Kata Markon

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

Apologies for the delay.  My weekend email acess is limited and today there 
have been various problems with email.

A further point of clarification.  I agree that for Mark the Temple action 
was more than an expression of outrage;  it was the reason why the Temple 
will be/ has been destroyed.

As for Jeff's view on prayer I have no real problem and I suspect he is 
most likely accurate.

I think the key difference I would have with Jeff's last piece is that 
Peter is speaking after 70.  The fig tree has withered for Mark but does 
this refer to the the destruction of the Temple as a prior event?  Other, 
but not necessarily conflicting,  interpretations are possible.  E.g. a 
pronouncement on the Temple authorities (cf. 11:18) or,  from a perspective 
where the Temple is absolutely going to fall,  Peter's response indicates 
the certainty.  I should say that this does not 'disprove' Jeff's view,  
which may still be correct,  but it does mean that a post-70 dating is not 
demanded by this evidence alone,  as Jeff may or may not agree.  Jeff would 
of course be correct if other evidence for a post-70 date was discussed but 
that of course is a wider issue and would require another discussion!

I would also like to add thanks for a very useful debate and I am willing 
to discuss any further issues.

James Crossley,
Dept. of Theology,
University of Nottingham,
U.K.

crossleyjames AT hotmail.com