Mark’s Olivet Discourse - Probably not about the Temple

[Bernard Muller]

About Mk 13:10, "Mark" might have thought that by 70 AD, the Gospel (a la Paul & others of his contemporaries) had been preached all over the known world.
In Mk 1:1, the author seems to call his text "the beginning of the gospel", not the whole Gospel, as preached by the early apostles (mainly according to alleged revelations & visions or/and references to the OT).
So "Mark" might not have referred to his gMark as "the gospel", but the previously orally transmitted Gospel.

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

In the Source Material of Jannaeus.

No evidence of such. Its a personal opinion at this point, correct?

Ummmm...I worry about this, outhouse. Is it your "opinion" that your Hellenistic System of Judean Society is true? HELL, NO!!! It's fact, correct? It's not just "opinion", unless you simply want to argue semantix wit' ol' Charlie. 'N you know what? I agree with you for the most part because we both have access to the literature and access to archaological material (Leibner) and we know that Jerusalem was Hellenistic in orientation and had been for a long time. Is that "OUR" opinion then?

Here's one:

Luke 2: 36 - 38 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
[38] And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Subtract 84 from 8 CE and you get 76 BCE. What happened in 76 BCE? Jannaeus died and the widow Salome ascended to the Throne. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!
[Edit Note: I've Posted on this frequently. The Passover of 9 CE is important. Due to calendar issues, it's just easier to subtract the particular year from 8 CE.] Except that there are more time markers that reference the Hasmoneans and their fight with Herod: "The Old Man by the Pool" = He was ill for 38 years. "It has taken 46 years to build this Temple..." "The Old Woman Bent Over for 18 Years" => Herod finishes the Cloisters in 10 BCE. "The Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter", who was 12 years old.

WHAT COINCIDENCES!!!!!

"Wow, that Charlie sure has an active imagination! It's his opinion that Jannaeus married a "Salome", not a "Salome Alexandra", like Josephus clearly stated...". Uhhh, where did Josephus state that Jannaeus married his brother's wife in a Levirite Ceremony? If we are to focus on the Biblical descriptions and not an "Original Story", what does "...lived with her husband seven years from her virginity" mean? "It means that Hannah wasn't Salome, silly!" Then, how do we determine whether Charlie merely has an opinion or if he is accessing some Priest's Historical Record?

"You must turn as a child and..." "No...No...It's not "turn as a child", it's change as a child because...because JESUS!!!" Sorry, you've just lost a possible meaning to the Story that changes everything. But...JESUS!!!

My "opinion"? No. More than that I believe...

CW

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have three further arguments to surmise that Sinaiticus could be the original version of Mark 13:10

I would love to see them. I did notice quite a bit of textual messiness in this verse and in the surrounding verses (even more than LaParola displays).

As usual: Not to convince you of anything, just my thoughts with my own presumptions while thinking about this problem

1) First and foremost, I think Hermann made a good observation and a good argument, but not as strong as he thought. It has to do with the difference of “first” and “before/prior”. One could say “This must be done first” and it isn`t necessary to mention a second or third thing, because the rest can be implied in the sense of “first of all” or it can be understand as “first and foremost”. This is not possible with “before/prior”. Hermann understood “proton” in the sense of “before/prior” and almost all German translations do this. Hermann wrote:

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.

But “proton” means literally “first” and Mark also used “proton” in the sense of “first and foremost”.

Mark 9:11
10 So they kept this matter to themselves, discussing what it meant to rise from the dead. 11 And they asked Jesus, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”

Furthermore, I disagree that Matthew has the “better” chronology. Matthew wrote

24:14 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.

But this isn’t the end in Matthew’s "chronology of the end". After that he added and added and added ...

2) I would not claim that Sinaiticus has the original reading of Mark 13:10. But I would rather tend to it.

Acts 13:46
45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

This is exactly the idea of the Sinaitic reading of Mark 13:10. I think the question is from where the author of Acts got the idea that it was necessary to preach the word of God first to the Jews. It doesn't seem to be his own position because Paul and Barnabas claim that it is now enough and that they can go to the Gentiles. I think it is not too far fetched to expect a saying of the Lord. But if I have not overlooked something you will not find such a saying (not in Acts, GLuke or Paul’s letters), except in Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 13:10.

I think if it was the original reading and the original position there could be a good possibility that such a position was later rejected. Acts 13:46 could be one of the first steps.

This position would agree with the metaphor of Mark 7:27 (in little disagreement with Matthew)

26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

At the end I think it could explain the development of the minority readings. In Sinaiticus the word order “πρῶτον ... δεῖ” makes a good sense. The word order “δεῖ πρῶτον” in Alexandrinus seems to be a better word choice than “πρῶτον δεῖ” in Vaticanus. The assumed omitting of an original “laon” would explain this situation.

assumed chronological order

πρῶτον λαὸν δεῖ] ‭א*
πρῶτον δεῖ] ‭אc B D Ψ 28 892 pc vg WH
πρῶτον δὲ δεῖ] W Θ 565 pc it syrp
δεῖ πρῶτον] A L f1 f13 Byz itq syrh ς

[Ben C. Smith]

Kunigunde, Bibleworks 9 has this for the original reading in Sinaiticus: πρ[ος] τον λαον, and this for the correction: πρωτον.

Peter Malik also has προς τον λαον as original and πρωτον as the correction.

Here is the snapshot of the verse again in Sinaiticus:

sinaiticus-mk13.jpg (39.72 KiB) Viewed 5354 times

Can you see what they are talking about there? I confess, I am not seeing any suppressed ος underneath the πρωτον.

[MrMacSon]

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.”

• Cheers. I surmise I don't get the exact point of your interest.

I was thinking 'temple area' means a time after the temple had been destroyed. If there were ruins, the inner court[yards] might be visible. If not accessible, or visible, the references to courts could be to outer courtyards.

[andrewcriddle]

This blog post Does Mark’s Jesus prophesy the destruction of the Temple ? may possibly be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

KK -- No offense intended.

Dito.

To me, the "Original" IS found in the known GMark. A consistent history may be found by looking at what we have and reading it with a different Intentionality, but you are not interested in that. OK.
You once asked me to explain some of this and wrt Mark 13, I did.

Yes, but I said that you should make your own thread about this. Because – and I say this only as an excuse - I never get the logique of your thoughts. You think that Mark 13 is about Alexander Jannaeus, but you could also claim that it is about Herod or Hannibal or the Thermopylae. I’m not able to make the jump in this thinking. It would be an adventure for me to get this.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

KK,
A correct starting point is important.

I completely agree.

I believe the scope is too narrow if Mark 13 is isolated from its parallels in Matthew and Luke.

I believe exactly the opposite In agreement with my POV I would never call the later stories of Matthew and Luke “parallels” of Mark. I think the goal is Mark to isolate as best as possible. If there is only the slightest change in the wording, there should be always the suspicion that Matthew and Luke could have changed the whole sense.

In the case of the so called synoptic Apocalypse we could note that in GMark and GMatthew Jesus was teaching on the Mount of Olives, but in GLuke it is a teaching in the temple. I do not think that is a blind chance or has something to do with Luke’s “sources”. I think that Luke changed Mark’s story and that he made it about the temple and therefore in GLuke the teaching is in the temple (theme = place of the story).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Mark13:1-2 apparently belongs to chapter 12; its inclusion in chapter 13 is the result of a misleading chapter division, for 13:2 concludes the confrontation which begins in 11:27 through chapter 12.The chapter divisions in the OT and the Jewish Bible are also different one from the other, so that this problem is a frequent occurrence in the bible considered as one unit .

I have also some “pains” that the verses are not at the end of Mark 12. But I think that they are rather “transition verses”.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Kunigunde, Bibleworks 9 has this for the original reading in Sinaiticus: πρ[ος] τον λαον, and this for the correction: πρωτον.

Peter Malik also has προς τον λαον as original and πρωτον as the correction.

Here is the snapshot of the verse again in Sinaiticus:

sinaiticus-mk13.jpg

Can you see what they are talking about there? I confess, I am not seeing any suppressed ος underneath the πρωτον.

I also recognized this, but I have no explanation for that claim. The Omega of "πρωτον" is very obviously.