Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote: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.

Sorry, I didn’t want to say that. I tend to think that the difference between “naos” and “hieron” in GMark is rather a thematic distinction and did not base on the concrete architecture of the temple in Jerusalem.

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

You had a good discussion with Ken Olson. I tend to agree that it is not completely clear to what Mark’s “stones and buildings” refer. It seems to me that Matthew and Luke recognized and corrected this. But I think it is not possible to argue that Jesus had the “massive Herodian buildings” in front of him while coming out of the temple, simply because there is no architectural distinction in GMark.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

iskander wrote: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”.

The confrontation in the temple terminates when Jesus leaves the temple.

In Mark 13: 1 we find how deep the disagreement between Jesus and Judaism runs : when Jesus is invited to compromise, in verse one , with the tradition associated with the temple and accept the magnificence that is the second temple ,Jesus explains his intention very clearly in verse 13:2.

Verse 13:2 signifies the end of the old order in Judaism, just as the fall of the Bastille in the French Revolution signifies the end of the Ancien Regime; or the crossing of the Rubicon signifies the end of the republican regime in the history of Rome.

Jesus leaves the temple and crosses the Kidron Valley to reach the Mount of Olives in order to see the temple from afar .
In 15:3 Jesus begins to explain the new order and the problems associated with the change ,problems he compares to birth pains; these birth pains -- like those that will give life to Imperial Rome or to Napoleonic France -- will give life to the Kingdom of God.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

FransJVermeiren wrote:KK,
A correct starting point is important.

I completely agree.

FransJVermeiren wrote: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).

Of course in general the gospel of Mark is highly important, because it is the first and therefore the foundation of GLuke and GMatthew. But if we look at the material that is present in Luke (and sometimes also in Matthew) and absent in Mark, we can discern a whole series of passages that refer to the war of 66-70 CE. I don’t think we can eliminate this information by suspecting Luke of an overheated phantasy. In my opinion Mark extremely dehistoricized the then events, and Luke partially rehistoricizes them. Luke probably wrote in circumstances (time, place) that allowed him to be less strict in dehistoricizing the events that gave birth to Christianity.

Just a few examples:
1. Mary’s song of praise and the prophecy of Zechariah at the beginning of GLuke describe a militant messianic liberation ideology (‘He has put down the mighty from their trones’, ‘that we should be saved from our enemies, from the hand of all who hate us’, ‘being delivered from the hand of our enemies’)
2. The extensive travel narrative in the middle part of GLuke contains several elements of a flight, with revolutionary taxation in the Zacchaeus story. In Mark (!) those who start their journey to Jerusalem are in shock.
3. The parable of the ten pounds is about Vespasian, with the killing of Simon bar Gioras during the triumph in 71 CE at the end of this fragment (‘But for as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me’.)
4. War reflections in 14:27-32 about the cross as the punishment for revolutionaries, about building a defensive tower, and about the opportunity of waging war against a powerful enemy.

Isolating GMark from the other gospels is detrimental for historical research into the origins of Christianity. It is like putting on a blindfold and then complain that there is only darkness.

Even GJohn contains important historical information. GJohn speaks of three Passovers during which Jesus is present in Jerusalem. Did John invent this long Judean period, or did the synopticists artificially compress Jesus’ stay in Judea/Jerusalem into one week?

FransJVermeiren wrote:But if we look at the material that is present in Luke (and sometimes also in Matthew) and absent in Mark, we can discern a whole series of passages that refer to the war of 66-70 CE.

I think you know that I completely agree. But this is not my point.

FransJVermeiren wrote:Isolating GMark from the other gospels is detrimental for historical research into the origins of Christianity. It is like putting on a blindfold and then complain that there is only darkness.

Maybe it’s a similar situation with Paul’s letters and Acts. Traditionally the letters were interpreted in the light of the rich “biographical” data in Acts about Paul. But a growing number of modern scholars trust no longer in the reliability of these data.

One of my problems with such a harmonization is that often it makes look one of the authors silly. Luke speaks explicitly about the destruction of Jerusalem, but he did not claim that it is a “tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and
never will be” (Matthew).

FransJVermeiren wrote:

------------------Matthew 24---------------------	-----------------------Mark 13-------------------------	------------------------------Luke 21---------------------------
(21) For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.	(19) For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, no, and never will be.	(23b) For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people;

Below I will discuss section after section of the middle part of the synoptic Apocalypse.
...
F. The tribulation / great tribulation / great distress theme. Here a highly exceptional phenomenon is described: something so extremely catastrophic that it has never happened before and will never happen again in the future. Θλιψις is generally understood as a period of oppression or tribulation, but in my opinion it is the code word for an oppressive event, namely for the greatest catastrophe thinkable for the Jews: the destruction of their Temple, the center of their nation, their life, their religion. See also section I.

I think that Jeremiah is clearly one of Mark’s and Matthew’s „favourite” prophets. Both evangelists are aware of the destruction of Solomon’s temple and the Babylonian exile. Imho they would never claim that the second temple destruction is a tribulation “such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now”

Mark 13:19: For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.

Josephus War VI:267 (about the destruction of the Temple): Deeply as one must mourn the destruction of the most wonderful edifice ever seen or spoken of, whether for its structure, size, and lavish perfection of detail, or the repute of its holy places, ...

Josephus describes the Temple as an unparallelled edifice, Mark calls its destruction an unparallelled catastrophe. In my opinion the meaning of the phrases 'from the beginning of the creation which God created until now' and 'ever seen or spoken of' is quite similar.