A prima facie problem with the Olivet Discourse is that Jesus appears to make the fall of Jerusalem, the Parousia, and the end of the world roughly simultaneous. One explanation is that this is composite discourse, so it reflects an editorial, thematic sequence rather than the original sequence. The Olivet Discourse may be a composite discourse, parts of which were delivered at different times, then spliced together.
Nowadays, many commentators regard the Gospels as very artfully crafted works with a narrative theological strategy. But as Lydia McGrew and I have discussed, it's preferable to view them as oral histories.
Between about the 1:21-25 min mark of this panel discussion:
Lydia has a different explanation for the Olivet Discourse. Before commenting on that I'd like to take a step back to draw a distinction between misremembering and not remembering. I'm sure we've all had long conversations which we then recount to a friend. We don't remember the exact flow of the conversation. We don't remember the sequence in which things were said. Certain things stick out in our minds, and that's what we recount.
That's different from misremembering. In misremembering, we mistakenly think we're reproducing the original sequence.
Now Lydia's point is that the disciples may not recall the original sequence of what Jesus said. So when the discourse is retold by the Synoptics, there may be an unconscious rearrangement of the order in which things were said. As a result, some things are put together as if they go together, in a way that doesn't match the flow of what Jesus said.
That can foster the misimpression that Jesus synchronized certain events when in fact these are different, chronologically separate, spaced out events. The discourse doesn't reflect historical continuity, but memorable highlights. In recounting them they appear to be concurrent or overlapping events, when in fact that's selective, nonlinear recall.
Jesus talks to the disciples about the destruction of the temple. For the Jews the destruction of the temple must be the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe disciples ask Jesus when will this happen (The destruction of the temple) and the sign of the end of the age? The disciples think they are asking Jesus one question. We know it's actually two questions.
The olivet discourse is hard to follow because Jesus switches backwards and forwards about 70AD and his return.
I do not think he goes back and forth. I tend to follow France, Gentry and others that he answers the question about his coming in verse 36.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteOff topic but, I was reviewing your comments on the Dillard/Longman OT intro and was curious as to how it capitulated to a lot of liberalism? I see it is heavily used in a lot of seminaries. Admittedly, I haven't read it but I am familiar with Young's work (which you compared or contrasted it to).
It capitulated on issues of authorship, historicity, prophecy after the fact. A lot of that was gratuitous. It's useful on thematic analysis.
DeleteI think the Oliver Discourse is an outline of Jesus’ eschatological teaching. The ABA’B’ structure is clear, and the events of 70 are subtly distinguished from the end. Similar to the OT prophets the “Day of the Lord” blended events soon to take place with events further down the road.
ReplyDelete