Kata Markon

["James Crossley" <crossleyjames AT hotmail.com>]

Many thanks to Jeff for his reply.

A few points for clarification.

I'm sorry that I never made it clear about your distinction between the 
Jesus of history and the Markan Jesus. I assumed this to be the case.  I 
suspect that the confusion arose from my argument that Mark faithfully 
records the actions of Jesus in the Temple and,  on this point,  is not too 
far removed from the Jesus of history.

It is quite correct to locate the Markan Jesus (and the Jesus of history) 
in the prophetic tradition. The interpretation that I gave of the Temple 
action puts Jesus in line with the Hebrew prophets and their criticisms of 
social injustice.  Indeed,  the prophetic tradition is of central 
importance for any study of the synoptic Jesus and the Jesus of history. 
Mark,  as I said,  faithfully records Jesus' action and places the episode 
in the context of the fig-tree.  This, although by no means as clear as 
many would have it,  gives us a context of implied judgement on the Temple. 
This judgement is a reaction to the Temple malpractice,  from a Markan 
perspective (and probably Jesus too).  This is also why Jeremiah 7 is so 
important:  it deals with Temple abuses as the condition for judgement and 
of course puts Jesus firmly in the prophetic tradition.

The grammar of the fig tree episode does not change this. Mark can still be 
expressing disappointment at the Temple if it was still standing,  
especially in reaction to its injustices and the fact (according to Mark) 
that the Temple would inevitably be destroyed.

If I am correct then this does little to aid us in dating Mark because a 
prediction of doom on the Temple and the conviction that this was really 
going to happen comes from the earliest days of the Jesus movement to 
post-70.  So,  it is true that Mark accepts that the inevitable destruction 
of the Temple,  and the fig tree episode may indeed be an axpression of 
disappointment at this,  but this does not demand a post 70 date (of 
course,  it does not rule it out either).

I also agree that 'apocalypticism' (difficult enough to define!) is a 
legitimate background for Mark and the interpretation that I have given 
does not contradict this.

  What I really do want to emphasise is that the action in the Temple was 
not one of symbolic destruction.  Prophetic symbolism needed to be 
explained explictly and Mark does not give an explicit explanation.  Even 
though Mark accepts that the Temple will be/has been destroyed,  he is 
still firing at the economic exploitation and at the leaders for their 
rejection of Jesus.  This is the reason why the Temple was to be destroyed 
from a Markan perspective. I do not agree that turning over the tables was 
symbolic of destruction;  it was Jesus' outrage over social injustice.

Again thanks for the reply and if there are further points (as I'm sure 
there are) or misunderstandings I'll gladly discuss them.

Yours, 

James Crossley,  
Dept. of Theology,
University of Nottingham

crossleyjames AT hotmail.com