C S Lewis shortlisted a number of logically problematic texts. Allow me a quote from
https://archive.org/details/revelations-gone-global/page/110/mode/1up.
[Lewis called Mk.13:30, “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible” (Lewis 1975:69). But before we jump to the idea that Jesus was mistaken, we should note that almost immediately Jesus added that even he did not know “that day or hour”. Moreover, the fact that decades later the Gospel writer kept both the seeming gaffe, and the certain self-certified ignorance of Jesus (32), tells a story. Do such texts “make up the strongest proof that the NT is historically reliable” (Lewis 1975:70), telling a story of integrity? For who but an honest writer would highlight a gaffe—followed by a confession of ignorance—by one they deemed to be in a one-of-a-kind sense, God’s son who had been raised from death and was their lord?
Lewis noted how it can seem to us to be a gaffe. But decades on, did the Gospel writers think it to be a gaffe? Perhaps if we hear with their ears, we would hear a better story. “There is no need to seek some esoteric interpretation of [
this generation], once we realize that the event being referred to by ‘these things’ and ‘all these things’ in Mk.13:29–30, is the same as ‘these things’ and ‘all these things’ in 13:4—Jesus’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 13:2” (Robert H Stein’s
Mark (BECNT), 2014:15781-3/29605: Kindle).
Lewis had a fair point as to v32, but increased the puzzle if they were thinking of Jesus as being God, as Lewis assumed. Personally I think that they had better insight, though uncrystallised theologically. Theologically, Jesus was not God omniscient, but was and is the permanent temporal (time/space) mode of the uncreated eternal second person of deity. That is, God’s son incarnate/physical had the limitations of carnate/physical humanity, not the unlimitations of God the son noncarnate/nonphysical, the personhood without the incommunicable attributes, of God the son.]
I have skipped some footnotes. CSL wrote with more QQQ than AAA, but he ploughed on, further in and higher up, for a detective follows the clues to resolution. He was the first to admit that he was no theologian, and he was skeptical about many theologians. But a higher view than his high view of Scripture, is justifiable.