Yesterday I laid out a few observations about Mark 13, suggesting that the chapter should be read as an extended prophecy of the coming destruction of Jerusalem and Temple, as occurred in AD 70.
One paragraph in Mark 13 (often referred to as “The Olivette Discourse”) appears to undermine the AD 70 interpretation. It comes in verses 24-27. From my shiny new Common English Bible:
In those days, after the suffering of that time, the sun will become dark, and the moon won’t give its light. The stars will fall from the sky, and the planets and other heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then they will see the Human One coming in the clouds with great power and splendor. Then he will send the angels and gather together his chosen people from the four corners of the earth, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.
The first thing that is important to recognize is that this language, which is stock language of apocalyptic writing, should not be taken literally. It is the kind of imagery we see elsewhere in the Bible to describe not falling stars but falling empires or other such geo-political earth-shattering events. (Earth shattering?! Does that mean I think the earth is literally going to be cracking beneath my feet?)
One important example of this is found in Isaiah 13: “The oracle concerning Babylon… See, the day of YHWH comes… For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil… Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of YHWH…Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be punished, and their wives ravished. See, I am stirring up the Medes against them…”
The imagery of a disintegrated cosmos is used to describe the fall of the Babylonian empire. Some of the correlations are direct (darkened sun), but the more important thing to recognize is that this is the same kind of language.
Perhaps as importantly is the speech of Peter in Acts 2. This obviously is not Jewish “background” material, but it is an important indicator of how one early Christian understood the Old Testament imagery of cosmic disintegration. In the case of that sermon, the cosmic imagery signals not the fall of an empire, but the enthronement of a new king.
On the day of Pentecost, after the Spirit has been poured out and Jesus’ followers speak in various languages, Peter says, “This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel, ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on al people… I will cause wonders to occur in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will be changed into darkness and the moon will be changed into blood…”
Um, Peter? Where’s the dark sun? Where’s the bloody moon? The point is, that this is all imagery for an earth-shattering event: the end has arrived, but what “the end” means is the ascension and enthronement of God’s chosen king, Jesus. The signs and wonders begin with Jesus’ ministry, they continue through the acts of the apostles.
The point: there is significant biblical context and precedent for seeing the cosmic imagery as indicative of the sort of earthly transition that might be marked by the falling of a city, the enthronement of Jesus as king, the victory of Titus’ army over the Jerusalem armies in AD 70.
But what about the coming of the son of man? The Human One, as the CEB calls him? We’ll hit that tomorrow.
I’m totally with you on the apocalypse nature of the text, Daniel. However, it sure looks like Luke wants to interpret that prophecy at least somewhat literally:
“It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, because the sun’s light failed. The temple curtain was torn in two.” – Luke 23:44, 45
What think ye?
So when Jesus said the first shall be last, he meant whenever we see stuff like “last days” or “the end,” we should interpret them as “the first days of the church” and “the end of temple purity laws and animal sacrifice” (that’ll show them wicked Pharisees!). This could confuse people, so we should probably start translating the bible more accurately instead: “Repent, for the early church is at hand!” Though I doubt this would have lit a fire under anyone’s butt back in the day. In fact, it doesn’t make much sense even today. It’s almost as if we’re rationalizing away the fact that the end just didn’t come.
Chris, I’m not sure exactly what your angle is here.
I do think that there was an expectation of an early return by Jesus (evident, e.g., in 1 Cor 7, and in 2 Peter) that did not occur. In the case of the Olivette Discourse, however, I think that a reference to AD 70 makes more sense of the text. There’s that whole bit in 13:1-3 about the temple being destroyed.
The eschatological imagery in the crucifixion is also important. I wouldn’t want to deny that there are problems, but in this case I just don’t think it means what people normally think it means.
Chris, that may be a fair point to make from a modern perspective, but from the perspective of first century Judaism the war against Rome, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the massive loss of life, and then beyond that—I would add—the successful take-over of the empire, the arch enemy of the people of God, by a movement of the Spirit claiming legitimate descent from Abraham in the name of a crucified messiah would surely have constituted a historical transformation that more than justified the apocalyptic imagery of Jesus or Paul or John the seer.
But you can’t make a movie out of this, Daniel. What fun is that?
Just for fun, the author of Daniel (possibly) seems to understand Isaiah 13 (and Jeremiah 50-51; c.f. 51.11) as about the fall of Babylon. This may help explain why the 2nd-3rd century BCE producer(s) of Daniel has the Medes conquering Babylon…and also makes “Darius the Mede” the conqueror (c.f., Dan 5.30). Perhaps that Hellenistic Jewish author had a minimal knowledge of ancient history and a better knowledge of prophetic literature, perhaps knowing Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 and thus representing the fall of Babylon in the book of Daniel as at the hands of the Medes. An example of “inner-Biblical” reading of the texts in question, showing them possibly to be understood as texts about some significant event on earth described in “cosmic” terms. Not that this constrains how Mark had to use that language, but just an example for people with more Biblical-Theological interests.
That said, the whole debate about whether or not to take the language “literally” can orient things a bit too much in Evangelical intramural debates about eschatology and the Bible. It is not clear to me that authors of this period necessarily denied true cosmic goings-on as part of (or even the ultimate backdrop of) such significant events as the destruction of the Temple. Not that you (Daniel) are going this far, but I disagree with N.T.Wright’s claim (if I recall it correctly) that all or most of this language should not be taken “literally.” I think it is demonstrably the case that many Hellenistic and Roman Jewish and Christian authors who employed “Apocalyptic” idiom meant their cosmic language in concrete and “literal” ways…and, even more fun, meant it as such in connection with something like the destruction of the Temple. I am not claiming that they could not distinguish between metaphorical or symbolic language about something and a relatively mundane earthly-political event; just that we cannot presume the non-”literalness” of such cosmic language.
This raises the kind of fun theological question you seem to like on this blog. How does this help us rethink how the Bible is authoritative when we think both that the text “is” about something like the destruction of the Temple and that the text truly means its cosmic language concretely and “literally.” I am not necessarily making that claim about Mark 13, but just raising the issue in general.
Stephen,
Going along these plausible lines of inner-biblical exegesis, some NT scholars argue that elements of Mark’s narrative — namely the “the motif of wonder” (Dwyer) — have been redacted by later evangelists and thus would have been somewhat foreign to the jot and tittle of the original pen. But, that said, with the OT and other Jewish/Hellenisitc literature in mind serving as an interpretive matrix, so the argument goes, one may have the eyes to see that the wonder/amazement motifs which thread through Mark are of an eschatological nature; they are literally signs of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.
In other words, the historical veracity of Mark qua Mark isn’t sealed off as an exhibit to be preserved and untouched (stay behind the lines please), but is rather a text which is nuanced and negotiated so to remain vibrant and dynamic in ones particular context.
Hmm… does this exegesis hold any weight? I think, as you point out, the heavy distinction between the literal and the symbolic were not on the Eastern mind the same way that it is on the Western mind; and if this is so, then redactions are not so much outside of the purview of Christian evangelists wishing to reach and audience with a freshened, stylized gospel.
Oh…looking forward to your Son of Man post tomorrow.
There is a recent LNTS monograph on the issue of how this language should be read: Edward Adams, “The Stars will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and its World” (2007)
Unfortunately, I haven’t read it yet….I think there is a review in RBL.
I believe Adams goes after NT Wright a bit.