|
Listen to this post:
|
The excellent NET Bible has some interesting things to say about Jesus’ famous confession of ignorance in Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36. First, they differ from the majority of modern versions that I mentioned in my previous post re: the original text of Matthew 24:36. You can read why they think “neither the Son” was not originally there in their comments here, note 54.
But it is in their note on Mark 13:32 that these conservative evangelical scholars choose to face the difficulty here for claims that Jesus is divine. They write,
The phrase nor the Son has caused a great deal of theological debate because on the surface it appears to conflict with the concept of Jesus’ deity. The straightforward meaning of the text is that the Son does not know the time of his return. If Jesus were divine, though, wouldn’t he know this information? There are other passages which similarly indicate that Jesus did not know certain things. For example, Luke 2:52 indicates that Jesus grew in wisdom; this has to mean that Jesus did not know everything all the time but learned as he grew. So Mark 13:32 is not alone in implying that Jesus did not know certain things. The best option for understanding Mark 13:32 and similar passages is to hold the two concepts in tension: The Son in his earthly life and ministry had limited knowledge of certain things, yet he was still deity.
NET Bible comment on Mark 13:32 (note 44 here).
What is noteworthy here is how they completely ignore the many traditional misinterpretations of this text, many of which are still regularly dusted off and trotted out as plausible by popular apologists. No, these (e.g. Jesus really means that he does know but is not authorized to publicly proclaim the day and hour) are so anachronistic or otherwise implausible that this is to be preferred: just “hold in tension” the claims that (1) Jesus, as fully divine, at this time knew all, and yet (2) at that same time there was something he didn’t know.
That’s a bitter pill to swallow! But the point is that honesty to the text requires admitting that “The straightforward meaning of the text is that the Son does not know the time of his return.” The guild of New Testament scholars will no longer tolerate any of the traditional, creedally-motivated misinterpretations.
This is progress!
Still, when it comes to evidential concerns, what little they say is unhelpful. “Holding in tension” is a euphemism for believing what appear to be logically inconsistent claims. For an approach which actually wrestles with the evidential problems, see the work of mysterian Dr. James Anderson.
And, where are these honest conservative scholars when conservative popular apologists re-hash old misreadings? It is not right that one answer should prevail among the scholars while a bunch of discredited old answers should be out there confusing the laity. Get out there, scholars, and contradict the easy-answer-men, and show us some good tension-holding.
