The Disciples’ Question

An essential interpretative issue is whether the question asks about two different events, namely the occurrences leading to the destruction of the temple and those leading to the parousia, or whether the question in both its parts refers exclusively to the destruction of the temple. Five

intratextual arguments favor the latter view, that is, that the question is an example of synonymous parallelism and asks about the timing and sign of the destruction of the temple.

First, the structure of Mark 13:1–4, as noted, leads one to assume that the disciples’ question is prompted by Jesus’ utterance regarding the destruction of the temple, and therefore inquires

specifically about that topic. Second, Mark 13:4–5 and 13:22–23 form an inclusio,195 _{marked by warnings} to watch for deceivers and the declaration by Jesus that he has told them everything they asked about.

190 _{See similar comments in Malbon 2000, 12–15, regarding the positive interpretative value of “temporal” and}

“spatial” settings for the meaning of Mark’s narrative.

191 _{See Section 1.3 regarding “intratextuality.”}

192 _{Events that occur around the Mount of Olives in Mark are the entry into Jerusalem and Jesus’ arrest. The entry}

is patterned off Zech 9:9, and his arrest takes place “because it is written” in Zech 13:7. This intratextual evidence strengthens the notion that reference to the Mount of Olives may have alerted the reader/hearer to Zechariah, as Mark consistently associates that location with both important events in Jesus’ life and Zechariah’s prophecies.

193 _{Mark 13:4.}

194 _{Pesch 1968, 101. Stein (2014, 61) similarly regards the question as “the key” for understanding the discourse.}

195 _{See discussion on 13:5. Noted by several commentators, e.g. Lane 1974, 447–48; Moloney 2002, 249; Marcus}

138 The latter indicates that 13:5–23 constitutes the answer to the question. This is suggested by the

observation that 13:5–23 discusses material relevant to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.196 _{It follows that the question refers to these very things. Third, Stein notes} four examples in Mark in which Jesus asks multiple questions at once, where each successive question is a semi-repetition of the first.197 _{This intratextual phenomenon supports the notion that in 13:4 the} second question is also “a semi-repetition of the first.” Fourth, Mark contains two uses of “all these things” outside Mark 13,198 _{and each has its reference before the phrase. Thus “all these things” in 13:4} plausibly refers to the events and sign that would precede the temple’s destruction. Finally, each question has to do with the chronology of the prophecy. The question of “when” (πότε) the prophecy will occur is clarified by asking what the sign will be “when” (ὅταν) the prophecy is about to occur.199 _As argued in Section 5.2.1, the present request for a sign does not fall under the category of that which Jesus condemns in 8:12.

Thus the disciples ask about the timing of the event prophesied. Accordingly, Jesus’ answer too is about the timing of the event. Jesus predicts its destruction prosaically in 13:2, and as the disciples ask about the timing and sign of its destruction, Jesus’ answer need not include a further statement

describing the destruction itself.200 _{Thus once Jesus provides the answer to this question, as I argue he} does in 13:14, the Markan Jesus, in principle, may discuss a different but related subject.

The last three words in the disciples’ question (ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα) resemble the answer of the angelic interpreter in Dan 12:7.201 _{In Dan 12:6, Daniel asks, “How long will it be until the end of} these wonders?”202 _{In the angel’s answer, he concludes, συντελεσθήσεται πάντα ταῦτα.}203 _{In the} beginning of his answer, he says that the “completion” of all these things will come “as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people.” The latter phrase is the NASB translation of the Hebrew: שדק־םע־די ץפנ תולככו. Septuagint Daniel renders its Vorlage: ἡ συντέλεια χειρῶν ἀφέσεως

196 _{This statement will be more ably defended once all the evidence is weighed.}

197 _{Stein 2014, 68. See Mark 7:18; 8:17–18; 9:19; 14:37. E.g. 7:18: “Do you also fail to understand? Do you not}

see?”

198 _{Mark 7:23, 10:20.}

199 _{Bratcher and Nida (1961, 397) note, “The second question, then, represents an expansion of the first one, in}

normal Semitic style.” So also Matthew Black 1967, 105, 117.

200 _{So Adams 2005, 56; Stein 2008, 590, 596 n 4.}

201 _{Noted by several commentators; see e.g. Hartman 1966, 145, 220–21; Adams 2007, 140.}

202 _{For “how long?” cf. MT: יתמ־דע; LXX: πότε οὖν; Theodotion: ἕως πότε.}

λαοῦ ἁγίου. Theodotion Daniel204 _{translates its Vorlage: ἐν τῷ συντελεσθῆναι διασκορπισμὸν χειρὸς} λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου γνώσονται πάντα ταῦτα.

Notably Theodotion Daniel reads “scattering” (διασκορπισμόν) as opposed to “shattering” (from

ץפנ) or “remission” (ἀφέσεως). Accordingly, the terrible tribulation (θλῖψις) discussed throughout Daniel, and in Dan 12 in particular, is conceived of as a “scattering” of God’s people in Theodotion Daniel. In other words, the terrible tribulation that will precede “the end,” that is, the tribulation that will be unlike any has ever been in history, is called the διασκορπισμόν of the holy people. Theodotion Daniel 12, or in Mark’s case, proto-Theodotion (proto-Θ) Dan 12, is evidently the source for many phrases in Mark 13. Importantly then, if proto-Θ Dan 12 conceives of the tribulation as a “scattering,” and Mark 13 uses proto-Θ Dan 12 to describe the sufferings predicted, what does this mean about Mark’s use of “scattering” from Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27, where after Jesus’ death, the disciples will be “scattered” (διασκορπισθήσονται)? I suggest that the term “scattering” serves as an exegetical link between Zech 13:7 and proto-Θ Dan 12, and that Mark’s use of proto-Θ Dan 12 throughout Mark 13 supports this study’s claim that the “scattering” predicted via Zech 13:7 is partially fulfilled in the

“scattering,” that is, the tribulation, of Mark 13. That Daniel and Zechariah were combined is not new, as Mark 8:38’s fusion of Dan 7:13 and Zech 14:5 shows, but the above suggestions are defensible only if Mark is using proto-Θ Daniel. Fortunately Mark’s use of something like proto-Θ Daniel is widely accepted,205 _{thus I present only four cases of correspondence between the texts.}

5.8.4.1: Proto-Theodotion Daniel in Mark 13

Proto-Θ Daniel pre-dates the composition of Mark.206 _{Below I compare four elements from Mark} 13 to versions in Daniel and argue that their wording is found in, and at times distinct to, proto-Θ Daniel. First, Dan 12:1 and Mark 13:19:

Dan 12:1 (LXX): ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης

204 _{“Ur-Theodotion” or “Proto-Theodotion” (distinct from one another) are more accurate names for that which}

Mark utilized, as the historical Theodotion post–dates Mark. For discussion on this matter, see Timothy McLay 2003, 127–29.

205 _{See discussion and notes in Section 1.3.2.}

206 _{The earliest reference to the figure “Theodotion” is by Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:24), potentially placing that}

figure in the 2nd _{century CE. The New Testament, however, contains many readings distinct to Theodotion,}

especially Theodotion Daniel, and thus the version attributed to Theodotion, or one very similar to it, pre-dates the composition of the NT. See Pierre Grelot 1966, 381–402, for discussion of New Testament attestations to

Septuagint and Theodotion Daniel. He notes, for example, that Mark 14:62 contains “la leçon théodotionique” of Dan 7:13. These conclusions regarding Mark’s potential awareness of Theodotion Daniel are a relative consensus. See e.g. J.J. Collins 1993, 11; Dyer 1998, 101–22; McLay 2003, 127–29.

140 Dan 12:1 (proto-Θ): καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ᾽ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου

Mark 13:19: ἔσονται γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς

Two of Mark’s dissimilarities with LXX agree precisely with proto-Θ. First, both Mark and proto- Θ begin with a future form of εἰμί, and LXX does not, and second, both share the phrase θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν, which is rendered differently in LXX.

Second, I compare Dan 12:1 with Mark 13:13:

Dan 12:1 (LXX): καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὑψωθήσεται πᾶς ὁ λαός . . .207 Dan 12:1 (proto-Θ): καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ σωθήσεται ὁ λαός σου . . . Mark 13:13: ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται

Mark 13:13 and proto-Θ contain the verb σωθήσεται, while LXX (88-Syh) reads ὑψωθήσεται. This similarity alone is not overwhelming, but when Mark 13:13 and Dan 12:1 are also considered alongside Dan 12:12 (our third comparison), the correspondence increases. Daniel 12:12 declares a blessing on the one who perseveres through to the end of the tribulation mentioned in 12:1:

Daniel 12:12 (LXX): μακάριος ὁ ἐμμένων . . . εἰς ἡμέρας Daniel 12:12 (proto-Θ): μακάριος ὁ ὑπομένων . . . εἰς ἡμέρας Mark 13:13: ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος . . .

Both Mark 13:13 and Dan 12:12 (proto-Θ) use the participle from ὑπομένω while LXX uses that of ἐμμένω. Additionally, when proto-Θ Dan 12:12 is read in conjunction with 12:1, the meaning is, “Blessed is the one who perseveres (ὁ ὑπομένων) until the end of the tribulation, because that one will be saved (σωθήσεται).” This is comparable to Mark 13:13, which reads: ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται.208 _{Fourth, I compare Daniel 12:10 to Mark 13:20. Each passage speaks about characteristics} of the tribulation. Daniel 12:10 (proto-MT): םיבר ופרציו ונבלתיו וררבתי Daniel 12:10 (LXX)209_{: πειρασθῶσι καὶ ἁγιασθῶσι πολλοί} Daniel 12:10 (proto-Θ): ἐκλεγῶσιν καὶ ἐκλευκανθῶσιν καὶ πυρωθῶσιν πολλοί Mark 13:20: ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἐκολόβωσεν τὰς ἡμέρας

207 _{LXX 88-Syh contains ὑψωθήσεται. LXX o’, as represented in the 2}nd _{edition of Göttingen Daniel (Munnich 1999),}

reads: σωθήσεται.

208 _{Gaston 1970, 21, calls Dan 12:12 “a close parallel if not the actual source” of Mark 13:13.}

209 _{That which I label Dan 12:10 is 12:10 in MT, Rahlfs, and Ziegler’s 1954 Göttingen edition of LXX Dan (Θ). It is the}

I note three correspondences. First, neither proto-MT nor LXX mentions “choosing;” only proto- Θ refers to election in conjunction with the suffering involved. Second, Mark 13:20 and 13:27 are the only references in Mark’s Gospel to any group known as “the elect,” and in Mark 13 it is precisely the elect who suffer. Mark’s somewhat sudden use of “the elect” in relation to the terrible suffering at hand may be explained by proto-Θ’s claim that those who “choose” (ἐκλέγω) are those who will be whitened and refined. Lastly, the third verb in proto-Θ Dan 12:10 is πυρωθῶσιν, probably translating ףרצ, and this is precisely the Greek verb used in Zech 13:9, also translating ףרצ. This latter detail provides another point of contact between Zech 13:7–9 and the suffering of Dan 12.210

In light of these examples, it is probable that Mark knew and utilized proto-Θ Dan 12, or at least something remarkably like it, in his composition of Mark 13. The relevance of these findings lies in the thematic and lexical overlaps of the utilized proto-Θ Dan 12 with Zech 13:7–9 and related texts. These overlaps offer textual grounds for the present argument that the tribulations in Mark 13 constitute the tribulations of Zech 13:7–9.

Two pertinent overlapping themes serve as points of contact between the tribulations described in Mark 13, Dan 12, and Zech 13. First, as already noted, Dan 12:7, echoed in Mark 13:4, conceives of the tribulation that will be the worst in history (Dan 12:1, alluded to in Mark 13:19) as the “scattering” (διασκορπισμόν) of the people of God. Relatedly, Mark calls that which will happen to the disciples after Jesus’ death their “scattering” (διασκορπισθήσονται). Significantly this “scattering” is predicted on the basis of Zech 13:7, quoted before Jesus’ arrest.211 _{In the context of Zechariah the scattering initiates a} period of suffering for the “sheep” after the shepherd is struck. Thus, hypothetically, on the basis of a catchword association Mark associates the “scattering of the sheep” in Zech 13:7 with the “scattering,” that is, suffering, of the holy people in Dan 12. Mark’s use of Dan 12 throughout Mark 13 to describe the suffering of Jerusalem and Jesus’ disciples after Jesus’ death, and his quotation of Zech 13:7 to refer to that which will happen to the disciples after Jesus’ death, provide an example of the reading I propose: the tribulations of Mark 13 constitute the “scattering” and refining predicted in Zech 13:7–9.

Second, Mark 13:20 mentions the suffering of “the elect,” a title hitherto unused by Mark. Notably in Mark 13 and much of early Christian literature the “elect” are known and especially characterized by the fact that they suffer.212 _{This notion is shared by proto-Θ Dan 12:10, where the} “wise” are those who “choose” and are “whitened” and “purified.” Notably Zechariah elsewhere refers

210 _{Additionally, the suffering sheep in Zech 11:16–17 are called “the elect” in 11:16.}

211 _{Mark 14:27.}

142 to “the scattered” sheep (τὸ διεσκορπισμένον) who suffer from a lack of “shepherding” as the “elect.”213 Thus a further triangulation obtains between 1) Dan 12’s suffering, scattered elect, 2) Zechariah’s scattered, suffering sheep who are called “the elect,” and 3) Mark 13’s suffering elect who are subsequently described as “scattered sheep.” These textual connections between Dan 12 and Zech 13:7–9 provide a plausible explanation for their common appearance in Mark 13–14, and consequently support the proposal that the “scattering” of Mark 14:27 is partially fulfilled by the tribulation of Mark 13.

5.8.5: Summary

Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple, and the disciples ask about its timing.

Intratextual data indicates that the setting in Mark often contains a scriptural basis, which I suggest in Mark 13:3 is Zech 14:4. Extratextual data indicates that around the time of the Gospel’s composition, some Jews closely associated the Mount of Olives with Zech 14:1–5 and its eschatological prophecies concerning Jerusalem and the temple. Consequently, I concluded that Mark locates the setting of the discourse on the Mount of Olives in order to evoke the prophetic material of Zech 13–14. The language of the disciples’ question, in conjunction with several statements throughout Mark 13, betrays the influence of Dan 12. The latter text describes the tribulation of the last days as the “scattering” of the holy people, which connects the tribulation of Mark 13 with the “falling away” that Jesus warns about in Mark 14, as the latter is a prediction whose fulfilment begins with the “scattering” of the disciples. The scattering is predicted on the basis of Zech 13:7, which supports this study’s proposal that the

“scattering” of Mark 14:27 is not exhausted by their flight, but includes reference to the suffering described in Mark 13. With these conclusions in mind, I turn to Mark 13:5–6, 7–8.