Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 180:718 (Apr 2023)
Article: Jesus’s Temple Prophecy In Mark 14:58
Author: Elton L. Hollon

BSac 180:718 (April-June 2023) p. 202

Jesus’s Temple Prophecy In Mark 14:58

Elton L. Hollon

and

Samuel M. Frost

Elton L. Hollon is a philosophy professor at Ventura College in Ventura, California.

Samuel M. Frost is an instructor at LIFE Bible College in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

Abstract

While scholarly attention has focused on reconstructing the tradition history of Jesus’s temple prophecy in Mark 14:58, comparable analyses of its traditional Aramaic structure are harder to locate. This article uses form, redaction, literary, and structural criticism to uncover the tradition history of the prophecy and reconstruct its original Aramaic formulation. Our analysis supports the historicity of the prophecy and identifies a four-two beat kīnā metre (poetic meter) typical of laments, warnings, and threats.

With the rise of historical-critical methodology in the late 1800s, the theory that Mark 14:58 preserves Jesus’s actual prediction against the temple became commonplace. This theory has remained either substantially unchanged or unmodified.1 Scholars have continued to propose various reconstructions of the prophecy, and this article offers a reconstruction of the tradition history as well as a fresh translation of the original Aramaic. In the first section we identify methodological presuppositions and explain some historiographical principles. Then we offer our historical assessment of the prophecy. Next we present our source, form, structural, literary, and redactional findings. We conclude with our suggested Aramaic translation. Our hypothesis is that the original form of the prophecy follows a four-two beat kīnā metre (poetic meter) typical of laments, which is perhaps the most

BSac 180:718 (April-June 2023) p. 203

fitting form for Jesus’s prediction of the temple’s destruction. Our reconstruction is corroborated by a similar lament in Luke 23:31, which preserves a prophetic judgment against Jerusalem and the temple.

The Historical-Critical Method And Criteria Of Authenticity

Approaching the question of historiographical method, our discussion assumes the priority of Mark and the independence of John from the Synoptics.2 In order to explain the double tradition common to both Matthew and Luke but not Mark, our discussion assumes the Q hypothesis. Hence, it also assumes the two/four source theory and utilizes form, redaction, lite...