Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - RE: Again, the Temple and the fig-tree

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "James Crossley" <crossleyjames AT hotmail.com>
  • To: GMark
  • Subject: RE: Again, the Temple and the fig-tree
  • Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:10:44


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



  • RE: Again, the Temple and the fig-tree, James Crossley, 02/14/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page