Yuri Kuchinsky

Sounds good to me, Andrew!

I'm all for Lukan priority.

They all used each other... Keep in mind that these are essentially the 4th century texts of Mt, Mk, and Lk that we have as our canonical text.

Yes, the earliest proto-gospel was clearly already in existence way before the Bar Kokhba revolt. And IMHO our canonical Lk preserves that text best of all.

Regards,

Yuri.

andrewcriddle

I've been thinking about the 'abomination of desolation' passage and I'm increasingly tempted to identify it with the sacrilege and murder perpetrated in the inner courts of the temple by the Zealots and their allies, beginning shortly before the Romans under Titus moved to besiege Jerusalem.

Josephus in the 'Jewish War' explicitly claims that these outrages were the reason God permitted the temple to be destroyed.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey

Does Detering date the whole of Mark after 135 or just this 'little apocalypse' chapter? I thought he suggested that Mark 13 is a redaction of Matthew's chap 24 counterpart. (But I only sort of read his article some time back through a machine translation.)

I like the idea of Golgotha/Place of the Skull being a cryptic reference to the Temple Mount but have my doubts that it can stand. The triumphal procession of Jesus' execution is actually the second triumphal procession in Mark -- the first one was his entry from outside the city though the adulatory crowds and on to the temple (I don't have the reference for this at hand but you probably know it anyway -- can check it later if wanted). The fact that he didn't enter the temple till the day after his entry is also consistent with triumphal processions often having to be completed the next day. Once in the temple Jesus engages in settling religious issues with the authorities -- just as the triumphator would settle (usually religious) business with Senators in the Capitol on his arrival.

The point is, that this first triumphal procession of Jesus is being "balanced" by his second mock triumph to his execution. A triumphal procession began outside the city and this mock one is, with typically Markan reversal, going the opposite direction. This is further suggested by the accosting of Simon "passing by" as he was "coming out of the country" -- a portrayal hard to picture anywhere but just outside the city.

Incidentally, this "coming out of the fields/country" reference is, I think, further support for Schmidt's suggestion that this is a mock execution. As I recall Schmidt, he compares this Simon carrying the cross with the executioner carrying the double headed axe and leading the sacrificial victim. There is a reference in Heliodorus's "An Ethiopian Story" (bk 3, ch1) that specifically says these executioners in such processions not only led the sacrificial victims and carryied their instrument of execution, but were "from the country/farms", wearing "country/bucolic clothing".

But back to the abomination of desolation reference, the allusions in Mark 13 to subsequent events in Mark are not sequential, nor are they restricted to subsequent events. Mark 13 refers to disciples (including women) fleeing and leaving garments behind "after" the abom of des -- which of course is an allusion to what happened "before" the trial of Jesus. Mark 13 is just as thick in its allusions to prior events, too -- e.g. the fig tree, preaching to all peoples from far and wide, transfiguration, and Jesus standing at doors. So the "randomness" of Mark 13 allusions minimizes the likelihood that abomination of desolation refers to the crucifixion on the Temple mount in part "because" it is mentioned after the warnings of being handed over for trials.

Further, would Mark really have referred to Jesus' crucifixion as an abomination? Doesn't he see it as a triumphal entry into the glory of the kingdom?

As for the aside to tell the reader to understand, I suspect this has more to do with telling his readers not to be like the incomprehending and failing disciples in his gospel. The Daniel passage of the abom of des includes two references to "those who understand" -- these are the ones who are strong and pass the spiritual tests. Mark is telling his readers to be among those who "understand" and not be like the disciples and women followers in Mark's gospel. His readers are in the world marked by this abom of des, not the disciples. This of course also supports, I think, a date from the time of Hadrian.

Despite my doubts about the Golgotha/Temple Mount indentification, I see Detering's date of Mark 13 as having more going for it than the post 70 date -- but I find it harder to see Mark 13 as anything but integral to the rest of the gospel. If Mark 13 is post 135 so is the whole of Mark. (Luke's removal of the abom of des reference would seem to be consistent with his reputed preference to be as nice as possible to Romans.)

neilgodfrey

Clarification: My reference to Jesus settling religious issues in the temple as his first acts after his triumphal procession into Jerusalem was a reference to his taking on the questions of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes in the temple -- not the so called "cleansing" scene.

Vorkosigan

Here are some comments from JM:

*****
Michael,
The "abomination of desolation" quote is found in 1 Macabbees as well as Daniel. In each case, it appears to be directly related to the acts of a political entity, not an individual. Also, it seems doubtful that
Mark's intentions relate to Jesus's cross on the Temple Mount, since it is also coupled with the "flee to the mountains" motif, which was not necessary and did not happen in Mark's gospel.
Best
Rod Green

******

How does this relate to the dating of Mark? The prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Mark
13:2)is after the fact, and could only have been written after 70 CE. This is the terminus post quem for the Little Apocalypse (Mark 13).

Mark 14:58 indicates an expectation that the temple would be rebuilt. This became possible only after 118
CE when Hadrian became emperor and allowed the Jews to return to Israel. He granted permission to rebuild the temple.

But Hadrian broke his word, and this initiated the Bar Kochba revolt. With God and the Christ (Bar Kochba) on their side, they would just kick the Romans out and rebuild the temple themselves. This almost miraculous event was anticipated so strongly that coins were struck.
http://www.amuseum.org/book/page19.html

This is the situation we find pertaining in GMark, and is the most likely time for the composition, at least of these sections. After this utter defeat in 135 CE, the possibility of rebuilding the temple ended, and is the terminus ante
quem for Mark.

Detering is right.

******

ROD G: Mark does not reflect any expectation that the Temple will be rebuilt by men. It was to be a messianic miracle, as so stated. When Mark wrote, possibly as early as 70 CE, he would not even have known what the Romans planned to do after their conquest.

MICHAEL T: (we got lots of Michael-s going here!) Yes, but when Hadrian shows up in ~130 it was clear what was going to happen, right? When Jesus is accused of saying that he would destroy a man-made Temple, *which one is he referring to?* The one built by Herod, or the one built by Hadrian? Double meanings!

Mark's underlying scriptural references are strongly-temple focused. For example, in Mark 3:1-6, where Jesus heals the withered hand, the underlying scripture (1 Kings 13:4-6) references a Son of David (Josiah) who will sacrifice the priests at their own altars. In Mk 11 the "den of robbers" refers to a passage where Jeremiah discusses the destruction of the Temple at Shiloh. In other words, in Mark's day, the destruction of the Temple in 70 has become history interpreted theologically, and viewed with a certain nostalgia. That bespeaks a later period. Had Mark been writing in the 70s, he would still be working out the theological implications in his text. But there is no working out of this, instead, Mark understands the destruction of the Temple in a developed way.

IMHO Mark's concentration on the Pharisees is the sign of a later Gospel that is not consistent with a date as early as 70. The Sadduccees ran the Sanhedrin and supplied the High Priests. If Mark wanted to condemn Jewish leadership, why does he target Pharisees and not Sadduccees? They led the Temple in period immediate prior to the 70s! Yet they appear once by name, and then disappear. Mark does not even name the High Priest, so indifferent is he to the Sadduccees. Mark's wrath is targeted at the Jewish leadership of *an entirely later era*, when the Sadduccees were non-existent/unimportant, and the problem was the Pharisees. Mark cannot have been written in the 70s, as Pharisaic leadership did not emerge so early.

Further, Mark understands Christians as those who "come in My name." Yet Christians were not known as such until the late first century, early second. Prior to 70 they were the the Elect, the Saints, the Church of God. Yet another indication of a late date.

ROD G: Even if Mark 14:58 referenced a human reconstruction of the Temple (which it clearly doesn't), the author of Mark could not have known in 70 CE what the Romans were going to allow or
disallow in Judea. The Romans often destroyed whole cities within their Empire and then paid to have them rebuilt, almost exactly as they had been! IMHO, I believe we are stretching our
interpretations here to the breaking point.

MICHAEL T: Well, scholars are split on how that is to be interpreted. Does Jesus mean the Church, himself, or what? If it references the Church, that again is a signal of a later date, when Christianity was being envisioned by orthodoxy as a single unified entity. Yet another indication of a late date. But this one is very ambiguous. If only Mark had been written by a clod like Matthew who liked everything nice and clear *sigh*.

Michael

******

Jake:

Simon bar Kochba (Son of the Star) was a messianic
claimant who was expected to rebuild the Jewish
temple. Coins from that period show the Temple with
the Messianic star on the roof. Bar Kochba considerd
himself the moshiach, the Christ, and was so
proclaimed by Rabbi Akiba.

Since Christians already had their own claimant, Bar
Kochba persecuted the Christians. "Barchochebas, the
leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that
Christians alone should be lead away to cruel
punishments, unless they should deny Jesus as the
Christ and blaspheme." Justin, _First Apology_ 31.6.
These historical persecutions of Christians by Jews
were cast back into Jesus' mouth as prophecy. Mark
13:11-13, Luke 21:12.

By the time of Bar Kochba, the rebuilding of the
temple had become a sign of the messianic age. The
intentions of the false messiah were cast back as
prophecy to the mythical mouth of Jesus.

Vorkosigan

I think you are right in that he puts Mark 13 there. But I am not one of those people who believe that Mark had a source for that; it's from his hand.

Yes, the Temple entrance is a convention of the King's entrance into the city, which began as epiphany story, of course, of the God's entrance into the city.

I agree with that last comment. It is a problem. Kind of you to give us the answer, though.

Thanks for that! Schmidt DOES say that, I noted that in my discussion of the passage on my commentary. But Heliodorus is just the thing I need. This suggests that Mark is packing a number of different tropes in there, and they don't all fit together in a nice neat package. Coming from the country is a reference to his ironic role as executioner, not to the site of the Crucifixion, which is not clearly specified in Mark.

BTW Ethopian Story is a great tale, especially the opening, which reminds me of a Conan story. But Heliodorus might be a little late for our purposes here.

Good point.

This I don't agree with. Hang on...

Markan irony hard at work, of course.

Good observation...

Yes. The 70s is just too soon for the persecution motif, which is a Markan subtheme, occurring in Mark 4 and elsewhere.

That's pretty much my view.

Rod Green pointed out that the abomination of the desolation also occurs in 1 Macc.

1 Macc 1:54: Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah,(RSV)

and 6 Macc:

7: that they had torn down the abomination which he had erected upon the altar in Jerusalem; and that they had surrounded the sanctuary with high walls as before, and also Beth-zur, his city. (RSV)

when the idol is destroyed. The Jesus Seminar noted that "fleeing to the hills" may also be drawn from Macc

1 Macc 2:28 says:

27: Then Mattathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying: "Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!"
28: And he and his sons fled to the hills and left all that they had in the city.(RSV)

When you reflect on the fact that Hadrian positioned himself as Antiochus Epiphanies...and that Antiochus IV Epiphanies pissed the Maccabees off by erecting what was probably Zeus statue on the altar in the Temple, and Hadrian pissed off Bar Kochba & Co by erecting a Jupiter statue on the Temple site, the parallelism is difficult to resist.

I think, to get back to your earlier point about being out of order, Mark is doing what he has done the entire gospel, echoing back to other parts of it, not necessarily in the same order. Mark 13 is a microcosm of Mark. Two parts of Mark 13 are in order, the Trial and persecution bit, and the parable of the watcher, which defines the time of the arrest and trials.

But everything is in and out of order. Mark has mixed up history and his gospel together. On one side he is pointing to the present situation of Christians (hated for my sake). On another reading, he points to his own future (hated for his own sake). Yet on the third reading he points back, as Weeden argued, to 8:34-41 and 10:23-31, which are structurally similar, in Weeden's view. That is why I am less inclined to think that the order means anything.

We had discussed a while back about how the Healing of the Paralytic echoes Jesus own death and burial -- four men accompany the paralytic (who can't move but isn't dead) just as four main disciples accompany Jesus across Galilee. They remove the roof and stick him in a house, just as the stone is rolled back and Jesus is stuck in the Tomb. And Jairus and the dead girl echo Joseph of A and the dead Jesus. And (further) in the synagoge Jesus heals a withered arm and the Bad'uns plot to kill him for no good reason (just as the Sanhedrin in the Temple tries Jesus and kills him for no good reason). Mark's gospel is constantly echoing itself out of order, in little bits and pieces. So I don't see a reason why Mark 13 should be tied down by parallels in order.

My reading: Mark is pulling a Daniel here, living in the present (revolt of 135) and attempting to predict the near future (both Mark and Daniel failed miserably). Note the implicit link between both, each deals with an Antiochus Epiphanies, in a way. When Mark warns us to look for the fig tree getting its leaves back, he is referring to the revival of Israel. Hence Mark must be living through that moment or very close to it -- early in the struggle when the end is uncertain. There is no way he is writing this in the early 70s as there was no clue that Israel would rise again. I think Jake's suggestion that the False Christ is Bar Kochba may have merit.

I suspect Mark is conscious of his link to Daniel, and may think of himself as the man in linen in Dan 12, the revealer of secrets.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I should add that the "man in linen" who explains the secret sealed to the end of time is present in Dan 12, from which Mk 13:19 is drawn. If you go back to Mark's sources, you can often see things that relate to his gospel. Linen relates also to the Young Man of Mk 14. In Daniel 8 an angel named Gabriel appears as the messenger of God who explains to the "Son of Man" the meaning of a vision. In Jewish tradition Gabriel is seen as the messenger in linen of Ezekiel 9-10, who accompanies 6 others to the Temple in Jerusalem where he announces the wrath of God on Israel:

9:3: Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4: and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it." 5: As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.6: Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

Could refer to the slaughter in the Temple in 70. The man in linen in Ez carries a writing case at his side too. A sly reference to Mark himself?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yes, but he would then have had to unpuzzle its meaning. And if it refers to the Roman soldiers worshipping their standards in the Temple, then Luke could not have understood it, since that had long passed. On the other hand, if Luke understood it to refer to hadrian's temple in Jerusalem, then it explains itself.

neilgodfrey

How puzzling would it have been, I wonder, to those steeped in the language and thoughts of the prophets like Daniel, as Mark obviously was and presumed his audience to be to large extent? Has it not become a puzzle to us simply because of the "let the reader understand" attachment in conjunction with the general preference for dating Mark to a time when identifying such an abomination really is problematic? If in the time of Hadrian who identified himself with the great Antiochus of Daniel fame then there is no mystery at all about what the abomination was.

neilgodfrey

While on Simon a Cyrenian can I go out on a the thinnest of limbs and madly speculate that his sons Rufus and Alexander are symbolic of 2 of the more prominent aspects of the triumphal procession -- the red face of the triumphator indicating divinity and the title of saviour of the city (Rufus of course meaning red and Alexander being about as close to meaning saviour of men as one can get.) If Simon is the executioner he is, like God, symbolically executing his divine son. (Okay, enough fanciful madness -- I sometimes have fantasies of being Mark's original muse.)