Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] The coming kingdom

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    David, Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis
    Message 1 of 45 , Jun 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      David,
      Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis in depth of this question, I recommend Casey's book " The Solution to the Son of Man Problem" (2009)
      Dennis
      ---------------------

      Dennis Goffin

      Chorleywood UK


      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      From: ron-price@...
      Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:11:08 +0100
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The coming kingdom


























      Apologies for the late reply. I've been on holiday in the English Lake

      District.



      David Cavanagh wrote:



      > If, as you suggest below, the original statement was thought to refer to

      > a return of Jesus, and the evangelists increasingly saw this as a

      > problem because it was not happening, and attempted to adapt the

      > materials, why do they not drop the reference to the present generation

      > of "some who are standing here"



      David,



      Each synoptic evangelist had a problem when dealing with an embarrassing

      text. Such a text could be repeated in full, abbreviated, altered, and/or

      put in a context which essentially changed its meaning. Thus the dropping of

      a reference would depend on how the particular evangelist felt at the time

      about the degree of embarrassment the reference caused.



      > ..... But Mark is the earliest gospel, and I very much doubt that Jesus

      > "failure to return" would actually be a problem as early as AD65-70.



      Mark, the earliest gospel, was probably written in 71 CE, shortly after the

      fall of Jerusalem. This was fully 40 years after the crucifixion, and plenty

      of time to be worried about the absence of a 'return' which had been

      expected to be imminent. Certainly Paul had expected it to be within his

      lifetime when he wrote to the Thessalonians: " ... we who are alive, who are

      left until the coming of the Lord ..." (1 Thess 4:15). But by the time he

      wrote the Philippian 'Joyful Letter', he seems to have changed his mind.

      (Php 1:21-26).



      Ron Price,



      Derbyshire, UK



      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Goffin
      David, Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis
      Message 45 of 45 , Jun 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        David,
        Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis in depth of this question, I recommend Casey's book " The Solution to the Son of Man Problem" (2009)
        Dennis
        ---------------------

        Dennis Goffin

        Chorleywood UK


        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        From: ron-price@...
        Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:11:08 +0100
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The coming kingdom


























        Apologies for the late reply. I've been on holiday in the English Lake

        District.



        David Cavanagh wrote:



        > If, as you suggest below, the original statement was thought to refer to

        > a return of Jesus, and the evangelists increasingly saw this as a

        > problem because it was not happening, and attempted to adapt the

        > materials, why do they not drop the reference to the present generation

        > of "some who are standing here"



        David,



        Each synoptic evangelist had a problem when dealing with an embarrassing

        text. Such a text could be repeated in full, abbreviated, altered, and/or

        put in a context which essentially changed its meaning. Thus the dropping of

        a reference would depend on how the particular evangelist felt at the time

        about the degree of embarrassment the reference caused.



        > ..... But Mark is the earliest gospel, and I very much doubt that Jesus

        > "failure to return" would actually be a problem as early as AD65-70.



        Mark, the earliest gospel, was probably written in 71 CE, shortly after the

        fall of Jerusalem. This was fully 40 years after the crucifixion, and plenty

        of time to be worried about the absence of a 'return' which had been

        expected to be imminent. Certainly Paul had expected it to be within his

        lifetime when he wrote to the Thessalonians: " ... we who are alive, who are

        left until the coming of the Lord ..." (1 Thess 4:15). But by the time he

        wrote the Philippian 'Joyful Letter', he seems to have changed his mind.

        (Php 1:21-26).



        Ron Price,



        Derbyshire, UK



        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.