Temple’s Destruction Foretold

(Matt. 24:1-3; Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7)

(Huck 213; Aland 287-288; Crook 324-325)^[134]

וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲרֵי מַה נָּאוֹת אֲבָנִים אֵלּוּ וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלּוּ שֶׁאַתֶּם רוֹאִים [הִנֵּה] יָמִים בָּאִים וְלֹא תִשְׁתַּיֵּיר אֶבֶן עַל אֶבֶן שֶׁלֹּא תִנָּתֵץ וַיִּשְׁאָלוּהוּ לֵאמֹר רַבֵּנוּ אֱמוֹר לָנוּ אֵימָתַי יִהְיוּ אֵלּוּ וּמָה הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵלּוּ עֲתִידִים לְהֵעָשׂוֹת

And they said to him, “Look how beautiful these stones are!”

But Yeshua replied, “These stones you see—Behold! The days are coming when there will not remain a stone upon a stone that will not be torn down.”

So they asked him, “Rabbi, tell us, when will these things be, and what is the sign that these things are going to be done?”^[135]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Temple’s Destruction Foretold click on the link below:

Conclusion

Overhearing an innocent expression of appreciation for the beauty of the stones from which the Temple was constructed, Jesus uttered the prediction that the time was shortly to come when not one of those stones would remain in its place. Those who heard Jesus make this shocking prediction asked him when this would take place and what was the sign that it was going to happen. Their question became the starting point of a discourse in which Jesus foretold the destruction and eventual redemption of Jerusalem.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] Matthew is alone in including the Two Sons parable and Refusing John the Baptist in this section. Matthew and Mark agree to include Torah Expert’s Question among the controversies in the Temple. Luke reports this story elsewhere. ↩
• ^[2] Matthew and Mark agree to report the Anointing in Bethany in the aftermath of Jesus’ prophetic utterances. This narrative does not occur in Luke. ↩
• ^[3] Moreover, in Widow’s Gift Jesus says something quite positive about the widow’s participation in the Temple worship. For the author of Matthew, however, the Temple itself, and not just its administrators, had become illegitimate, so it did not serve his purpose to include the Widow’s Gift story. ↩
• ^[4] See Francis W. Beare, “The Synoptic Apocalypse: Matthean Version,” in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings (ed. John Reumann; Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 1972), 117-133, esp. 132 n. 2. Gundry (Matt., 474) noted that a transitional scene between public and private parts of a discourse occurs in Matthew’s parables discourse where Matt. 13:34-36 forms a bridge between the public portion of the discourse in Matt. 13:1-35 and the private portion of the discourse in Matt. 13:37-53. Was transitioning between public and private teaching inspired by the transition from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives that the author of Matthew read about in Mark’s version of Temple’s Destruction Foretold? ↩
• ^[5] In addition to adding a series of sayings leading up to Jesus’ prophetic utterances, the author of Matthew also added a series of sayings (Waiting Maidens parable; Entrusted Funds parable; Judging the Gentiles) following Jesus’ prophetic utterances. ↩
• ^[6] Notley noted that Jesus typically used the phrase “days are coming” when alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem. See R. Steven Notley, “Luke 5:35: ‘When the Bridegroom Is Taken Away’—Anticipation of the Destruction of the Second Temple,” in The Gospels in First-Century Judaea (ed. R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey Paul García; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 107-121, esp. 117. ↩
• ^[7] Such cross-pollination of sayings is typical of the author of Matthew’s redaction, but not of the Gospel of Luke. On verbal cross-pollination in Matthew, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115-122; Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24-28; Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L23-24; Preserving and Destroying, Comment to L9. ↩
• ^[8] Eliav mistakenly claimed that in all three Synoptic Gospels Jesus’ “stone upon stone” prophecy was delivered as Jesus and his disciples exited the Temple courts. See Yaron Z. Eliav, God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 53. In fact, this detail is unique to Mark. Eliav’s mistake is unfortunate because he bases his entire interpretation of Jesus’ prophecy on the assumption that it was delivered as Jesus exited the Temple courts with the disciples. According to Eliav, the stones and buildings the disciples pointed to were the magnificent structures, such as the Royal Basilica, built by Herod the Great which surrounded the Temple Mount. These structures would have faced those who exited the Court of Women. While Eliav’s suggestion is intriguing, it assumes that this unique Markan detail of the timing and location of the prophecy is original. We do not share this assumption. ↩
• ^[9] See Buchanan, 2:892; Nolland, Matt., 958; France, Matt., 887. ↩
• ^[10] See Luz, 3:166. ↩
• ^[11] Cf. Taylor, 500. On genitives absolute as a feature of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Mark.” ↩
• ^[12] Luke and Matthew are in agreement against Mark’s use of ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ opposite Mark 10:17 (cf. Matt. 19:16; Luke 18:18) and Mark 13:1 (cf. Matt. 24:1; Luke 21:5). Opposite Mark’s use of ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ in Mark 10:46 Matthew has ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν (ekporevomenōn avtōn, “as they were going out”; Matt. 20:29). Luke’s parallel in Luke 18:35 does not employ a genitive absolute construction. ↩
• ^[13] See Swete, 295; Beare, “The Synoptic Apocalypse: Matthean Version,” 124. ↩
• ^[14] See Beare, Matt., 462; Gundry, Matt., 474; France, Matt., 887; Luz, 3:166. ↩
• ^[15] On the use of the historical present as a typical feature of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[16] Cf. Delitzsch’s translation of Matt. 24:1. ↩
• ^[17] See LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[18] See Theissen, Gospels, 184 n. 40. The following table shows all of the Markan instances of εἷς + genitive used to designate an individual and the parallels in Matthew and Luke:

  Mark 5:22 εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων (cf. Matt. 9:18 [ἄρχων εἷς]; Luke 8:41 [οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν]) Mark 6:15 εἷς τῶν προφητῶν (cf. Matt. 14:[--]; Luke 9:8 [προφήτης τις]) Mark 8:28 εἷς τῶν προφητῶν = Matt. 16:14 (ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν) (cf. Luke 9:19 [προφήτης τις]) Mark 9:17 εἷς ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου (cf. Matt. 17:14 [ἄνθρωπος]; Luke 9:38 [ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου]) Mark 9:37 ἓν τῶν τοιούτων παιδίων (cf. Matt. 18:5 [ἓν παιδίον τοιοῦτο]; Luke 9:48 [τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον]) Mark 12:28 εἷς τῶν γραμματέων (cf. Matt. 22:35 [εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ⟨νομικός⟩]; Luke 10:25 [νομικός τις]) Mark 13:1 εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (cf. Matt. 24:1 [οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ]; Luke 21:5 [τινων]) Mark 14:10 εἷς τῶν δώδεκα = Matt. 26:14 (εἷς τῶν δώδεκα) (cf. Luke 22:3 [ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν δώδεκα]) Mark 14:20 εἷς τῶν δώδεκα (cf. Matt. 26:23 [--]; Luke 22:21 [--]) Mark 14:43 εἷς τῶν δώδεκα = Matt. 26:47 (εἷς τῶν δώδεκα) ∥ Luke 22:47 (εἷς τῶν δώδεκα) Mark 14:66 μία τῶν παιδισκῶν (cf. Matt. 26:69 [μία παιδίσκη]; Luke 22:56 [παιδίσκη τις]) Key: [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  From the table above we see that Luke and Matthew agree against eight of Mark’s eleven instances of the εἷς + genitive formula. Matthew agrees with three instances of Mark’s εἷς + genitive formula; Luke agrees only once. Despite the general lack of support in Luke and Matthew for Mark’s use of the εἷς + genitive formula, neither evangelist was opposed to its use in principle. Matthew has the formula 6xx (Matt. 16:14; 18:28; 25:40; 26:14, 47, 51), half of which are in agreement with Mark. Luke has the εἷς + genitive formula 4xx (Luke 15:15, 19, 26; 22:47), and it also occurs once in Acts (Acts 23:17). The frequency of εἷς + genitive in Mark combined with the near total lack of agreement with Luke fits the profile of what Lindsey referred to as a “Markan stereotype.” Lindsey applied the term “Markan stereotype” only to vocabulary, but we have found that the same phenomenon occurs with grammatical constructions as well. ↩

• ^[19] See Lord’s Prayer, L4; Cf. Yohanan the Immerser’s Question, L9. ↩
• ^[20] In John’s Gospel examples of εἷς + genitive used to designate an individual occur in John [12:4;] 18:22; 19:34. ↩
• ^[21] The author of Matthew’s distrust of hierarchy finds expression in his conflation of the twelve apostles with Jesus’ disciples. Whereas in Mark and Luke the twelve apostles are selected from among the larger body of disciples, in Matthew Jesus has only twelve disciples. See Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L7. By implying that during his lifetime Jesus had only twelve disciples, the author of Matthew robbed the apostles of their unique status. According to Matthew, anyone could become a disciple and thus attain status equal to that enjoyed by the Twelve. The prohibition against honorific titles in Matt. 23:8-10, a saying unique to the Gospel of Matthew, also evinces hostility toward hierarchy within the church. On the view that Matt. 23:8-10 reflects the tensions between the Matthean community and emerging rabbinic Judaism of the early second century C.E., see Tomson, 276; Peter J. Tomson, “The Didache, Matthew, and Barnabas as Sources for Early Second Century Jewish and Christian History,” in Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: How to Write their History (ed. Joshua Schwartz and Peter J. Tomson; CRINT 13; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 348-382, esp. 366-367. ↩
• ^[22] Cf. Beare, “The Synoptic Apocalypse: Matthean Version,” 124. ↩
• ^[23] Scholars frequently overlook the fact that διδάσκαλε as an address reserved for outsiders is a Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark. See Withered Fig Tree, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[24] The author of Mark has disciples address Jesus as διδάσκαλε in Mark 4:38 (cf. Matt. 8:25; Luke 8:24); 9:38 (cf. Luke 9:49); 10:35 (cf. Matt. 20:20); 13:1 (cf. Matt. 24:1; Luke 21:5). ↩
• ^[25] Matthew’s use of ἐπιδεικνύναι in Tribute to Caesar (Matt. 22:19) is partially supported by Luke’s parallel, which has the verb δεικνύναι (deiknūnai, “to show”; Luke 20:24) in contrast to Mark’s use of the verb φέρειν (ferein, “to bring”; Mark 12:15). In this case the Lukan-Matthean agreement supports the conclusion that Anth. had δεικνύναι and that it was the author of Matthew who transformed Anth.’s verb into the compound form ἐπιδεικνύναι. ↩
• ^[26] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 475; Davies-Allison, 3:334. ↩
• ^[27] Cf. Luz, 3:166. ↩
• ^[28] Theissen opined that the disciple’s remark was “a little reminiscent of people from the provinces who seldom come to the capital,” but neither Josephus nor Tacitus were rural dwellers unused to city life. Many of the sages, too, were accustomed to living in Jerusalem. See Gerd Theissen, “Jesus’ Temple Prophecy: Prophecy in the Tension between Town and Country” (Theissen, Social, 94-115, esp. 105 n. 21). In any case, the awe at the Temple’s splendor which the comment expresses cannot prove that it must have come from a disciple rather than from a member of the worshipping public, which at festivals like Passover would have included pilgrims from rural areas. ↩
• ^[29] On ἴδε as a Markan redactional term, see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L42; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 2:24. ↩
• ^[30] Cited in France, Mark, 496 n. 4. ↩
• ^[31] See Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 257-265, esp. 260. ↩
• ^[32] See Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L42. ↩
• ^[33] The LXX translation of this verse is too different from the Hebrew to be useful for our inquiry. ↩
• ^[34] See Wolter, 2:417. ↩
• ^[35] See The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, Comment to L9. ↩
• ^[36] On the author of Matthew’s redactional use of ἀποκρίνειν...λέγειν constructions, see Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L17-18. Cf. Sign-Seeking Generation, L8-9. ↩
• ^[37] Gundry, Matt., 475. ↩
• ^[38] On θεωρεῖν as an indicator of FR or Lukan redaction, see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L7. ↩
• ^[39] Matthew and Luke agree to use βλέπειν in the following DT pericopae: On Hypocrisy (Matt. 7:3 ∥ Luke 6:41) and Blessedness of the Twelve (Matt. 13:16 ∥ Luke 10:23; Matt. 13:17 ∥ Luke 10:24). ↩
• ^[40] On the conversion of statements into questions as characteristic of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[41] On the higher than normal frequency of causus pendens in translation Greek compared to standard Koine, see Black, 34. ↩
• ^[42] Note, however, that in Matthew ταῦτα is accusative, whereas in Luke ταῦτα is nominative. ↩
• ^[43] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 475; Davies-Allison, 3:335. On the un-Hebraic word order ταῦτα→πάντα as characteristic of Matthean redaction, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L48. The author of Matthew’s insertion of πάντα in L14 also compensates for his omission of Mark’s πάντα in L45. ↩
• ^[44] Cf. Notley, “Non-Septuagintal Hebraisms in the Third Gospel: An Inconvenient Truth” (JS2, 320-346, esp. 338). ↩
• ^[45] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:335. We similarly found the instance of ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν in Matt. 19:23 to be redactional. See Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L60. ↩
• ^[46] The phrase יָמִים בָּאִים occurs in 1 Sam. 2:31; 2 Kgs. 20:17; Isa. 39:6; Jer. 7:32; 9:24; 16:14; 19:6; 23:5, 7; 30:3; 31:27, 31; 33:14; 48:12; 49:2; 51:47, 52; Amos 4:2; 8:11; 9:13. ↩
• ^[47] See Notley, “Luke 5:35: ‘When the Bridegroom Is Taken Away’—Anticipation of the Destruction of the Second Temple,” 117. Cf. Lloyd Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 360. If Notley is correct that Jesus’ saying about the bridegroom's being taken away refers to the destruction of the Temple, the one exception is Luke 17:22, where “days will come” introduces a saying about the Son of Man. ↩
• ^[48] Cf. Taylor (501), who suggested that the phrase ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι in Luke 21:6 came from a non-Markan source. ↩
• ^[49] See Metzger, 172; Fitzmyer, 2:1331. ↩
• ^[50] On reconstructing ἀφιέναι with הִנִּיחַ, see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L97. ↩
• ^[51] On the use of עִיר (‘ir) to refer to a rural farming estate similar to a Roman villa, see Shimon Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine” (Safrai-Stern, 2:631-700, esp. 641-642). ↩
• ^[52] If it had been the author of Luke who made the change from ἐπὶ λίθον to ἐπὶ λίθῳ, it is difficult to explain why he did not also do so in Luke 19:44. Cf. Nolland, Luke, 3:988. ↩
• ^[53] See Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 59. ↩
• ^[54] Cf. Hagner, 2:688; Nolland, Matt., 959; Collins, 602. The suggestion put forward by Marcus (2:871) that Jesus’ allusion to Hag. 2:15 indicates that, unlike Solomon’s Temple, this Temple will not be rebuilt is a non sequitur. Gundry (Use, 28-66) apparently did not detect in λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον of Matt. 24:2 ∥ Mark 13:2 an allusion to Hag. 2:15, since he did not include it in the section “Allusive Quotations in Common with Mark.” ↩
• ^[55] In a survey of all the instances of ἐπί in Genesis we found that ἐπί occurred as the translation of אֶל 18xx: Gen. 4:4 (2xx), 5 (2xx), 8; 14:3, 7; 22:3, 9 (1st instance), 12; 24:20, 29, 42 (1st instance); 37:29; 39:7; 42:21; 43:30; 49:33. ↩
• ^[56] See Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[57] Unfortunately, the text of Hag. 2:15 was not preserved among DSS. ↩
• ^[58] Cf. Hagner, 2:687. ↩
• ^[59] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:738. ↩
• ^[60] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 959 n. 18. ↩
• ^[61] According to Josephus, Jesus son of Ananias would cry out:

  φωνὴ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς, φωνὴ ἀπὸ δύσεως, φωνὴ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, φωνὴ ἐπὶ Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ τὸν ναόν, φωνὴ ἐπὶ νυμφίους καὶ νύμφας, φωνὴ ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν πάντα

  A voice from the east! A voice from the west! A voice from the four winds! A voice against Jerusalem and the Temple! A voice against grooms and brides! A voice against the whole people! (J.W. 6:301)

  ↩

• ^[62] According to the Jerusalem Talmud we read:

  תני ארבעים שנה עד שלא חרב בית המקדש היה נר מערבי כבה ולשון של זהורית מאדים וגורל של שם עולה בשמאל והיו נועלין דלתות ההיכל מבערב ומשכימין ומוצאין אותן פתוחין אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכיי היכל למה אתה מבהלינו יודעין אנו שסופך ליחרב שנאמר פתח לבנון דלתיך ותאכל אש בארזיך

  It was taught [in a baraita]: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the western lamp would go out, and the crimson strap would stay red, and the lot for the Name would come up in the left hand, and they would lock the doors of the Temple in the evening, but they would rise early and find them open. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said, “O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that your end is to be burned, as it is said, Open your doors, O Lebanon, and fire will consume your cedars [Zech. 11:1].” (y. Yom. 6:3 [33b])

  On this talmudic tradition and its relationship to reports in Josephus, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Portents of Destruction: From Flavian Propaganda to Rabbinic Theodicy,” in From Despair to Solace: A Memorial Volume for Ziporah Brody z"l on the Tenth Anniversary of her Passing (ed. Sara Tova Brody; Jerusalem: Midreshet Lindenbaum, 2009), 3-12. Cf. Boring-Berger-Colpe, 132-133. ↩

• ^[63] On predictions of the Second Temple’s destruction, see Craig. A. Evans, “Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Scrolls, and Related Texts,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 87-147. ↩
• ^[64] Conzelmann’s explanation (79) that the author of Luke excised the Mount of Olives because for Luke the Mount of Olives “is not the place of teaching, but of prayer by night” is unconvincing. In the writings of Luke, Jesus made daytime appearances on the Mount of Olives in which prayer is not mentioned (see Luke 19:29, 37; Acts 1:12) but where Jesus does instruct the Pharisees (Luke 19:40), deliver prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction (Luke 19:41-44) and instruct the disciples (Acts 1:7-8). Elsewhere in Luke, Jesus is said to have made habitual nighttime appearances on the Mount of Olives during his final sojourn in Jerusalem (Luke 21:37), but Luke does not even hint that Jesus prayed there on these occasions. It is only in Luke 22:39-46 that Jesus is said to pray on the Mount of Olives at night. ↩
• ^[65] Cf. Taylor, 501-502; Pryke, 20. ↩
• ^[66] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 476. ↩
• ^[67] Moulton and Milligan noted that in Koine there was interchange between εἰς and ἐν ("in"), but noted no such interchange between εἰς and ἐπί (“on”). See Moulton-Milligan, 186. ↩
• ^[68] See Allen, 254; Gundry, Matt., 476; Hagner, 2:687; Nolland, Matt., 960 n. 22. ↩
• ^[69] An example of the author of Mark’s transposition of Luke’s story order is the placement of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. In Luke we find the order Four Soils parable→Four Soils interpretation→Collection of Sayings→Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, while in Mark we find the order Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers→Four Soils parable→Four Soils interpretation→Expanded Collection of Sayings. Here, too, Mark places at the beginning of a discourse a narrative that in Luke appears at the end. On transposition of narrative order and the transposition of events within narratives as a feature of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[70] Cf. Beare, Matt., 463. ↩
• ^[71] Cf. Gaston, No Stone On Another, 46. ↩
• ^[72] On our supposition that the author of Mark intended his readers to think of the withered fig tree when he related his version of the Fig Tree parable, see Fig Tree parable, Comment to L8-9. ↩
• ^[73] Cf. Beare, Matt., 463; Marcus, 2:869. ↩
• ^[74] Did the words ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι (“days will come”) in Luke 21:6 (L17), which the author of Mark omitted in Mark 13:2, remind him of the phrase ἡμέραι ἔρχονται (“days are coming”) in Zech. 14:1? ↩
• ^[75] The sequence of events in Zech. 14:1-5 is even closer to the sequence of events described in Luke 21, which we regard as Mark’s source for Jesus’ eschatological discourse. In Luke’s version of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption the nations rise up (Luke 21:10) and surround Jerusalem (Luke 21:20), the people are killed or driven into exile (Luke 21:24), and Jerusalem is trampled by the Gentiles (Luke 21:24). Only after Jerusalem has been destroyed does the Son of Man come (Luke 21:27) to bring about the redemption of Jerusalem and its inhabitants (Luke 21:28). It is as though the similarity between Luke’s prophecy of destruction and redemption (Luke 21:5-36) and Zechariah’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction and redemption (Zech. 14:1-5) is what inspired the author of Mark to allude to Zech. 14:4 in his version of Jesus’ eschatological discourse. ↩
• ^[76] The preposition κατέναντι occurs only 3xx in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 11:2 [TT = Matt. 21:2; Luke 19:30]; 12:41 [Lk-Mk cf. Luke 21:1]; 13:3 [TT cf. Matt. 24:3; Luke 21:7]), so it cannot fairly be described as particularly Markan. ↩
• ^[77] In LXX κατέναντι occurs much more frequently as the translation of other prepositions such as נֶגֶד (neged, “opposite,” “against”; Exod. 19:2; 4 Kgdms. 1:13; 1 Chr. 5:11; 8:32; 2 Chr. 8:14; 2 Esd. 13:10, 23; 22:37; Ps. 5:6; 25[26]:3; Eccl. 4:12; 6:8; Amos 4:3; Joel 1:16; Lam. 3:35) or לִפְנֵי (lifnē, “in front of,” “in the presence of”; Exod. 32:5; Num. 17:19; 1 Chr. 19:7, 14; 24:6; 2 Chr. 2:5; 6:12, 22, 24; 32:12; Ezek. 42:4) than of עַל פְּנֵי. ↩
• ^[78] The LXX translators rendered עַל פְּנֵי as ἐπί (often + πρόσωπον) in Gen. 6:1; 7:3, 23; 8:9; 11:4, 8, 9; 17:3, 17; 18:16; 19:28; 50:1; Exod. 16:14; 32:20; 33:16; 34:33, 35; Lev. 9:24; 16:14; Num. 12:3; 14:5; 16:4, 22; 17:10; 19:16; 20:6; Deut. 2:25; 7:6; 11:4, 25; 14:2; 34:1. ↩
• ^[79] The LXX translators rendered עַל פְּנֵי as κατά (often + πρόσωπον) in Gen. 1:20; 16:12; 25:18 (2xx); 32:22; Num. 21:11, 20; Deut. 32:49. ↩
• ^[80] Note, too, that the stacking up of prepositional phrases (“to the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple”) is typical of Markan style. On the stacking up of prepositional phrases as typical of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[81] Cf. Luz, Matt., 3:191. ↩
• ^[82] The phrase καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν occurs in Luke 4:38, where we accepted it for GR in Shimon’s Mother-in-law, L15-16. ↩
• ^[83] In Question Concerning Resurrection Luke and Matthew agree to write ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτόν (Matt. 22:23 ∥ Luke 20:27) against Mark’s ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν (Mark 12:18), making it likely that the phrase ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτόν occurred in Anth.’s version of Question Concerning Resurrection. We have also accepted the compound verb ἐπερωτᾶν (eperōtan, “to ask”) in Yohanan the Immerser’s Exhortations, L1, L12, and in Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, L5. ↩
• ^[84] See Swete, 296; France, Mark, 507; Collins, 602 n. 83. ↩
• ^[85] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 960. ↩
• ^[86] Cf. κατὰ μόνας (kata monas, “alone”), used to introduce private questioning of Jesus in Mark 4:10. In the Matthean and Lukan parallels the phrase κατὰ μόνας is lacking (Matt. 13:10; Luke 8:9). See Four Soils interpretation, L2. ↩
• ^[87] The phrase κατ᾿ ἰδίαν appears in Luke 9:10 and Luke 10:23. Both instances are probably redactional. Mark has κατ᾿ ἰδίαν in Mark 4:34; 6:31, 32; 7:33; 9:2, 28; 13:3. On κατ᾿ ἰδίαν as a Markan stereotype, see LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 6:32. ↩
• ^[88] See Schweizer, 448. ↩
• ^[89] On the author of Matthew’s anti-hierarchical views, see above, Comment to L5. On the author of Matthew’s paradoxical anti-Jewishness, see David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560); idem, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel’” (Flusser, JOC, 561-574); idem, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew” (Flusser, JSTP2, 351-353); idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40); R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels”; Tomson, 272-289. ↩
• ^[90] Cf. Wolter, 2:418. ↩
• ^[91] See Gould, 242; Bundy, 459 §360. ↩
• ^[92] Compare our reconstruction of καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ ὄχλοι λέγοντες (“and the crowds asked him, saying”) as וַיִּשְׁאָלוּהוּ הָאֻכְלוּסִים לֵאמֹר (“and the crowds asked him, saying”) in Yohanan the Immerser’s Exhortations, L1. ↩
• ^[93] See Wolter, 2:418. ↩
• ^[94] Other scholars have also wrestled to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the audience presupposed in Luke 21:5-7 and the discourse that follows. See Winter, “The Treatment of his Sources by the Third Evangelist in Luke XXI‐XXIV,” 154 n. 3. ↩
• ^[95] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 324. Nolland (Luke, 3:987), working from the assumption that Luke’s version of Temple’s Destruction Foretold is based on Mark’s, opined that the differences between Luke and Mark make “good redactional sense.” As we have seen, however, διδάσκαλε in L40 does not make good sense but, on the contrary, creates difficulties in Luke’s narrative. It is most unlikely, therefore, that the author of Luke added διδάσκαλε in L40 (pace Bovon, 3:105). ↩
• ^[96] In LXX πότε occurs as the translation of מָתַי in Gen. 30:30; Exod. 8:5; 1 Kgdms. 1:14; 16:1; 2 Kgdms. 2:26; 3 Kgdms. 18:21; 2 Esd. 12:6 (2xx); Ps. 6:4; 40[41]:6; 41[42]:3; 73[74]:10; 79[80]:5; 81[82]:2; 89[90]:13; 93[94]:3 (2xx), 8; 100[101]:2; 118[119]:82, 84; Prov. 6:9; 23:35; Job 7:4; Amos 8:5; Isa. 6:11; Jer. 4:14, 21; 12:4; 23:26; 38[31]:22; Dan. 12:6. In LXX πότε occurs as the translation of something other than מָתַי in Judg. 5:13 (אָז); Ps. 4:3 (מֶה); 12[13]:2 (2xx; אָנָה), 3 (אָנָה); 34[35]:17 (כַּמָּה); 61[62]:4 (אָנָה); 78[79]:5 (מָה); 88[89]:47 (מָה); Job 4:7 (אֵיפֹה). ↩
• ^[97] The LXX translators rendered as πότε the instances of מָתַי that occur in Gen. 30:30; Exod. 8:5; 1 Sam. 1:14; 16:1; 2 Sam. 2:26; 1 Kgs. 18:21; Isa. 6:11; Jer. 4:14, 21; 12:4; 23:26; 31[38]:22; Amos 8:5; Ps. 6:4; 41[40]:6; 42[41]:3; 74[73]:10; 80[79]:5; 82[81]:2; 90[89]:13; 94[93]:3 (2xx), 8; 101[100]:2; 119[118]:82, 84; Job 7:4; Prov. 6:9 (2nd instance); 23:35; Dan. 12:6; Neh. 2:6 (2xx). The LXX translators rendered as τίς (always in the phrase ἕως τίνος) the instances of מָתַי (almost always in the phrase עַד מָתַי) in Exod. 10:3, 7; Num. 14:27; Jer. 13:27; 47[29]:5; Hos. 8:5; Hab. 2:6; Zech. 1:12; Prov. 6:9 (1st instance); Dan. 8:13. The only other instance of מָתַי in MT is found in Prov. 1:22, where the LXX translators rendered עַד מָתַי as ὅσον ἄν. ↩
• ^[98] See Segal, 136 §296. ↩
• ^[99] See Marcus, 2:870. ↩
• ^[100] The Second-Temple period 4QPseudo-Ezekiel^a was composed in a biblicizing style of Hebrew. ↩
• ^[101] In an alternate version of this tradition the disciples say to Rabbi Yose ben Kisma, מְבַקְּשִׁים אֲנוּ אוֹת מִמְּךָ (“We are seeking a sign from you!”; Tanhuma, VaYishlaḥ §8 [ed. Buber, 1:166]). ↩
• ^[102] Cf. Beare, Earliest, 215 §213. ↩
• ^[103] On παρουσία as a Matthean redactional term, see Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L10. On συντέλεια (τοῦ) αἰῶνος as a Matthean redactional term, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L51. See also Dalman, 155. ↩
• ^[104] Cf. Allen, 254; Gundry, Matt., 476. ↩
• ^[105] On the Son of Man as a motif that dominates the entire Matthean discourse (Matt. 23:1-25:46), see Beare, “The Synoptic Apocalypse: Matthean Version,” 119-120. ↩
• ^[106] Elsewhere in Matthew we always read about “the parousia of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:27, 37, 39) or the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23; 16:27, 28; 24:44; 25:31; 26:64). We find a similar development in the Pauline epistles, which refer to ἡ παρουσία τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“the parousia of Christ”; 1 Cor. 15:23) and to ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ”; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1; cf. 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15). See also ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου (“the parousia of the Lord”) in James 5:7, 8.
  
  The very phrasing of “your parousia” in Matt. 24:3, with the adjective σός (sos, “your”), points to its Matthean origin (cf. Gundry, Matt., 476). On the redactional character of σός in the Synoptic Gospels, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L17. ↩
• ^[107] Cf. Fred W. Burnett, The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979), 219. ↩
• ^[108] Cf. Burnett, The Testament of Jesus-Sophia, 221. ↩
• ^[109] Cf. Schweizer, 448. ↩
• ^[110] In addition to the allusion to Dan. 12:6-7 in Mark 13:4, we note that Mark 13:14 alludes to Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:11, Mark 13:19 alludes to Dan. 12:1, and Mark 13:26 alludes to Dan. 7:13. Only the allusion to Dan. 7:13 is present in Luke’s version of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption (Luke 21:27). ↩
• ^[111] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:337 n. 60; Marcus, 2:870. ↩
• ^[112] See Manson, Sayings, 324; Collins, 602; Marcus, 2:873-874; Wolter, 2:418. Cf. Taylor, 502. ↩
• ^[113] Cf. France, Mark, 505-506. ↩
• ^[114] In a survey of all the instances of ὅταν in LXX Pentateuch, we found that ὅταν occurs as the equivalent of -בְּ in -בְּ + infinitive construct 24xx (Exod. 1:16; 12:13; 16:3; 19:13; 28:30, 43; 30:7, 8, 20 [2xx]; 38:27; Lev. 12:6; 23:22, 39; Num. 4:5; 8:2; 9:19; 10:7; 11:9; 15:19; 18:30; 28:26; 35:19; Deut. 23:14). Similarly, we found that ὅταν occurs 4xx as the equivalent of -כְּ in -כְּ + infinitive construct (Exod. 11:1; Deut. 17:18; 20:2, 9) and once as the equivalent of מִן in מִן + infinitive construct (Num. 24:23). ↩
• ^[115] In a survey of all the instances of ὅταν in LXX Pentateuch, we found that ὅταν occurs 13xx as the equivalent of כִּי (Exod. 3:21; 18:16; 34:24; Lev. 19:23; 23:10; Num. 11:29; 15:2, 22; Deut. 4:29; 6:10, 20; 11:29; 15:13). ↩
• ^[116] In a survey of all the instances of ὅταν in LXX Pentateuch, we found that ὅταν occurs 4xx as the translation of אֲשֶׁר (Num. 9:20, 21; 32:23; Deut. 11:10). ↩
• ^[117] In a survey of all the instances of ὅταν in LXX Pentateuch, we found that ὅταν occurs 3xx as the translation of כַּאֲשֶׁר (Gen. 40:14; Exod. 17:11 [2xx]). There are five additional instances in LXX where ὅταν occurs as the translation of כַּאֲשֶׁר (Amos 3:12; 5:19; Isa. 23:5; Ezek. 10:10; 37:18). ↩
• ^[118] And note that we reconstructed ὅταν as -כְּשֶׁ in Lord’s Prayer, L9. ↩
• ^[119] Cf. Jastrow, 1129; Segal, 167 §349; Kutscher, 131 §218. ↩
• ^[120] See Yohanan the Immerser Demands Repentance, Comment to L9. ↩
• ^[121] See Jastrow, 1418. ↩
• ^[122] Cf., e.g., m. Mid. 2:5. ↩
• ^[123] In LXX γίνεσθαι occurs as the translation of עָשָׂה (qal) 11xx (Gen. 42:25; 44:2; 50:20; Exod. 8:22; Num. 28:6; 3 Kgdms. 22:54; 2 Chr. 24:8; 2 Esd. 13:16; Prov. 24:6; Jer. 8:8; Ezek. 46:23) and as the translation of נַעֲשָׂה (nif‘al) 24xx (Lev. 18:30; Num. 6:4; 15:24; Deut. 13:15; 17:4; Judg. 16:11; 2 Kgdms. 17:23; 3 Kgdms. 10:20; 4 Kgdms. 23:22, 23; 2 Chr. 9:19; 35:18; 2 Esd. 10:3; 15:18 [2xx]; 16:16; Esth. 9:14 [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]; Eccl. 1:13; 4:1; Mal. 2:11; Isa. 46:10; Dan. 9:12 [2xx]; 11:36). ↩
• ^[124] See Dos Santos, 162. ↩
• ^[125] The Vienna MS reads עתיד ליעשות, which may be a scribal error, since the Erfurt MS reads עתיד להיעשות. See Zuckermandel, 385. On the other hand, the form ליעשות in the Vienna MS may be an example of elision of the -ה, which in MH sometimes occurred in nif‘al infinitives. See Segal, 58 §115. ↩
• ^[126]

  Temple's Destruction Foretold
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καί τινων λεγόντων περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὅτι λίθοις καλοῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασιν κεκόσμηται εἶπεν ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν αἷς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται ἐπηρώτησαν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγοντες διδάσκαλε πότε οὖν ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα γείνεσθαι		καί εἶπαν ἰδού ὡς καλοὶ λίθοι οὗτοι καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν ταῦτα ἃ βλέπετε [ἰδοὺ] ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι καὶ οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται ἐπηρώτησαν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγοντες διδάσκαλε εἰπὸν ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι
  Total Words:	45	Total Words:	44 [45]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	29	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	29
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	64.44%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	65.91 [64.44]%

  ↩

• ^[127]

  Temple's Destruction Foretold
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ διδάσκαλε ἴδε ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδομαί καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ βλέπεις ταύτας τὰς μεγάλας οἰκοδομάς οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ καὶ καθημένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν κατ᾿ ἰδίαν Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάνης καὶ Ἀνδρέας εἰπὸν ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα		καί εἶπαν ἰδού ὡς καλοὶ λίθοι οὗτοι καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν ταῦτα ἃ βλέπετε [ἰδοὺ] ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι καὶ οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται ἐπηρώτησαν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγοντες διδάσκαλε εἰπὸν ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι
  Total Words:	76	Total Words:	44 [45]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	26	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	26
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	34.21%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	59.09 [57.78]%

  ↩

• ^[128]

  Temple's Destruction Foretold
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐξελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπορεύετο καὶ προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτῷ τὰς οἰκοδομὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς οὐ βλέπετε ταῦτα πάντα ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατ᾿ ἰδίαν λέγοντες εἰπὲ ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος		καί εἶπαν ἰδού ὡς καλοὶ λίθοι οὗτοι καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν ταῦτα ἃ βλέπετε [ἰδοὺ] ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι καὶ οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται ἐπηρώτησαν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγοντες διδάσκαλε εἰπὸν ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι
  Total Words:	72	Total Words:	44 [45]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	23	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	23
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	31.94%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	52.27 [51.11]%

  ↩

• ^[129] See Gerd Theissen, “Jesus’ Temple Prophecy: Prophecy in the Tension between Town and Country” (Theissen, Social, 94-114). ↩
• ^[130] Even where Theissen tried to clarify this point, ambiguity lingers when he wrote, “But it was precisely this intense identification with the Temple that provided the best foundation for a resolute opposition to it: the more sacred an institution, the more stringent the criticism of its actually existing form will often be” (97). Here, too, it must be understood that the opposition is not to the Temple as such—for otherwise how could there be fierce identification with it?—but to the way the Temple was being administered or to the persons who administered it. ↩
• ^[131] For this interpretation of John the Baptist’s message, see our discussion in Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Discourse. ↩
• ^[132] Not only does the name Tzadok suggest that Rabbi Tzadok was of priestly lineage, since the name Tzadok belonged to the priest from the time of David who established the high priestly family that served in the First and Second Temples until the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but an anecdote in t. Yom. 1:12 clearly portrays Rabbi Tzadok acting in the capacity of a priest. See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 286. On Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s possible priestly pedigree, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Was Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai a Priest?” Sinai 88 (1981): 32-39 (in Hebrew). For an English translation of this article on WholeStones.org, click here. ↩
• ^[133] Theissen suggested three reasons why first-century Jews might have rejected the Temple’s current state of affairs: 1) opposition to its builder, Herod the Great; 2) opposition to the Temple’s style of construction, which included Greco-Roman architectural traits and, more importantly, the golden image of an eagle, a symbol of Roman imperial rule; and 3) opposition to the Temple aristocracy. Only the last of these reasons seems applicable to Jesus. Neither the Temple’s builder nor its style prevented him or his family from participating in the Temple worship from the time of his childhood until his public career. On the other hand, clashes between Jesus and the high priestly oligarchy are well-documented. ↩
• ^[134] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[135] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩