Ben,
I snipped your first question because I don’t have much to add to what I already said about the parallel ταῦτα’s in Mark 13.4 and 13.19-20. I agree that there would prima facie appear to be some kind of parallelism between the two sets ταῦτα’s and I don’t currently have a good idea how to explain it.
Ben Smith asked:
Another question I would have is whether the verses about the tribulation period (verses 14-20) are well suited to describe Christian persecution, which seems to be described in different terms (terms which, unlike the ones employed in Mark 14.19-20, do not conjure the shade of Daniel 12.1) throughout the gospel of Mark (including in 13.9-13). You have already opined that Mark 8.34-38, along with other parts of Mark, addresses a situation wherein Mark expects "Christians brought to trial to accept martyrdom rather than deny Christ." If that is also the thrust of Mark 13.9-13, why the sudden breaking in of the abomination of desolation in verse 14? What is the difference between the situation in which "they will deliver you to the courts" to be put to death and the situation in which "those in Judea," upon seeing something in particular (called the abomination of desolation in our text), must flee? You represent Mark as offering flight as "an acceptable alternative" to martyrdom, but the text seems to be describing a normal situation in which Christians will be delivered over to the authorities as a matter of course followed by an abnormal situation in which they must flee. The alternative here does not sound like it is one of personal choice; rather, it sounds like something concrete is supposed to happen at which time flight (rather than giving testimony) becomes the new instruction.
If the abomination of desolation, on the hypothesis being examined, is a statue of Caesar, then is the text suggesting that it is only when such a statue is erected in one's town that fleeing becomes an option? Before that, one should just go on to court to stand trial?
Okay, I see two questions here: (1) If Mark. 13.14-20 is about persecution of Christians, why does Mark say “in those days there will be suffering such as has not been from the beginning of the creation God created until now ” in Mark 13.19, which is reminiscent of Daniel 12.1? This seems to suggest that Mark 13.14-20 is describing a superlatively bad situation that exceeds all other bad situations; (2) Mark 13.9-13 seems to describe a normal situation in which Christians will be handed over to authorities as a matter of course, but Mark 13.14-20 describes an abnormal situation in which people must flee after the appearance of the “abomination of desolation.”
The short answer is that, while you could read Mark 13.9-13 and Mark 13.14-20 as addressing different situations, I don’t see anything in the text that actually requires that, and much that argues against it. I see Mark 13.14-20 as redescribing the same situation as Mark 13-9.13.
This is similar to what happens in Hebrew poetry with parallelisismus membrorum, where there are two terms A and B, and B restates or elaborates what is said in A (in James Kugel’s terms, “A, and what is more, B"). Perhaps the classic example is “mounted on and ass and on a foal, the son of an ass,” which does not mean two different animals. The second term, “a foal, the son of an ass,” restates or elaborates the first “an ass”. Mark 13.9-13 and 13.14-20 are not really poetic texts and their verses are not constructed in parallel with each other, but the same principle applies.
I do not read Mark 13.9-13 in which brothers, parents and children betray each other to death and Christians will be hated by everyone because of Christ’s name as a “normal situation” which is then followed by the
really bad period of tribulation in Mark 13.14-20. I take both passages to be describing the same period. Doing otherwise would also make nonsense of the latter half of Mark 13.13 “the one who endures to the end will be saved.” If I read the tribulation in Mark 13.14-20 as addressing a different situation, Mark 13.13 would have to be amended to mean “the one who endures to the end will be saved (provided he or she also makes it through the subsequent period of tribulation, which will be even worse).” I understand the ones who are saved in Mark 13.13 and the ones who are implied to be saved in Mark 13.20 as the same people, surviving the same situation. I realize you address these issues by attributing them to different levels of redaction, but I count the fact that I’m making sense of the final text of Mark as a point in favor of my reading.
Historically, persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities was never a “normal” situation in the Roman empire until the empire-wide persecution under the emperor Decius in 250. Before that it was relatively, rare, sporadic and localized. This is the conclusion of the majority of scholars who have published on the subject. Such persecutions nevertheless had a huge impact on the Christian communities they impacted.
Pliny, who had a great deal of experience in Roman government, claims in his letter to Trajan:
I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. (Pliny, Epistles, 10.96)
This, and Trajan's reply that there is no general rule, strongly suggests that there was no established imperial policy of persecuting Christians in Pliny’s time. Nevertheless, Pliny had heard of Christians and presumably of what took place at their trials:
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged
Pliny does not say why he initially began the proceedings against Christians, but says accusations spread once he had:
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons.
Trajan’s reply assures Pliny his procedures have been appropriate. He is not to seek out Christians (presumably by using the Roman soldiers and officials under his command), but must act on accusations brought before him (presumably brought by the locals), except that he is not to act on anonymous accusations.
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age. (Trajan to Pliny, Epistles, 10.97)
There were statues of Caesar, other types of imperial emblems, and icons of pagan gods all over the empire. We hear about them in Judea because the Jews resisted their introduction there, but Jews and Christians in the rest of the empire just had to accept them. The issue isn’t just the presence of a statue of Caesar, it’s the Roman governor with the power to compel worship on pain of death. The councils and synagogues mentioned in Mark 13.9 could impose lesser punishments – Paul claims to have received the 40 lashes less one from the Jews five times (2 Cor. 11.24), but the governors and kings, which I would take to mean Roman governors of provinces and probably kings of Roman client states, could impose the death penalty.
IIRC, the Roman governor was typically the only official in a province with the power to impose capital punishment during peacetime. In many provinces, the governor acted as sort of circuit judge, travelling to different cities to hear cases. So I would understand “when you see the abomination of desolation set up where it ought not to be” in Mark 13.14 to mean “when you learn that the Roman governor has instituted proceedings in which he is compelling Christians to worship images of Caesar and the gods on pain of death.” I don’t understand this to be contradicting Mark 13.9: “As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over …” but elaborating on it. In that situation, you are encouraged to flee. There is no “normal situation” of persecution in which one is expected to had oneself over followed by a different situation of persecution in which one should flee.
The
Martyrdom of Polycarp, though written much later than Mark’s gospel, can give us some insight into how Christians reacted to official persecution in different ways:
4.1 But one, named Quintus, a Phrygian lately come from Phrygia, when he saw the wild beasts played the coward. Now it was he who had forced himself and some others to come forward of their own accord. Him the Pro-Consul persuaded with many entreaties to take the oath and offer sacrifice. For this reason, therefore, brethren, we do not commend those who give themselves up, since the Gospel does not give this teaching.
5.1 But the most wonderful Polycarp, when he first heard it, was not disturbed, but wished to remain in the city; but the majority persuaded him to go away quietly, and he went out quietly to a farm, not far distant from the city, and stayed with a few friends, doing nothing but pray night and day for all, and for the Churches throughout the world, as was his custom. 5.2 And while he was praying he fell into a trance three days before he was arrested, and saw the pillow under his head burning with fire, and he turned and said to those who were with him: "I must be burnt alive."
6.1 And when the searching for him persisted he went to another farm; and those who were searching for him came up at once, and when they did not find him, they arrested young slaves, and one of them confessed under torture. 2 For it was indeed impossible for him to remain hid, since those who betrayed him were of his own house.
The author of this story is critical of those who had themselves over to the authorities, such as Quintus, because the gospel does not require it, and those who do it might then fail in their faith as Quintus did. Polycarp, the protagonist of the story is presented as undisturbed and initially intending to remain in the city (though not to hand himself over), but is prevailed on by others to flee outside it. He is nevertheless betrayed by members of his own household and ends up being martyred; of course, he does not fail in his faith and worship idols, but bears witness before the governor.
So, in summary, I don’t see any compelling reason to read Mark 13.14-16 as addressing a substantially different situation from Mark 13.9-13, rather than being a further explication of the same situation.
Best,
Ken