About a week ago, Ben Smith wrote:
Ben: From what I can tell, interpretation in antiquity was split between interpreting the abomination of desolation (A) as a prediction which has yet to come to pass (still future from the perspective of the interpreters, among whom number most if not all of the chiliasts) and (B) as having been fulfilled in AD 70 (in the past from the perspective of the interpreters, among whom number pseudo-Clement, Eusebius, possibly/probably some "uninstructed" folk written of by Origen, and apparently even Luke).
Yes, if we leave out the more extravagant spiritual/allegorical interpretations that do not place it as a particular datable event at all and that it’s not an either/or – patristic interpreters were quite happy to give more than one interpretation of the same verses.
Ben: My interpretation makes the most of both of these interpretations: the oracle was written before the fact, but was transmitted and modified after the fact in light of the events of AD 70.
And you’ve added that Mark’s audience could have interpreted the instruction to flee at the time of the destruction of the temple in Mark 13.14 in light of their own situation and drawn the inference that it might be necessary for them to flee in other circumstances (such as persecution). My biggest problem with your theory (similar to my problem with Boismard’s synoptic theory) is that it’s all things to all men. It’s absorbed all the other theories into itself. It can accommodate any data. It’s pre-Markan and it’s post-Markan. It’s referential to events of 70 and it’s relatable to the contemporary experiences of Mark’s audience. Such theories cannot be shown to be wrong; at best they can only be shown to be more complex than needed to account for the data.
Ben: It having been written before the fact explains its vagueness and complete reliance upon historical and scriptural motifs (the flight to the mountains, the dangers to pregnant and nursing women, and so on). It having been edited after the fact explains its situation in a passage whose introductory question deals with the fate of the temple.
That’s one way to read it, but I think it’s unnecessary.
Ben: Did anyone in antiquity catch Mark's meaning, if he meant what you and Haenchen are suggesting?
This question turned out to be far more illuminating than I expected and to take a lot longer to answer. I think someone did catch Mark's meaning. Bear with me.
It’s not clear what you mean either by “anyone in antiquity” or “Mark’s meaning” here. Mark’s original audience might very well have understood 13.14 to mean that they should flee from persecution and you’ve allowed this on your own theory when you say they might have applied the example of the Judeans fleeing Jerusalem to their own experiences and drawn the lesson that they might need to flee under some circumstances.
If you mean did any ancient interpreter whose work survives ever comment that the abomination of desolation referred to compulsory emperor worship and not to anything going on in the temple, then no. I’m not aware that any and did would not expect them to. There are several reasons for this.
First, if anyone in antiquity ever commented specifically on the Markan form of the saying on the “abomination of desolation,” as opposed to the Matthean, or without specifying, I haven’t found it yet. If you know of someone who did, I'd be grateful for the reference. We don’t have ancient commentaries on Mark as we do for the other gospels (with the partial exception of a catena with comments drawn from other works). Matthew is probably our first interpreter of Mark, and in his version of the eschatological discourse, he alters Mark’s vague location “where it ought not to be” to the more definite “holy place” as well as well as specifying that the abomination of desolation is the one spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Matt 24.15). This is consistent with Matthew’s usual practice of defining and explicating Mark as well as his interest in the fulfillment of scripture. Matthew’s interpretation had a huge effect on subsequent interpretation of the “abomination of desolation.” Most of the comments we have are on the Matthean version, the rest are likely influenced by it. Ancient Christian commentators are generally not interested in the peculiarities and distinctions of the individual gospels, but in harmonizing them.
Second, ancient commentators are not practicing the historical-critical method of establishing a text’s meaning in terms of the original author and audience, but in drawing useful interpretations for their own times or broader theological principles. Particularly in prophetic or apocalyptic texts, there are plenty of cases where ancient commentators miss the original meaning of a text that would have been clear to the text’s contemporaries. The specific references to the destruction of the temple/and or Jerusalem in the New Testament are actually somewhat unusual in that later writers in the patristic period sometimes do get them right.
The “abomination of desolation” of desolation in Daniel is a good test case. It is widely accepted by modern scholars that Daniel’s term refers to the pagan worship going on in the Jerusalem temple in Daniel’s own time, and it is very likely that Daniel’s contemporaries understood it that way. But later interpreters, with the exception of the pagan critic of Christianity Porphyry, did not, and ancient Christian interpreters rejected Porphyry’s claim (though most modern Christian interpreters accept it). Also, I’m assuming for the moment that the author of 1 Macc, c. 100 BCE, who did identify the abomination of desolation with Antiochus Epiphanes’ introduction of worship outside of traditional worship into the Jerusalem temple (1 Macc 1.54), had another source and did not derive this from his interpretation of Daniel.
Another example is the numerous references to worshipping the image of the beast, or being put to death for refusing to do so in Revelation (Rev. 13.4, 15; 14.9; 16.2; 19.20, 20.4). The majority of modern critics understand these to be references to the compulsory veneration of the statue of the emperor (though this is by no means uncontested), and this was probably quite clear to the text’s original audience. However, this does not appear to have been clear to ancient commentators on Revelation. I have not by any means done an exhaustive study of patristic interpretations of Revelation, but a brief look at Oecumenius and Victorinus suggest they did not take the worship of the image of the beast to denote emperor worship, though both seem to recognize that, at least at times, Babylon is code for Rome, and Oecumenius does connect the sequence of beasts with emperors held to have persecuted the church (8.13.3-4), some of whom lived after Revelation was written. If anyone knows of any patristic commentator who recognizes that the passages about worshipping the image of the beast are about veneration of the image of the emperor (as opposed to more general idol worship), please post the references.
So I’m not claiming that no ancient interpreter ever correctly understood what the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel meant or what “worshipping the image to the beast” in Revelation meant. There may be some who did. (Again, if anyone knows of examples, I’d be interested to see them). It’s that later interpreters regularly fail to catch the meaning of references that may have been fairly clear to the original audience.
Third, while Matthew 24.15 sets the abomination of desolation in the “holy place” in his version of the eschatological discourse, I’m not sure he really did miss the meaning of Mark 13.14. There is some evidence he may well have understood Mark 13.14 along the lines Haenchen proposed.
To make the case for this, I need to lay out some of my assumptions about how Matthew treated his sources. First, as is widely recognized, Matthew is in many respects a revised and expanded edition of Mark. Second, Matthew creates redactional doublets from material in his sources, meaning he creates a second version of the same saying or story. Many scholars would agree that he does, but the extent to which he did is disputed. Some insists that he didn’t create doublets, and any doublets (two or more versions of the same story) are the result of his finding them in his sources. One heavily disputed example of a redactional doublet that Matthew may have created is Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to the women in Matt 28.9-10. The late Frans Neirynck of Leuven argued that Matthew created the appearance to the women out of the earlier appearance of the angel in Mark 16.6-7/Matt 28.5-7. Jesus simply repeats to the women what the angel had already told them Matt 28.5, 7. Third, when Matthew creates a redactional doublet, and thus has two versions of the same story, he sometimes moves the version closer to the original source out of the location in which he found it and provide a substitute (the version that resembles what was in the source less closely) in the location where the original version was. As an example, compare the two versions of the saying on Beelzebul in Matt 9:34 and 12:24. (Parenthetically, once one allows that Matthew creates redactional doublets and that Luke may have used Matthew, the need for the hypothetical Q source is seriously undermined).
To see how this affects our understanding of Matt 24.15, we have to look at how Matthew treats his source, Mark 13.9-14:
As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10 And the good news, must first be proclaimed to all nations.11 When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.14 But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains;
In his own version of the eschatological discourse, Matthew has:
9 Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. 10 Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come. 15 So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), 16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; (Matt 24.9-16).
While the language is quite different in many places, this is much the same content as Mark 13.9-14. Matthew has made some changes. The order is rearranged. He’s omitted v. 11 about what a Christian should say when on trial, and inserted the “false prophets” brought forward from v 22. He’s done a decent job of interpreting and summarizing Mark 13.12 as: “they [Christians] will betray one another.” Further, he’s made explicit something that is only implied in Mark, the concern about apostasy in the face of persecution: “many will fall away … the love of many will grow cold.” When he gets to Mark 3.14, he decides to literalize the fulfillment of Daniel, specifying that the “abomination” is the one spoken of by Daniel (as opposed to Maccabees) and that it will stand in the holy place.
But Matthew 24.9-14 is not the closest parallel to Mark 13.9-13 in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew has substituted a redactional doublet in the eschatological discourse and moved his closest parallel to Mark 13.9-13 elsewhere. In keeping with his policy of grouping Jesus’ saying into five great discourses built around themes, Matthew has moved his Mark 13.9-13 to the pericope about persecution found in the missionary discourse in Matthew 10.
17 Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. 19 When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Matt 10.17-22).
Matthew 10.17-22 is thus actually much closer to the language of Mark 13.9-13 than Matt 24.9-16 is. But what are we to make of Matt 10.23 and its relationship to Mark 13.14, the verses that immediately follow Matt 10.17-22 and Mark 13.9-13? That’s the real question.
First, a brief recap of what I’ve been arguing about Mark 13.14. The instruction for Christians to flee in Mark 13.14 is actually advice for how Christians should behave during Roman persecution, during which Christians were compelled on pain of death to worship statues of Caesar and the gods. Following Haenchen, I have taken the “abomination of desolation” to refer to the statues (and the resultant persecutions) and “those in Judea” who should “flee to the hills” to be the Christians in any town anywhere in the empire where official proceedings against Christians have been instituted. I think this is part extended metaphor drawn from 1 Macc. Mark expects his Christian audience to understand this metaphor and to place themselves within the story of 1 Macc, fleeing from persecution as the Maccabees did when pagan idols were set up in all the towns of Judah. Further, I think Mark meant his readers to understand that the period during which they’re fleeing from persecution (Mark 13.14-20) is in fact the final period of history which will be ended when the Son of Man comes (Mark 13.26).
One of Ben’s objections to this theory was that it seemed to make the final tribulation a repeatable event:
Ben: Suppose the governor comes to town in an official capacity against Christians, and the Christians flee to another town; then the governor (or another governor) comes to that town in the same capacity, and they flee again. It seems that, to your eye, this is all part of the same overall tribulation period, and that particular cadre of Christians has simply obeyed the command to flee twice now.
Yes, I think that in such a scenario, Mark would regard such multiple flights as all part of the same final tribulation. Ben objects multiple flights from persecution would constitute multiple final tribulations.
To return to Ben’s question that kicked all of this off:
Did anyone in antiquity catch Mark's meaning, if he meant what you and Haenchen are suggesting?
Let’s suppose that Matthew actually did understand Mark 13.14 along the lines Haenchen suggested and provided a redactional doublet of it in another location, where he explicated what Mark meant, with the “abomination of desolation” meaning Roman persecution, etc. What would that look like? I think it might look something like this:
23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matt 10.23).
Matthew 10.23 looks very much like a redactional doublet of Mark 13.14. It occurs immediately after Matthew’s version of Mark 13.9-13 and it’s the only other place in Mark or Matthew where Jesus commands Christians to flee. The similarities between Matt 10.23 and Mark 13.14 have been missed because the most striking feature of Mark 13.14, the “abomination of desolation” and the aside to “let the reader understand” are missing from Matt 10.23 (but present in Matt 24.15). But the dissimilarity disappears if we allow that Haenchen was correct in suggesting that the “abomination of desolation” was a code for Roman persecution and Matthew, who was a contemporary of Mark’s, understood this. Matthew has decoded the reference to the abomination and has Jesus instruct Christians to flee from persecution. He’s also replaced “those in Judah” with “the towns of Israel,” very possibly because he understood Mark’s metaleptical reference to “the towns of Judah” from 1 Macc 1.54 (the verse in which the “abomination of desolation” is found). Finally, he’s brought forward the coming of the Son of Man from Mark 13.26 so that it will put and end to the period of flight from persecution (as I have been arguing Mark 13 intends). Matthew seems to have understood Mark quite well.
We might wonder, if Matthew understood Mark’s coded reference to persecution, why didn’t he decode it in the eschatological discourse in Matt 25, rather than doing it in the missionary discourse in Matt 10? I think this has to do with Matthew’s fondness for literal fulfillment of prophecy. While all the evangelists think in terms of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of prophecy, Matthew is the most likely to make it explicit or literalize it. The signal example is Matthew’s expansion of Mark of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a colt in Mark 11.1-10 (esp. v.7) in which Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a colt. While Mark almost certainly wrote it to resonate with scripture (v. 7 with 2 Kings 9.13 in particular), Matthew makes the entrance explicitly fulfill scripture:
This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,: 5 “Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Matt 21.4-5).
Matthew literalizes the fulfillment, apparently making Jesus enter Jerusalem on two animals – a donkey and a colt (Matt 21.7). This is not because he misunderstood Mark or Zechariah 9.9 (which he spliced together with Isaiah 62.11), but just because he likes to literalize the fulfillment of scripture. Similarly, when he finds the reference to the abomination of desolation in Mark 13.14, he decides to make it explicit that the prophecy of Daniel will be fulfilled in the holy place in chapter 23 and moves his unpacking of Mark’s metaphor to chapter 10.
That was a pretty long, but I think the answer to ben’s question is: Yes, I think someone in antiquity did catch Mark’s meaning. Naturally, that’s going to be contestable. And, even those who accept this theory on Matt 10.23 could probably fit it in to other theories.