of the lake. This condition is fulfilled only by the district immediately South of Wady Semak, North of Qal `at el-Chucn. Here the slopes descend swiftly almost into the sea, and animals, once started on the downward run, could not avoid plunging into the depths. Many ancient tombs are to be seen in the face of the hills. Gerasa itself is probably represented by the ruins of Kurseh on the South side of Wady Semak, just where it opens on the seashore. The ruins of the town are not considerable; but there are remains of a strong wall which must have surrounded the place. Traces of ancient buildings in the vicinity show that there must have been a fairly numerous population in the district.

    https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/gerasa-gerasenes.html

    What does this have to do with Gamla?

    Josephus also provides a detailed description of the Roman siege and conquest of Gamla in 67 CE by components of legions X Fretensis, XV Apollinaris and V Macedonica.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla#Siege_of_Gamla

    Here is how Josephus describes the end of the siege.

    …the Romans got up and surrounded them, and some they slew before they could defend themselves, and others as they were delivering up themselves; and the remembrance of those that were slain at their former entrance into the city increased their rage against them now: a great number also of those that were surrounded on every side, and despaired of escaping, threw their children and their wives, and themselves also down the precipices, into the valley beneath, which, near the citadel, had been dug hollow to a vast depth.
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-4.html

    From 67 onward, X Fretensis fought in the war against the Jews.

    In 70, X Fretensis took part in the siege of Jerusalem

    When X Fretensis arrived from Syria, it occupied the Mount of Olives, in front of the Temple. The soldiers of this legion had a special incentive to fight: they had been defeated by the Zealots in 66, and wanted revenge.

    The emblem of the legion, a boar or pig, was visible on several places and must have been intended to humiliate the Jewish population.

    https://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-x-fretensis/

    Elements of the legion X Fretensis, whose symbol was a pig, took part in the siege of Gamla where many Jews died falling down a steep cliff. How much of X Fretensis took part? There were three legions represented. In that era, a legion consisted of about 5300 men plus calvary plus offices plus some specialized auxiliaries. If the force attacking Gamla were the size of a legion, commanded by a Legio familiar with handling a unit of that size, the ‘pig’ soldiers involved may very well have numbered 2000.

    Nobody has a herd of swine numbering 2000 that they let walk around on their own in a region where there are steep slopes. The number 2000 is not incidental. The demons call themselves Legion. They beg not to be sent out of the country but are dispatched in the form of pigs falling to their deaths down a cliff.

    I see a revenge fantasy where Jesus will dispatch the hated X Fretensis legion and the Romans in general by expelling them from the country or killing them. When will this happen? When Jesus is revealed as “Son of the Most High God”. I have argued elsewhere that when the high priest asks Jesus if he is the “the son of the Blessed One” he means the revolutionary, Roman expelling type of Messiah. And Jesus answer Yes I am.

    This would put the writing of this portion of Mark at sometime after 67 AD, when the full details of what happened at Gamla were known in Rome. Since X Fretensis took part in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and were associated with the destruction of the Temple, it would not seem to be much of a stretch to infer a post 70 AD date for writing this passage to further single out the ‘pig soldiers’ as symbolizing the Romans forces as a whole.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  14. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    735
    Impressive scholarship, and thank you. Good to have you here with us.

    But, ok: so then what might be contrary evidence of Mark as authentic transmission from Peter? I do apologise if you've really covered this and if I have missed it?
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
  15. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    I do not see it as an either/or situation.

    Mark clearly was in possession of early traditions about Jesus that he employed in his Gospel to bring Jesus to life, so to speak. Paul's Jesus was all spiritual, even the crucifixion and death references have a spiritual flavor. Mark's Jesus is a living breathing man of action, a good approach if one's agenda is to revive faith in a soon to return Jesus. Where did Mark get this information? It could very well have been Peter in Rome. The suggestion that Mark is writing for the mixed Jewish/Gentile Christian community in Rome would be in line with that.

    However it is also clear that not all of Mark's Gospel came from Peter. Making the Lord's Supper institution into a Passover Seder sounds very much like merging Paul's description of that event from 1 Corinthians with Paul's image of Jesus as the Passover sacrifice, also from 1 Cor. The problem is that since Paul says that this took place the night that Jesus was betrayed, this puts Mark in the position of having Jesus arrested and tried by the Jewish bigwigs on the first night of Passover. There is no way that would have happened. Mark invented that part of the story.

    Considering that Mark's Olivet Discourse very definitely points to a return of Jesus sometime in the late 1st century and this never happened, that was not a genuine prophecy but invention by Mark after the destruction of the Temple.

    That's how I see it, anyway.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  16. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    Okay. What do you think about the Apocalypse of Weeks in the Book of Enoch as a possible influence for understanding generational language in the NT? Here's a brief intro from Wikipedia:

    "Apocalypse of Weeks (93:1–10, 91:11–17): this subsection, usually dated to the first half of the 2nd century BC, narrates the history of the world using a structure of ten periods (said 'weeks'), of which seven regard the past and three regard future events (the final judgment). The climax is in the seventh part of the tenth week where 'new heaven shall appear' and 'there will be many weeks without number for ever, and all shall be in goodness and righteousness.'"​

    This text reads as follows:

     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2020
    Miken likes this.
  17. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44
    1 Enoch 93

    9. And after that in the seventh week shall an apostate generation arise,
    And many shall be its deeds,
    And all its deeds shall be apostate.

    10. And at its close shall be elected
    The elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness,
    To receive sevenfold instruction concerning all His creation.

    1 Enoch 91

    11. And after that the roots of unrighteousness shall be cut off, and the sinners shall be destroyed by the sword . . . shall be cut off from the blasphemers in every place, and those who plan violence and those who commit blasphemy shall perish by the sword.

    (Note: The Ethiopic (Ge’ez) text, the only complete version of 1 Enoch, has been scrambled somewhat from the Aramaic original. The Aramaic fragments show that 1 Enoch 91:11 of the Ethiopic in fact should follow 1 Enoch 93:10.)

    The issue here is the use of the word ‘generation’. Enoch is referring to the Hellenic crisis, Hellenization of the Jewish upper classes following the time of Alexander the Great and in particular the subjugation of the Jewish people under the Seleucid Empire. Many of the upper-class Jews were abandoning observance of the Law and following Greek ways. This is the ‘apostate generation’ the author of 1 Enoch refers to. Supposedly the eschaton was to take place at this time. It is the absence of any reference to the Maccabean revolt of 167 BC which places the date of composition to the first half of the 2nd century BC.

    I do not have access to the Aramaic fragments to see what word was used for ‘generation’, and my knowledge of Aramaic is paper thin anyway. Instead I looked for a comparable use of the word in the Jewish scriptures. Genesis 7:1 “you are righteous before me in this generation” seemed a good match in meaning. The Greek Septuagint of Genesis 7:1 uses the same word as Mark 13:30, γενεά, Strong’s G1074.

    This might at first glance suggest a connection. But G1074 has a range of meanings. As I discussed earlier, Mark appears to be referring to:

    III the whole multitude of men living at the same time.

    Whereas Enoch, by singling out the apostates and other wrongdoers for destruction appears to be referring to:

    II B metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character, esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

    To me, it does not seem very likely that Enoch’s Weeks has anything to do with Mark’s ‘generation’.

    However, I am impressed that you know about this. :)
     
  18. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
  19. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    44

Share This Page