John2 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:55 pm
Alright, one more wild speculation and then I'll call it a night. You (and commentaries) seem to suggest that there is an element of Daniel's Antiochus behind all these "deceiver" allusions in various Christian writings, so could 2 Thes. 2:1-4 then have anything to do with Mk. 13, which mentions "the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong," i.e., the Temple?
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. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen ... When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong ... At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
2 Thes. 2:3-4:
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.
Could the man of lawlessness refer to one of Mark 13's "I am he" people?
John2 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:50 pm
The key issue for the Caligula idea is the dating of 1 Thessalonians (which is usually thought to be in the early 50's CE). But as Donfried notes:
The traditional dating of ca. 50-52 CE is heavily dependent on a non-critical reading of Lucan chronology according to the book of Acts. Some have argued for a date in the early 40s. While this early dating is resisted since it would alter traditional Pauline chronology, to place 1 Thessalonians earlier would allow for a far broader understanding of the development and growth of Paul's articulation of the gospel in vastly different situations over a longer period of time.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ygcgn ... ng&f=false
I am returning to this thread because I have been doing a lot of thinking about the difference between genuine predictions and predictions after the fact (
vaticinia ex eventu). For some reason there seems to be a tendency to assume that most of the predictions we deal with on the pages of the NT are the latter: "predictions" made after the fact, with the fulfillment of those predictions in full view of the author as a datum of history.
And this approach is obviously correct in many cases. Mark 13.1-2, for example, contains what I take to be a
vaticinium ex eventu, and it is well known that scholars take Daniel 11 to be
vaticinia ex eventu up to a certain point in Antiochus' career; but... after that point the predictions are real (and they did not really come to pass). And that is the option that I think is too often missed.
I do not think that either the man of sin/lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the world deceiver in Didache 16 or the human element behind the abomination of desolation in Mark 13 = Matthew 24 actually
is Caligula (or anybody else). I think that the lawless figure in question is a genuine prediction; even today Christians predict the advent of the Antichrist, right? They make guesses sometimes as to his identity, but usually most of them are content to expect him to make his appearance in the near future.
But that does not mean that the lawless one is not
modeled on actual historical figures. It seems quite clear that many conceptions of this figure have been influenced by Antiochus Epiphanes and by Nero; and I would argue that he has also been influenced by Caligula for his attempt to set up worship
of himself in the Temple. (Not even Antiochus did that, apparently; the worship was of Zeus.)
The same it true, in my judgment, of the abomination of desolation predicted in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. It seems to me to be a genuine prediction based on what Antiochus did (in the first place) and also on what Caligula tried to do (in the second place): from Antiochus comes the original idea itself, not to mention the very term "abomination of desolation," and from Caligula comes Mark's modifying of a neuter noun ("abomination") with a masculine participle ("standing"), a most appropriate
constructio ad sensum for the statue of a man who thinks of himself as a god (refer also to 2 Thessalonians 2.4).
As a prediction of what would happen, the abomination of desolation is/was a failure, one which had to be reined in and reinterpreted.
I have been reviewing the Apocalypse of Peter recently in connection with all of this, and it is interesting that it has nothing to say about the Temple:
Apocalypse of Peter: And when the Lord was seated upon the Mount of Olives, his disciples came unto him. And we besought and entreated him severally and prayed him, saying unto him, "Declare unto us what are the signs of your coming and of the end of the world, that we may perceive and mark the time of your coming and instruct them that come after us, unto whom we preach the word of your gospel, and whom we set over in your church, that they when they hear it may take heed to themselves and mark the time of your coming."
Matthew 24.1-3: 1 And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He answered and said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down." 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your advent, and of the end of the age?"
Mark 13.1-4: 1 And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down." 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"
In Mark the first question is about the destruction of the Temple, but Jesus' answer includes details of his advent (13.24-27). The second question,
as Ken Olson points out, actually has no referent. (I have some thoughts on this, but they will have to wait.)
In the Apocalypse of Peter the first question is about the coming of the Lord, while the second is about the end of the world. Nothing is asked about the Temple, and nothing in the response as we have it (either in the Greek fragment or in the Ethiopic) mentions the Temple.
In Matthew there are three questions: one about the Temple (as in Mark), and then two about Jesus' advent and the end of the age (as in Peter), respectively. Is Matthew conflating two different accounts here?
The Didache also mentions nothing about the Temple; it is all about "the last time" (16.3) and the coming of the Lord (16.8), just like the Apocalypse of Peter.
Whereas in Mark a question about the Temple leads to an answer which includes the advent of the Lord, in 2 Thessalonians it is exactly the opposite:
2 Thessalonians 2.1-2: 1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
This introduction mentions only the advent of the Lord (and the gathering associated with it), but later on (pseudo-)Paul mentions the Temple (2.4) as the place in which the man of sin/lawlessness is expected to take his seat as a god. It seems that there is a stage of Christian eschatological thought at which you cannot easily discuss one (either the Temple or the coming of Jesus) without discussing the other.
John, you wondered whether the abomination of desolation is relevant to this part of 2 Thessalonians, and I am inclined to think that the parallels are real and important. And, if indeed there are parallels, then I think they also speak to a literal Temple in 2 Thessalonians 2.4, just as the Temple in Mark 13.1-2 is literal.
I never really understood the "temple in heaven" option anyway. It honestly looks like a route taken simply because we already "
know" (somehow) that 2 Thessalonians postdates 70.
Another interesting tidbit about 2 Thessalonians is that it lacks any mention of "the unknown hour." To the contrary, there is a series of events leading up to the end, and (pseudo-)Paul expects his Thessalonian converts to be able to follow them and keep track of where they are in the overall scheme of things. Just as in the genuine Pauline epistles, the expectation is not that Jesus
can come at any time henceforth, but rather that he
will come in time to make a difference for the readers:
2 Thessalonians 1.6-8: 6 For after all it is only just in the sight of God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2 Thessalonians 2.7: 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
Maybe some feel that there is not enough time between Paul's death and the events of 70 for a pseudo-Paul to have forged this epistle; but, as
Jax has argued recently, it is not entirely clear how early or late Paul has to be, anyway. I am also interested in reviewing the arguments for and against genuine Pauline authorship of this epistle. My assumption right now is that it is a forgery, but I am open to changing my mind.