Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:27:22.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From John 2.19 to Mark 15.29: The History of a Misunderstanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

Gonzalo Rojas-Flores
Gonzalo Rojas-Flores
Affiliation:
Suecia 3390, dep. 401, Ñuñoa, Santiago de Chile. email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Against the consensus that John 2.19 alludes to the destruction of the temple and is dependent on Synoptic traditions, it is argued here that: (a) there is some interdependence between the Johannine and Synoptic sayings on temple destruction, but not so as to posit Johannine use of Synoptic material; (b) Jesus' saying in John 2.19 does not refer to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, but to his death and resurrection (proof of his temple-cleansing authority), formulated in distinctively and exclusively Johannine terms; (c) Mark takes Jesus to have predicted the destruction of the temple, but the notion that he also predicted its rebuilding (Mark 15.29) can be explained only as a distorted version of John 2.19, known to Mark via a source hostile to Jesus.

Keywords

John 2.19–21Mark 14.58 and 15.29destruction of the templerebuilding the templeJohn and the Synoptics
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 22 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Matson, M. A., ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John’, Stone Campbell Journal 7 (2004) 73–100Google Scholar.

2 Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976) 307–8Google Scholar n. 218; Wallace, D. B., ‘John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel’, Bib 71 (1990) 179Google Scholar n. 10; Hofrichter, P. L., ed., Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangelium: Symposion in Salzburg am 10. März 2000 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2002)Google Scholar.

3 Anderson, P., ‘John and Mark: The Bi-optic Gospels’, Jesus in Johannine Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001)Google Scholar.

4 Boismard, M.-E. and Lamouille, A., L'Evangile de Jean (Paris: Cerf, 1977)Google Scholar.

5 Berger, K., Im Anfang war Johannes (Stuttgart: Quell, 1997)Google Scholar.

6 B. Shellard, ‘Luke as the Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Character’ (M. Phil. diss., Oxford University, 1997); Matson, M. A., In Dialogue with Another Gospel? The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke (Atlanta: SBL, 2001)Google Scholar.

7 Cf. Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 1.123Google Scholar; Brown, , The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1.438Google Scholar n. 15; Lane, W. L., The Gospel according to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 534Google Scholar; Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional Study of Acts 7, 2–53 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) 34Google Scholar; Cullmann, O., The Johannine Circle (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 91–2Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 2nd ed. 1978) 196Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 392Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 72–3Google Scholar; Matson, M. A., ‘The Contribution to the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel’, SBL 1992 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 501Google Scholar; Ashton, J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 414Google Scholar n. 18; Wills, L. M., The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London: Routledge, 1997) 111–12Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., The Gospel according to St Mark (London: Continuum, 2001) 304Google Scholar.

8 Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953) 302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 All biblical citations come from the New Revised Standard Version, unless indicated to the contrary.

10 My hypotheses do not depend on any particular theory about the Synoptic problem, but I will assume Markan priority in order to facilitate my investigation.

11 Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark, 358.

12 Cf. Matt 12.40; 27.63; Mark 8.31; John 2.19, 20; Rev 11.9, 11.

13 Cf. Matt 27.63; Mark 8.31; Rev 11.11.

14 Cf. John 2.19–20.

15 Cf. Matt 26.61; Mark 14.58.

16 Cf. Matt 27.40; Mark 15.29; John 2.19–20.

17 See Matt 9.25; 10.8; 11.5; 14.2; 16.21; 17.23; 26.32; 27.52, 63–64; 28.6–7; Mark 5.41; 6.14, 16; 12.26; 14.28; 16.6, 14; Luke 7.14, 22; 8.54; 9.7, 22; 20.37; 24.6, 34; Acts 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 10.40; 13.30, 37; 26.8; Rom 4.24, 25; 6.4, 9; 7.4; 8.11, 34; 10.9; 1 Cor 6.14; 15.4, 12–17, 20, 29, 32, 35, 42–44, 52; 2 Cor 1.9; 4.14; 5.15; Gal 1.1; Eph 1.20; 5.14; Col 2.12; 1 Thess 1.10; 2 Tim 2.8; Heb 11.19; 1 Pet 1.21.

18 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–90.

19 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 76.

20 Evans, C. A., ‘Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (ed. Chilton, B. and Evans, C. A.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 410Google Scholar.

21 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 80–87.

22 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 85.

23 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 81.

24 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 75.

25 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 66.

26 Evans, ‘Jesus' Action in the Temple’, 397.

27 Evans, ‘Jesus' Action in the Temple’, 435.

28 Evans, ‘Jesus' Action in the Temple’, 397–8.

29 France, R. T., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 428Google Scholar.

30 France, The Gospel of Mark, 437.

31 Cf. Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1962) 596Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., The Good News according to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1970) 355Google Scholar; Mann, C. S., Mark (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986) 653Google Scholar.

32 Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 575.

33 Juel, D., Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 140–2Google Scholar.

34 Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1.439.

35 Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2.1104.

36 W. L. Lane wrote that Mark 13.2 ‘actually forms the expected sequel’ to Mark 11.17: ‘There, in a pronouncement of judgement upon the misuse of the Temple, Jesus cited Jer. 7:11. In the context of that passage the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar is seen as God's punishment of the rebelliousness of Judah in the time of Jeremiah (Jer. 7:12–14)’. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 452.

37 Due to limitations of space, I will develop this argument in a separate article.

38 Regarding John 2.16 as an allusion to Zech 14.21, see Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 300; Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972) 139Google Scholar; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1.119, 121. See recent discussion in Chilton, B. D., The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Penn State University, 1992) 135–6Google Scholar.

39 For the Greek and Aramaic translations of Zech 14.21, see Jonge, H. J. de, ‘The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21’, The Book of Zechariah and its Influence (ed. Tuckett, C.; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003) 90Google Scholar.

40 Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 300.

41 Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1.123. Cf. Acts 25.1; 28.7, 12, 17. Cf. also John 2.1 (‘on the third day’).

42 Associated with Jesus' resurrection, τϱίτῃ ἡμέϱᾳ (‘third day’) appears in Matt 16.21; 17.23; 20.19; 27.64; Mark 9.31; 10.34; Luke 9.22; 18.33; 24.7, 21, 46; Acts 10.40; 1 Cor 15.4.

43 Associated with Jesus' resurrection, τϱεῖς ἡμέϱας (‘three days’) appears in Matt 12.40; 27.63; Mark 8.31; indirectly in Matt 12.40 (Jonah's sign), John 2.19–20 (the temple's raising up), Rev 11.9, 11 (the two witnesses' death and resurrection). Although the allusion is distorted, Jesus' resurrection is implied in Matt 26.61; 27.40; Mark 14.58; 15.29 (the temple's rebuilding). It is possible that Jesus' resurrection underlies Matt 15.32; Mark 8.2 (feeding the multitude after three days); Luke 2.46 (Jesus found after three days); Acts 9.9 (restoration of Paul's sight after three days). References without connection to Jesus' resurrection can be found in Acts 25.1; 28.7, 12, 17.

44 Gartner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the NT: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the NT (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965)Google Scholar; McKelvey, R. J., The New Temple: The Church in the NT (Oxford: Oxford University, 1969)Google Scholar.

45 Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Sheffield: JSOT, 3rd ed. 1987) 293Google Scholar.

46 This argument does not work with the rendering of W. L. Lane (The Gospel according to Mark, 534): ‘if this temple be destroyed, in three days I will raise it up’, adopted from Beyer, K., Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 252Google Scholar.

47 In the (related) vision of the Johannine seer, the temple would be replaced by God and Christ as the new temple (Rev 21.22) of the New Jerusalem (21.2, 10) in the context of the eschatological renewal of all things (21.1), a renewal that excludes the profanation and destruction of the temple (11.1–13).

48 Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 724–5Google Scholar.

49 The ‘sign of Jonah’ is absent from Mark 8.12, but the authenticity of Matt 12.39–40 and Luke 11.29–30 is irrelevant for my argument. Regarding the debate about the authenticity and meaning of the ‘sign of Jonah’, see Edwards, R. A., The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q (London: SCM, 1971)Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2005) 90–113Google Scholar; Merrill, E. H., ‘The Sign of Jonah’, JETS 23 (1980) 23–30Google Scholar; Adam, A. K. M., ‘The Sign of Jonah: A Fish-Eye View’, Semeia 51 (1990) 177–91Google Scholar; Chow, S., The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered: A Study of its Meaning in the Gospel Traditions (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995)Google Scholar.

50 Cf. France, The Gospel of Mark, 494–5.

51 Cullmann, The Johannine Circle, 91.

52 Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 302 n. 1.

53 Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1.439.

54 Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 146 n. 1.

55 Gaston, L., No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 226, 241, 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 France, The Gospel of Mark, 516–17.

57 France, The Gospel of Mark, 607.

58 Harrington, D. J., The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991) 382Google Scholar.

59 Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 302.

60 On the truth spoken by adversaries in Mark, see Best, E., Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 214Google Scholar.

61 France, The Gospel of Mark, 607.

62 Witherington, B. III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 397Google Scholar.

63 Ps 118.22 quoted in Matt 21.42; Mark 12.10, and Luke 20.17 mentions a stone rejected that becomes the cornerstone of a building, maybe a temple. Although it seems to have originally referred to Israel, it was applied to David in the Targum, and to Jesus in the Synoptics, symbolizing the rejection and vindication of the chosen one. Cf. France, The Gospel of Mark, 462–3. Although the stone's rejection and vindication could have been interpreted as referring to Jesus' death and resurrection, the saying itself (‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’) is very far from the saying attributed to Jesus in his trial: the building of a temple in three days.

64 Although Bruce, F. F. (The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 3rd rev. and enlarged ed. 1990], 189)Google Scholar recognizes that ‘Stephen is not charged with going on to say that Jesus will build a new temple in place of the old’, he argues that ‘the theme of the new temple, “not made with hands,” may be read between the lines of his reply.’ But the contrast argued by Stephen is not between the current temple made with hands and the future temple not made with hands (which is not mentioned or implied at all), but between the old tent of testimony made according to a pattern revealed by God, and the current temple made with hands, that is, according to human devices, not being part of the divine plan.

65 France, The Gospel of Mark, 605.

66 Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 905–6Google Scholar.