^{page 126 note 1} This decade seems to represent a fairer average of the estimates than the 60–70 of Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London, 1952), p. 31;Google Scholar indeed it is difficult to justify Taylor's dates on the estimates which he himself cites (Ibid.). Cf. the table of dates given by Moffatt, J., Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (London, 1923), p. 213.Google Scholar As will be seen below, estimates have largely been determined by opinion about the chronological indications of chap. xiii, and the most complete and recent survey of these is given by Beasley-Murray, G. R., Jesus and the Future (London, 1954) pp. 1–112.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 2} Op. cit. and A Commentary on Mark Thirteen (London, 1957).Google Scholar The former of these books was reviewed at some length by the present writer in The Modern Churchman, xuv (1954), 315–23;Google Scholar see also The Fall of Jerusalem and the Chriotian Church (London, 2nd ed., 1957),Google Scholar Additional Note iii Cf., Conzelmann. ‘Geschichte und Eschaton nach Mc 13’, in Zeitschr. f. d. Neutesti. Wiss. Bd. 50 (1959).Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 1} Whatever opinions may be held about an Ur-Markus or a Proto-Luke hypothesis, the view that Mark in its present form was the first Gospel to be published and acquire a considerable currency does not seem to be seriously disputed.

^{page 127 note 2} Cf., Taylor, op. cit. p. 296, n. on v. 41; see also p. 334, n. on vii. 1, 3;Google ScholarBacon, B. W., Is Mark a Roman Gospel? (Harvard Univ. Press, 1919), pp. 48–59.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 3} Cf., Taylor, op. cit. pp. 32, 45;Google ScholarStreeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1924), pp. 488–91;Google ScholarGoguel, M., Jésus (Paris, 1950), pp. 103–4;Google ScholarGrant, F. C., The Gospels (London, 1959), pp. 74–7, 116.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 4} Josephus, , Wars, vii, 116–62.Google Scholar See the important article of Hart, H. St J., ‘Judaea and Rome’, in J. T. S. iii (new series), 172–98Google Scholar and plates, in which the propaganda value of the imperial coinage commemorating the subjugation of Judaea is discussed. Cf., M. P. Charlesworth, C.A.H. xi, 4–5;Google ScholarBersanetti, G. M., Vespasiano (Rome, 1941), pp. 40–2;Google ScholarReifenburg, A., Israel's History in Coins (London, 1953), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 5} Jos, . Wars, VII, 146: ή μέχνη δέ кαλ τῶν кατασкενασμάτεν ή μεуλα τολς ούк λδοũσι уινόμενα τόγ έδελкνυσεν ώς παρονǰσιGoogle Scholar

^{page 127 note 6} Ibid.. 150: ή τε νόμος ό τῶν λονδαλων. The present Arch of Titus in the Forum Romanum, with its precious reliefs of two scenes from the triumphal procession, was not erected until after the death of Titus. Its short dedicatory inscription does not refer to the Jewish War, but that on another such arch in the Circus Maximus, which was destroyed in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, did, though somewhat mendaciously: cf., E. Schurer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig, 1901), 1, 635,Google Scholar El. 128. Cf., Hart, op. cit. pp. 180–1;Google ScholarMommsen, T., Das Weltreich der Coesaren (Phaidon Verlag, Vienna, 1939), p. 390, n.;Google ScholarRicciotti, G., Fiauio Giuseppe (Turin, 1937), IV, 246–52 and notes;Google ScholarNawrath, L. Curtius-A., Das Antike Rom (Vienna, 1944), pp. 39–40, Bilder 40–4.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 1} On the probable legendary character of the story that the Jerusalem Christians escaped to Pella see Brandon, , Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 168–73, 263–4.Google Scholar Those who continue to maintain the authenticity of the story (e.g. Elliott-Binns, L. E., Galilean Christianity, London, 1956, pp. 67–9) neglect to account for the fact that, whereas the Jerusalem Urgemeinde had previously controlled the infant Christian movement, after 70 nothing more is heard of it. Surely, if it had succeeded in migrating to Pella, it would have continued to exercise its unique authority from there?Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 2} Cf., Fallof Jerusalem, pp. 19, 21–2, 26–8.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 3} E.g. Rom. iii. 31; vii. 12; I Cor. ix. o; II Cor. Xi. 22; Acts xviii. i8; xx. i6; xxi. 26.

^{page 129 note 1} Rom, Cf. Xl. 13–24.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 2} The coins which were put into circulation to commemorate the Flavian triumph must also have had their significance for the Gentile Christians, as they read the inscriptions IVDAEA CAPTA, DEVICTA IVDAEA, and studied the images of the bound Jewish prisoner and the mourning personification of Judaea, . See p. 127, n. 4 above.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 3} Cf, . Fall of Jerusalem, p. 158 and references there given.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 4} Seejos, . Wars, I, 5 Besides the Roman civil wars of 68−9, there had been trouble in Gaul (68), in Moesia and on the Rhine (69). Cf. C.A.H. x, chaps. xxiv, xxv;Google ScholarPeretti, A., La Sibilla babilonese (Florence, 1943), pp. 18–20.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 5} Josephus refers to hatred of the Jews in the preface of his Wars (1, 2). The scurrilous account which Tacitus (Hist. V, 4–5) gives of the Jews and their customs clearly reflects the popular feeling against them at this time.Google ScholarCf., A. Piganiol, Histoire de Rome (Paris, 1949), p. 281;Google ScholarCarcopino, J., La Vie quotidienne à Rome (Paris, 1949), p. 163;Google ScholarMommsen, , op. cit. pp. 390–1.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 6} The celebrated statement of Tacitus (Annales, xv, 44)Google Scholar is significant in this connexion: ‘Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt cele-branturque.’ It seems likely thatJuvenal confuses Jews and Christians (cf., Sat. xiv, 96–105Google ScholarCf., Carcopino, op. cit. p. 163).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} See below p. 135.

^{page 131 note 1} Luke, xix. 41–4;xxi. 20–4.Google ScholarCf., Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 206–7;Google ScholarKlostermann, E., Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen, 1927), pp. 202–3;Google ScholarEd., Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfänge des Christentums (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1924), 1, 127;Google ScholarCreed, J. M., The Gospel According to St Luke (London, 1930), pp. 253–4.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 2} Op. Cit. p. 596.Google ScholarCf., R. Bultmann, Die Gesch. d. synopt. Trad. (Göttingen, 1957), pp. 305–6.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 3} The curious legend in the Gospel According to the Hebrews (James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament, p.5)Google Scholar which, instead of the rending of the veil, told of the fall of one of the great lintels of the Temple, would be more in keeping with the kind of portent natural in a Jewish Christian circle: e.g. the death of R. Jassi was attended by the shaking of the lintels of seventy Galilean houses; cf., G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshna (E.T., London, 1929), p. 220.Google Scholar The tradition of such a portent would have been cherished by Jewish Christians, because its significance would have been altogether different from that of the rending of the Temple veil. D. Daube's ingenious interpretation of the meaning of the portent (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London, 1956, pp. 23–6)Google Scholar is beside the point, because it disregards the essential fact that the portent is recorded in a writing addressed to Gentile readers. For a Hellenistic parallel see Clemen, C., Religionsgeschtl. Erklärung. d. N. T. (Giessen, 1924), p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 4} Acts ii. 46; iii. 1; v. 12, 42; xxi. 23, 24, 26; cf. Luke, xxiv. 53;Google ScholarMatt, . v. 23–4; xxiii. 16–22.Google Scholar The story of the Cleansing of the Temple implies a milieu in which the Temple was essentially the house of God. Cf. Fall of Jerusalem, chap. Ch., Guignebert, Le Christ (Paris, 1943), pp. 111–12.Google Scholar If there had been an anti-cultic element among the Palestinian Christians, as the episode of Stephen might imply (cf., H. J. Schoeps, Theologie u. Gesch. d. Judenchristentums, Tübingen, 1949, chap.Google ScholarSimon, M., Les Premiers Chrétiens, Paris, 1952, chap. 3;. Cullmann, ‘L'Opposition contre Ic Temple de Jérusalem, etc.’, in New Test. Stud. vol. v), it could scarcely be maintained that Mark embodies its views. See below the discussion of the Markan account ofJesus' attitude to the Temple. It is significant that, when later Ebionite thought came to reckon with the now established tradition of the Rending of the Veil, it was explained: ‘velum templi scissum est, velut lamentans excidium loco imminens’ (Clem Rec. 1, xli).Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 1} ‘Aus dem Ausdruckкαταπώτασμergibt sich also keine bestimntte Antwort auf die Frage, ob Mt. 27, 57; Mk. 15, 38 u. Lk. 23, 45 der Vorhang vor dem Heiligen oder vor dem Allerheiligsten gemeint 1st’, Strack-Billerbeck, , Kom. z. II. T. aus Talmud u. Midrasch, i, 1044.Google Scholar It is surely significant that for Mark there was only one αταπώτασμα ταον῀. On the two curtains of the sanctuary see Jos, . Wars, v, 209–19.Google Scholar Before the golden doors of the first (open) chamber (οlкogr;ς) hung one curtain, which he describes at length: it was of Babylonian tapestry, with embroidered symbols in various colours. The other curtain, which he does not describe, screened the inner chamber, which was άßατον δέ άχραντον кα άνέατον [ήν] πāσιν άуον έкαλετο. Concerned with the symbolism of the portent, and writing for Gentile readers, there was no need for Mark to discriminate between these two curtains. But see below, n. for the significance of Jos, . Wars, vii, 162.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 2} The theological significance attached to the Temple veils in Heb. vi. 19; ix. 3; x. 10, presupposes a Jewish Christian milieu, in which theological speculation had become considerably elaborated about the ritual institutions ofJudaism. Such a milieu is far removed from that indicated in Mark. Cf., Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 239–40.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 3} Wars, vii, 162. Many of the treasures of the sanctuary (ναός), including the curtains and material for repairing them (πορϕ τε πολλέν кαкόккου), had in some way escaped destruction when the Temple was burnt and were surrendered by two of the Temple officials to the Romans prior to the attack on the upper town, the last centre of Jewish resistance in Jerusalem (Jos, . Wars, vi, 387–91).Google Scholar On the subsequent fate of the Temple spoils cf., Schürer, op. cit. i, 637, n. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 4} Cf., Jos. Wars, vi, 288–309;Google ScholarTacitus, , Hist. V, 13.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 5} It would be likely that the Temple curtain had been damaged during its violent removal; indeed Jewish legend tells how Titus himself had slit it with his sword, Gittin, 56b (cf., Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit. i, 1044 cf. pp. 946 f.). The sight of such damage would have been suggestive.Google ScholarCf., R. Eisler,(Heidelberg, 1929), I, 161–2 and notes. That this meaning of the rending of the Temple veil was quickly elaborated in Christian thought is evident in the Test. of Levi xv and Test, of Benjamin ix.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} It is significant that Beasley-Murray (Jesus and the Future, pp. 255–7) endeavours to emend the text of xiii. 14, although it is attested by the best MSS.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 2} Op. cit. passim.

^{page 133 note 3} Cf., E. Klostermann, Dos Markusevang. (Tübingen, 1950), p. 135Google ScholarTaylor, , op. cit. pp. 641–2;Google ScholarGrant, , op. cit. pp. 53, 100–1, 112, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 4} Cf., Foil of Jerusalem, pp. 107–9 and references there given.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 1} Jos, . Wars, Vi, 316.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} ‘sed et victorias adoratis.… Religio Romanorum tota castrensis signa veneratur, signa iurat, signa omnibus diis praeponit’, Tertullian, Apol. xvi. The Qumran Habakkuk Commentary, col. vi, ii- 14 f., notes that the Kittim (Romans?) sacrifice to their standards. Cf., Eisler, op. cit. ii, 167 and n. 2, i, Tafel xxxiv;Google ScholarOxford Classwal Dict. p. 857b. It is significant that in his attempt to prove that Mark xiii was written before A.D. 70,Google ScholarBeasley-Murray, (Corn. on Mark Thirteen, pp. 63, 72)Google Scholar ignores the fact that Josephus tells us that the legionaries sacrificed to their standards in the Temple and saluted Titus as Imperator, and seeks instead to relate the prophecy to Pilate's introduction of military standards into Jerusalem (not the Temple, Jos, . Ant. xviii, 55;Google ScholarWars, ii, 169–70).Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Cf., A. D. Nock, C.A.H. x, 381–9, 493–5, 501.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 4} ‘The intentional change from the neuterτό ßδλυуμα to the masculine έστηкότα, the vague local statement όπον ον δετ, the warning ό άναινωσкων νοετω, and the general atmosphere of reserve which marks the passage, must all be taken into account’, Taylor, , op. cit. p. 511.Google ScholarCf., C. H. Dodd, ‘The Fall ofJeru. salem and the “Abomination of Desolation”’, in J. Roman Studies, xxxvii, 53–4;Google ScholarKlostermann, , op. cit. p. 135;Google ScholarDaube, , op. cit. pp. 422–36.Google Scholar The need for caution in making this reference to Titus would have been even greater, if it were known that the Roman government connected Christianity with the Temple. This is actually stated by the fifth-century writer Sulpicius Severus in his account of the Roman council of war before the attack on the Temple: ‘At contra alii, et Titus ipse, evertendum templum in primis censebant, quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur, quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, iisdem tamen auctoribus profectas; Christianos cx Judaeis exstitisse; radice sublata stirpem facile perituram’ (Chronica, Lib. ii, c. xxx, in Pat. Lat., ed. Migne, t. xx). It has been thought that this account was derived from the lost portion of Tacitus' Historiae. Cf, . Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} xiii. 1–2.

^{page 135 note 2} xiv. 57–8.

^{page 135 note 3} xv. 29.

^{page 135 note 4} See p. 131, n. above. On the further problem constituted by the fact that there is other evidence of a tradition that Jesus had spoken against the Temple see Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 37–40, 201–2;Google Scholar in The Modern Churchman, XUV, 317–18.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 5} He may have heard that one Jesus, son of Ananias, had attained great notoriety in the years immediately preceding the war in prophesying the coming destruction of the Temple; cf., Jos. Wars, VI, 300–9.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 6} It should be noted that in xiii. 1–3 it seems to be implied that the prophecy has been given privately to the disciples, and then for the first time.

^{page 136 note 1} Beasley-Murray, (Com. on Mark Thirteen, pp. 19–20)Google Scholar endeavours to rebut this objection by argu. ing that a Galilean visitor could have acted in this way, and he cites in support Josephus' description of the splendours of the Temple. But it is very improbable that a Galilean should have been so unfamiliar with the sight of the Temple, living, as he did, only some sixty miles from Jerusalem and the unique shrine of his faith. Moreover Josephus' account was written purposely to impress non Jewish readers. Cf., Conzelmann, op. cit. p. 215, n. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} Cf., Taylor, op. cit. p. 502;Google ScholarKlostermann, , op. cit. p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} See the references in p. 129, n. 4 above.

^{page 137 note 2} Tacitus, , Ann. xiv, 27;Google Scholar XV, 22. Cf, Peretti, op. cit. p. 470. Jewish readiness to interpret the famous eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79 as divine punishment upon the Romans for their treatment of Israel (Sib. Orac. IV, 130) is of significance in this connexion.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 3} Cf., Taylor, op. cit. pp. 88, 509–10.Google Scholar As Beasley-Murray recognizes (op. cit. p. 50),Google Scholar Mark xiii. 12 recalls whatJosephus tells of the Zealots, the patriots whom he blames for the Jewish disaster of A.D. 66–70 (Ant. xviii, i, 6).Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 4} Josephus, (Wars, VI, 285–7)Google Scholar tells of ‘false’ prophets who had misled the Jewish people into their disastrous revolt by the promise of divine help. However, it is more probable that the Roman Christians would have been more concerned about the claim being made at this time that Vespasian was the world-ruler who, as Jewish prophecy foretold, would arise from Judaca: cf., Jos. Wars, VI, 312–15;Google ScholarTac, . Hist. V, 13;Google Scholar Suet. Vesp. 4,5. They would also undoubtedly have heard of the σημετα кα τέρατα reputed to have been worked by Vespasian at Alexandria; cf., Tac. Hut. IV, 81–2;Google ScholarSuet, . Vesp. 7.Google Scholar The Slavonic version has an interesting variation of the Greek text of Jos, . Ant. vi, 313:Google Scholar ‘Ii y a sur lui diverses explications: les -uris ont cru que c'était Hérode, d'autres cc faiseur de miracles cruciflé, d'autres encore Vespasien’, La Prise de férusalem de Josèphe Ie fuif (Texte Vieux-Russe), ed. Istrin, V., tr. Pascal, P. (Paris, 1938), ii, 175.Google Scholar The significance of such a variant reading is bound up with the still unsolved problem of the origin and character of the Slavonic version of Josephus' Halosis. Cf., A. Rubenstein, ‘Observations on the Old Russian Version of Josephus's Wars’, J. Sem. Stud. vol. ii (1957).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} Cf., Taylor, op. cit. pp. 519 f.;Google ScholarBultmann, , op. cit. p. 130,Google ScholarErgänzwzgsheft (1958), p. 19 (130).Google Scholar It should be noted that xiii. io also provides for a conveniently undefined period before the End; cf., Taylor, op. cit. p. 507;Google ScholarBeasley-Murray, , op. cit. pp. 40–5Google Scholar (although he omits to consider the witness of Mark, vii. 24–30 in this connexion;Google Scholarcf., Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 33–4);Google ScholarConzelmann, , op. cit. p. 219Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 186–205.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} Cf., Taylor, op. cit. pp. 235–6.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 4} Cf., Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 28–30,Google ScholarEräiinzwzgsheft, p. 9 (30).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} O. Cullmann makes the interesting suggestion that Mark represents Peter as ‘'instrument du diable’, because he tempted Jesus to assume a political role (in New Testament Essays in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. Higgins, A. J. B., Manchester, 1959, p. 96).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 2} XV 39. ‘Das Motiv des Hauptmanns am Kreuz Mk. 15, 39 hat seine Parallelen in der MärtyrerLiteratur’, Bultmann, , op. cit. p. 306,Google Scholarcf., Ergänzungsheft, p. 42 (306).Google Scholar That may be so, but it is surely significant that the first human being to perceive the divinity of Jesus, according to Mark, was a Gentile; his divine nature had previously been recognized only by the demoniac powers. Cf, . Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 194, 201, 204–5.Google Scholar See also Lohmeyer, E., Das Evang. d. Markus (Göttingen, 1937), p.347.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} xii. 13–17. The key to the meaning of this passage surely lies in the words να ανα αντόν αуρεúσωσlν λόуω. The Pharisees and Herodians would have represented two Jewish groups who would undoubtedly have been well known to the Roman Christians (Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge, 1953, pp. 9–10, omits to notice the notoriety of Titus' liaison with Berenice, the sister of Agrippa II;Google Scholarcf., A. H. M. Jones, The Herods of fudaea, Oxford, 1938, pp. 257–8).Google Scholar The account of the evil design of these representative Jews follows on immediately after the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (xii. 1–12), which foretold the divine punishment of Israel, and the giving of its heritage to the Gentiles (‘Das Stück ist Gemeindebildung, eine allegorisierende Darstellung der Hellsgeschichte’, Bultmann, Ergänzwzgsheft, p. 28).Google Scholar If Bultmann (Gesch. d. syn. Trad. p. 25) is right in thinking that v. 13 indicates a redactional adaptation of a traditional apophthegma, then it is possible that vu.Google Scholar 14–17 had originally a somewhat different connotation: cf., Brandon in The Modern Churchman, ii (new series), 168–2.Google Scholar On the general significance of the Tribute Money episode cf, . Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 104, 188, 191–2.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} In his attempt to restrain the Jewish revolutionaries Agrippa II is significantly made to say: Ρωαοις έστν ούτε уάρ Кασαρε τόν ϕόρον… (Jos, . Wars, II, 403).Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13; cf. Matt.x. 4.

^{page 140 note 3} Note Josephus' damning indictment of the Zealots (Wars, vii, 268–73; Ant. xviii, 1. 6); even though for his own purposes he undoubtedly maligns them, such a view was surely current in Rome, where the WarsGoogle Scholar was published sometime between 75 and 79. For a recent estimate of the Zealots see Roth, C., ‘The Zealots in the War of 66–73’, J. Sem. Stud. vol. iv (1959).Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 4} Jos, . Wars, vii, 118. It would be interesting to know why Simon bar Giora, and not John of Gischala, was executed according to the custom of the Roman triumph. Josephus does not comment on the distinction: Simon possibly suffered this fate because he was the last of the Jewish leaders to hold out in Jerusalem.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 5} iii. 14–19.

^{page 140 note 6} He even does so in giving the list of apostles here: кα έπηθηкν αντς όνομα οανηρуές ό έστιν уοροντές.

^{page 141 note 1} ‘es ist also – das wäre auch nicht einer de uwo Qiana Galilaea, ubi aquarn dominus uertit in uinum Hieronymus – das wäre Kavatos, sondern ein d. h. em (ehemaliger) Angehöriger der Zelotenpartei unter den Pharisäem’, Klostermann, , op. cit. p. 35.Google ScholarCf., Taylor, op. cit. p. 234;Google Scholar see also Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 104–5, 198–9.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} Luke, vi. 15 Acts i. 13. The fact that Matt. X. 4 follows Mark in giving would be consistent with the Jewish provenance of this Gospel.Google Scholar