Mark used Q

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What derived my attention is the fact that in Thomas the material temple is predicted as being destroyed. The passage from a prophecy about destruction and reconstruction of the material temple to a prophecy about a temple destroyed and reconstructed in three days is more expected than the vice versa.

Thomas spoke of a "house" without further defining it. According to the language used at the time, this can also mean the "house of Judah" or even the earliest "Christian house groups" (see B. J. Beggs, The Role of the House Motif in the Gospel of Mark).

[Giuseppe]

It seems that MacDonald appeals on Paesler for what is essential for his argument: a prophecy of the destruction and reconstruction of the temple before the 70.

On the other hand, Paesler surely is correct in locating the origin of the saying in Jewish eschatology concerning a renewed temple and in viewing “after three days” as a christological addition, which most likely reflects Mark’s redaction and not a preMarkan stage. Mark’s three so-called passion predictions (8:31, 9:31, and 10:34), all clearly are his creations, and each contains the words “after three days.”

(my bold)

In conclusion, if a such logion existed, it would explain (1) the false witnesses, (2) the addition of "after three days", (3) the fact that Mark 13 is entirely, apologetically focused to safeguard the life of the disciples, (4) the introduction of false Christs resembling, and only resembling, the true Jesus, (5) the rending of the veil at the crucifixion and not more before it.

To judge only from the effects, it would seem that the cause could be only that specified by MacDonald: the existence of a such logion.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In conclusion, if a such logion existed, it would explain (1) the false witnesses, (2) the addition of "after three days", (3) the fact that Mark 13 is entirely, apologetically focused to safeguard the life of the disciples, (4) the introduction of false Christs resembling, and only resembling, the true Jesus, (5) the rending of the veil at the crucifixion and not more before it.

imho Mark 13:2 also refers to Mark 12:10

12:10 Have you not read this Scripture: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
13:2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Doesn't that seem obvious?

Have a good evening, Giuseppe

[Giuseppe]

Kunigunde, thank you for the feedback.

While it is clear that you would like to neutralize the 'false witnesses' as a pure invention of Mark (in the sense that there were none there out to accuse "Mark") by appealing to his 'special irony', I have found a better explanation that would find more credit among people, like me, who would like to see mere sectarian polemics in action behind the gospels.

Wedderburn, Jesus' action in the temple

Favouring Mark 13:2* as possibly authentic, Wedderburn regard Mark 14:58 as most probably a reflection of controversy between Jews and Christians caused by the Christians' claim to be themselves God's temple (cf. 17).

https://books.google.it/books?id=LuKMmV ... &q&f=false

So, if Wedderburn is right about the post-70 dating of the accusation put on the mouth of the false witnesses by "Mark", the entire case of MacDonald collapses and all the Q-energies are better used to argue for Marcionite priority.

[Giuseppe]

Wedderburn is enough persuasive to postdate entirely after the 70 the logion of the prophecy of destruction and reconstruction of the temple:

Furthermore, Mark’s readers would remember that, whereas Jesus had said something about the destruction of the temple in ch. 13, he had not mentioned its rebuilding. That could only reinforce the fact that this testimony in Mark’s account was false, but it is doubtful whether Mark would simply have invented that element in order to demonstrate that falsity. Does this element in the charge then reflect arguments between Jews and Christians over the latter’s claim to be themselves God’s temple, a claim that surfaces as early as 1Cor 3,17 (in a collective sense) and 6,19 (of the individual Christian)? Whether it goes back further to Jesus’ own time is more doubtful, for such a claim to be the true, eschatological temple makes better sense once some Christians had distanced themselves from the temple in Jerusalem. [Perhaps for comparable reasons the Qumran community could speak of themselves as God’s ‘holy house’ (1QS 8,5) and ‘a foundation of the building of holiness’ (11,8); in addition there is the enigmatic reference to a ‘temple of man’ in 4Q174 1,6.]

(my bold)

Of visions of a renewed temple, in any form whatever, there are otherwise no traces in the Jesus-traditions, whereas the call for repentance and change in the face of impending judgement and disaster is apparently part of Jesus’ message from the start and is a theme that he shares with John the Baptist.

[lsayre]

What is so difficult about examining an alternative explanation?

The Priesthood will destroy the Temple made by hands (Herod, et. al.), and will build another Temple (as in the Old Testament) not made with hands.
Look at the Mishmarot Priesthood at the death of Herod and the Passover at 4 BCE. When is Passover in 4 BCE? From the "High Sabbath" (See: John) to the Weekly Sabbath is THREE DAYS.

OH!!

Why not look at the Priestly Explanation that is implied here? Herod builds a Temple for HIS glorification (Josephus), celebrating the opening of Temple Cloisters with the day of his ascension. The "Woman Bent Over for 18 years" aligns perfectly, for example, with the Time Line here. The "Jesus" character, as with the "Man with the Withered Hand", releases the Woman from her affliction, the affliction being Roman and Herodian in Origin. She no longer has to worship God AND HEROD on the same day.

"I will destroy [this] sanctuary that is made with hands, and
I will build another that is not made with hands"

Yes. Exactly.
Why not simply look to see if it is possible?

CW

I appreciate the way in which this greatly demystifies the explanation for "three days".

[schillingklaus]

The false witnesses are mere scriptural midrasch without historical reason whatsoever, as denied by apologists like Kreuzerin.
It is even inappropriate in the gospels as there were so many direct witnesses of Jesus' misdeeds all across the gospel stories, whence there would have been no need for false ones, as already indicated by GA van den Bergh van Eysinga.

Of course, Mk has not invented this accusation thing but copied it from proto-synoptic source gospels, for Mt has something similar. But only Jean Magne realized the chaotic mixture found in the trial of the claimed messiah, with Mk switching improviso between a more Mt-like and a more Lk-like source.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

While it is clear that you would like to neutralize the 'false witnesses' as a pure invention of Mark (in the sense that there were none there out to accuse "Mark") by appealing to his 'special irony', I have found a better explanation that would find more credit among people, like me, who would like to see mere sectarian polemics in action behind the gospels.

Wedderburn, Jesus' action in the temple

Favouring Mark 13:2* as possibly authentic, Wedderburn regard Mark 14:58 as most probably a reflection of controversy between Jews and Christians caused by the Christians' claim to be themselves God's temple (cf. 17).

According to Andreas Bedenbender, there were Christians very early on who interpreted the destruction of the temple as God's punishment on the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Mark wanted to denounce such "erroneous" views and therefore attributed this temple word to false witnesses.

[Giuseppe]

According to Andreas Bedenbender, there were Christians very early on who interpreted the destruction of the temple as God's punishment on the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Mark wanted to denounce such "erroneous" views and therefore attributed this temple word to false witnesses.

This surprises me. I knew from Vridar's posts about Bedenbender's view that he interprets continually Mark as allegory of the destruction of the temple etc.

Now instead you are saying that he thinks that Mark was against the view: death of Jesus ----> destruction of the temple.

How do you explain this contradiction?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

According to Andreas Bedenbender, there were Christians very early on who interpreted the destruction of the temple as God's punishment on the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Mark wanted to denounce such "erroneous" views and therefore attributed this temple word to false witnesses.

This surprises me. I knew from Vridar's posts about Bedenbender's view that he interprets continually Mark as allegory of the destruction of the temple etc.

That's correct, but not in the sense of a punishment. But I have to correct myself. It was not God's punishment, but the punishment of the risen one.

Andreas Bedenbender, Frohe Botschaft am Abgrund, page 56 (German edition)

Mark used the account of Jesus' trial to brand as false witnesses those Christians who saw Jesus as a relentless enemy of the temple.

BedenbenderAndr.jpg (125.36 KiB) Viewed 393 times