Rick Sumner

Does the prophecy in Mk.13.2 say the temple?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Avery

This is a fairly interesting issue. Josephus report of the degree of razing is rather intense. Some folks (e.g. the late Ernest Martin) place the western wall as Fort Antonio, not the Temple wall. I'm interested in the various theories, but can see the fulfilllment of the prophecy of Jesus either way. The concept that Jesus was referring to the actual Temple is not a difficult implication from the context and words, even if not literally stated.

While my dating is much earlier, I just want to point out that "around 70CE" really begs the prophecy question :-)

"Around 70CE" can include a true prophecy report in the late 60's (although perhaps not so surprising, considering the war beginning in 67 AD) , or a manufactured or selective prophecy in the mid 70's. It seems, to review, there are three major possibilities, with a couple of varients.

a) early prophetic understanding, based on what Jesus said, e.g. spoken in the 30's and written around AD50.

b) Mark deciding to place the prophecy in the book in the late 60's when the Jewish revolt is moving along (and keeping in mind the other 'Jesus' prophecy report from Josephus in the 60's). This could still be a true report, but of less consequence.

c) A post-facto report, whether a selection or a creation.

My belief in "a" is more based on my overall sense of the historical accuracy, integrity and reliablity of the Gospel writers than some great textual analysis point that comes to mind :-) I think that is being discussed in some other thread somewhere, in the context of Luke's historicity, so I am not trying to reinvent the thread-wheel.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

It says oikodomas.."buildings," i.e. the buildings of the Temple complex. A retaining wall around the mountian is not a building or a part of the Temple complex itself. I think a total razing of the complex would be seen as fulfulling the prophecy and that trying to argue for the Western Wall as contradicting Mk.13:2 borders on sophistry.

Amaleq13

This thread isn't about "the prophecy question" but about any evidence supporting the specific date of c.70CE for Mark.

It is here and it awaits your return to answer questions about some of your unsubstantiated assertions.

DramaQ

Yes, but mightn't an inaccurate (and perhaps overly dramatized) image of the temple destruction be expected from a writer who knows about the destruction because he's HEARD about it but not actually seen it?

In other places, "Mark" gives indications that his knowledge of the area is sketchy. Like having The Gang going from Jericho, through Bethany to Jerusalem.

He's writing based on reports he's heard (of the temple).

dq

Yuri Kuchinsky

I once tried to read this book, but soon gave up... The style is rather turgid, and the arguments convoluted. (Just like his posts to Crosstalk! )

All available evidence points to the date of Mark in the late 19th century (as based on 4th-5th century Egyptian manuscripts).

Regards,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

Does Mk 13:30 suggest that a pre-70CE date is warranted?

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (KJV)

Diogenes the Cynic

The plateau of the Temple Mount was completely razed. All of the oikodomai were destroyed. I doubt that Mark intended to imply any more than that. I would actually argue that a knowledge that the plateau was totally razed (rather than a more general expectation or prediction of damage to the Temple and its complex) is just more indication that Mark is post 70 CE.

Toto

I think this has been argued - that this saying would have been clearly proven false after a generation, so that the later gospels tone it down a bit.

But if Mark had been written during the Bar Kochba rebellion, it would fit in, as a statement directed to the current reader, and not as a statement placed in the mouth of a historical figure from the era when Pilate was governor.

Amaleq13

I thought I would mention it while we waited on a knowledgeable True Believer to provide the best support for c.70CE or earlier.

The events described in the prophecy do seem to better describe the longer time-span than the relatively brief interval from c.30CE to c.70CE.