How old are the questions re "this generation shall not pass till" all things fulfilled, etc?

[neilgodfrey]

When do we first read about confusion/disputes/rationalizations of Jesus' Olivet prophecy -- esp with regard to "this generation will not pass", "abomination of desolation" -- about when he will return?

I'm thinking of patristic or other extra-canonical sources, of course.

[Stuart]

FYI, the Marcionite text is missing "this generation" in verse 21:32 of Luke. Epiphanius makes explicit note that verses 21:18, 21:21-22 are not present. Zahn in his reconstruction also omits 21:23-24 (correctly). Further the text of verse 21:31 reads 'heaven and earth' instead of 'this generation'

Here is the passage in Marcionite form of Luke 21:20-33

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. "

And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees; as soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, Heaven and earth will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Two comments. The desolation is Jerusalem with the armies surrounding it, clearly nothing to do with any sacrilege. This even carries over into Luke's version as verses 21:21-24 add nothing to it. Second, this generation is not present instead "heaven and earth,' meaning the entire concept of a present generation seeing the end is not present in Marcion. So your question is more about Matthew/Mark than Luke/Marcion.


Now onto your question. Book 5 of the Irenaeus writings Against All Heresies discusses the passage in chapter 25. He is speaking of these events as yet to come, sometime in the future, reading Matthew it seems. Traditional acceptance of the autobiographic elements and unity of authorship would place Irenaeus AH sometime in the 4th quarter of the 2nd century. (Note: I don't accept that and see AH as the work of 3 distinct authors, plus a collector/redactor who cover time frames from early 3rd to 4th century; AH 5 however can be placed even with my skeptical dating in the early half of the 3rd century.)

Hippolytus (Mark 13:14) mentions the passage in a fragment, but only in comparing it to Daniel, with no context, no hint of historical incident. Again sometime in the 3rd century.

Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, which purports to be pre-304 AD (early 4th century),still see this as some event in the future, commenting on the passage as, "the Lord admonishing His churches concerning the last times and their dangers." While I am dubious of the veracity of Victorinus as author, we can safely say the passage is still not seen as related to events passed, rather events to come as we end the 3rd century and start the 4th.

Book 1 of the Recognitions of the pseudo-Clementine literature is the first to see this as historically tied.

Chapter LXIV -- Temple To Be Destroyed
"' For we.' said I, ' have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the thee of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the thee for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; (1) and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you, that your unbelief may be judged by their faith. For the whole world at different times suffers under divers maladies, either spreading generally over all, or affecting specially. Therefore it needs a physician to visit it for its salvation. We therefore bear witness to you, and declare to you what has been hidden from every one of you. It is for you to consider what is for your advantage.'

(1) Daniel ix.27; Matthew xxiv.15

This seems to relate the abomination to the Jewish War. As you know the pseudo-Clementines are considered 4th & 5th century productions, although elements are likely older, or drawn from earlier sources. But this is secondary, as this passage appears to be the invention and theology of it's author. Further Jerusalem is now regarded as Holy, so we are probably well past Constantine.

We have basically covered the era up to Eusubius and found that prior to the 4th century it seems not to have been the opinion that the abomination had yet occurred, it was still an event to come. I would conclude from the references above that while the concept of pertaining to the Bar Kokhba era or the Jewish War may be prior to Eusubius' writings (circa 2nd quarter of the 4th century), it was probably not mainstream to seem them as events in the past.

[andrewcriddle]

Origen in his Commentary on Matthew discusses "this generation shall not pass" from Matthew 24. He distinguishes between a simpler and more sophisticated reading of the passage. Part of his discussion is online in an anthology of Origen's writings. Spirit and Fire

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

FYI, the Marcionite text is missing "this generation" in verse 21:32 of Luke. Epiphanius makes explicit note that verses 21:18, 21:21-22 are not present. Zahn in his reconstruction also omits 21:23-24 (correctly). Further the text of verse 21:31 reads 'heaven and earth' instead of 'this generation'

Here is the passage in Marcionite form of Luke 21:20-33

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. "

And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees; as soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, Heaven and earth will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Two comments. The desolation is Jerusalem with the armies surrounding it, clearly nothing to do with any sacrilege. This even carries over into Luke's version as verses 21:21-24 add nothing to it. Second, this generation is not present instead "heaven and earth,' meaning the entire concept of a present generation seeing the end is not present in Marcion. So your question is more about Matthew/Mark than Luke/Marcion.

I would be interested in your take on Peter Kirby's arguments to the effect that it is Tertullian who replaced "this generation" with "heaven and earth," and not Marcion:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.39.18-19: [18] Adhuc ingerit non transiturum caelum ac terram, nisi omnia peragantur. Quaenam ista? Si quae a creatore sunt, merito sustinebunt elementa domini sui ordinem expungi; si quae a deo optimo, nescio an sustineat caelum et terra perfici quae aemulus statuit. Hoc si patietur creator, zelotes deus non est. Transeat age nunc terra et caelum; sic enim dominus eorum destinavit: dum verbum eius maneat in aevum; sic enim et Esaias praenuntiavit. Admoneantur et discipuli, ne quando graventur corda eorum crapula et ebrietate et saecularibus curis, et insistat eis repentinus dies ille velut laqueus, utique oblitis deum ex plenitudine et cogitatione mundi. Moysi erit admonitio. Adeo is liberabit a laqueo diei illius qui hanc admonitionem retro intulit. [19] Erant et loca alia apud Hierusalem ad docendum, erant et extra Hierusalem ad secedendum. Sed enim per diem in templo docebat, ut qui per Osee praedixerat: In templo meo me invenerunt, et illic disputatum est ad eos. Ad noctem vero in elaeonem secedebat. Sic enim Zacharias demonstrarat: Et stabunt pedes eius in monte elaeone. Erant horae quoque auditorio competentes. Diluculo conveniendum erat, quia per Esaiam cum dixisset, Dominus dat mihi linguam disciplinae, adiecit, Apposuit mihi mane aurem ad audiendum. Si hoc est prophetias dissolvere, quid erit adimplere? / [18] He further declares, "that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled." What things, pray, are these? Are they the things which the Creator made? Then the elements will tractably endure the accomplishment of their Maker's dispensation. If, however, they emanate from your excellent god, I much doubt whether the heaven and earth will peaceably allow the completion of things which their Creator's enemy has determined! If the Creator quietly submits to this, then He is no "jealous God." But let heaven and earth pass away, since their Lord has so determined; only let His word remain for evermore! And so Isaiah predicted that it should. Let the disciples also be warned, "lest their hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this world; and so that day come upon them unawares, like a snare " ----if indeed they should forget God amidst the abundance and occupation of the world. Like this will be found the admonition of Moses,----so that He who delivers from "the snare" of that day is none other than He who so long before addressed to men the same admonition [19] Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire ----"in the day-time He was teaching in the temple; "just as He had foretold by Hosea: "In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them." "But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives." For thus had Zechariah pointed out: "And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives." Fit hours for an audience there also were. "Early in the morning" must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah, "The Lord giveth me the tongue of the learned") added, "He hath appointed me the morning, and hath also given me an ear to hear." Now if this is to destroy the prophets, what will it be to fulfil them?

Replacing "this generation" with "heaven and earth" excises the difficulty of the generational prophecy. One Latin manuscript of the gospels does the same thing:

Luke 21.32 apud the Evangelium Palatinum (Latin manuscript e): 32 Amen, dico vobis quoniam non transiet caelum istut donecque omnia perficantur. / 32 Amen, I say to you that this heaven will not pass away until all things are fulfilled.

(For my purposes here, I have no horse in the race between Marcion and Tertullian. "Heaven and earth" is blatantly a rewrite of "this generation," intended precisely to avoid its natural meaning, and that is all my overall view here depends on, whether it was Marcion or Tertullian who introduced it.)

To agree with you, though, about the difference between Luke on the one hand and Matthew and Mark on the other, I will point out that Tertullian relies (A) on Luke for the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and (B) on the motif of the unknown hour for the end of the world:

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of Flesh 22: 22 We must after all this turn our attention to those scriptures also which forbid our belief in such a resurrection as is held by your Animalists (for I will not call them Spiritualists), that it is either to be assumed as taking place now, as soon as men come to the knowledge of the truth, or else that it is accomplished immediately after their departure from this life. Now, forasmuch as the seasons of our entire hope have been fixed in the Holy Scripture, and since we are not permitted to place the accomplishment thereof, as I apprehend, previous to Christ's coming, our prayers are directed towards the end of this world, to the passing away thereof at the great day of the Lord, of His wrath and vengeance, [B] the last day, which is hidden (from all), and known to none but the Father, although announced beforehand by signs and wonders, and the dissolution of the elements, and the conflicts of nations. I would turn out the words of the prophets, if the Lord Himself had said nothing (except that prophecies were the Lord's own word); but it is more to my purpose that He by His own mouth confirms their statement. [A] Being questioned by His disciples when those things were to come to pass which He had just been uttering about the destruction of the temple, He discourses to them first of the order of Jewish events until the overthrow of Jerusalem, and then of such as concerned all nations up to the very end of the world. For after He had declared that "Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled," meaning, of course, those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of Israel, He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation (even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent), that "there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth." "For," says He, "the powers of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." He spake of its "drawing nigh," not of its being present already; and of "those things beginning to come to pass," not of their having happened: because when they have come to pass, then our redemption shall be at hand, which is said to be approaching up to that time, raising and exciting our minds to what is then the proximate harvest of our hope. He immediately annexes a parable of this in "the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit. So likewise ye," He adds, "when ye shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand." "Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all those things, and to stand before the Son of man; " that is, no doubt, at the resurrection, after all these things have been previously transacted. Therefore, although there is a sprouting in the acknowledgment of all this mystery, yet it is only in the actual presence of the Lord that the flower is developed and the fruit borne. Who is it then, that has aroused the Lord, now at God's right hand so unseasonably and with such severity "shake terribly" (as Isaiah expresses it, "that earth") which, I suppose, is as yet unshattered. Who has thus early put "Christ's enemies beneath His feet" (to use the language of David), making Him more hurried than the Father, whilst every crowd in our popular assemblies is still with shouts consigning "the Christians to the lions? " Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels? Up to the present moment they have not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they pierced. No one has as yet fallen in with Elias; no one has as yet escaped from Antichrist; no one has as yet had to bewail the downfall of Babylon. And is there now anybody who has risen again, except the heretic? He, of course, has already quitted the grave of his own corpse-although he is even now liable to fevers and ulcers; he, too, has already trodden down his enemies-although he has even now to struggle with the powers of the world. And as a matter of course, he is already a king-although he even now owes to Caesar the things which are Caesar's.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 26: 26 .... He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. ....

Now onto your question. Book 5 of the Irenaeus writings Against All Heresies discusses the passage in chapter 25. He is speaking of these events as yet to come, sometime in the future, reading Matthew it seems. Traditional acceptance of the autobiographic elements and unity of authorship would place Irenaeus AH sometime in the 4th quarter of the 2nd century. (Note: I don't accept that and see AH as the work of 3 distinct authors, plus a collector/redactor who cover time frames from early 3rd to 4th century; AH 5 however can be placed even with my skeptical dating in the early half of the 3rd century.)

Hippolytus (Mark 13:14) mentions the passage in a fragment, but only in comparing it to Daniel, with no context, no hint of historical incident. Again sometime in the 3rd century.

In fact, Dionysius Syrus quotes or represents Hippolytus as explicitly rejecting an historical fulfillment in 70:

Dionysius Syrus, commenting on Revelation 11.2:

Hippolytus otherwise interprets that which is said in the Gospel, "When indeed ye shall see the pollution of desolation," for he says that it is not concerning the Jews and the laying waste of Jerusalem that these things are said, but concerning the end of Antichrist. The elect he speaks of are the Christians who are in this conflict. And He says, "Pray that ye fly not on the Sabbath or in winter," that is, He advises that we be not overtaken by those things that are coming on us, when we are unoccupied in righteousness, as the Jews [are unoccupied] on the Sabbath, or troubled with worldly cares and sins, as one that is in a winter storm. There shall be tribulation such as there was not like it since the beginning of the world, and the rest.

On this Hippolytus says, that in the siege of Vespasian this did not come to pass; for nothing new happened to the world in his days beyond the things that were before. If you speak of war, many times it has happened in former times, and if again of captives, there have not lacked massacres or blood-shedding that was more than that [of the siege]. And if of the eating of children and unclean beasts, lo also in the days of Ahab these things were. Accordingly it is not concerning Jerusalem that the Lord said this; for when He willed to speak concerning her, He said, "When ye shall see the army compassing the city, know that the desolation thereof is nigh." Hence the pollution of devastations He speaks of is Antichrist. And Daniel said, [In] the half of the week standeth the abomination in the sanctuary. Now Vespasian did not set up in the temple an idol, but that Legion 14 which Trajanus Quintus placed, a chief man of the Romans: he set up the idol there which is called Kôre.

Also the Apostle has written that these things are concerning Antichrist: "Except if there come first a falling away, and the Man of iniquity be revealed, so that he as God shall sit in the temple whom our Lord Jesus shall consume," etc. From these [words] it is evident that Vespasian did not call himself God, nor did he sit in the temple, nor was he killed by the Spirit of the Lord. Accordingly it is manifest that in the end tribulation arises against the Church, such as was none like it.

Hippolytus again, as you pointed out in general, uses Luke for the siege of Jerusalem; the contents of Matthew and Mark he relegates to the future. This futurist orientation, then, agrees with the tenor of his comments on Daniel:

Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 4.16.1-5: 1 But one will say, "And when will these things be? In what season or time is the deceiver about to be revealed? And what shall be the day of the appearing of the Lord?" 2 The disciples also similarly sought to learn these things from the Lord, but he concealed the day from them, so that he may render them all as watchful for what is to come, always meditating and expecting each day the heavenly cloud, lest men, ever on account of the long time, neglecting what was prescribed by him, and growing sluggish while he tarries, fall from the life of heaven. 3 For he says, "Be watchful for you do not know what day or what hour your Lord comes, either evening, or midnight, or morning." 4 On account of this he says, "Blessed is that slave, whom when his Lord comes, he finds him awake. Truly I say to you that he will appoint him over all his possessions. But if the wicked slave says in his heart, 'My Lord tarries to come,' and he begins to beat his serving boys and serving girls, and to eat and to drink with drunkards, his Lord will come in a day which he does not expect and in an hour which he does not know and cut him in two and set his portion with the unbelievers. For there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. On account of this I say to you: be watchful." 5 And so our Lord himself in the Gospel, teaching these things, displays them to the disciples.

The motif of the unknown hour is what governs all of this, orienting everything toward the future, as we can see elsewhere in this same commentary, as well:

Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 4.22[.1]: 22.1. But why do you waste labor over times and seek the day of the Lord, when the Savior concealed it from us? Tell me, if you know the date of your departure, why do you interfere with the consummation of all the world?

Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, which purports to be pre-304 AD (early 4th century),still see this as some event in the future, commenting on the passage as, "the Lord admonishing His churches concerning the last times and their dangers." While I am dubious of the veracity of Victorinus as author, we can safely say the passage is still not seen as related to events passed, rather events to come as we end the 3rd century and start the 4th.

Agreed, overall, though I have not thoroughly checked this passage. But yes, Victorinus is a futurist, just like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and so many others.

Book 1 of the Recognitions of the pseudo-Clementine literature is the first to see this as historically tied.

Chapter LXIV -- Temple To Be Destroyed
"' For we.' said I, ' have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the thee of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the thee for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; (1) and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you, that your unbelief may be judged by their faith. For the whole world at different times suffers under divers maladies, either spreading generally over all, or affecting specially. Therefore it needs a physician to visit it for its salvation. We therefore bear witness to you, and declare to you what has been hidden from every one of you. It is for you to consider what is for your advantage.'

There is more from the pseudo-Clementines:

Clementine Homilies 3.15: 15 But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and ever-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: 'See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin. For they shall come, and shall sit here, and shall besiege it, and shall slay your children here.' And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken. For the Prophet of truth utters the word of proof in order to the faith of His hearers.

The prediction is fundamentally rewritten here so as to apply, not to "all these things," but rather to the beginning of the destruction of the temple. There is also this:

Clementine Recognitions 10.14: 14 Then Peter said: These things come not only from envy or indignation; but sometimes there is a bashfulness in some persons, lest haply they may not be able to answer fully the questions that may be proposed, and so they avoid the discovery of their want of skill. But no one ought to be ashamed of this, because there is no man who ought to profess that he knows all things; for there is only One who knows all things, even He who also made all things. For if our Master declared that He knew not the day and the hour whose signs even He foretold, and referred the whole to the Father, how shall we account it disgraceful to confess that we are ignorant of some things, since in this we have the example of our Master? But this only we profess, that we know those things which we have learned from the true Prophet; and that those things have been delivered to us by the true Prophet, which He judged to be sufficient for human knowledge.

But this is just using the unknown hour motif as a lesson in intellectual humility. Jerome does the same thing in Dialogue Against the Pelagians 2.16 ("even the son knows not all things; how then can we?").

We have basically covered the era up to Eusubius and found that prior to the 4th century it seems not to have been the opinion that the abomination had yet occurred, it was still an event to come. I would conclude from the references above that while the concept of pertaining to the Bar Kokhba era or the Jewish War may be prior to Eusubius' writings (circa 2nd quarter of the 4th century), it was probably not mainstream to seem them as events in the past.

As Andrew points out, Origen is also to be considered:

Origen, from the Catena Aurea: The uninstructed refer the words to the destruction of Jerusalem, and suppose them to have been said of that generation which saw Christ's death, that it should not pass away before the city should be destroyed. But I doubt that they would succeed in thus expounding every word from "one stone shall not be left upon another" to "it is even at the door."

This is essentially a confession of the impossibility of reading all the events from Matthew 24.2 ("not one stone") to 24.33 ("at the door") as past events, based on real history. Origen himself, of course, goes all allegorical. He also interprets "this generation" as applying to the church:

Origen, from the Catena Aurea: Yet shall the generation of the Church survive the whole of this world, that it may inherit the world to come, yet it shall not pass away until all these things have come to pass. But when all these shall have been fulfilled, then not the earth only but the heavens also shall pass away; that is, not only the men whose life is earthly, and who are therefore called the earth, but also they whose conversation is in heaven, and who are therefore called the heaven; these "shall pass away" to things to come, that they may come to better things. But the words spoken by the Saviour shall not pass away, because they effect and shall ever effect their purpose; but the perfect and they that admit no further improvement, passing through what they are, come to that which they are not; and this is that, "My words shall not pass away." And perhaps the words of Moses and the Prophets have passed away, because all that they prophesied has been fulfilled; but the words of Christ are always complete, daily fulfilling and to be fulfilled in the saints. Or perhaps we ought not to say that the words of Moses and the Prophets are once for all fulfilled; seeing they also are the words of the Son of God, and are fulfilled continually.

I imagine, though, that one could doubt the veracity of the excerpts in the Catena Aurea.

Origen is one of the very few before Constantine to comment on the other version of the generational prophecy, as well:

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 12.31: "Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death." Some refer these things to the going up — six days after, or, as Luke says, eight days — of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coming in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that His face shone, and the rest, they saw the kingdom of God coming with power. .... Now this interpretation about the three Apostles not tasting of death until they have seen Jesus transfigured is adapted to those who are designated by Peter as "newborn babes longing for the reasonable milk which is without guile," to whom Paul says, "I have fed you with milk, not with meat," and the rest.

Origen himself interprets every phrase in the Transfiguration event allegorically, thus evading all issues related to the prediction about "some standing here." But he acknowledges that others find the fulfillment of that generational prediction in the Transfiguration itself.

But Origen, too, despite his allegorical interpretations, relies upon the motif of the unknown hour:

Origen, On First Things 1.6.1: 1 .... The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when every one shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. ....

Stuart, you focused on the abomination of desolation, and I think that most interpreters before Constantine (at least) fail to relate this prediction to Vespasian and Titus in 70; the fathers who want to discuss Vespasian quote from Luke 21, which does not mention the abomination, instead. (And yet Luke 21 is clearly a version of Matthew 24 = Mark 13, so somebody has done some rewriting.)

(No longer talking to Stuart here, but to any/all who are interested.) My current focus is on the generational prophecy. I pointed out on my other thread that the timing of the Transfiguration mitigated the prediction that "some standing here" would not taste of death until witnessing the glory, and that is exactly how Origen says that some Christians were reading that passage. I also pointed out that the motif of the unknown hour mitigated the prophecy about "this generation" not passing away until "all these things" take place, and that is exactly how many of the passages above use it. If the quotation from the Catena Aurea is genuine, then Origen argues in reverse, as it were: because the things in Matthew 24 = Mark 13 did not all happen historically when the temple was destroyed, the prophecy must refer to times yet future; it is at this point that the unknown hour comes into its own. The motif of the unknown hour is what allows so many fathers either to ignore the generational prophecy altogether or to rewrite it (not "this generation" but rather "heaven and earth" or "the church," and not "all these things" but rather "the destruction of the temple"); they assume the veracity both of Jesus' words and of the gospels and use the unknown hour as their exegetical key for interpreting virtually the entire passage of Matthew 24 = Mark 13.

My interpretation of these data is very simple. I think that the motif of the unknown hour was devised precisely for that purpose, to mitigate the plain sense of the Olivet version of the generational prophecy. I think that the timing of the Transfiguration after the other synoptic version of the generational prophecy was deliberate, and served to give that prediction something else to refer to by way of fulfillment. I also think that Luke 21 was written in such a way as to focus the Olivet Discourse completely upon the destruction of Jerusalem, with the single exception of the coming of the son of man, which is relegated to the end of the "times of the gentiles" in that chapter. These three scriptural strategies are what enabled the church fathers to separate the coming of the son of man (as well as the abomination of desolation) from the destruction of Jerusalem and to evade the force of Jesus having predicted that everything would happen within a generation.

My view has implications for the use of the generational prophecy as a means to date the synoptic gospels; basically, it removes the terminus ante quem entirely, so far as the prediction itself is concerned, since already, by the time the gospels were penned, Jesus' prediction had been safely neutered by the ensuing verses, verses which were specifically designed to cushion the impact. (We see this phenomenon in John, as well: already, by the time the appendix was penned, the notion that the beloved disciple would live to see the final day had been blunted. Also, while Paul's words were not as damning in this respect, his first person plural "we" being highly susceptible to interpretation as Christians in general, still 1 Thessalonians 5.1-11 uses the motif of the unknown hour, or in this case the unknown season, to mute apocalyptic expectations.) It also sets a soft terminus post quem for the final versions of these gospels, that terminus lying near or at the end of the generation of the apostles, since before the apostles died there would be no need to mitigate the prediction.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

It is instructive to compare how the fathers treat the generational prophecy versus how they treat the unknown hour:

Matthew/Mark (generational prophecy): This generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.

Tertullian: Heaven and earth shall not pass away until all things are fulfilled.
Evangelium Palatinum: This heaven shall not pass away until all things are fulfilled.
Origen: The generation of the church shall not pass away until all these things have come to pass.
Pseudo-Clement: This generation shall not pass until the destruction begins.

Matthew/Mark (unknown hour): But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Tertullian: The last day is hidden, and known to none but the Father.
Hippolytus: He concealed the day from them.
Origen: The final consummation will take place, ...a time which God alone knows.
Pseudo-Clement: Our Master declared that He knew not the day and the hour whose signs even He foretold.

The fathers accept the unknown hour as written; they paraphrase, but the meaning of their words exactly matches the meaning of the dominical saying: nobody knows the time except the Father.

Simultaneously, however, they thoroughly rewrite the generational prophecy. They cannot simply quote it or paraphrase it as written. In their hands it is not "this generation" which will survive but rather "heaven" or "heaven and earth" or "the church." Or it is not "all things" which are to be fulfilled but rather just the destruction of the temple.

A caveat: the time eventually does come when the unknown hour becomes an embarrassment, as well, as a point of contention in the Arian controversy, since this saying emphasizes a difference in knowledge between the Father and the Son that the Catholics could not tolerate and that the Arians embraced. The Byzantine tradition even omits "nor the Son" from Matthew 24.36. But before Arius no such embarrassment seems evident, especially regarding the fact that the timing of the consummation is unknown. And I am aware of no embarrassment at all concerning ordinary humans not knowing the hour.

[Charles Wilson]

OK: The Minority Report.

The Priest, saved by Peter at the Slaughter in 4 BCE. survives by entering the Realm of Heaven through the Narrow Door and Turning as a Child to get in. He returns to Galilee and his Settlement in (probably) Meiron or perhaps Jabnit.

According to Eisenman and Wise, the Mishmarot Priesthood makes a complete Rotation of Groups every 24 weeks = 168 days. The Rotations repeat every six years. This means that in two Rotations - twelve years - the Group Immer will be back in Jerusalem for an aligned Passover in 9 CE.

Jairus asks the Priest for one last attempt to miraculously eliminate the Herodians and Romans (Coponius is Procurator at this time). The Priest, knowing he goes to his death, accepts. It is probably 8 CE, in time to prepare for the trip to Jerusalem, where his Mishmarot Group will replace Bilgah.

John 1: 19 - 20 (RSV):

[19] And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
...
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

The Rulers know of the return. "John", of Bilgah, is beaten ("He confessed...") in an attempt to find the Priest. (Note: There is a very deep Story here that may involve the "Second Passover". The Story is found in the Book of Numbers and may point to Zakkai, who was an expert in Numbers. I dunno for sure.).

So: The Priest appears for the 4 BCE Passover for a Coup. Herod dies a week too soon and Archelaus, manipulated by the Herodians and Romans, is the Fall Guy as the Pharisees order the soldiers in. 3000+ die. The Priest doesn't understand why God did not Stand with them. Enter Jairus.

The Return occurs for the Passover/Feast of 9 CE.

CW

[Stuart]

Two comments. The desolation is Jerusalem with the armies surrounding it, clearly nothing to do with any sacrilege. This even carries over into Luke's version as verses 21:21-24 add nothing to it. Second, this generation is not present instead "heaven and earth,' meaning the entire concept of a present generation seeing the end is not present in Marcion. So your question is more about Matthew/Mark than Luke/Marcion.

I would be interested in your take on Peter Kirby's arguments to the effect that it is Tertullian who replaced "this generation" with "heaven and earth," and not Marcion:

Ben.

Ben, there is no reason to excise it. No problem for Tertullian. He would simply not quote the verse. IIRC Kirby's analysis was very light on examination of Marcionite theology. So I will give it below.

The argument for it is Marcionite theology, related to verse

16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of my word to become void.

Where verses 21:32-33 represent the fulfillment

Truly, I say to you, Heaven and earth will not pass away till all has taken place.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

We can see the how this ties back to the saying in the central section of Luke/Marcion. Verse 21:32 is necessary to qualify against the saying in verse 16:17. The Marcionites strongly believed that the creation would go away, that it was doomed. This is a concept you can see in Romans 8:18-24 (which I think has some interpolations in it). The end is the collapse of the universe ("creation"), which was born in futility because it was made by an imperfect being, the Jewish demigod (no offense Ben, the Marcionites and Gnostics saw the Jewish God as just a tribal God, or Great Angel; nay, leader of the angels, maker of the visible world, giver of the Law, but through whom there is no salvation, and worse he hides the true God, the father of Christ). In the Roman passage there are some key elements clearly common in Marcionism. The concept of being a slave ("bondage") to the elemental universe -in this case the creation itself-, and that Freedom comes in the revelation from God, i.e., Christ (see Galatians 5:1). The Roman passage is not fully Marcionite, but shows another Gnostic strain in that the sons of God are the revealed, but clearly it was close enough for the Marcionite author to have included the tract. (Side note, it is my opinion the Pauline collection even in Marcionite form is a collection of various Gnostic type tracts and show the diversity which existed in that half of the Christian movement even before the first books were published)

What I am basically saying is the passage quoted by Tertullian is much more consistent with Marcionite theology than the received text, which agrees with Mark and Matthew. It is hard to judge whether the triple tradition is earlier, at least from my model, because I see Matthew/Mark working from a common proto-Gospel and Marcion from a different version. The Marcionite author could have changed it, or the author of the more Catholic text could have. The motivations would have been the same, to fit theological requirements for the presentation of the mini-Apocalypse for their sects. I lean to the Catholic author ("Luke") changing it because of the heavy tampering of verses 21:12-17, and the additions of verse 21:18, 21-24. (1)

Of course all this is tangential, since the issue of the generation clearly remains and is prominent in Matthew and Mark, and thus 2nd century Christianity (or very late 1st century for hardcore traditionalists here). And as you note the Thessalonian passage.

footnote:
(1) Epiphanius is the source for the secure information that verses 21:18, 21-22 were absent. But it's very clear to me Panarion was built on earlier works which are lost. We have no way of knowing what work(s) Epiphanius worked from or from what era, nor can we be certain of the Catholic text of the era of the work(s). Very likely they were similar to what we have from Tertullian and Adamantius, where only select passages being missing or select words having been changed are reported, while others not important to the argument at hand are glossed over or not mentioned. The differences between the Marcionite and Catholic texts were undoubtedly much greater than what is covered in the surviving accounts. Hence the need for some heuristic work to reconstruct.

[Ulan]

Further Jerusalem is now regarded as Holy, so we are probably well past Constantine.

Here just a remark regarding this line of reasoning: I wouldn't really draw such a conclusion. Keep in mind that the Greek transliterations of Hebrew Yerushalaim in the Bible were Hierousalēm, Ierousalēm (Ιερουσαλήμ), or Hierosolyma, Ierosolyma (Ιεροσόλυμα). Although this is a transliteration, it intrinsically carries the meaning "holy" in the resulting Greek word, even if the original meaning is completely different.

[Stuart]

Ben,

Andrew's point does tie the destruction of Jerusalem to the prophecy, but not the eschatological end times. The Marcionite text speaks more of an end time. That could have been motive to remove "This Generation." However this is not associated with the "abomination / sacrilege" event, simply the destruction of Jerusalem. So it does not go to Neil's OP. This is the issue, when did the church see that abomination a past event associated with a particular generation, and have that event identified? It still looks like the 4th century for that association.

Note, Evangelium Palatinum is clearly just a repeat from reading Mathew 5:18, but in line with later Catholic theology which no longer held the position that one had to keep Torah Law, which Matthew clearly advocated, and which Galatians responds strongly in the negative. The Galatians/Pauline view had won over the proto-Orthodox camp on this point (and many others), so that that point was no longer a difference.

[Stuart]

Further Jerusalem is now regarded as Holy, so we are probably well past Constantine.

Here just a remark regarding this line of reasoning: I wouldn't really draw such a conclusion. Keep in mind that the Greek transliterations of Hebrew Yerushalaim in the Bible were Hierousalēm, Ierousalēm (Ιερουσαλήμ), or Hierosolyma, Ierosolyma (Ιεροσόλυμα). Although this is a transliteration, it intrinsically carries the meaning "holy" in the resulting Greek word, even if the original meaning is completely different.

I meant the physical city in Judea was now called Jerusalem again and no longer Aelia Capitolina. It was called Aelia Capitolina until at least the end of the Aelius dynasties, which would be Commodus to the last day of 192 AD, and probably longer. I would be willing to speculate that Jerusalem was not title to that city "again" until well into the Severan dynasty and in fact probably a bit after that. So the earliest the name was stamped on the Polis is early in the 3rd century, and the latest is before Julian the Apostate, and I would argue a few generations prior. Nicene seems like a good upper bound. Christians and Jews may have been giving the Polis the appellation Jerusalem prior to Nicene, and it would not surprise me if the city had "reacquired" that name sometime around Decius in the middle of the 3rd century from the expanding Christian community as well as the Jewish. For certain the city was rechristened as Jerusalem no later than Constantine's reign, and that seems a fair time to place it. This seems to be when the first church was placed there, replacing or perhaps just alongside the pagan temple of Venus and the Temple Capitolina from Hadrian's era. This to me seems the logical time.