Let the reader understand... Again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 pm Did anyone in antiquity catch Mark's meaning, if he meant what you and Haenchen are suggesting? On pages 126-127 of The Gospel to the Romans, Brian Incigneri lists various scholarly interpretations of the abomination of desolation, and Haenchen's suggestion does not even make an appearance. If the correct interpretation has eluded all but one modern scholar and what must be a scant handful of his intellectual heirs, how was Mark's readership supposed to understand it?
From Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea
I advise my philosophy students to develop hypersensitivity for rhetorical questions in philosophy. They paper over whatever cracks there are in the arguments. (p. 178)
See also David Hackett Fischer's Historian's Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought in which he addresses various types of false analogies and reasoning on the basis of transferring modern understandings into interpretations of ancient sources. Also Fischer's Fallacy of the Prevalent Proof -- using the consensus of modern beliefs to decide the interpretation of historical sources.

Also the informal fallacy of the argument from incredulity.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 pmOn your interpretation, on the other hand, Mark apparently wrote all of this of his own free will. He deliberately set up the passage with a question about the temple and included a detail closely associated with the temple, only to mentally make that detail fail to apply to the temple.
Is not this typical Mark, though? Would not Mark's Jesus say something to the effect, "Why do you still think I am talking about wholemeal bread? How is it you do not understand?" Not to mention the symbolic that is the essence of apocalyptic literature.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 pmdeliberately[/i] associated the tribulation with the flight, even though mentally he thought of the tribulation as a much broader period of which the flight was only one facet.
One might wonder if we are being somewhat overly pedantic in our hair splitting of Mark's words, missing the forest for the trees.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:30 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 pmOn your interpretation, on the other hand, Mark apparently wrote all of this of his own free will. He deliberately set up the passage with a question about the temple and included a detail closely associated with the temple, only to mentally make that detail fail to apply to the temple.
Is not this typical Mark, though? Would not Mark's Jesus say something to the effect, "Why do you still think I am talking about wholemeal bread? How is it you do not understand?" Not to mention the symbolic that is the essence of apocalyptic literature.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 pmdeliberately[/i] associated the tribulation with the flight, even though mentally he thought of the tribulation as a much broader period of which the flight was only one facet.
One might wonder if we are being somewhat overly pedantic in our hair splitting of Mark's words, missing the forest for the trees.
Obviously consistency is necessary and I don't mean my "overly pedantic" remark to be taken as undermining consistency. I have just finished re-reading Wrede's Messianic Secret and am reminded forcefully once again that "Mark" was not the least interested in logical or narrative "consistency". He was quite oblivious to, or at least not bothered by, the inconsistencies he left readers with his attempt to combine two "inconsistent" traditions about Jesus. What is important is the consistency of the interpreter's analysis and observations rather than insisting on the necessity of consistency in the narrative of "Mark" itself.

(Mark's inconsistencies are not only found in the "messianic secret" conflicts; many passages in Mark make little sense on a rational/realistic level as a result of Mark's interest in conveying symbolic messages.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Charles Wilson »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:59 amMark's inconsistencies are not only found in the "messianic secret" conflicts; many passages in Mark make little sense on a rational/realistic level as a result of Mark's interest in conveying symbolic messages.
[1]It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him;
[2] for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people."

Jay Raskin notes this one. Jay points out that this is precisely what happened. There is a curious set of statements in these two verses. We find certain days in front of Passover mentioned and they are not consistent - See John 12:

[1] Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany...

Obviously, it should be important to get the Time Line correct. Mark gets the correct alignment of Passover to the Feast of Unleavened Bread at this point. Yet, there is confusion over the arrival into Jerusalem: Before, on or after Passover?

Perhaps that is the point, Neil. Original Mark was not a Messianic Story. It was a Story that was changed along the way. Many believe that "Surely, he was the son of God" marks the end of this Novel.

The conveying of a Symbolic Messianic Message may be derivative.

You have a good point.

CW
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

Ken Olson wrote:
As Adela Yarbro Collins puts it in her commentary on Mark:

"But what sense would it make to encourage those in Judea to flee to the hills at that late stage of the war? And what would they be fleeing from? (pp. 608-609)"

I would add that the Romans were not requiring others to worship their standards. Josephus describes the horrors of the siege both for the Jews in Jerusalem and for those in its immediate vicinity. But why wait until the Romans had destroyed the temple and sacrificed to their standards to flee? The horrors had already occurred. Mark 13.14 seems to suggest that the abomination is a sign of something about to occur, but what is that?

I think the theory that the abomination in Mark 13.14 refers to the Romans sacrificing to their standards still has to face the questions of why those in Judea should flee and why, if Mark is viewing this in hindsight, he's viewing the Judeans' tribulations after the destruction of the temple as the greatest tribulation ever, greater than that faced by his actual audience, and apparently not the immediate sign of the coming of the Son of Man. (I have written this form the perspective that it is written in hindsight by Mark -- establishing why i think that's the case would require another post).
This is one of the best responses I've received on this forum. Thank you, Ken.

I can only speculate regarding your questions. The first thing that comes to my mind is that I reckon the 66-70 CE war did not technically end until the fall of Masada in 73 CE. And this is the way the Wikipedia page on the siege of Masada describes the situation from 70-73 CE:
The Sicarii were commanded by Eleazar ben Ya'ir, and in 70 CE they were joined by additional Sicarii and their families expelled from Jerusalem by the Jewish population with whom the Sicarii were in conflict. Shortly thereafter, following the Roman siege of Jerusalem and subsequent destruction of the Second Temple, additional members of the Sicarii and many Jewish families fled Jerusalem and settled on the mountaintop, with the Sicarii using it as a refuge and base for raiding the surrounding countryside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada
Mark 13 seems consistent with this situation to me. As it says in 13:12-27:
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 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. Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 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 ... At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
To me this resembles what Josephus says about the 66-70 CE war and the events leading up to it in Ant. 18.1.1 and War 2.13.3-6 and 6.5.3:
... whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people ... the infection, which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies ...

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty ...

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.
... a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
As for why Mark would see "the Judeans' tribulations after the destruction of the temple as the greatest tribulation ever, greater than that faced by his actual audience," this is how Josephus presents it in his preface to the War:
Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations.


Cf. Mk. 13:19, "those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again."

So to me what Jesus says in Mk. 13 sounds like what Josephus says about the war, and I suspect that Mark (or perhaps Jesus) was simply aware of all this, whether via Josephus or by some other manner.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ken Olson »

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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:32 pmAnd 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).
I have actually been backing off of that interpretation in the interval. When I first read Haenchen's hypothesis I thought that maybe Mark could have included 13.14-20 as a deliberate parallel to situations in his own time, but I do not think I think that anymore. I hold the fulfillment of the prediction to be sufficient reason for its inclusion in Mark, and other reasons are possible but unnecessary. Leaving out this potential application to Mark's own time may even be more consonant with the setting of Mark 13 as a private conversation with four disciples. Since the (main or only) reason for including the abomination of desolation is because it was a prediction about the temple from before the temple fell (one which, with a bit of tweaking, could be played up as quite accurate), it would not matter to Mark in what context Jesus made the prediction.

That is not to say that there is no possibility of applying principles from the abomination of desolation materials to one's own life as an ancient reader of Mark; that is merely to suggest that being overly specific about those principles will probably be misleading.
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.
So far as the part which I have stricken out is concerned, I accept this criticism. Similar thoughts on my part are what led me to begin setting the extra layer of interpretation applying to Mark's readership aside.

However, part of my strategy for interpreting Mark has long been to look into Luke and Matthew (on the assumption of Marcan priority) and see what a text looks like when it has absorbed and reworked another source. This strategy is also the motivation behind my digging into Samuel/Kings and Chronicles and into the sources that Plutarch and other Greco-Roman authors employed. Matthew and Luke sometimes leave indicators that they are following a source like Mark, and I freely admit: when I find similar indicators in Mark, it makes me wonder whether Mark is following a source (without, at least at first, filling out what kind of source; it could even be earlier versions of Mark itself, like a proto-Mark, or it could sometimes be oral preaching/teaching, or sometimes scribal harmonizations can account for it, and so on).

The relevance here is that I think, if we lacked Mark and were trying to figure out Matthew or Luke or both, you could level some of these same criticisms to any researcher who posited a source (like Mark) before Matthew and Luke. Any time a given chapter of Matthew had parts that look early and other parts that look late, one could complain that the text "is both Matthean and pre-Matthean," because that is exactly what the researcher is positing.

It was this kind of thinking that led me to my current view (still evolving, naturally) of Mark 13. There are parts that seem to predate 70 (the abomination of desolation in verse 14, the prediction of the tribulation in verse 19, and so on), and there are parts that seem to postdate 70 (not one stone on another in verses 1-2, the past tense look at the tribulation in verse 20, and so on). And there are parts (like the motif of the unknown hour) that seem designed precisely to blunt or redirect the force of other parts (like the generational prediction).

As for the main thrust of what you wrote, I am of course very aware of what you have said about Matthew seeming to replace the more exact element of a doublet with the less exact element of that same doublet compared to the Marcan sequence; yes, as you point out, this happens both in the Beelzebub pericope and in the synoptic apocalypse. (I am not yet sure why Matthew does this, and am still trying to figure out what is going on in those cases.)

The less exact bit which Matthew has left in the synoptic apocalypse has parallels to Didache 16, and the distribution overall of parallels between Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Didache 16 have led me to provisionally agree with Alan Garrow that Matthew has combined two sources: Mark 13 (or something like it) and Didache 16 (or something like it) in Matthew 24.

Meanwhile, yes, Matthew locates the more exact parallel to Mark 13.9-13 elsewhere, in his mission discourse. But, after interpreting Matthew 10, you add:
Matthew seems to have understood Mark quite well.
But did he? I mean, on your own hypothesis, did he really?

For one thing, Matthew limits the eschatological discourse of chapters 24-25 to the disciples (24.3), and the mission discourse seems to be limited to exactly the same audience: the twelve disciples (10.1-4). The instructions seem to relate to things that missionaries might experience while preaching, not necessarily to what ordinary Christians minding their own business might experience, unless I am missing something.

For another, if Matthew 10 is interpreting Mark's abomination of desolation, Matthew appears to have limited it to Israel only, just like Mark limits it to Judea:

Matthew 10.5-23: 5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons; freely you received, freely give. 9 Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 10 or a bag for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support. 11 And into whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it; and abide there until you go away. 12 And as you enter the house, give it your greeting. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your greeting of peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your greeting of peace return to you. 14 And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. 16 Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves. 17 But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to the courts, and scourge you in their synagogues; 18 and you shall even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, do not become anxious about how or what you will speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. 20 For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. 21 And brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. 23 But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes."

So where is the leeway for Matthew having interpreted his Marcan source as referring to emperor worship across the empire? Even the persecution here is generalized and nonspecific; nothing is said or implied about compulsory pagan worship. It seems like, in your view, Matthew is being as elliptical and allusive as Mark is, despite being pretty literal on other things, and despite him seemingly doing all he can to limit this discourse to Israel (a literal Israel) only: "do not go in the way of the gentiles!" In other words, the interpretation which I find to be unlikely in Mark seems even less likely in Matthew.

I truly love your observation about the shared motif of flight in Mark 13.14 = Matthew 24.15 and Matthew 10.23. But I am not sure how it helps your interpretation of the abomination of desolation as representing emperor worship.
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.
The Christian interpretation of Daniel was constrained by the overwhelming desire to make the Messiah figure therein apply to Jesus; so no, I would not expect (m)any Christians to apply things associated with the Messiah figure (including the abomination of desolation) to the time of Antiochus. Similarly, I would not expect Christians to sabotage their own sacred texts by interpreting them as having been revised and corrupted; but pagan critics of Christianity like Celsus certainly could and did accuse Christians of corrupting their own texts so as to meet objections. I am not sure that anything quite so pointed would constrain interpretations of the synoptic apocalypse, though.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:14 pm
For another, if Matthew 10 is interpreting Mark's abomination of desolation, Matthew appears to have limited it to Israel only, just like Mark limits it to Judea:
Does not Matthew seem to slip in and out of different audiences as he writes. For example, he begins the Sermon on the Mount as a private instruction to his disciples but by the time he gets to its end he has forgotten that and has the vast multitudes standing in awe at what they have just heard (incorporating the Mark 1:27 congregations' response to Jesus' authority).

We see a similar confusion in Matthew 10. Soon after instructing his disciples to confine themselves to Israel (vv. 5-6) he has them being dragged off to "governors and kings for a testimony against them and the gentiles"! (v 18)

Again in Matthew 16 we have an instruction given to the disciples about losing one's life and taking up one's cross etc. But as Jesus continues to speak it is evident that the instruction he is giving his disciples is in fact applicable to "every man" (v.27). Like Mark, Matthew is not simply recording conversations between Jesus and disciples for antiquarian interest but as lessons for all contemporary readers.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

Ken Olson wrote:
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 gather you see these official proceedings as taking place after 70 CE, and while I do think Mark was written c. 70 CE, the context of Mk. 13 is presented as being Jesus' words pre-70 CE. And I find what Jesus says in Mk. 13 lines up well with what Josephus says about the lead up to and outcome of the 66-70 CE war (including seeing the abomination of desolation), and 13:9-11 also seems applicable to a pre-70 CE context.

Mk. 13.9-11:
You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
Cf. 2 Cor. 11:21-33:
Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones ... I have been in danger ... from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles ... In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.
James 2:6-7:
But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

John2 wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:13 am Ken Olson wrote:
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 gather you see these official proceedings as taking place after 70 CE,
Just for the record, Ernst Haenchen (apparently Ken's source) acknowledges that these events were taking place as early as Paul's own missionary activity (pp.441f).
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply