Evocatio Deorum and the date of mark

Journal of Biblical Literature

Volumn 124, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 419-450

  Kloppenborg, John S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950284430     PISSN: 00219231     EISSN: 19343876     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/30041033     Document Type: Article

References (222)

1. A few much earlier dates have been proposed: Charles Cutler Torrey argued that Mark 13:14 refers to Caligula's proposed desecration of the temple and concluded that it must have been penned before Caligula's assassination in January 41 C.E. (Documents of the Primitive Church [New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1941], 31-33);
2. similarly Günther Zuntz, "Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?" in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium [ed. Hubert Cancik; WUNT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984], 47-71).
3. On the belief that Peter came to Rome in 42 C.E. (Eusebius, Chroniken; see Die Chronik des Hieronymus VII of Eusebius Werke [ed. R. Helm; GCS Eusebius 9; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956], 179)
4. and following Clement's view that Mark composed the Gospel while Peter was alive, J. A. T. Robinson speculates that the Gospel was written ca. 45 C.E. (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 112-17;
5. similarly Willoughby C. Allen, The Gospel According to St. Mark [Oxford Church Biblical Commentary; London: Rivingtons, 1914], 5-6).
6. Adolf von Harnack conjectured that Mark should be dated prior to the death of Paul on the grounds that Luke, supposedly Paul's companion, knew Mark's Gospel: "Tradition asserts no veto against the hypothesis that St Luke, when he met St Mark in the company of St Paul the prisoner, was permitted by him to peruse a written record of the Gospel history which was essentially identical with the gospel of St Mark given to the church at a later time; indeed, the peculiar relation that exists between our second and third gospel suggests that St Luke was not yet acquainted with St Mark's final revision, which, as we can quite well imagine, St Mark undertook while in Rome" (The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels [New Testament Studies 4; London; Williams & Norgate; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1911], 133).
7. This would put Mark in the 50s. Bo I. Reicke argues similarly: the Synoptic predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem do not betray knowledge of the actual events; and if Acts is dated ca. 62 C.E., then Mark (Matthew and Luke) should be dated before 62 C.E. ("Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren [ed. David E. Aune; NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972], 121-34, here 133-34).
8. This early date is followed by Robert H. Gundiy, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1041-42.
9. N. H. Taylor, who argues that Mark 13 was formed during the Caligula crisis (in 40 C.E.), holds that Mark was not composed later than 62 C.E. ("The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Transmission of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse," HvTSt 59, no. 2 [2003]: 283-311).
10. E.g., Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952), 31-32 and the authors cited there.
11. More recently, E. Earle Ellis dates the Gospel between 50 and 60 C.E. on the strength of patristic testimony ("The Date and Provenance of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [ed. Frans Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1992], 801-15).
12. E.g., Adolf Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Janet Penrose Ward; London: Smith, Elder, 1904), 324;
13. James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3rd rev. ed.; International Theological Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1918), 227;
14. Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT 2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962), 25;
15. Nikolaus Walter, "Tempelzerstörung und synoptische Apokalypse," ZNW 57 (1966): 38-49, here 43;
16. Rudolf Pesch, Naherwartung: Tradition und Redaktion in Markus 13 (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968), 218-23;
17. John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1973), 131-32;
18. Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. English ed.; trans. Howard C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 98;
19. Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (De Gruyter Lehrbuch; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 347;
20. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1976-77 [2nd ed., 1977-80]), 1:14;
21. Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKNT 2; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-79), 1:34-35;
22. Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus (ÖTKNT 2; Gütersloh: Mohn; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979), 61;
23. Dieter Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 6;
24. Joel Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark," JBL 111 (1992): 460.
25. Morton Smith puts the Gospel ca. 75 C.E. on the basis of Mark's reports of conflict with the Pharisees, which Smith argues reflects the period after the revolt when reorganized Pharisaic groups came into conflict with the Jesus movement (Jesus the Magician [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978], 29, 155).
26. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 17-21;
27. Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 1-30;
28. Robert Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxix-xxxii;
29. E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 16-21.
30. Patristic references are divided between reports that Mark wrote while Peter was yet alive but that Peter did not endorse the Gospel (Clement, Hypotyposeis in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5-7;
31. Clement, Adumbrationes ad. 1 Pet. 5:13 [ANF 2:573])
32. and those which claim that Mark was written after Peter's death (Anti-Marcionite Prologues; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.1.1
33. [apud Eusebium, Hist. eccl. 5.8.2-4]),
34. with Clement's Mar Saba letter to Theodore holding that Mark composed a first edition while Peter was in Rome, and a second "more spiritual Gospel" after his death (Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 446).
35. The genesis of these confused reports appears to be attempts to reconcile the fact that a Gospel associated with Peter was in circulation, but without any collateral tradition of Petrine endorsement (Clement in Hypotyposeis in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.1-2 contradicts the statement in 6.14.5-7 by claiming that Peter became aware of Mark's work "by revelation" and "authorized the scripture for concourse in the churches").
36. The connection between Mark and Peter, however, goes back to Papias's "elder" (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15), though Papias says nothing of the circumstances under which Mark wrote, and it is not even clear that Papias's "Mark" is the Second Gospel.
37. It is not clear that the connection between Peter and Mark is based entirely on inferences drawn from 1 Pet 5:13, whose pseudepigraphical status renders any conclusions highly precarious. But the unlikelihood of any direct connection between Peter and the author of the Gospel of Mark is manifest once one considers the unflattering manner in which Peter is depicted in Mark's Gospel. For a careful discussion of the patristic evidence, see C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001).
38. Moffatt, Introduction, 212.
39. Hengel, Studies, 9.
40. S. G. F. Brandon, "The Date of the Markan Gospel," NTS 7 (1960): 126-41, here 133.
41. Josephus, J.W. 6.316: "The Romans, now that the rebels had fled to the city and the sanctuary itself and all around it was aflame, carried their standards into the Temple (court) and setting them up opposite the eastern gate sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamations hailed Titus as imperator (αὺτοκράτορ α).
42. Brandon adds that Mark's account of the tearing of the temple veil (Mark 15:38) is unlikely as the creation of the early followers of Jesus
43. who were loyal to the temple rather than hostile to it and would not have created a story that linked Jesus' death to the destruction of the temple ("Date," 131-32).
44. Josephus, however, indicates that curtains or tapestries from the temple formed part of the spoils taken to Rome (J.W. 7.162).
45. It can be added that according to J.W. 6.388-91, Phineas ben Thebuthi, one of the priests, handed over to the Romans various sacred items, including the veils and vestments of the chief priests (τὰ καταπετάσματ α καὶ τὰ εcombining comma aboveνδύματα τω̃ν αcombining comma aboveρχιερέων) and the "scarlet and purple kept for the necessary repairs of the veil of the temple" (πορφύραν τε πολλὴν και ̀ κόκκον, αcombining comma abovè πρὸς τὰς χρειας απεκέ ιτο του̂ καταπ ετάσματ ος).
46. The Babylonian Talmud Git. 56b contains the legendary account about Titus: "This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He took a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. He then took a sword and slashed the curtain.
47. Miraculously blood spurted out, and he thought that he had slain himself, as it says, 'Your adversaries have roared in the midst of your assembly, they have set up their ensigns for signs' [Ps 74:4]." Brandon suggests that for Markan Christians, "from seeing in the ruin of the Jerusalem Temple a divine proclamation of the abrogation of the vaunted spiritual superiority of Judaism, it was natural for the eye of faith to see further that this event had been anticipated by the Crucifixion-hence the Roman tearing down of the Temple veil must have been anticipated by the rending of that veil on the earlier and more awful occasion."
48. Further Christian references to the tearing of the veil are found in interpolations in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, T. Levi 10:4;
49. T. Benj. 9:4.
50. 1QpHab 6.3-5: "Its interpretation [Hab 1:16a]: they [the Kittim] offer sacrifices to their standards and their weapons are the object of their worship." Tertullian remarks polemically (Apol. 16): sed et Victorias adoratis . . . religio romanorum tota castrensis signa veneratur, signa jurat, signa omnibus diis praeponit, "But you also worship victories. . . . The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods."
51. On archaeological evidence of the use of weapons as objects of worship, see Ian Haynes, "Religion in the Roman Army: Unifying Aspects and Regional Trends," in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (ed. Hubert Cancik and Jörg Rüpke; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 113-26.
52. Similarly, Lührmann, Markusevangelium, 222: "So wird vom Kontext des Markusevangeliums her nach [vv.] 2 und 7f. auch hier an die Zerstörung der Stadt und des Tempels zu denken sein: Jesu Voraussage erfüllt sich in der Gegenwart der Leser des Markusevangeliums. Gemeint ist mit dem 'Greuel der Verwüstung' in der mask. Form der römische Feldherr oder sein Heer als der 'greuliche Verwüster.'"
53. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Jesus and the Future: An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse of Mark 13 [London: Macmillan, 1954], 255-58)
54. originally supposed that the reference was to Pilate's attempt to introduce standards into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55-57;
55. J.W. 2.169-70),
56. but now, citing Lührmann, states: "I would not now adhere to this interpretation, but I do see the association of the Roman army with its idolatrous ensigns as significant" (Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse of Mark 13 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993], 415 n. 112).
57. Pesch suggested that since Judea is already in the hill country, the original reference in 13:14b is for those in Jerusalem to flee, and that Mark changed this to Judea, since his congregation did not live in Judea (Naherwartung, 139-49).
58. In his later commentary, Pesch argues that οιcombining reversed comma above εcombining comma aboveν τηcombining comma belowcombining inverted breve 'Ιουδαί αcombining ogonek was in the pre-Markan apocalypse since "es [handelt] sich um eine Weisung der Jerusalemer Gemeinde (die ihre Flucht nach Pella vorbereitet) an die judenchristlichen Gemeinden Judäas (im Umkreis Jerusalems)" (Markusevangelium, 2:292).
59. See Jonathan J. Price, Jerusalem under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 C.E. (Brill Series in Jewish Studies 3; Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill, 1992), 135-41, 293-97.
60. Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda M. Moloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 132.
61. Joel Marcus ("Jewish War," 454-55), who argues for a date of Mark after the end of the war (p. 460),
62. nonetheless suggests that the "abomination of desolation" refers to the occupation and defilement of the sanctuary by Eleazar b. Simon (J.W. 5.5-10, 98-104).
63. He cites a number of expressions of horror at the Zealot's defilement of the temple: J.W. 4.182-83, 201, 388; 6.95. While it is difficult to judge just what events an apocalypticist might take to be a fulfillment of Danielic prophecy, it is unclear how Mark's description of the "abomination of desolation" standing (εcombining reversed comma aboveστη κώς) where it ought not could convey the defilement of the sanctuary by human blood that Josephus describes.
64. E.g., Pesch (Naherwartung, 207-18), who posits a three-part Jewish (not Jewish-Christian) flyleaf, consisting of (I) w. 6, 22, 7b, 8, 12, 13b;
65. (II) vv. 14-20a [18 is uncertain];
66. and (III) vv. 24-27.
67. Later Pesch posited a pre-Markan Jewish-Christian apocalypse containing vv. 7-9, [10], 11-13, 14-22, 24-31 (Markusevangelium, 2:266-67).
68. Pesch is influenced by Ferdinand Hahn ("Die Rede von der Parusie des Menschensohnes, Markus 13," in Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle [ed. Rudolf Pesch and Rudolf Schnackenburg; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1975], 240-66), who included vv. 7-8, 14-22, 24-31 and possibly 9-13 in a pre-Markan JewishChristian apocalypse.
69. The positing of an independent apocalypse goes back to Timothée Colani (Jésus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps [2nd rev. and augmented ed.; Strasbourg: Treuttel et Wurtz, 1864], 201-3), who argued that Mark 13:5-31 was an independent Jewish-Christian document used by the Synoptics.
70. His thesis was adopted (with various modifications) by Carl Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen, und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha: Rudolf Besser, 1864), 120-22;
71. Otto Pfeiderer, "Über die Composition der eschatologischen Rede, Mt. 24,4ff1," Jahrbuch für Deutsche Theologie 13 (1968): 134-49;
72. Hans Hinrich Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1886 [2. Aufl. 1901]), 15-21;
73. Gustav Volkmar, Die Evangelien: Oder, Marcus und die synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text, mit historisch-exegetischen Commentar (Leipzig: Ludwig Friedrich Fues [R. Reisland], 1870), 542;
74. Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci übersetzt und erklärt (2nd ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1909), 99-107, and many others.
75. This thesis is elaborately defended by Theissen, Gospels in Context, 128-65.
76. This view is at least as early as A. Piganiol, "Observations sur la date de l'apocalypse synoptique," RHPR 4 (1924): 245-49.
77. E.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:292: "Im Kontext von V 2 und der ersten, red[aktionellen] gebildeten Jüngerfrage von V 14 deutet Markus V 14 auf die Tempelzerstörung selbst." Pesch does not explain how Mark's εcombining reversed comma aboveστηκό τα would make sense in this context.
78. Lloyd Gaston (No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels [NovTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970], 25, 61),
79. citing G. Hölscher ("Der Ursprung der Apokalypse Mk 13," ThBl 12 [1933]: 193-202, here 201),
80. Mark S. Goodacre, "Fatigue in die Synoptics," NTS 44, no. 1 (1998): 45-58, www.ntgateway .com/synoptic/articles.htm.
81. While Mark treats the events of 13:14-20 as either in the immediate past or immediate future, Matthew makes it clear that 24:15-22 (∥ Mark 13:14-20) belongs to the more remote future: it follows the full evangelization of the nations (24:14). Moreover, Matthew treats τὸ βδέλυγμα τηcombining inverted breveς εcombining comma aboveρημώ σεως as an event foreseen by Daniel (το ̀ ρcombining reversed comma aboveηθὲν διὰ Δανιήλ τουcombining inverted breve προφή του), and though he expressly indicates that this desecration will occur εcombining comma aboveν τόπω ̧ αcombining reversed comma aboveγίω combining ogonek (on the destroyed Temple Mount?), nothing suggests that he has the actual destruction of the temple by Titus in mind.
82. The warning about flight during winter also has a thoroughly pragmatic aspect. Pesch draws attention to another way of accounting for the reference to the winter (Markusevangelium, 2:293-94): Josephus tells of Jewish refugees from Gadara attempting to flee east of the Jordan in 68 C.E. who were prevented from fording the Jordan because it was swollen from winter rains;
83. they were slaughtered there by the pursuing Romans (J.W. 4.433-36).
84. Similarly, Gundry, Mark, 743.
85. Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 127-35, 143.
86. See Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 111-13;
87. Donahue, Are You the Christ? 103-38;
88. Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 290-97;
89. Timothy J. Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (JSNTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 113-47;
90. Scott G. Brown, "Mark 11:1-12:12: A Triple Intercalation?" CBQ 64 (2002): 78-89.
91. John P. Heil, "The Narrative Strategy and Pragmatics of the Temple Theme in Mark," CBQ 59 (1997): 76-100, here 78.
92. Gaston, No Stone on Another, 64: "[Mark] has managed to give a completely new interpretation both to the saying of Jesus in Vs 2 and to the oracle concerning the appalling sacrilege in Vs 14ff. Whereas the original oracle spoke of the desecration of the temple, the later prophetic discourse referred to the destruction of Jerusalem as the herald of the last great tribulation of the end times. Mark gives his source quite a different aspect when he makes it refer by virtue of its position to the destruction of the temple" (emphasis original).
93. See Jan Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse (AnBib 28; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 89-91;
94. Frans Neirynck, "Marc 13: Examen critique de l'interprétation de R. Pesch," in L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (ed. Jan Lambrecht and G. R. Beasley-Murray; BETL 53; Leuven: Leuven University Press; Gembloux: Duculot, 1980), 397-99.
95. See n. 18 above. Pesch believes that Mark 13:1-2 was not part of the pre-Markan apocalypse, but part of a pre-Markan passion source that began with 13:1-2 and continued with 14:1-2. Thus, Mark used the chria about the temple (13:1-2) in his passion source as the occasion to insert the apocalyptic discourse into his Gospel (Markusevangelium, 2:268-72).
96. Gaston argues that Mark secondarily applied the tradition preserved in Luke 19:44 (concerning the city) to the temple (No Stone on Another, 242, 424).
97. "If Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and Josephus and Jesus ben Hananiah could threaten the destruction of Jerusalem, there is no reason why Jesus could not also have done so. Thus there is no reason why Mk 13:2 should not be considered a genuine saying of Jesus
98. as long as it is recognized that it, like its parallel Lk 19:44, was directed against the city as a whole as a part of a political judgment" (pp. 424-25).
99. Lars Hartman distinguishes between two variants of the saying (Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. [ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966], 219-20): Mark 13:2
100. and Luke 19:44
101. treat only the destruction of the temple/city, while Mark 14:58; 15:59;
102. John 2:19;
103. and Acts 6:14 present a longer two-part form. Hartman thinks that both versions could have "existed side by side from the beginning."
104. Jacques Dupont rejects any connection between Mark 13:2
105. and Mark 14:58
106. and argues that "le vrai parallèle de Mc 13,2 se trouve en Lc 19,44" ("Il n'en sera pas laissée pierre sur pierre (Mc 13,2;
107. Luc 19,44),"
108. Bib 52 [1971]: 301-20);
109. Luke 19:44
110. is not literarily dependent on Mark 13:2
111. but belongs to the source from which Luke took 19:43-44b,
112. while Mark 13:2 is not the redactional work of Mark.
113. Dupont raises, but does not answer, the question of whether the Markan version (destruction of the temple framed in the passive) or the Lukan version (destruction of the city, by enemies) is the more original. John R. Donahue argues that Mark 14:58 joins two originally separate sayings,
114. a threat against the temple (and related to Mark 13:2; Q 13:34-3 5)
115. and a second that spoke of the building of another naos (Are You the Christ? 107-9) .
116. Beasley-Murray argues that the distinction that Gaston makes between 13:2 and Luke 19:44
117. does not hold: "[I]t may he doubted that Mark 13:2 related originally to the ruin of the city rather than the temple, and that such importance attaches to the issue as Gaston has implied, since neither city nor temple could be destroyed without the other.
118. It is worth observing, nevertheless, that both Luke and Mark explicitly relate the word of Jesus to the stones of the temple, and Gaston is insistent that Luke is independent of Mark in this respect" (Jesus and the Last Days, 286).
119. See also Amos 9:1: "I saw the LORD standing beside the altar, and he said: 'Smite the capitals until the thresholds shake, and shatter them on the heads of all the people;
120. and what are left of them I will slay with the sword; not one of them shall flee away, not one of them shall escape'"; Mic 3:12: "Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height";
121. 6then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth. . . ."
122. 3S1 Enoch 90:28-30: "And I stood up to see until they folded up that old house and carried off all the pillars; and all the beams and ornaments of the house were at the same time folded up with it; and they carried it off and laid it in a place in the south of the land. And I looked until the lord of the sheep brought a new house greater and loftier than that first, and set it up in the place of the first which had been folded up; all its pillars were new and its ornaments were new and larger than those of the first, the old one which he had taken away, and all the sheep were within it."
123. On this, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36; 81-108
124. (ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 404-6.
125. According to this tradition Vespasian granted Yavneh to Yohanan following the latter's acclamation of him as imperator. "R. Yohanan b. Zakkai came out and went among the soldiers of Vespasian. He said to them, 'Where is the king?' They went and told Vespasian, 'A Jew is asking for you.' He said to them, 'Let him come.' On his arrival he exclaimed, 'Vive domine Imperator!' Vespasian remarked, 'You give me a royal greeting but I am not king; and should the king hear of it he will put me to death.' He said to him, 'If you are not the king you will be eventually, because the Temple will only be destroyed by a king's hand'; as it is said, 'And Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one' [Isa 10:34]."
126. Josephus (J.W. 6.301) reports his oracles as φωνὴ αcombining comma aboveπὸ αcombining comma aboveνατοληcombining inverted breveς, φωνὴ αcombining comma aboveπὸ δύσεως, φωνὴ αcombining comma aboveπὸ τωcombining inverted breveν τεσσάρων αcombining comma aboveνέμων, φωνὴ εcombining comma aboveπ'ὶ 'Ιερόσολυμα καὶ τὸν ναο ́ν, φωνὴ εcombining comma aboveπϊ νυμφίους καὶ νύμφας, φωνὴ εcombining comma aboveπ̀ι 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 sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people."
127. Josephus, J.W. 7.1, 3:
128. Sanders and Davies argue that Mark's prediction is technically inaccurate and therefore cannot be ex eventu: "The temple was destroyed by fire, and many of the stones remained standing - some can be seen to this day. Here we probably have a genuine prediction, not a fake one written after the fact, since it did not come true in a precise sense" (Studying, 18). Later they concede that Mark may have been written after 70 C.E., but in that case, one would have to suppose that Mark had only heard of the destruction of the temple but knew nothing of the details of the destruction; "or possibly he knew and chose not to change the prediction that 'not one stone would be left on another'" (p. 21). But see n. 44 below, for Nikolaus Walter's response.
129. Pesch regards οcombining reversed comma abovèς οcombining reversed comma abovéυ μὴ καταλυθη̧̂ as a "Verdeutlichung des vaticinium Jesu ex eventu" (Markusevangelium, 2:271): "Die Vorhersage ist jetzt so deutlich, daß man vermuten kann, der Evangelist habe schon Kenntnis von dem gehabt, das JosBell VII, 1, 1 (§1) so überliefert ist. . . ."
130. Schmithals, Markus, 558 (my translation; emphasis added). Walter stresses the complete agreement between Mark's prediction and the events of August 70 C.E., rejecting any attempt to distinguish between what occurred (destruction by fire) and Mark's prediction, which implies dismantling (Schleifung): "Aber bald darauf [the burning of the Temple] gab Vespasian [sic!] den Befehl, Stadt und Tempel zu schleifen (bell. VI 250-266), der sogleich, also noch im Jahre 70, durchgeführen wurde. . . . dem Zustand, der sich Ende des Jahres 70 darbot, entspricht die Beschreibung in Mc 13,2 durchaus" ("Tempelzerstörung," 42). It is also now clear from excavations at the southwestern corner of the Temple platform that the ashlars were pried loose and toppled down from the platform, landing on clean Herodian pavement, which can only have occurred in 70 C.E., not subsequently. [I owe this observation to Dan Bahat.]
131. Marcus, "Jewish War," 460.
132. Brandon, "Date," 135.
133. John K. Riches, "Apocalyptic - Strangely Relevant," in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (ed. William Horbury; JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 249-50: "If Jesus predicted or threatened the destruction of the Temple, that would have been certainly striking and unusual, but not without precedent or subsequent exemplars."
134. The same applies whether or not Mark 13:2 is authentic; it is not a common prediction.
135. Diodorus Siculus 34.1.1;
136. Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84), 1:181-83.
137. who rejects any connection between Mark 15:38 and the evocatio of the deity from the sanctuary.
138. On evocatio, see Georg Wissowa, "Evocatio," PW 6:1152-53;
139. Vsevolod Basanoff, Evocatio: étude d'un rituel militaire romain (Bibliothèque de l'École des hautes études: Sciences religieuses 61; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1947);
140. Werner Eisenhut, "Evocatio," Kleine Pauly 2:472-73;
141. Joel Le Gall, "Evocatio," in L'Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine: Mélanges offerts à Jacques
142. Alain Blomart, "Die evocatio und der Transfer 〉fremder〈 Götter von der Peripherie nach Rom," in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (ed. Hubert Cancik and Jörg Püpke; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 99-111;
143. Hendrik S. Versnel, "Evocatio," Der Neue Pauly 4:329;
144. Gabriella Gustafsson, Evocatio Deorum: Historical & Mythical Interpretations of Ritualised Conquests in the Expansion of Ancient Rome (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Historia Religionum 16; Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2000).
145. Livy 5.21.2-3: "two ductu" inquit, "Pythice Apollo, tuoque numine instinc tus pergo ad delendam urbem Ueios, tibique hinc decimam 3 partem praedae uoueo. te simul, Iuno regina, quae nunc Veios colis, precor, ut nos uictores in nostram tuamque mox futuram urbem sequare, ubi te dignum amplitudine tua templum accipiat."
146. Plutarch (Camillus 5.4-6.2) relates, again with skepticism, the tale about the sacrificial entrails and gives a version of Camillus's invocation of Zeus and the gods (but not the vow to Apollo or his evocation of Juno). He does, however, relate a story of Camillus himself, who, while sacrificing in the temple of Juno and "praying the goddess to accept of their zeal," heard the statue say in low tones that she was ready and willing. Dionysios of Halicarnassus (13.3) relates Camillus's promise of a temple and "costly rites" for Juno, and says that he then sent one of the most distinguished of the equites to remove the statue and when one of the young men asked the goddess if she wished to go to Rome, the statue "answered in a loud voice that she did."
147. Servius, Aeneid 12.841-42: sed constat bello Punico secundo exoratam Iunonem, tertio vero hello a Scipione sacris quibusdam etiam Romam esse translatam, "but in fact Juno was exorated during the Second Punic War, and during the Third War was moved to Rome to her sacred precincts."
148. Le Gall, "Evocatio," 521.
149. Wissowa, "Evocatio," 374.
150. R. E. A. Palmer, Roman Religion and Roman Empire: Five Essays (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974), 47;
151. Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome, vol. 1,
152. A History; vol. 2,
153. A Sourcebook (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1:111: "The genuineness of these documents [Macrobius's Saturnalia 3.9.7-10 and his sources] has been questioned but there is no strong reason to doubt that these were the formulae used in the 140s B.C.; if so, it is very significant that the same group of nobles were reviving them, using them, and recording them in their writings."
154. Basanoff, Evocatio, 63-66.
155. This is the text on which both Macrobius and Servius are commenting when they discuss the evocatio. Servius (Aeneid 2.351-52) explains: excessere quia ante expugnationem evocabantur ab hostibus numina propter vitanda sacrilegia, "excessere, because before the conquest, [the gods] were called out by the enemies to avoid terrible sacrileges."
156. Both Macrobius (Sat. 3.9.3-5)
157. and Servius (Aeneid 2.351) also discuss the protection of the name of the Roman god. In the second century C.E.
158. Sextus Pompeius Festus, who is also known to have epitomized the work of Verrius Flaccus, reports: "Foreign cults are those called, who either have been transferred after an evocation of the deities during the siege of the cities (quae aut evocatis dis in oppugnandis urbibus Romain sunt conata), or have been fetched in times of peace because of certain reasons, like the Magna Mater from Phrygia, Ceres from Greece, Aesculapius from Epidauros; and these (cults) are celebrated in the same way as among those from whom they have been taken" (trans. Gustafsson, Evocatio Deorum, 43).
159. See the discussion by Gustafsson; and M. Van Doren, "Perigrina sacra: Offiziele Kultübertragungen im alten Rom," Historia 3 (1954-55): 488-97.
160. Hendrik S. Versnel, "Two Types of Roman Devotio" Mnemosyne 39 (1976): 380.
161. Orosius, Adversus paganos, 4.23: diruta autem Carthago omni murali lapide in puluerem conminuto, "Now Carthage was destroyed, every stone wall being reduced to dust." Compare Appian, Bellum punica 135: "They [delegates of the Senate] decreed that if anything was still left of Carthage, Scipio should obliterate it and that nobody should be allowed to live there. Direful threats were leveled against any who should disobey and chiefly against the rebuilding of Byrsa or Megara, but it was not forbidden to go upon the ground. The towns that had allied themselves with the enemy it was decided to destroy, to the last one."
162. Wissowa argues that the evocatio related only to the Etruscan and Latin cities and that the story of the evocation of Juno Caelestis was "apocryphal," belonging to the Severan period ("Evocatio," 1152).
163. Versnel, "Two Types of Roman Devotio," 382-83.
164. Similarly, Le Gall, who argues that every devotio of a town was necessarily preceded by the evocatio of its god ("Evocatio," 524).
165. "C'était [evocatio], bien au contraire, un rite banal du vieil arsenal religieux romain de la guerre, si banal que les auteurs n'y ont même pas fait allusion sauf dans les cas célèbres de Veies et de Carthage, pas plus qu'à d'autres, tout aussi courants, telle la lustration de l'armée au moment de l'entrée en campagne dont Tacite [Ann. 6.48.2] nous apprend incidemment qu'on la pratiquait encore en 37 ap. J.-C."
166. Alan Hall, "New Light on the C̀apture of Isaura Vetus by P. Servilius Vatia," in Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik, München 1972 (Vestigia 17; Munich: Beck, 1972), 572: "The stone itself is a building block, and may have been part of an edifice which was promised in the vow."
167. Similarly, Le Gall, "Evocatio," 523.
168. L'Année épigraphique (1977) 816;
169. editio princeps: Hall, "New Light." See also Beard et al., Religions of Rome, 2:248.
170. Compare also Pliny's formulation (above, p. 437). The formula sive deus, sive dea is studied by Jaime Alvar, "Matériaux pour l'étude de la formule sive devs, sive dea," Numen 32, no. 2 (1985): 236-73.
171. Hall, "New Light," 572.
172. Le Gall ("Evocatio," 520) is more definite: "dans ces conditions il semble légitime d'admettre que l'opération à laquelle il a procédé devant Isaura Vetus a bien été une evocatio et pas simplement un rite analogue («similar») comme l'a suggéré le Professeur A. Hall."
173. Similarly, Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome: A History, 133;
174. eidem, Religions of Rome: A Sourcebook, 248.
175. See Jörg Rüpke, Domi militiae: Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990), 164: "Im Verlauf der späten Republik kommt die Evozierung fremder Götter zum Stillstand. Die letzte, explizit als solche bezeichnete evocatio, die der Schutzgöttin Karthagos, führt nicht mehr zu einem Tempelbau in Rom. Das fast fünfundsiebzig Jahre jüngere Inschrift aus Isaura, unser letztes Zeugnis, erwähnt die Errichtung eines Tempels überhaupt nicht: Die evocatio ist zum gewöhnlichen votum geworden."
176. Beard, North, and Price offer a somewhat different account: in the late republican period the 'evoked' god or goddess was no longer promised a temple in Rome, but instead was promised one in what had now become Roman provincial territory (Religions of Rome: A History, 133-34).
177. Gustafsson interprets this not as a relaxation of earlier practices, but as pointing to the fact that the evocatio was not a "strict and clearly regulated ritual" (Evocatio Deorum, 62).
178. Macrobius, Sat. 3.9.2: quod aut aliter urbem capi posse non crederent, aut etiam, si posset, nefas aestimarent deos habere captivos.
179. Similarly, Servius, Aen. 2.351: »excessere» quia ante expugnationem evocabantur ab hostibus numina propter vitanda sacrilegia, "excessere, because before the conquest, [the gods] were called out by the enemies to avoid terrible sacrileges."
180. Livy's account of the transport of Juno to Rome emphasizes the pietas of Camillus, while Appian's account of the siege of Carthage points out that soldiers who participated in the looting of the temple of Apollo were punished by Scipio Aemelianus (Bell, punica 127, 133).
181. See John S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 80-87, for a discussion of the dating of Q.
182. Josephus, J.W. 5.412
183. There are numerous expressions of this theme throughout Jewish War 5-6, e.g., 5.456; 6.128, 239-41: Josephus describes a debate about what to do with the temple, with some proposing that it should be destroyed under the "law of war" (τοις μεν ουν εδοκει χρησθα τ τφ τοϋ πολεμ ου νομω), others arguing that it should be spared provided that the Jews do not keep weapons in it. Titus announced that he would not destroy the temple, but would wreak vengeance on men rather than inanimate objects, "nor under any circumstances burn down so magnificent a work," which would be "an ornament of the empire if it stood." Titus claims again (6.346) to have ignored "the laws of war" and instead pleaded that the rebels spare the shrines and preserve the temple.
184. Ingomar Weiler, "Titus und die Zerstörung des Tempels von Jerusalem - Absicht oder Zufall," Klio 50 (1968): 139-58;
185. Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 252-68;
186. At this point I am indebted to the work of Eve-Marie Becker, "Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung von Quellen, Redaktion und Gattung des frühesten Evangeliums" (Habilitationsschrift, Universität Erlangen, 2004).
187. On prodigies and omens, see Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquité (Paris: E. Leroux, 1879-82), 4;
188. Bruce MacBain, Prodigy and Expiation: A Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome (Latomus 177; Brussels: n.p., 1982).
189. The motif of the departure of God from the sanctuary or land is attested in connection with the destruction of the First Temple in Jer 12:7;
190. Ezek 8:12; 9:9;
191. 1 En. 89:56: "I saw how [God] left their house and their tower and cast all of them into the hands of the lions";
192. Liv. Pro. 2.11-12: "[Jeremiah], before the capture of the Temple, seized the ark of the Law and the things in it and made them to be swallowed up in a rock.
193. And to those standing by he said, 'The Lord has gone away from Zion into heaven and will come again in power'"; Pss. Sol. 7:1-2 [a prayer]: "Do not move away from us, O God, lest those who hate us without cause should attack us.
194. LAB 19:2 et irascetur Deus in vobis, et derelinquet vos
195. et discedet de terra vestra; 2 Bar. 6:1-8:2 describes a vision in which, prior to the Babylonian destruction of the temple, an angel descended to remove the veil, the ark, and its cover, the two tablets of the Law, the priestly vestments, the altar, precious stones, and vessels.
196. Then a voice was heard saying, "Enter you enemies of Jerusalem, and let her adversaries come in: for he who kept the house has abandoned it" (8:2); 2 Bar. 64:6 [of the time of Manasseh]; "And the impiety of Manasseh increased to such a degree that the glory of the Most High removed itself from the sanctuary."
197. See further Otto Michel and Otto Bauernfeind, De bello judaico: Der jüdische Krieg (Munich: Kösel, 1962-69), 2:185;
198. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:60-61.
199. It is a standard trope of rabbinic literature that the Shekinah went into exile with Israel during the Babylonian captivity (Lam. Rab. 1.19-20 §54)
200. and that Jeremiah saw the temple destroyed and the Shekinah depart: Lam. Rab. Proem 23;
201. Qoh. Rab. 12.7 §1: "When Jeremiah saw Jerusalem destroyed, the Temple burnt, Israel sent into exile, and the Holy Spirit departed, he began to say over them, Vanity of vanities."
202. Becker, "Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie," 180 (emphasis original).
203. Mark 13:1 belongs to Mark's overall framework of Jesus' movement in and out of Jerusalem: 11:11: 15 19 27 13:1 13:3 14:26
204. See Lambrecht, MarkusApokalypse, 68-72;
205. Pesch, Naherwartung, 84-85;
206. Dupont, "Pierre sur pierre," 304-6;
207. Neirynck, "Marc 13," 397-99.
208. On 13:2ab, Pesch observes that Mark frequently anticipates the content of sayings of Jesus in the introduction: 7:18-19; 8:11-12; 10:17-18; 12:14-15 (Naherwartung, 86-87).
209. Rudolf K. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed.; trans. John Marsh; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 36: "Vv. 1, 2a may well be a scene constructed for a prophecy handed down in the Church, as it manifestly was in a variety of forms. . . . If this be the case the form (v. 2b) would be determined by its context. . . . There is little here to encourage us to think that this is the oldest form of the prophecy handed on to us complete with this setting; the address in v. 1 sounds far too much as if made for the specific purpose of evoking the prophecy."
210. Similarly, Willi Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (FRLANT 67; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956; 2nd ed., 1959), 113-15;
211. Pesch reversed his view in his commentary (Markusevangelium, 2:269): "Da Jesu Weisung (V 2c) nicht als von 14,58 abgeleitete red Bildung erklärt werden kann . . . , ist auch der Rahmen des Wortes nicht als mk Bildung vorzustellen."
212. Johannes Bihler, Die Stephanusgeschichte im Zusammenhang der Apostelgeschichte (Münchener Theologische Studien, 1, Historische Abteilung 16; Munich: Huebner, 1963), 13-16;
213. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted, 220;
214. Dupont, "Pierre sur pierre"; Gaston, No Stone on Another, 66.
215. K. Paesler argues that 13:2c reflects an authentic saying of Jesus, formulated in Aramaic and transmitted as an unfulfilled prophecy until Mark used it (Das Tempelwort Jesu: Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament (FRLANT 184; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999]).
216. Lambrecht, Markus-Apokalypse, 77-78;
217. Donahue, Are You the Christ? 108.
218. Lambrecht suggests that "die ursprüngliche Bedeutung von ο̂̀ικος ist hochstwahrscheinlich 'die Stadt'" (Markus-Apokalypse, 76).
219. Gaston draws the same conclusion (No Stone on Another, 244)
220. on the supposition that Luke 19:44 (which concerns Jerusalem rather than the temple specifically).
221. Mark 13:2, if understood as implying a statement about the departure of the deity, does not imply the new location of the deity.
222. From the Roman standpoint, as Gustafsson has shown (above pp. 440-41), the evocatio did not necessarily imply transport to Rome (though Josephus reports that some of the temple furnishings were take to Rome and placed in the newly refurbished temple of Pax [Ειρήνη; J.W. 7.158]).