Mark is thoroughly a pesher on the destruction of the First Temple

[rgprice]

I'll be doing a livestream on History Valley on Monday and in preparation I was re-reviewing Deciphering the Gospels and other notes and I realized that Mark is even more rooted on the theme of the destruction of the temple than I initially realized. I'd long known that the Elijah/Elisha narrative is a significant basis for the Markan story and that many other elements are derived from scriptures about God's punishment of the Jews. But I didn't really appreciate the fact that the Elijah/Elisha narrative is also about the destruction of the so-called first temple.

The ministry of Elijah and Elisha sets the scene for the Lord's punishment of the Israelites through the ultimate conquest of Israel and the destruction of the so-called first temple, beginning with the conquest of the Northern kingdom by Assyrians and then Jerusalem by the Babylonians. And indeed Isaiah also plays a part in this role, hence the attention as well to the scriptures from Isaiah.

When looking at the scriptural references used in Mark, they are almost all either to the Elijah/Elisha narrative, to the works of Isaiah, or to other prophets talking about the destruction of the first temple. When we look at the story of the destruction of the first temple, the story really begins with Elijah, then moves to Elisha, and then to Isaiah. Isaiah is the one who ultimately predicts the destruction of the temple and that fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. This explains the prevalent use of Isaiah in the narrative.

So the whole narrative about Mark contains within it the subtext of the story of the destruction of the first temple. References to Elijah/Elisha and Isaiah are used to recast the circumstances that led to the destruction of the first temple in light of the destruction of the second.

In discussing the fall of Israel to the Assyrians 2 Kings states:

7 Now this came about because the sons of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up from the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and they had feared other gods 8 and walked in the customs of the nations whom the Lord had driven out before the sons of Israel, and in the customs of the kings of Israel which they had introduced. 9 The sons of Israel did things secretly which were not right against the Lord their God. Moreover, they built for themselves high places in all their towns, from watchtower to fortified city. 10 They set for themselves sacred pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree, 11 and there they burned incense on all the high places as the nations did which the Lord had carried away to exile before them; and they did evil things provoking the Lord. 12 They served idols, concerning which the Lord had said to them, “You shall not do this thing.” 13 Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah through all His prophets and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments, My statutes according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you through My servants the prophets.” 14 However, they did not listen, but stiffened their neck like their fathers, who did not believe in the Lord their God. 15 They rejected His statutes and His covenant which He made with their fathers and His warnings with which He warned them. And they followed vanity and became vain, and went after the nations which surrounded them, concerning which the Lord had commanded them not to do like them. 16 They forsook all the commandments of the Lord their God and made for themselves molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal. 17 Then they made their sons and their daughters pass through the fire, and practiced divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him. 18 So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from His sight; none was left except the tribe of Judah.

19 Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the customs which Israel had introduced. 20 The Lord rejected all the descendants of Israel and afflicted them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them out of His sight.

This is essentially the theme of Mark.

All of this, again, is why I cannot go along with Marcus Vinzent in concluding the Marcion's Gospel was the first. It seems to me that this story, developed as a pesher on the story of the fall of the first temple, must be the origin of the Gospel narrative. It would seem to be exceedingly unlikely that "Mark" would be able to take a story developed without any of this in mind, and transform a story so thoroughly to this meaning useing scriptural references to passages that did not originate in a scriptural basis.

Alternatively, we would have to conclude that Marcion's Gospel actually looked more like Mark than Luke, which I think some have proposed. That I could possibly see, but it has to be that canonical Mark preserves the most faithful rendering of the earliest narrative.

[dbz]

Godfrey, Neil (29 March 2007). "The signs of the end in Josephus and Mark". Vridar. "Josephus (War 6.5.3-4) lists 8 astounding signs sent by God to warn the Jews of their impending disaster..."

Surely a catastrophe as momentous as the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 CE had to be linked in the minds of the authors of the first gospels with the crucifixion of Jesus. Is that not what the “Olivet Prophecy” of Jesus (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) was all, or in large part, about?

---

Godfrey, Neil (31 October 2021). "'The war of 70 is not a major issue' in the Gospels?". Vridar.

This post advances another reason to think that the author of the Gospel of Mark depicted the final days of Jesus as a metaphor for the fall of Jerusalem. If so, it follows that the resurrection of Jesus symbolized the emergence of a new “body of Christ” and “Temple of God” in the “ekklesia” or assemblies of Christians (what we think of as the “church”).

---

Godfrey, Neil (18 April 2014). "Jesus' Crucifixion As Symbol of Destruction of Temple and Judgment on the Jews". Vridar.

We can know from Paul’s letters to gentile Christians that the temple of Jerusalem was simply not a thing in the everyday consciousness of gentile Christians. It was not discussed. It was not important for their beliefs. It never arose in Paul’s conversations with them. Yet — in the gospel of Mark there are several chapters given to addressing the temple, its authorities, its fate and theirs. From the time Jesus enters Jerusalem and is welcomed by “the people” through to his trial the temple, its destruction, and the demise of the authorities of that temple, is constantly before us. Even Jesus’ debates with the leaders are debates with those who bear responsibility for the temple’s doom, and those debates are concluded with a parable pointing to their bloody end.

So why? Why does Mark devote so much of his narrative to the fate of the temple and those responsible for its end in a gospel written to gentiles who heretofore had not thought much about the temple at all? It presumably had no theological significance for them. So why?

---

Godfrey, Neil (27 October 2018). "Why and when 'Mark' wrote the first gospel: a new explanation". Vridar.

[rgprice]

Right, but its not just the obvious narrative in the later part of the story. I'm saying its the whole thing from beginning to end. Because the very first line of the story (actually verse 2) alludes to the temple. The whole Elisha/Elisha narrative is also ultimately about the destruction of the temple as well. So on a superficial level it may look like interest in the temple begins when Jesus enters Jerusalem, but it begins in chapter 1 actually.

It's a recasting of the scriptural history of the Israelites that led up to the Babylonian destruction of the first temple in the context of the Roman destruction of the second temple. And that starts with line one.

[dbz]

It's a recasting of the scriptural history of the Israelites that led up to the Babylonian destruction of the first temple in the context of the Roman destruction of the second temple. And that starts with line one.

[T]he precise beginning (the baptism) and the precise end (the death) of the earthly career of Jesus. This significant placement of the two instances of the motif of tearing suggests that we are dealing here with a symbolic "inclusio": that is, the narrative device common in biblical texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and structural integrity.

---

Ulansey, David (1991). "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusio". Journal of Biblical Literature. 110 (1): 123. doi:10.2307/3267155. online at "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Cosmic Symbolism in the Gospel of Mark". Mysterium.

I see the temple "Veil Torn" as symbolic of torah observance being deprecated. First-god has left and the END is coming, so follow Second-god to escape.

[Sinouhe]

When looking at the scriptural references used in Mark, they are almost all either to the Elijah/Elisha narrative, to the works of Isaiah, or to other prophets talking about the destruction of the first temple. When we look at the story of the destruction of the first temple, the story really begins with Elijah, then moves to Elisha, and then to Isaiah. Isaiah is the one who ultimately predicts the destruction of the temple and that fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. This explains the prevalent use of Isaiah in the narrative.

Do not underestimate the prophetic influence of the book of Isaiah on Mark and second temple Judaism. The greatest influence for Paul and Mark comes from Isaiah's servant (which should not be reduced to his suffering). All of Paul's and even Mark's eschatology concerning the return of Jesus comes from the eschatology of Isaiah.
And this is not at all surprising since 90% of the messianic texts of the second temple used Isaiah and the servant character to describe the Messiah.

Yes Mark used the prophetic texts that mention the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians to make pesharim of the destruction of the second temple. But the influence of Isaiah's servant is much more important than it seems. I even think that it is Ezekiel who is the main inspiration for Mark's pesharim about the destruction of the temple. Not Isaiah.

[Giuseppe]

I agree that Marcion was not the first, but I continue to think that the our gospels (included Mark) are reactions against Marcion.

After Marcion, only gospels written for gentiles could win readers: so Marcion transformed the human History only because he was the first Christian editor who wrote for gentiles and only for gentiles.

So, what was the first gospel, before even Marcion?

I can only say, about this first gospel preceding Marcion:

1) that Justin quoted from it sometimes, but not always (the birth stories reported by Justin are his own invention to attack Marcion);

2) that Marcion derived from it only what mattered to him;

3) that it was lost precisely because it was never understood fully, neither by Marcion, nor by the anti-marcionites;

4) that the reason it was never understood fully was because its midrashic and gematric nature appeared too much obscure for the same Jews (even more so for the gentiles).