On the Abomination of Desolation

[Giuseppe]

So Roger Parvus:

If my identification of Paul and Simon of Samaria is correct, we would have a solution to the difficulty. The abomination of desolation would be one of the false Christs. He would be Simon/Paul.

http://vridar.org/2016/09/03/a-simonian ... roto-mark/

He continues:

In regard to timeframe: when I began this series I was inclined to put the date of Proto-Mark’s composition around 100 CE. But if my breakdown of the eschatological discourse is correct, it now seems to me that the mid 60s is more plausible. I tend to think the Proto-Markan eschatological discourse would have been written differently if the writing had been done after the destruction of the temple by the Romans. For one thing, its Jesus wouldn’t confess ignorance about the time schedule. The timeframe for canonical Mark, on the other hand, could be anywhere from the early 70’s to around 130.

(my bold)

I like the Parvus' entire view as very plausible, but obviously the problem with his theory is that we all are reluctant to concede so many interpolations in the Bible to fit better his thesis. Hence my question: is possible to date our canonical Mark before the 70 CE by assuming that Simon Magus (seen as not Paul but a real heretic) is the real ''abomination of desolation'' ?

I see a curious evolution about who preaches ''in the name of Christ'':

Mark 9:38-39

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,

Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.

(Mark 13:5-6)

Everyone will hate you because of my name (διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου·), but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

(Mark 13:13)

At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

(Mark 13:21-22)

'Mark' was writing in a period where the indipendent apostles were increasingly claiming more freedom from the Torah (the Gnostic Apostles?), to the point of proclaiming themselves 'Christ' and attract bad name on Christians. If this is the case, then the Independent Exorcist of Mark 9:38-39, as he threatens to become too much independent (to the point of proclaiming himself 'Christ') is a negative figure: the same future ''abomination of desolation''. He cannot say anything bad about Jesus NOW, ''in the next moment'', but in the long run, yes.

“For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,

2 Thessalonians:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

The question would be: if someone was already offering himself as 'Christus redivivus' at the time of Paul (to move the apostle to write 2 Thess 2), then why was this ''someone'' posing as Christ by entering ''in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God'' ?

In the epistles, we don't know about Christ that he entered ''in the temple'' (because the pauline Christ is entirely mythological). But Mark says that the earthly Jesus entered in the temple.

Maybe that Mark took the idea of an earthly Jesus entering the temple by the fact that those who present themselves as ''Christ'' in turn threatened to enter into the temple (and profane it)?

[Giuseppe]

Under my hypothesis that Mark was introducing himself ''another Jesus'' (2 Cor 11:4) in order to condemn the Pillars (since an earthly Jesus is by definition ''another Jesus'' compared with the pauline celestial Christ), then the Abomination of Desolation, the ''false Christ'', is the same Jesus of Mark.

He is who enters into the temple, proclaiming himself 'God'.

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

(Mark 11:15-18)

“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

(Mark 13:14)

This is the esoteric way by ''Mark'' to say that the earthly Jesus is his deliberate invention.

[Charles Wilson]

Let me irritate certain members of our Group by asserting what I have I have stated on several occasions:
The Abomination of Desolation occurred when Demetrius Eucerus camped at Shechem, near the Temple at Gerizim. Eucerus is at War with Alexander Jannaeus and he defeats Jannaeus. Eucerus commits the Abomination of Desolation. In a highly implausible description, Josephus declares that the Jewish Mercenaries fighting for the Greek General took pity on Jannaeus and defected to Jannaeus. This leads to the Great Tribulation, which Jannaeus survives, leading to Jannaeus taking Jerusalem.

CW

[Giuseppe]

So Wikipedia:

The Galilee is a mountainous region.

“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Mark 13:14)

But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” (Mark 16:7)

Nowhere in Mark Jesus told the disciples that they will see him ''into Galileee''.

The esoteric sense would be :

1) the Jesus of Mark, as an earthly Jesus, is the real ''abomination of desolation''.
2) when the insider understands the point 1 (= reading the Gospel of Mark), then he has ''to flee to the mountains''. The Judaea is a place of war when Mark is inventing his Jesus.
3) Peter, a Jewish-Christian icon, has to go ''into Galilee'', ''just as he told you'' in Mark 13:14 . To do so means to realize the truth of the point 1: that the earthly Jesus is a pure invention of ''Mark'' because only the pauline celestial Jesus, never lived on the Earth, is the true Christ.

[Giuseppe]

The traditional interpretation is that the ''abomination of desolation'' is the destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 CE. He is the true ''Christ'' for Josephus.

Even so, Jesus prophetized his disciples that they will see him ''in Galilee'' (as remembered in Mark 16:7) only in Mark 13:14.

Another interpretation may be that when ''Jesus is crucified'' (= when Jerusalem is destroyed by Titus), then the insider disciples had ''to flee to the mountains'' of Galilee. It would be evidence that the earthly Jesus is allegory of the Israel who dies and rises in 70 CE, in Mark.

Differently from my alternative hypothesis above (that the Mark's Jesus himself is the 'abomination of desolation'), this interpretation (that Titus is the 'abomination of desolation'') cannot capture the evidence of 2 Thessalonians 2.

[Giuseppe]

If the earthly Jesus of Mark, according to 'Mark' himself, is the danielic ''abomination of desolation'', then the same Jews would be right to claim that:

In the book of the prophet Daniel, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25). Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39).

http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of "Jesus the Nazarene":

He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).
He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).
He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh—which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

The Talmudic hate against the earthly Jesus would reflect the same esoteric knowledge of the inventor 'Mark' about his invented earthly Jesus: only a mere invention, the real ''abomination of desolation'', ''another Jesus'', a ''false Christ''.

[FransJVermeiren]

The question would be: if someone was already offering himself as 'Christus redivivus' at the time of Paul (to move the apostle to write 2 Thess 2), then why was this ''someone'' posing as Christ by entering ''in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God'' ?

In the epistles, we don't know about Christ that he entered ''in the temple'' (because the pauline Christ is entirely mythological). But Mark says that the earthly Jesus entered in the temple.

Maybe that Mark took the idea of an earthly Jesus entering the temple by the fact that those who present themselves as ''Christ'' in turn threatened to enter into the temple (and profane it)?

Giuseppe, may I propose a different look at the ‘man of lawlessness’ fragment in 2 Thessalonians?

Verse 3 and 4 provide the following elements, which deliver a fine unity altogether:
• Rebellion: the rebellion of the Jews against the Romans 66-70 CE
• Man of lawlessness, in other words: immoral, extremely abhorrent man (the reason is explained in the next verse): Titus.
• Son of destruction: not ‘doomed to destruction’ as in your translation, but ‘causing destruction’. His father Vespasian started the job, the son completed it in an unimaginably radical way.
• Who opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped: Titus as the archenemy (opposition) who, as the destructor of the most sacred place of Jewish religion, places himself above God.
• So that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God: Titus entering the Temple, even the Holy of Holies, burning the Temple and introducing the divined standards of the Roman legions on the Temple Mount, while his troops proclaim him ‘imperator’, exactly on this utterly sacred spot for the Jews. This is a series of extreme humiliations.
No destruction or humiliation had ever cut so deeply, nor would do so again in the future.

In other words: During the rebellion, an utterly despicable man, Titus son of Vespasian, brought us to ruin. Titus was the great enemy of our religion, exalting himself above our God, the object of our worship, by entering the most sacred spot of our religion, this way proclaiming himself to be God.

Above you suggest that this fragment would be about Christ. Would Paul call Christ a man of lawlessness, of destruction? I think we should face that Paul’s original epistles have been extensively forged, and at least 3 (probably 4) fragments in the Pauline epistles can be labeled post-70 CE forgeries. This is one of them. There was no Christ redivivus in Paul’s time, as there was no Jesus, only a future Christ. If we finally want to understand Paul and do him justice, we should take Paul’s preaching of a future Christ as the only and consistent core of his message. Tens of future oriented passages in the Pauline epistles point to this solution of the Paul problem.

[MrMacSon]

The traditional interpretation is that the ''abomination of desolation'' is the destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 CE. He is the true ''Christ'' for Josephus.

Hermann Detering thinks it refers to the situation after the Bar Kohkba -

• 'The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 PAR): A document from the Time of Bar Kochba' Journal of Higher Criticism, 7 (2000), pp. 161–210.
  
  available here - http://radikalkritik.de/sample-page/art ... in-english

Basil Lourié thinks that

• "The so-called “Synoptic Apocalypse” is a reworking of a Second Temple period Jewish apocalypse (best preserved in Matthew), whose structure is recoverable from the contents and the order of Jesus’ parables.
  
  "The “Synoptic Apocalypse” (SA) is a modern title for the apocalyptic material contained in the Synoptic gospels. The title implies that this material goes back to a common source. The same source was used in other early Christian works, namely, the Revelation of John, 1 Thess 4–5, the Apocalypsis Petri, the Epistula Apostolorum, and some others. The latest of these texts are datable to the early second century (most certainly the Epistula Apostolorum). The dates of all others are highly disputable but the same date of the early second century is the latest among those in consideration. Even the eschatological material of the Pauline 1 Thess (ch. 4–5) is discussed as a probably post-Pauline interpolation. Be this as it may, I mention here these problems of dating with the only purpose to show that the similarities between the gospels and other early Christian works are not necessarily to be explained through the dependency of the latter from the former."

See 'The “Synoptic Apocalypse” (Mt 24-25 Par.) and Its Jewish Source' Scrinium, Journal of Patrology & Critical Hagiography, 2015; pp. 87-108.


From Wikipedia -

The abomination of desolation (or 'desolating sacrilege') is a term found in the Book of Daniel. It also occurs in 1 Maccabees and in the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament. The Hebrew term (transliterated) is šiqqǔṣ mišômēm (שִׁקּוּץ מְשׁמֵם); the Greek equivalent is τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως.

Etymology
See also: [wiki]Abomination (Bible)[/wiki]

In both biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, the word "abomination" is a familiar term for an idol,[1] and therefore may well have the same application in Daniel, which should accordingly be rendered, in agreement with Ezra 9:1-4 "motionless abomination" or, also, "appalling abomination".[2] The suggestion of many scholars—Hoffmann, Nestle, Bevan, and others—that as a designation for Jupiter it is simply an intentional perversion of his usual appellation Baal Shamem ("lord of heaven") is quite plausible,[3] as attested by the perversion of Beelzebub into "Βεελζεβούλ" (Greek version) in Mark 3:22, as well as the express injunction found in Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, vi. (vii) and Babli 'Ab. Zarah, 46a that the names of idols may be pronounced only in a distorted or abbreviated form.


Biblical occurrences

Daniel
The phrase "abomination of desolation" is found in three places in the Book of Daniel, all within the literary context of apocalyptic visions.

Daniel 9:27 "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

Daniel 11:31 "And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate."

Daniel 12:11 "And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand and two hundred and ninety days."

1 Maccabees
According to 1 Maccabees 1:54, the abomination was erected on the altar of burnt offering.[4]

1 Maccabees 1:54 "Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;"

1 Maccabees 6:7 "Also that they had pulled down the abomination, which he had set up upon the altar in Jerusalem, and that they had compassed about the sanctuary with high walls, as before, and his city Bethsura."

Synoptic Gospels
See also: Olivet Discourse
In the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, the term is used by Jesus in the Olivet discourse. In the Matthean account, Jesus is presented as quoting Daniel explicitly. In the Gospel of Mark, the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is absent in the Codex Sinaiticus.[5]

Matthew 24:15-16 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

In Luke's version of Jesus' warning, the abomination is not mentioned, and the sign that it is time to flee Jerusalem is explicitly said to be that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies.

Luke 21:20-21 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the town depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it"

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, may I propose a different look at the ‘man of lawlessness’ fragment in 2 Thessalonians?

Verse 3 and 4 provide the following elements, which deliver a fine unity altogether:
• Rebellion: the rebellion of the Jews against the Romans 66-70 CE
• Man of lawlessness, in other words: immoral, extremely abhorrent man (the reason is explained in the next verse): Titus.
• Son of destruction: not ‘doomed to destruction’ as in your translation, but ‘causing destruction’. His father Vespasian started the job, the son completed it in an unimaginably radical way.
• Who opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or object or is worshiped: Titus as the archenemy (opposition) who, as the destructor of the most sacred place of Jewish religion, places himself above God.
• So that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God: Titus entering the Temple, even the Holy of Holies, burning the Temple and introducing the divined standards of the Roman legions on the Temple Mount, while his troops proclaim him ‘imperator’, exactly on this utterly sacred spot for the Jews. This is a series of extreme humiliations.
No destruction or humiliation had ever cut so deeply, nor would do so again in the future.

In other words: During the rebellion, an utterly despicable man, Titus son of Vespasian, brought us to ruin. Titus was the great enemy of our religion, exalting himself above our God, the object of our worship, by entering the most sacred spot of our religion, this way proclaiming himself to be God.

Above you suggest that this fragment would be about Christ. Would Paul call Christ a man of lawlessness, of destruction? I think we should face that Paul’s original epistles have been extensively forged, and at least 3 (probably 4) fragments in the Pauline epistles can be labeled post-70 CE forgeries. This is one of them.

As you note, I am interested about any interpretation of Mark's Jesus as pure allegory. Surely Titus is a good candidate as ''abomination that causes desolation'': 'Mark' is saying cryptically that the resurrection of the New Israel in the mountainous region of ''Galilee'' will happen just when Titus is entering into the temple.

“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Mark 13:14)

But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” (Mark 16:7)

The problem with Titus (or with Bar Kochba) as ''abomination that causes desolation'', in my view, is that I am inclined to see the ''abomination'' as a heretic religious threat, more than a political/tyrannical threat. And I follow Richard Miller when he says that :

The New Testament works were often subversive, but never seditious, in their endeavor to trascend the political structures of their day.

(Resurrection and Reception, p. 137)

If 'Mark' was an Essene (or someone interested about politics), I would expect that his Gospel had more political, seditious clues in nature, and not merely subversive. He seems to be interested only about religious polemic, about who is a real heretic, about who has seen truly Jesus.

And surely not the Pillars.

[MrMacSon]

... I am inclined to see the ''abomination'' as a heretic religious threat, more than a political/tyrannical threat.

So am I ---

[wiki]Abomination (Bible)[/wiki] (from Latin abominare, "to deprecate as an ill omen") is an English term used to translate the Biblical Hebrew terms shiqquwts ("shiqqûts") and sheqets שקץ, which are derived from shâqats, or the terms תֹּועֵבָה, tōʻēḇā or to'e'va (noun) or ta'ev (verb). An abomination in English is that which is exceptionally loathsome, hateful, sinful, wicked, or vile.

The Biblical words usually translated as "abomination" do not always convey the same sense of moral exceptionalism as the English term does today, as it often may signify that which is forbidden or unclean according to the religion (especially sheqets) ...

.. It is mainly used to denote idolatry ...

I do not think this statement of Richard Miller follows -

... Richard Miller ... says that :

The New Testament works were often subversive, but never seditious, in their endeavor to trascend the political structures of their day.

(Resurrection and Reception, p. 137)

This would seem to be relevant -

'Mark' ... seems to be interested only about religious polemic, [about who is a real heretic, about who has seen truly Jesus.]

And surely not the Pillars.

eta: Note that Basil Lourié says -

The most complete recension of the Synoptic Apocalypse (SA) is that of Matthew. Without touching the problem of either “Markan” or “Matthean” priority, I consider convincing Hermann Detering’s argumentation for the dependency of the Markan recension of SA from the Matthean one (regardless of mutual relations between these gospels in general). https://www.academia.edu/8157652/The_Sy ... ish_Source