Mark’s Olivet Discourse - Probably not about the Temple

[Bernard Muller]

I think that originally gMark did not have the mini-apocalypse (Mk 13), but it had the parable of the tenants (Mk 12:1-10). So gMark was written right after the news of the fall of Jerusalem with the destruction of its inhabitants getting known in his community. Also, "Mark" saw then the opportunity to suggest that was due to the Jews of Jerusalem killing the Son (12:6-9a). He also took the opportunity to prophecy a change of the guard --the Jewish priests being replaced by Christian presbyters (12:9b)-- and Christianity replacing Judaism (12:10) seemingly for the long run (no apocalypse to happen soon).
The "long run" is also justified by "Mark" having Jesus accepting the payment of tax to the Romans (12:14b-17), which would be not necessary if the "end" would happen very soon after Jerusalem fall, as indicated in Mk 13.
And for "Mark", at the time, that was all (about the fall of Jerusalem) which would be of interest for a Gentile Christian community then.

But weeks or months after, the mini apocalypse was added, with a sense of urgency. Its tone/mood is very different from the rest of the gospel, somewhat panicky, with "Mark" having Jesus getting out of character several times (or overstepping his Jesus).
What would have caused that? I think the fact of (false) (Jewish or Jewish Christian) Christs & prophets appearing in Mark's community, likely calling for vengeance & rebellion or predicting the "end" to come soon, and probably gathering followers around them (Mk 13:5-6, 21-23).
"Mark" was afraid his own community would joined them. The message was: stay where you are, because, if you do, you will be the elects to enter the Kingdom of God, which will happen very soon.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

.
In German scholarship, the second I would like to discuss the question which importance these possible allusions to the historical events have for Mark’s Olivet discourse and I’m not sure that is much more than a side note.

Agreed.

Context is unknown and still debated. But the destruction of the temple ands its relationship is not debated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivet_Discourse


The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, by David Roberts (1850).
According to the narrative of the synoptic Gospels, an anonymous disciple remarks on the greatness of Herod's Temple,[8] a building thought to have been some 10 stories high and likely to have been adorned with gold, silver, and other precious items. Jesus responds that not one of those stones would remain intact in the building, and the whole thing would be reduced to rubble.

The disciples asked Jesus for a sign, "When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" The disciples, being Jewish, believed that the Messiah would come and that his arrival would mean the fulfillment of all the prophecies they hoped in. They believed that the Temple played a large role in this, hence the disciple in the first part boasting to Jesus about the Temple's construction. Jesus' prophecy concerning the Temple's destruction was contrary to their belief system. Jesus sought to correct that impression, first, by discussing the Roman invasion, [Matt. 24:4–34] and then by commenting on his final coming to render universal judgment.[24:35–51]

[Charles Wilson]

Mark 13: 14, 17 (Moffatt):

[14] But when you see the appalling Horror standing where he has no right to stand (let the reader note this), then let those who are in Judea fly to the hills;
...
[17] Woe to women with child and to women who give suck

Josephus, Antiquties..., 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... he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes[/u][/i].
I'm not gonna take up much time here, other than to assert the obvious: Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation. Alexander Jannaeus retreats (in an absurd description from Josephus) and then marches on Jerusalem where the throats of the pregnant and nursing women are slit in front of their crucified men - "Woe to women with child and to women who give suck".

'N there it is...

Thanks Charles. Could you a bit explain what your point is?

As I have said before, from the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from Sources, it does not follow that the Sources were about "Jesus". I am asserting, as plainly as I can, that Mark 13 is a rewrite of Alexander Jannaeus' defeat at the hands of the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, near the Temple at Gerizim. This Story is not about a "Jesus". Mark 13 is a Story about the Hasmonean King and High Priest Alexander Jannaeus. It was Demetrius Eucerus who committed the Abomination of Desolation and the Fake Story from Josephus concerning the reactions of the Mercenaries and Demetrius supports this.

Jannaeus flees to the mountains for 6 years, marches on Jerusalem and takes over. He crucifies 800 of his enemies and slits the throats of their pregnant wives and children in front of them as they are being crucified. This is restated in the verse Mark 13: 14: " Woe to women with child and to women who give suck".

There is more. I have good reason to believe that the "Half hour of silence in Heaven" in Revelation is a Symbol for Queen Salome. The entirety of Chapter 7 before Salome in the beginning of Chapter 8 is about the Great Tribulation. All of this is Postdiction. Jannaeus is defeated by Demetrius who commits the Abomination of Desolation. Jannaeus flees to the mountains. He and his followers nearly die. This is the Great Tribulation.

If you are looking for "Jesus" here, you won't find him. From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" are written from Sources, it does not follow that the Sources were about "Jesus". The Romans rewrote even the Stories of the Great Jannaeus for the Glory of Rome.

John 12: 48 - 50 (RSV):

[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."

They even tell you what they were going to do and did!

To be clear, I do not question that in Mark 13 are one or two allusions to the Jewish war.

There are other Source Stories than Stories from the "Jewish War". This is one of them.

But I would claim that the historical events had no or only little relevance for the content of the Olivet discourse.

Mark 13 IS about an Historical Event. Whatever else is said usually takes the Form of Transvalued Analysis. The Original "das Noumena" concerning Jannaeus is lost and only the Transvalued "Phenomena" is left. However, there is no "Jesus" found at Gerizim.

The issue and function of the Olivet discourse is imho the preparation of the disciples up to the time of the coming of the son of man.

Maybe so. That Symbolism is in your Department.

Best,

CW

[Bernard Muller]

From http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant13.html: "and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes." in chapter 14
and not "the throats of the pregnant and nursing women are slit in front of their crucified men"
(nothing in first quote about "pregnant", "nursing" & "women")
(nothing in the second quote about "wives" & "children")

From the RSV for Mk 13:17 ''And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!" (because of lack of food in the mountains or a besieged city!)
and not "Woe to women with child and to women who give suck"

So the comparison would be between:
"and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes."
and
''And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!"
Relatively few common elements between the two quotes.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

----------------
Furthermore, there are no certain references to the historical events of the Jewish war in Mark 13, only two or three possible allusions. Jerusalem and the holy temple (ναός - naos) are not mentioned, only the temple area with the courts* (ἱερόν - hieron).

I would like to discuss the question which importance these possible allusions to the historical events have for Mark’s Olivet discourse and I’m not sure that is much more than a side note.

• * Is 'courts' referring to inner courtyards or outer courts (or outer courtyards)? or a combination?

Greek Word Studies wrote

Two Greek words are both translated by the one word temple. Each has a distinctive meaning and refers to a particular thing. Hieron comes from a word meaning “holy, hallowed, consecrated,” and was used of earthly things devoted or dedicated by man to a god. It was later used in the New Testament to designate the temple at Jerusalem. It includes the entire sacred enclosure with its porticos, courts, and other subordinate buildings. It is never used figuratively. Naos referred to the inner sanctuary, composed of the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place. Only priests could lawfully enter. Naos was used among heathen to denote a shrine containing the idol (Acts 17:24; 19:24). When referring to the Jerusalem temple, Josephus, Philo, the Septuagint, and the New Testament always distinguished hieron from naos. After describing the building of the naos by Solomon, Josephus wrote: “Outside the temple (naos) he constructed a sacred enclosure (hieron) in the form of a square.”

I would say, if one would refer to the destruction of the temple, the term “naos” would be expected because that is the “crime”. It is also the case in Mark 14-15:

14:57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple (ναὸν) that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”

15:29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple (ναὸν) and rebuild it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!”

Cheers, Kunigunde. I did look at hieron from naos. I guess I was as interested in your reference to ''temple area" or "temple area with the courts" in terms of ruins.

Apparently "In addition to restoration of the Temple, its courtyards and porticoes, Herod also built the Antonia Fortress, abutting the northwestern corner of the Temple Mount."

There is reference to now being able to visit and enter "inner courtyards of the ancient Temple" and a "Women's Courtyard in the east".

Jo­sephus wrote of an open-air courtyard “laid with stones of all sorts.”

[outhouse]

I am asserting, as plainly as I can, that Mark 13 is a rewrite of Alexander Jannaeus' defeat at the hands of the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, near the Temple at Gerizim.
CW

What theological reason would there be to add this and not make it clear what the context actually was?

13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

The context factually is about jesus and the temple

[MrMacSon]

------
..I am asserting, as plainly as I can, that Mark 13 is a rewrite of Alexander Jannaeus' defeat at the hands of the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, near the Temple at Gerizim. This story is not about a "Jesus". Mark 13 is a Story about the Hasmonean King and High Priest Alexander Jannaeus. It was Demetrius Eucerus who committed the Abomination of Desolation and the fake story from Josephus concerning the reactions of the Mercenaries and Demetrius supports this.

Jannaeus flees to the mountains for 6 years, marches on Jerusalem and takes over. He crucifies 800 of his enemies and slits the throats of their pregnant wives and children in front of them as they are being crucified. This is restated in the verse Mark 13: 14: " Woe to women with child and to women who give suck".

• < . snip . >

Mark 13 is about an Historical Event. Whatever else is said usually takes the form of 'transvalued analysis'. The original "das Noumena" concerning Jannaeus is lost and only the transvalued "Phenomena" is left. However, there is no "Jesus" found at Gerizim.

The issue and function of the Olivet discourse is imho the preparation of the disciples up to the time of the coming of the son of man.

• Maybe so. That Symbolism is in your Department.

• Interesting.

[Ben C. Smith]

I keep staring at Mark 13.10; it looks so out of place. Hermann Detering, in The Synoptic Apocalypse, a Document From the Time of Bar Kochba, gives three reasons for thinking that Mark abbreviated Matthew's apocalypse rather than that Matthew bolstered Mark's, and Mark 13.10 is the clearest one:

Matthew 24.4-8; 10.17-22; 24.9-16	Mark 13.5-14
Matthew 24.4-8: 4 ... See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.	Mark 13.5-8: 5 ... See to it that no one misleads you. 6 Many will come in My name, saying, "I am He!" and will mislead many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end. 8 For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
Matthew 10.17-22: 17 But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; 18 and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. 20 For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. 21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.	Mark 13.9-13: 9 But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. 10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. 12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. 13 You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
Matthew 24.9-14: 9 Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. 10 And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.	-
Matthew 24.15-16: 15 Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.	Mark 13.14: 14 But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

Detering writes:

The word πρῶτον (“first”) in Mark 13:10 doesn't make sense, since it is not clear from the preceding text to what it refers. Mark can hardly have wanted to say that the gospel must be spread across the whole world prior to the persecution of Christians referred to in 13:9. That matter is treated in 13:7 and 13:13. But the substantial gap in between makes it impossible to any longer detect the connection. From this it follows that Mark was writing with a document in view — such as Matthew 24:13-14 — in which the proclamation of the gospel and the coming End formed a meaningful connection.

The verse Mark 13:10 consequently appears to derive from the text of Matthew 24:14. It was only that Mark, who wrote his own version, failed to incorporate half of the verse, “and then the end will come.” Nevertheless Mark did, in his own mind, retain the spirit of the passage. That accounts for the term πρῶτον (“first”), which now becomes a revealing indicator of his dependence on the text he had before him.

....

Indeed, in my opinion it would be very difficult to explain Matthew's procedure at this point if one assumed his exclusive dependence upon Mark. Even if it were conceivable that he removed the passage Mk 13:9, 11-23 from its original context and inserted it in the tenth chapter of his gospel, it remains remarkable that he did not transfer Mk 13:10 into chapter 10 along with the rest of the text, but left the verse standing in chapter 24 — to be sure, now assimilated in a different, more meaningful context than in Mark.

And he has a point. Mark 13.10 does seem to presume the timeline expressed in Matthew. This is one of those cases in which I am tempted to conjure the shade of scribal harmonization. This verse does show quite a bit of variation in the manuscripts, though none seems to omit it altogether. Perhaps a scribe copying Mark remembered the line in Matthew about the gospel being preached and added it in to the margin, and other scribes later both inserted it into the text proper and tried to get it closer to what they remembered of the Matthean wording.

But then, there is also the fact that 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 seems to line up with Matthew better than with Mark:

1. Both Paul and Matthew 24.3, 27, 37, 39 use the term παρουσία for the advent. Mark 13.1-37 and Luke 21.5-28 lack this word.
2. Both Paul and Matthew 24.30 associate the advent with heaven. The other parallel verses, Mark 13.26 and Luke 21.27 lack this mention. (Nota bene: Other instances of the term heaven are found in all three synoptic discourses, but the one I am talking about is the one that describes the descent of the son.)
3. Paul mentions an archangel. Both Matthew 24.31 and Mark 13.27 mention angels, but not Luke.
4. Both Paul and Matthew 24.31 mention the trumpet, but not Mark or Luke.
5. Both Paul and Matthew 24.31 mention a gathering, expressed by some form of the Greek word συν (ἐπισυνάξουσιν in Matthew, ἅμα σὺν in Paul). Mark 13.27 has this, as well (ἐπισυνάξει), but Luke does not.
6. Both Paul and Matthew 24.36 discuss knowing (or, rather, not knowing) the day and the hour (as Matthew has it) or the times and the seasons (as Paul has it). Mark 13.32 has this, as well. But not Luke.
7. Both Paul and Matthew 24.36 use περὶ δὲ to transition into the discussion of the day and the hour (the times and the seasons). So does Mark 13.32, but not Luke.
8. Both Paul and Matthew 24.43 compare the advent to a thief (κλέπτης). The discourse in both Mark and Luke lacks this metaphor.
9. Paul mentions the night; Matthew 24.43 mentions the watch (of night implied); Mark 13.35 mentions midnight. Luke lacks this metaphor.
10. Both Paul and Matthew 24.8 have birth pangs. Mark 13.8 does, as well, but not Luke.
11. Both Paul and Matthew 25.5 mention sleep. So does Mark 13.36, but not Luke.
12. Both Paul and Matthew 24.42 mention being awake. So does Mark 13.35, but not Luke (though it is found elsewhere in the book, in Luke 12.37).
13. Paul mentions drunkenness; Matthew 24.49 mentions drunkards; Luke 21.34 mentions drunkenness. Mark lacks this theme.
14. Paul shares with Luke 21.34 alone the term αἰφνίδιος (suddenly).
15. Paul shares with Matthew 25.6 the term εἰς ἀπάντησιν (to meet or unto a meeting).
16. Paul shares mention of the clouds with all three synoptics (Matthew 24.30 = Mark 13.26 = Luke 21.27), though in Luke the word is singular.
17. Paul shares with Luke 21.36 alone the theme of (no) escape.

So we have (at least these) 17 Pauline connections with one or more of the synoptic discourses, of which Matthew shares 15, Mark 9, and Luke only 4. Some of these connections might be thought of as pretty minor, but there are also some pretty major ones that Matthew and Paul share against Mark and Luke, including the use of the terms παρουσία and εἰς ἀπάντησιν, the mention of the trumpet, and the metaphor of the thief.

The whole issue is rather complex.

[Charles Wilson]

I am asserting, as plainly as I can, that Mark 13 is a rewrite of Alexander Jannaeus' defeat at the hands of the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, near the Temple at Gerizim.
CW

What theological reason would there be to add this and not make it clear what the context actually was?

To extrapolate only a little, it would be the difference between what Mark was and what Mark became. "What Mark was..." may not have been as Theologically Directed as "What Mark became...". There is an important point to be made here in answer to Bernard's Post. See below.

13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
The context factually is about jesus and the temple

In the written setting of Mark, yes. In the Source Material of Jannaeus-that-became-Jesus-through-Mark, no.
That's great Storytelling.

From http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant13.html: "and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes." in chapter 14
and not "the throats of the pregnant and nursing women are slit in front of their crucified men"
(nothing in first quote about "pregnant", "nursing" & "women")
(nothing in the second quote about "wives" & "children")

From the RSV for Mk 13:17 ''And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!" (because of lack of food in the mountains or a besieged city!)
and not "Woe to women with child and to women who give suck"

So the comparison would be between:
"and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes."
and
''And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!"
Relatively few common elements between the two quotes.

Your alternative is a false one, Bernard (Though I appreciate your analysis...). Where is your proof that Jannaeus told the murderers/troops to ONLY kill the women who were not pregnant or nursing? (Remember the old joke about the train passing through an English field that had sheep: Passenger:"The sheep here have black faces". Doctor: "In this field." Philosopher: "Of those sheep whose faces are turned our way...")

It's not that there are relatively few common elements between Josephus and Mark 13. It is that there are any common elements at all and there are many. I don't disagree with the Context argument of outhouse. The Scope of the Context will find different meanings and, TO ME, the wide Context finds that Jannaeus, Salome, the Hasmoneans and the Mishmarot Service Group Immer all have major parts in the NT. YMMV.

Look at the Context of Mark 13: 11 (RSV):

[11] And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

Who/What is this "Holy Spirit" and why is this character in Mark at all? In Acts, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit replaces the Baptism of John, before many even know of the Baptism of John. Bernard, it is now the Hour of Decision for you: Do you look for a possible Historical reason for these things or do you go Somewhere Over the Rainbow? The featureless, dis-embodied Holy Spirit might just be a Literary Device to represent the Damnatio'd Domitian. If so, then we have Method, Motive and Opportunity for the Crime. YMMV, but realize that we are at the same Epistemological Level. "It's not "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", it's that people BELIEVED that it was somewhere over the Rainbow" ". "It's not that Domitian BECAME "Lord God Domitian" but in the Story of the Rise of the Flavians (and their deification), we can trace the Literary Devices used in the Courts of, especially, Titus and then Domitian".

They took a Story of the House of Eleazar (Lazarus, as in, "He has been in the grave 4 days and is stinking...") and Resurrected him for the Glory of the Flavians and Rome

Revelation 7: 14 - 17 (RSV):
[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."

This is Jannaeus the King and Immer the Lamb.
'N Mark 13 tells the Story of Jannaeus after his defeat at the hands of Demetrius Eucerus and his subsequent March back to Jerusalem.

Sure, sure, the Context is Jesus. The Story is something else entirely.

CW

PS EDIT: Thank you, MrMacSon, as usual, for your consideration here.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Overall, I see only one true reference to the destruction of the temple (and of Jerusalem overall), and that reference is the one which starts the chapter off. The rest was not really about that until it was put into this context.

.
I would like to discuss the question which importance these possible allusions to the historical events have for Mark’s Olivet discourse and I’m not sure that is much more than a side note.

Agreed.

Context is unknown and still debated. But the destruction of the temple ands its relationship is not debated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivet_Discourse

Thanks to both of you. I'm happy to agree with you, outhouse. It was especially my hope that also a member with a strong interest in the history behind the text could agree with this.