Matthew 24:14 and Preaching in the First Century

by Leolaia 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

the_classicist

I'm still agnostic on this issue and allow for both possibilities....
As am I (though it may not sound like it).
Leolaia

Here is something I wrote earlier that expands on the first paragraph of this thread:
In Matthew 24:1-3, the question asked by the disciples directly follows a statement by Jesus declaring that the Temple would be entirely destroyed. In the question of the disciples in v. 3, the author of Matthew lumps together the parousia and the "end of the world" with the destruction of the Temple. The presumption is that the parousia and the "end of the world" would occur at the same time as the destruction of the Temple. This builds on the expectation of many Jews and Christians during the Jewish War of AD 66-70 that the war would lead to the defeat of the Romans and establishment of God's rule.
However the wording of the question in Matthew 24:3 is not the original one, since Matthew has taken much of his material from Mark (Markan priority), and there the question makes no reference to the parousia and the "end of the world": "Tell us, when is this going to happen [i.e. the destruction of the Temple], and what sign will there be that all this is about to be fulfilled". In response to this question, reference is made to the Jewish War (Mark 13:5-8) as part of the "beginning of the birth pangs," and explicit reference is made to a desecration of the Temple (v. 14) as occurring "in those days" in a time of great distress, but Jesus also mentions that other things were to happen too "in those days, after that time of distress", including cosmic signs (v. 24-25) and the "coming of the Son of Man in the clouds" in v. 26-27. There is no concept of a huge interval of time between the destruction of the Temple and the parousia, as the text explicitly states that "this generation" (that is, the generation of Jews who lived during Jesus' ministry) would not pass away before "all these things will have taken place " (v. 30), and that the time "has been shortened" (v. 20). Yet the end does not occur during the war itself because it is only the "beginning" of the birthpangs and "the end will not be yet" (v. 7), but at the same time the parousia was supposed to occur "in those days" (v. 18, 24). It is often concluded from these data (along with other clues) that Mark was published very shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, such as between AD 70-75 (I personally suspect a date of AD 66-70 is not implausible either).
Matthew, on the other hand, was written some time later, as evidenced by its use of Mark (see the literature for a detailed discussion of this, especially H. Koester's Early Christian Gospels) and various internal clues (the usual date is between AD 80 and 100). By this time, the parousia and end had failed to materialize, and the apparent "delay" was a frequent concern of the sub-apostolic period (cf. James 5:7-8; 2 Peter 3:1-10; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 17-18; Revelation; 1 Clement 23:1-5), and this concern is highly marked in Matthew while absent in Mark. Thus, the author has modified Mark's eschatological discourse by adding a series of parables (Matthew 24:37-25:30) that have as a theme the apparent delay of the parousia (cf. "My master is delaying" in 24:49), the need to stay awake for the later-than-expected arrival of the bridegroom (25:6), and that a period of time would elapse so that the money deposited with the bankers would accrue with interest (25:27). The special interest at the time in the delayed parousia and "end of the world" is thus reflected in the reworking of the disciples' question in 24:3: "Tell us, when is this going to happen [i.e. the destruction of the Temple], and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the world?" The destruction of the Temple is no longer the primary concern; the additions pertain to what was still being eagerly expected: the parousia of Christ and the impending eschaton.
The author next attempts to answer these questions in further additions to the Markan text. Thus the sign itself is mentioned explicitly in v. 30: "And then (tote) the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven," a phrase absent in either Mark or Luke, and the time of the "end" is specified in v. 14: "This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed to the whole world as a witness to all the nations, and then (tote) the end will come", again a phrase that is absent in the parallel passages in Mark 13:10 and Luke. Luke, on his part, indicates the delay independently in other ways. He leaves the disciples' question from Mark unchanged (cf. Luke 21:7), explicitly indicates that the "signs" will appear "in the sun and moon and stars" (v. 25, Mark does not indicate what are to be "signs," while Matthew refers to the "sign of the Son of Man in heaven"), and inserts a condemnation of those who had said "The time is near at hand" (v. 8) when in fact it wasn't (this phrase is absent in Mark 13:5-6 and Matthew 24:5, 26). Luke also utilizes many of the same eschatological parables as Matthew but inserts them elsewhere in the gospel instead of in the eschatological discourse.
So in short, the original version of the question related only to the destruction of the Temple and Jesus' answer implicitly linked it with the war and the future parousia and end of the world, whereas Matthew has modified the question to explicitly refer to the parousia and end, so that Jesus in his reply could treat these events as well, and explain that they are coming soon even though they do not occur at the same time as the Roman destruction of the Temple. That is, Jesus' response is directed to those who, like the disciples asking the question, had lumped together the "end of the world" and parousia with the destruction of the Temple and had erroneously expected all three to occur in connected fashion.
Terry

As a sidebar:
Homer's ILIAD is preserved in 457 papyri, 2 uncials, 188 miniscules.
The story is largely filtered through tellings, retellings and accretions on a vast scale. The story goes back to about 850 B.C.E. We credit some guy, Homer. We know less than we might think about him.
Yet, the story remains essentially a series of purported historical events of causes and effects. Some match certain findings by archaeology and most do not.
There are conversations with gods and godessess; monsters and mayhem abound. Yet, would any of us want to base our very lives on the turn of a phrase or the actuality of an event so as to swear by it or insist one way or another to the verisimilitude with history?
The so-called New Testament is attested to by 5,000 Greek manuscripts. As any textual critic or honest scholar will tell you: it is a stark fact that NO TWO MANUSCRIPTS AGREE in every detail.
All scholars agree that you cannot simply take the oldest manuscript and trust it, for they may conceivably be the very poor copies, while later manuscripts may be good copies of excellent parent stems that are now lost.
The permutations of POSSIBILITY are enormous. NOBODY KNOWS for sure.
How can we declare any orthodoxy at all in view of this?
It is mere obstinancy and assertion of hubris to do so.
T
peacefulpete

Ironically the Q hypothesis' greatest advocates are those insistant upon an historical Jesus. It seems that the hypothesis has survived and grew in popularity through the assumption that removed from the mythic tales there must be something that could be attributable (sayings, quotations) to an historical person. Just as the question of whether there can be assumed an historical Jesus, there is a growing doubt about the necessity of Q. As Leolaia noted the Farrar/Goodacre hypothesis explains the relationship equally well. This however means that those insisting upon an historical Jesus have even less to cling to and as a result it's unlikely to gain wide acceptance any time soon.
And as far as the date of the Canonical gospels, yes there is sufficient evidence to accept at the least Mark was written in the late first century. Questions about the form of the book is another topic as we do have to rely upon centuries old copies that reveal many and varied subtle and not so subtle alterations.
the_classicist

The so-called New Testament is attested to by 5,000 Greek manuscripts. As any textual critic or honest scholar will tell you: it is a stark fact that NO TWO MANUSCRIPTS AGREE in every detail.
You of all people should know that where they do disagree, it is usually pretty insignificant and doesn't affect doctrine and most of the changess over the ages were small, usually adding "Christ" after "Jesus" (the Comma Ioanneum is the largest addition I can think of, although there are the disputed parts of Mark).
Leolaia

I think this thread has strayed a little from the original focus...namely, on the statement in Matthew that the end will come once "the gospel has been preached to the entire world".
This wording is entirely intelligible in a first-century context, as it was commonly stated that "all the inhabited earth" had already received the gospel by that time. In contrast to this, the WTS would like to think that Matthew 24:14 is being fulfilled for the first time in their own movement in our present day.
truthseeker

Leolaia, what you said seems to make sense.
Also, shortly after Jerusalem was destroyed, Paul said something to the fact, "that in the last days ridiculors" would come and ask where this promised presence [of Jesus Christ] was.
So, if this is the case, would that place Matthew before Paul or later, in terms of the written gospel?
Were Christians expecting the end of the world or the end of the Jewish system of things?
Also, Jesus message was "repent for the Kingdom of the Heavens has drawn near." Jesus never spoke about an earthly paradise, not once.
Therefore, after the apostles and Christians fled to the mountains, heard that Jerusalem was destroyed, what then? What future for Christianity?
If you have any info about what happened after 70AD, would you like to share it with us?
It does seem at the time, that the knock on effect of "what do we do now?" would have been great.
One more question, after 70AD, is that when those extra books were written?
Leolaia

I miss the old days. It was always fun talking with euripedes, Narkissos, Midget Sasquatch, etc. in these threads. Where have they all gone?
God bless PP, the_classicist, and all you others...
(being only half serious)
steve2

One of the seductive aspects of questioning is, Where or when does it stop? The JWs, like all cultists, are perhaps right about the "dangers" of questioning: There's no knowing where it will lead.
Whether Mathew meant this, that or the other is of less concern to me than whether he was or wasn't inspired of God. And that sort of question just goes around and around and around.
Questions are dangerous - they imply a lack of ease with the status quo. But once we start questioning it becomes a test of our ability to tolerate ambiguity because the more we allow ourselves to ask, the more questions that we probably end up saying, "I just don't know...anymore".
In my opinion, what drives people to search for "ultimate" answers to their questions is not "a love of the truth" - as if it existed as some definable entitiy - but the drive comes from an intolerance and/or fear of ambiguity. We live in a powerfully uncertain world and we crave certainty.
It takes guts to say "I just don't know" when the predictable impulse as a JW was to say "Tell me what I need to do to live forever". steve2
Leolaia

Also, shortly after Jerusalem was destroyed, Paul said something to the fact, "that in the last days ridiculors" would come and ask where this promised presence [of Jesus Christ] was.

Paul was dead by the time the Romans besieged Jerusalem. I think you're thinking of Jude and 2 Peter 3 (which is likely dependent on Jude). The date of Jude is very murky due to the parenetic nature of the epistle, tho a post-70 date is probably more likely than a pre-70 date (but see Bauckam on this). 2 Peter would definitely be post-70, if not second century...
So, if this is the case, would that place Matthew before Paul or later, in terms of the written gospel?
The consensus is that the corpus Paulinum (minus the Pastorals and Ephesians) is the earliest extant Christian literature, antedating the narrative gospels.
Were Christians expecting the end of the world or the end of the Jewish system of things?
Both Christians and eschatologically-oriented Jews were expecting an impending end to the present age. The Christian expectation is derived somewhat from the earlier Jewish one. The NT concept of Judgment Day has apocalyptic Jewish and OT antecedants (cf. 1 Enoch 1:9, the great theophany of Judgment Day, is quoted as an inspired prophecy in Jude 14-15); the Christian expectation effectively replaces the divine agent of the eschatological judgment with Jesus.
Therefore, after the apostles and Christians fled to the mountains, heard that Jerusalem was destroyed, what then? What future for Christianity?
For Mark, the end would happen shortly after. There is no clear distinction between the eschaton and the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew, written later, acknowledges a delay. Yet it is the most eschatologically-focused of all the gospels. It is filled with many unique statements about Judgment Day, the resurrection, Gehenna, etc. The Matthean community, likely a law-observant Jewish-Christian group in Syria, still had eschatological hopes in the late first century (see David Sim's Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew).
If you have any info about what happened after 70AD, would you like to share it with us? It does seem at the time, that the knock on effect of "what do we do now?" would have been great.
The generation after AD 70 seems to have indulged in a lot of eschatological speculation, among both Jews and Christians, as can be seen in the statements about the delay in James, Jude, 2 Peter, 1 Clement, etc., and the publication of apocalyptic works like Revelation, the Sibylline Oracles, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra -- the latter two works specifically interested in exploring the significance of the destruction of the Second Temple and "what will happen next".
One more question, after 70AD, is that when those extra books were written?
Which books?

Matthew 24:14 and Preaching in the First Century

Share this