^{page 189 note 1} ETSo (1949), p. 94.

^{page 189 note 2} The Gospel according to Saint Mark, p. 122.

^{page 189 note 3} We have to turn back to 11.27 for any indication of His entering the Temple, but it does not follow that all narrated between must have occurred during one visit. Lagrange (p. 333) seems to regard the conversation reported in w. 1 f as taking place in public: Lohmeyer (p. 267) thinks only the disciples were present—which seems more likely.

^{page 189 note 4} op. cit., p. 332.

^{page 190 note 1} BJ V.v.6. See the whole of V.v. and cf. Ant. XV.

^{page 190 note 2} Begun 20–19 B.C. Cf. John 2.20.

^{page 190 note 3} Schlatter, A., Die Evv. nach Markus u. Lukas (1947 ed.), p. 122.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 4} Matt. 23.37–39 = Luke 13.34–35.

^{page 190 note 5} Cf. Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus, p. 295.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 6} The Gospel according to St. Mark (3rd ed.), p. 295. He quotes Origen, who gives as the disciples' motive: ‘ut flecterent eum ad misericordiam loci illius, ne faceret quod facere fuerat comminatus.’ Swete suggests that the spokesman was, as on other occasions, Peter. If so, cf. his rebuking Jesus in 8.32.

^{page 190 note 7} The words βλέπεlς τaύτaς τáς μελaς oiKoδoμáς are patient of various interpretations according to the weight we put on βλέπεlς and the punctuation we put after OíKOδOμáς. (a) If βλπεlς is not stressed, then (whether we read the words as question or statement) they are simply the equivalent of a gesture pointing to the Temple. But, if it is stressed, then the meaning could be either (b) ‘You see these great buildings [now; but the time is coming when] there shall not …’ or (c) ‘You are gazing at (i.e. letting your attention be occupied by) these great buildings; [but you should not, for] there shall not…’ In either case a question could be substituted for the statement without making much difference to the sense. The Lukan parallel will admit of a similar variety of interpretation; the Matthaean is only patient of (a). Swete prefers (c) and reads it as a question and thinks Matthew has missed the point.

^{page 191 note 1} TWzNT III, pp. 241–5. Attention should be drawn to the whole article on τóíρóν.

^{page 191 note 2} Roux, H., L'Éoangile du Royaume, pp. 279Google Scholar f. Cf. Schniewind, , Das Ev. nach Markus, p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} See Jer. 7.1–15, 26.1–24; Mic. 3.10–12. In foretelling the destruction of the Temple Jesus was following in the steps of the prophets.

^{page 191 note 4} Schrenk, ibid.., p. 245.

^{page 191 note 5} Schlatter, , Das Ev. nach Matthāus (1947 ed.), p. 351.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} Calvin, , Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Pringle's, W. tr.), Vol. 3, p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} op. cit., pp. 115 f.

^{page 192 note 3} Interesting in this connexion are Bede's words ad loc. (In Marci Evangelium Expositio, Migne, PL 92, col. 259): ‘Divinitus autem procuratum est ut patefacta per orbem fidei evangelicae gratia, templum ipsum quondam augustum cum suis caeremoniis tolleretur, ne quis forte adhuc parvulus ac lactens in fide, si videret ilia permanere quae a prophetis sanctis facta, quae a Domino sunt instituta, admirando sanctum saeculare, paulatim a sinceritate fidei, quae est in Christo Jesu, ad carnalem laberetur judaismum. Providens ergo Deus infirmitati nostrae, et Ecclesiam suam multiplicari desiderans, omnia ilia subvert! fecit ac penitus auferri, quatenus umbra et typo cessantc, veriorem ipsa jam veritas per orbem declarata palmam teneret.’ Cf. Calvin, op. cit., p. 116:‘… it was advantageous that the temple should be destroyed, lest its services and shadows might exercise an undue influence on the Jews.…’

^{page 193 note 1} Gal. 5.1.

^{page 193 note 2} Taylor, V. (The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 501)Google Scholar regards vv. i f as ‘a self-contained narrative’. He classes it as a Pronouncement-story (p. 500).

^{page 194 note 1} op. cit., p. 268.

^{page 194 note 2} cf. 11.11.

^{page 194 note 3} cf. W. Foerster in art. on óρoς (TWzNT IV, p. 483).

^{page 194 note 4} Had Mark particularly wanted his readers to recall Zech. 14.4, he would surely have written something nearer to ‘his feet shall stand’ than ‘as he sat’. It is of course true that the Mount of Olives is in Zech. 14 the scene of the final judgment of God upon the enemies of Israel and that this idea is taken up by the rabbis (cf. Leqah Tobh on Num. 24.17 quoted in Str.-Bill. 1.841 and Targ. Song of Songs 8.5 quoted ibid.. 840, according to which the Mount of Olives is to figure in the final resurrection). It is also true that in Ezek. 11.23 the glory of Yahweh, departing from Jerusalem in judgment on its corruption, rests on the Mount of Olives, and that in 43.2 the returning glory comes by way of the Mount of Olives. But I doubt whether these passages were in Mark's mind. The further suggestion of Lohmeyer (p. 229; cf. Schniewind, p. 146, Taylor, p. 453) that ‘already by the time of Jesus there seems to have developed out of these statements [i.e. 2 Sam. 15.32, Ezek. 11.23, Zech. 14.4 f] the expectation that the Messiah would appear one day on the Mount of Olives’ is, as Foerster points out (op. cit., 483, 11. 19 f and n. 102), hardly warranted by the passages he cites.

^{page 194 note 5} Schlatter, , Die Evv. nach Markus u. Lukas, p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 6} Attention may be drawn to the illuminating article on Káθημι by C. Schneider in TWzNT III, pp. 443–7. Jesus normally sat to teach, like the rabbis; but here perhaps it is simply meant that He was resting on His way to Bethany and the four disciples seized the opportunity to ask their question.

^{page 194 note 7} Kaτ iδiaν; cf. 4.10, 7.17, 9.28, 10.10, in all of which a question asked by the disciples privately about something that has puzzled them introduces a further piece of teaching by Jesus.

^{page 195 note 1} op. cit., p. 297.

^{page 195 note 2} op. cit., p. 502.

^{page 195 note 3} op. cit., p. 334. Cf. Farrer, A. M., A Study in St. Mark, p. 363Google Scholar: ‘They assume that the fall of the Temple is part of a larger complex of events, and it is about this that they ask.’

^{page 195 note 4} συνεíσθaι is ‘an almost technical expression for the events of the Endtime’ (Lohmeyer, p. 269; cf. Schniewind, p. 167). Cf. the use of the substantive in Dan. 12.4, 13 and 9.27 (LXX) and Test. Levi 10.

^{page 195 note 5} op. cit., p. 166. But the evidence cited by him on p. 150 hardly fits in with this.

^{page 196 note 1} Cf. Schrenk, op. cit., p. 239: ‘The words about the sacrifice being taken away and the sacrilegious spoiling of the sanctuary (Dan. 8.11 ff, 11.31, 12.11), which are the prelude of all further Temple-apocalyptic, continue to have influence after the Maccabean period and ever give rise to fresh expectation.’ For predictions of the destruction of the Temple after Micah but before A.D. 70 he cites on p. 238 (n. 40) j Joma 43c 61 Bar. (Str.-Bill. 1.1045), b Joma 39b, Josephus BJ VI.v.3, Schlatter Evangelist Matt. 47J (quot. from j Joma 41a: ‘we have a tradition from our fathers that this house shall be left desolate’). Schrenk points out that Ezek. 40–48 speaks of the new Temple of messianic times with pictures that cannot be fulfilled in any real temple here on earth. The idea of the new Temple is in Eth. Enoch 89.73,91.13; Tob. 14.5, etc.; and the new Temple implies the destruction of the old. See contra Rengstorff, K. H., Das Ev. nach Lukas, p. 226.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} Cf. Schniewind, p. 167, Lohmeyer, p. 269. Str.-Bill. (1.949) cite in illustration: Dan. 8.13, 12.6; 2 Esdras 4.33, 35, 6.7, 11 f; Apoc. Bar. 21.18 f, 81.2 f; Sanh. 96b; Midrash Ps. 45, $; 3, Sanh. 98a, 99a, Pesiq. R.i (4b).

^{page 196 note 3} Roux, op. cit., pp. 281 f.

^{page 196 note 4} Cf. ibid..