Mark used Q

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

...Continuing about the prophecy of destruction and reconstruction found in the Logoi but put by Mark on the lips of false witnesses:

Can you tell in which "logoi" this can be read? Is that just one of the usual fantastic assertions or is there at least some rational thought behind it?

Logoi 7:22

"I will destroy thos sanctuary that is made with hands, and
I will build another that is not made with hands".

No mention of "after 3 days", which would be a Markan addition.

Do you have a link to these logoi or are they just in someone's head?

[Giuseppe]

Do you have a link to these logoi or are they just in someone's head?

the Logoi have been published in the previous book of prof MacDonald (Two Shipwrecked Gospels) and published again entirely in his book on Q and Mark.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Do you have a link to these logoi or are they just in someone's head?

the Logoi have been published in the previous book of prof MacDonald (Two Shipwrecked Gospels) and published again entirely in his book on Q and Mark.

So these logoi are the "logoi according to MacDonald" written in the 21st century. How can Mark have used these logoi when someone only came up with them a few years ago?

[Giuseppe]

In whiletime, the logic used appears to be very sharp.

Frankly, I am interested more to resolve the question of the dating of every gospel, if before or after the 70 CE.

In my eyes, a proponent of Q's priority who dates Q after the 70 is easily identified with a proponent de facto of Marcionite priority. Now, MacDonald dates his expanded Q to before the 70. This makes virtually very interesting his case.

[Ken Olson]

...Continuing about the prophecy of destruction and reconstruction found in the Logoi but put by Mark on the lips of false witnesses:

Can you tell in which "logoi" this can be read? Is that just one of the usual fantastic assertions or is there at least some rational thought behind it?

Logoi 7:22

"I will destroy thos sanctuary that is made with hands, and
I will build another that is not made with hands".

No mention of "after 3 days", which would be a Markan addition.

There is no mention of 'after three days' in the non-extant source that MacDonald hypothesizes once existed?

How does he know there was a source that read that way?

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

According to Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial, “some people stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying ‘We heard him say “I will destroy this sanctuary that is made with hands, and after three days I will build another that is not made with hands.”’ Not even then was their testimony consistent” (14:57–59). Although earlier in the Gospel Jesus had predicted that someone would destroy the temple, he never claimed that it would be he. At his crucifixion, taunters repeated the slur against him: “Destroyer of the sanctuary and builder of it in three days, rescue yourself by coming down from the cross!” (15:29). Mark’s readers should recognize the irony in their mockery: Jesus was not destroying the temple, his murderers were. When he expired, the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom, an apparent portent of its eventual devastation. Then, “after three days,” his body was raised from the dead.

(Two Shipwrecked Gospels, p. 296)

Note 175 in the same page describes in detail what prof MacDonald has to say about 'after 3 days':

Kurt Paesler has argued in detail for the following history of the saying about the
fall of the temple (Das Tempelwort Jesu: Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament [FRLANT 184; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1997]).
• The origin of the saying lies in “the genuine Jewish expectation of an eschatological temple” (228).
• The earliest form of this saying, perhaps from Jesus himself, is preserved in Mark 13:2, except for the words “after three days.” Paesler reconstructs the saying as follows: “One stone here will not be left on another stone that will not be destroyed” (121). He even proposes and Aramaic original to the saying (256–61).
• The next discernable stage of the tradition informed John 2:19; here the words “after three days” already have been added to reflect Jesus’ resurrection. Paesler reconstructs the Johannine traditional saying like this: “I will destroy this sanctuary and after three days I will raise it up.” To reconstruct this tradition Paesler, without textual justification, alters John’s λύσατε, “dissolve,” to read καταλύσω, “I will destroy,” and ἐγερῶ, “I will raise,” to οἰκοδομήσω, “I will build” (228). The Evangelist altered the saying in a controversy with Docetists (“He was speaking of the sanctuary of his body” [2:21]), but a saying similar to the traditional one flowed into the version now found in Gos. Thom. 71: “Jesus says, ‘I will [destroy this] house, and no one will be able to build it [again]’ ” (121–22)

Basically, as the Paesler's argument goes, the construct 'after 3 days' has been added since it reflected late anti-docetic polemic. If Jesus is alluding to his body, then he has one.

In other terms, something as: too much theological to be original.

MacDonald quotes the similar saying in Thomas where the temple is considered a material temple, so preventing the possibility that the original logion referred cryptically to the body of Jesus.

[Charles Wilson]

Logoi 7:22

"I will destroy thos sanctuary that is made with hands, and
I will build another that is not made with hands".

No mention of "after 3 days", which would be a Markan addition.

No.

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

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Note 175 in the same page describes in detail what prof MacDonald has to say about 'after 3 days':

Kurt Paesler has argued in detail for the following history of the saying about the
fall of the temple (Das Tempelwort Jesu: Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament [FRLANT 184; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1997]).
• The origin of the saying lies in “the genuine Jewish expectation of an eschatological temple” (228).
• The earliest form of this saying, perhaps from Jesus himself, is preserved in Mark 13:2, except for the words “after three days.” Paesler reconstructs the saying as follows: “One stone here will not be left on another stone that will not be destroyed” (121). He even proposes and Aramaic original to the saying (256–61).
• The next discernable stage of the tradition informed John 2:19; here the words “after three days” already have been added to reflect Jesus’ resurrection. Paesler reconstructs the Johannine traditional saying like this: “I will destroy this sanctuary and after three days I will raise it up.” To reconstruct this tradition Paesler, without textual justification, alters John’s λύσατε, “dissolve,” to read καταλύσω, “I will destroy,” and ἐγερῶ, “I will raise,” to οἰκοδομήσω, “I will build” (228). The Evangelist altered the saying in a controversy with Docetists (“He was speaking of the sanctuary of his body” [2:21]), but a saying similar to the traditional one flowed into the version now found in Gos. Thom. 71: “Jesus says, ‘I will [destroy this] house, and no one will be able to build it [again]’ ” (121–22)

That's exactly what we talked about.

I would like to question the Carrier's dubious claim that Q is a source invented by historicists for historicists (not precisely his own words, but the sense was that).

imho the invention of Q has several causes. One of them, however, is the firm belief that a) Jesus existed and that b) the gospel texts are more or less based on real events, no matter how much these were literarily transformed. The reconstructed Q usually forms the link between the assumed realistic and true-to-life conversations of Jesus and the literary sayings and artificial dialogues in the gospels.

There are a few scattered sayings in several gospels that may have something to do with the temple, and Paesler believes in an archetype that goes straight back to Jesus. Paesler definitely claims that the original saying goes back to the historical Jesus. (page 262 of the German edition)

Paesler noted that it is difficult to interpret the exact wording of Mark 13:2 as the destruction of the temple. Why is there this emphasis on crushing every single stone while not mentioning the temple itself?

No, not shall be left here stone upon stone, which no, not shall be thrown down.

So he invented an Aramaic saying of Jesus so that Mark's exact wording becomes secondary. In doing so, Paesler even overlooked the big problem, which, on the other hand, has not escaped the notice of our own Andrew:

Andrew Criddle, Does Mark’s Jesus prophesy the destruction of the Temple ?

Mark 13:1-2 reads
As Jesus was leaving the temple (Greek: "ἱερόν"), one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Eliav argues that, if read without any reference to either the events of 70 CE or to the parallels in Matthew and Luke, this is not a reference to the destruction of the Temple itself but a prophesy of the destruction of the massive Herodian buildings on the Temple Mount surrounding the Temple.

The false witnesses claim: "We heard Him saying, 'I will destroy this sanctuary (Greek: "ναός"), the one made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In whiletime, the logic used appears to be very sharp.

I apologize. I just wanted to play

[Giuseppe]

In whiletime, the logic used appears to be very sharp.

I apologize. I just wanted to play

Frankly, I find very convoluted your (and Andrew's) expedient to see "special irony" in the accusation put on the mouth of the false witnesses. According to your argument, Mark invented witnesses who would have been derived in error by hearing precisely what Jesus said while the latter was leaving the temple. Isn't this the nec plus ultra of the so much abhorred literalist reading?

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.