Three successive days are indicated by xi. 11f., 19f.; but whether all that is recorded in xi. 27–xiii. 37 occurred on the last of these is open to some doubt. It is noticeable that, while there are precise temporal connecting-links between the several sections of xi. 1–26, there are no such links in xi. 27–xii. 44. It is possible that xi. 27–33, xii. 13–37a, represent a pre-Markan complex of conflict-stories (cf. ii. 1–iii. 6), which Mark has inserted as a whole at the point where he judged (probably rightly) that its first member would be in its true historical context, only interpolating xii. 1–12 because he had strong historical reasons for so doing. Since the complex would be topical rather than historical, it is possible that xii. 13–17, 18–27, 28–34, 35–7a, may belong to an earlier period in the ministry (either in Galilee or in Jerusalem).

That John is correct in representing Jesus as spending more time in Jerusalem than is actually indicated by Mark is probable enough–Mk xiv. 49 might be a pointer in this direction.

For the view that the period covered by Mk x. 46–xvi. 8 was something like six months rather than a week see Manson, ‘Cleansing’.