The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

The Greek past contrary-to-fact condition is a simple one to recognize:

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges 2292: Only one class of conditional sentences distinctly expresses non-fulfilment of the action. .... Past: Protasis: εἰ with the aorist indicative. Apodosis: ἄν with the aorist indicative. εἰ ταῦτα ἐποίησας, καλῶς ἂν ἐποίησας if you had done this, you would have done well. [Link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D136.]

Second Class Condition - Is known as the 'Contrary-to-Fact Condition' and assumes the premise as false for the sake of argument. The protasis is again formed with the helping word ei ('if') and the main verb in the indicative mood. The tense of the verb (in the protasis) must also be in a past-time tense (aorist or imperfect). The apodosis will usually have the particle an as a marking word, showing some contingency. [Link: http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/c ... tences.htm.]

As Smyth says, all we need is εἰ + the aorist indicative in the protasis, ἄν + the aorist indicative in the apodosis. This condition is exactly the kind we find at one point in Mark's apocalyptic discourse:

Mark 13.19-20: 19 "For those days will be [ἔσονται, future indicative] a time of tribulation such as has not occurred [γέγονεν, perfect indicative] since the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, and never should [καὶ οὐ μὴ γένηται, aorist subjunctive]. 20 And if the Lord had not shortened [ἐκολόβωσεν, aorist indicative] those days, all flesh would not have been saved [οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη, aorist indicative]; but for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened [ἐκολόβωσεν, aorist indicative] the days."

Notice that verse 19 is a prediction of the future: there will be a tribulation period such as has never happened before. It references the past in order to clarify that the future will be far worse than anything in the past could have prepared us for; but the prediction itself is in the future tense, as we ought to expect. The prediction itself is based on a prophecy from Daniel:

Daniel 12.1-3: 1 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever."

But what about verse 20? There is nothing futuristic about it at all. The tenses are aorist (the normal Greek "past tense" in the indicative mood, which is what we have here). The conditional statement is a straight-up, nothing-fancy past contrary-to-fact condition, no different than saying in English, for example, "If you had invited me to your party (but you did not), I would have brought you a present (which I did not)." In this case: "If the Lord had not shortened those days (but he did), nobody would have survived (which they did)."

The question presses: why, if the days of tribulation are in the future tense in verse 19, are they now suddenly in the past tense in verse 20?

I believe a simple answer may suggest itself. Verse 19 is an actual prediction; but verse 20 is a gloss on that prediction. Somebody predicted that the greatest tribulation of all time, past or future, was going to come soon, and that prediction was partially fulfilled, but not entirely. Either the tribulation was not the worst of all time or, worse yet, it did not immediately lead into the other events that even a cursory reading of Daniel 12.1-3 would suggest, such as the regathering of Israel and resurrection of the dead. So what had happened? Obviously, the prediction was fulfilled: there was a period of great tribulation, but God had mercifully cut short the days, thus creating a span of time between that tribulation and anything else that had been promised to come:

Mark 13.19-20: 19 [Jesus continued,] "For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, and never should." (20 [Glossator adds:] And if the Lord had not shortened those days, all flesh would not have been saved; but for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days.)

Ben.

ETA:

Here are some examples of textbook past contrary-to-fact conditions from the Greek NT (besides Matthew 24.22 = Mark 13.20):

Matthew 11.21: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes [ὅτι εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ μετενόησαν]."

Matthew 11.23: 23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day [ὅτι εἰ ἐν Σοδόμοις ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν σοί, ἔμεινεν ἂν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον]."

Luke 10.13: 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes [ὅτι εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ καθήμενοι μετενόησαν]."

Romans 9.29: 29 And just as Isaiah foretold, "If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left to us a posterity, we would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah [εἰ μὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡμῖν σπέρμα, ὡς Σόδομα ἂν ἐγενήθημεν καὶ ὡς Γόμορρα ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν]."

1 Corinthians 2.8: 8 ...the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory [εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν]....

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:34 amThe question presses: why, if the days of tribulation are in the future tense in verse 19, are they now suddenly in the past tense in verse 20?
Hello Ben --

I believe that the Tribulation already occurred. Mark may be rewriting from Type here but in a Greek-from-Aramaic Story, the Original prefigures what Mark wants to believe will happen.

No surprise here but the original appears to be a Story of Jannaeus:

Antiquities, 13, 14,2:

"Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had..."

This bare and minimal. It is echoed in Revelation. Again, I believe the half hour of silence refers to Queen Salome, aka "Hannah the Prophetess".

Revelation 7: 13 - 17 (RSV):

[13] Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come?"
[14] I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
[15] Therefore are they before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night within his temple;
and he who sits upon the throne will shelter them with his
presence.
[16] They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more;
the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat.
[17] For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water;
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

Those who survived with Jannaeus will be given the fortresses for protection by Queen Salome after Jannaeus dies.

Luke 2: 36 - 37 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

There is some math here (approx. 8 AD - 84 years = 76 BCE = "Ascension of Salome") but people tend to be repelled by this. There are other Math Objects that support the idea of a submerged Story of the House of Eleazar (Jehoiarib through Immer) in the NT. YMMV.

In short, the SynApoc is rewritten from a Story of Jannaeus and Salome. The Tribulation has already occurred.

Thnx, Ben.

CW
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:34 am
The question presses: why, if the days of tribulation are in the future tense in verse 19, are they now suddenly in the past tense in verse 20?

I believe a simple answer may suggest itself. Verse 19 is an actual prediction; but verse 20 is a gloss on that prediction.
Ben, when you speak about 'actual prediction', I suppose you mean 'an account presented like an actual prediction'. As I tried to explain in recent threads, the synoptic Apocalypse discusses in detail the war of the Jews against the Romans. The author of the SA has packed his historical account as a(n encrypted) prediction. He has been consistent in his use of the future tense, and verse 20 is an exception to that. Maybe we can conclude as follows: 'By consistently using the future tense, the author of the synoptic Apocalypse has presented his account of the recent war as a prediction. The author of verse 20 has neglected this consistency, revealing himself as a glossator.'
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

FransJVermeiren wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:58 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:34 am
The question presses: why, if the days of tribulation are in the future tense in verse 19, are they now suddenly in the past tense in verse 20?

I believe a simple answer may suggest itself. Verse 19 is an actual prediction; but verse 20 is a gloss on that prediction.
Ben, when you speak about 'actual prediction', I suppose you mean 'an account presented like an actual prediction'.
I am open to either interpretation. If verse 19 is a pseudo-prediction placed on Jesus' lips only after the event in question happened, then I would require an explanation for why somebody else thought that it needed a gloss. Was the original author simply under the impression that the tribulation he was describing after the fact was the ultimate tribulation predicted in Daniel, the one which had never been precedented and would yet never be equaled? No wonder someone else rushed in to disabuse the text of that notion.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Bernard Muller »

The author of verse 20 has neglected this consistency, revealing himself as a glossator.'
OR
The author had Jesus going out of character, and instead it is "Mark" who express himself through Jesus in his NOW times (70-71), such as in:
13:19 "For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be."
13:14 "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;"
13:37 "And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

Going back to Mk 13:20
"And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days."
The time reference might not be around 30, but rather 70-71, after the fall of Jerusalem. In that case, the author would be saying the days of the tribulation have been shortened already by God, which would make the day of the Lord happening sooner.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Subject: Let the reader understand... Again
gmx wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:52 pmIt's a very clumsy insertion, if your "postulate" is correct.
What do you mean by "clumsy" in this context? (And why do you have "postulate" in quotation marks? Maybe I should have said "hypothesis." If that is why, then point taken.)
When is the verse first attested externally?
Good question. From the best of my ability to tell for certain, it is first attested for Mark in the great codices of the fourth century (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

But it is a much earlier addition than that, in my judgment, since Matthew 24.22 attests it (on Marcan priority, which I follow in this case because Matthew seems to have changed the grammar), and Hippolytus appears to attest to Matthew 24.22.

All of the additions I have proposed to Mark 13 I imagine as having happened sometime in century I, and we have almost zero attestation for the particular texts of our gospels from century I.
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.
First, what if it was the author himself? Second, I think you are imagining a more formal process of publication than was probably the case:

Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, pages 84-85: In providing copies of a work to friends an author effectively surrendered further personal control over the text. A recipient might make her copy available to another, who could then make a copy in turn. No expense was involved other than the cost of materials and, if need be, the services of a scribe. In this way copies multiplied and spread seriatim, one at a time, at the initiative of individuals who lay beyond the author's acquaintance. Since every copy was made by hand, each was unique, and every owner of such a copy was free to do with it as he or she chose. In this way a text quickly slipped beyond the author's reach. There were no means of making authoritative revisions, of preventing others from transcribing or revising it as they wished, of controlling the number of copies made, or even of assuring that it would be properly attributed to its author. In principle the work became public property: copies were disseminated without regulation through an informal network composed of people who learned of the work, were interested enough to have a copy made, and knew someone who possessed the text and would permit it to be duplicated. Thus a text made its way into general circulation gradually and for the most part haphazardly, in a pattern of tangents radiating from the points, ever more numerous, where the text was available for copying.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:09 am Subject: Let the reader understand... Again
gmx wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:52 pmIt's a very clumsy insertion, if your "postulate" is correct.
What do you mean by "clumsy" in this context? (And why do you have "postulate" in quotation marks? Maybe I should have said "hypothesis." If that is why, then point taken.)
I said "postulate" in quotes because I was quoting you, and would not usually choose that word, and it felt unnatural to use it in my reply without some kind of marker. It wasn't a slight on your usage.

I said "clumsy" because of the change in tense. I am assuming the change in tense is the key indicator that the verse was not original. Therefore, it is by definition clumsy, because it has been written in such a way that telegraphs it as a gloss.

This is also the rationale for my assumption that it is not a later insertion by the original author, who was presumably skilled enough not to mix tenses throughout the rest of the book, and assumedly wouldn't have done so in making an amendment.

Beyond its presence in the archetype, what is the case for Mk 13:20 being original? Is Mark sloppy with tense in other situations where the context is more obviously contemporaneous with the pericope?
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: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:50 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:09 am Subject: Let the reader understand... Again
gmx wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:52 pmIt's a very clumsy insertion, if your "postulate" is correct.
What do you mean by "clumsy" in this context? (And why do you have "postulate" in quotation marks? Maybe I should have said "hypothesis." If that is why, then point taken.)
I said "postulate" in quotes because I was quoting you, and would not usually choose that word, and it felt unnatural to use it in my reply without some kind of marker. It wasn't a slight on your usage.
Fair enough.
I said "clumsy" because of the change in tense. I am assuming the change in tense is the key indicator that the verse was not original. Therefore, it is by definition clumsy, because it has been written in such a way that telegraphs it as a gloss.
Okay, I agree with this. I was not sure in what sense you meant it. (This is hardly the only clumsy part of Mark.)
This is also the rationale for my assumption that it is not a later insertion by the original author, who was presumably skilled enough not to mix tenses throughout the rest of the book, and assumedly wouldn't have done so in making an amendment.
Worth some thought, for sure.
Beyond its presence in the archetype, what is the case for Mk 13:20 being original? Is Mark sloppy with tense in other situations where the context is more obviously contemporaneous with the pericope?
There are some sloppy parts, to be sure, but I cannot think of any at the moment that have to do with the verb tense.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by neilgodfrey »

You guys need more dots to connect. ;-) Before you run out of them how about adding Enoch into the mix -- Saint Barnabas piously recorded for our benefit that the past tense phrase was known to him from his reading of the antediluvian Enoch. And there was been quite a corpus of scholarship addressing the influence of Enochian concepts on the gospels, including even connections between a possible dot in Enoch and the dot of Mark 13:20.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The past tense prediction of Mark 13.19-20.

Post by Charles Wilson »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:56 pm You guys need more dots to connect.
Neil --

I don't understand what more you could possible want! We've got plenty of dots and more pens than we need.
I even recently quoted "The Devil Came from Kansas". Isn't that good for something?

What a Slave-Driver!
Post Reply