Robert wrote:

While both Daniel and Mark have ‘the desecration of the sanctuary with an abomination that causes desolation’, it is still a crux interpretum is to try and identify the referent in the historical background of the gospel of Mark. Several have been credibly proposed so it is probably not possible to be certain or to agree, but it is not merely to be easily dismissed as something already occurring in the book of Daniel. It is an essential part of the historico-critical exegetical task. Do you have a suggested historical corollary? Joel Marcus did not merely raise the question, but he also provided his own suggested answer. Do you agree or disagree and why? You, ask, ‘how does a post-destruction abomination ‘cause’ desolation? Could not the destruction itself be seen as an ultimate desolation? The one standing where it ought not could be rebels or their illegitimately appointed high priest prior to the destruction or Titus who reportedly entered the holy of holes while the rest of the temple was burning, or some other event thought to be fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Or just the destruction itself being referred to with Daniel’s language. Do you think it is merely the literary use of Daniel’s language by Mark as a genuine prophecy by Mark and/or perhaps pre-literary verbal prophecy by Jesus himself in 30 CE?

 

Great stuff as usual!

I’ll give you some piecemeal thoughts here (as I have time).

First off, let me just say that I agree that it is decidedly more likely than not that the the desecration of the sanctuary with an abomination that causes desolation had a contemporary historical background — and was not necessarily atomized/generic prophecy taken from Daniel.  But, a couple things here: First, it is possible, albeit largely unlikely, that the abomination that causes desolation is generic. Second, even if it’s not purely generic, the historical background might not be as vivid and present as something like the Siege of Jerusalem; it might be that the general atmosphere of the period, which could well date back to the crisis in 39 CE involving the statue of Caligula, likely causing sufficient general angst to inspire prophecy like this.

What we are seeing right now with protesters pulling down statues could be an interesting parallel.  The recent push to take down Confederate statues began back in the summer of 2017.  Back then, people warned that people may only be pulling down statues of Robert E. Lee now, but soon, they’ll be pulling down statues of George Washington; the press largely scoffed at this.  Fast forward three years …. and, sure enough, we have protesters pulling down statues of Washington, Jefferson, Grant, etc.

Point being, that the civil angst and general atmosphere was already present in 2017 to make a reliable prediction about pulling down statues in the future.

Something like that very much could have been in the works during the 40s and 50s CE in Judea and Galilee.  Indeed, it almost certainly was to some degree — because revolutions tend not to happen overnight, but rather build over generations.  In that context, would it really be surprising for Jews living in Roman occupied Judea and Galilee to be worried that an atmosphere of political revolution would actually lead to a military conflict with the Roman authority — and that such a conflict would result in a replay of the Babylonian destruction of the Temple?  We know from the books that composed in the two centuries prior to this period, from the popular books from the Hebrew Bible at the time, and from the broad popularity of apocalyptic prophets, that worries about “another Babylon” were constantly on the minds of these people.

Okay … but let’s stipulate for now that the historical background was more likely to be a specific event than general angst of the time.  Could that event have been the threat of erecting a statue to Caligula within the Temple in 39 CE, described by Jospheus?  The “abomination” referred to in Daniel is typically associated with the Syrian king Antiochus IV, who is said to have erected an idol to Zeus and then sacrificing a pig within the Temple, forcing the priests to eat the unclean pork.  The analog to Caligula fits rather nicely here.  And, while the panic this caused may have subsided with the death of Caligula a couple years later, who is to say that the source for the Olivet Discourse did not pop up right around this time in 40 CE?

And could the angst caused from this incident have lingered into the time of Nero, when rumors of madness were surely beginning to crop up after he put his mother to death in CE 59.  Could this have been another opportunity for historical background?

Finally, the Roman procurator on the eve of the War, Gessius Florus, apparently was a match that ignited the fuel for the rebellion — very similar to the homicide of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin.  In 65 CE, Florus stole 17 talents from the Temple treasury, claiming it would be used to erect a statue to Nero.  This apparently caused the first revolts in Jerusalem.  It’s very easy to imagine this being a trigger.

Anyway, my answer here is not that I necessarily think it was the Caligula statue, or angst lingering into the reign of Nero, or some other event (Florus, etc.) … it’s just that I’m not sure.  And I don’t think these other possibilities should be ruled out.

Robert wrote:

You, ask, ‘how does a post-destruction abomination ‘cause’ desolation? Could not the destruction itself be seen as an ultimate desolation? The one standing where it ought not could be rebels or their illegitimately appointed high priest prior to the destruction or Titus who reportedly entered the holy of holes while the rest of the temple was burning, or some other event thought to be fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Or just the destruction itself being referred to with Daniel’s language.

Honestly, I don’t know.  This is really a matter of interpreting the text and I’m not the guy to do that.  I’ve looked into how, we believe, Daniel 9:27 & 11:31 read in the Septuagint; on the one hand, Mark’s language does not necessarily indicate that the abomination itself must cause the desolation; on the other hand, the express reference to Daniel in Mark seems to indicate that the abomination is the trigger for the desolation (as the Septuagint likely read).

Robert wrote:

Do you think it is merely the literary use of Daniel’s language by Mark as a genuine prophecy by Mark and/or perhaps pre-literary verbal prophecy by Jesus himself in 30 CE?

I really have no idea here.  Could this be Mark or his source putting these words into Jesus’s mouth?  Sure.  Then again, if Jesus truly was in the genre of an apocalyptic prophets (as many scholars, including Bart, think), wouldn’t we expect him to be quoting Daniel quite often.  So, I don’t think it’d be surprising at all if Jesus did talk about the abomination that causes desolation from time to time.

That’s really the tricky part here.  Surely, Jesus said a ton of things that never made their way into any gospels; and, indeed, the presence of the Little Apocalypse in a gospel wouldn’t be at all surprising even if the Temple was never destroyed; but the fact that it is right there in there in Mark and right around the same time that the Temple is destroyed makes the connection more plausible.

* * *

One last note here that I should have mentioned in my first post on this: “Luke’s” changing of the “abomination that causes desolation” (from Mark and Matthew) to “When then you see being encircled by encampments Jerusalem, then know that has drawn near the desolation of her” might indicate that he is writing after the Jewish War has started and, in that connection, feels the need to update Mark. 

In other words, “Luke” isn’t concerned about the “abomination” prophecy from Daniel; he has changed focus to the desolation — and appears to be more directly tying it to the Roman armies.

If we were to do more conventional redaction analysis, would we not think that “Luke” is changing “Mark,” because he thinks “Mark” might not have the better information he has — that “Mark” was wrong to connect the desolation to the abomination spoken of in Daniel?

If Luke is writing in the immediate aftermath of the War — or even as the war is raging and Jerusalem is surrounded (Note: Jerusalem was first surrounded by armies led by the Roman governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, in 66 CE) — does it not make sense that he feels the need to change “Mark” because he is now aware that the Daniel prophecy about abomination causing the desolation (which is tied to the prince) isn’t really holding, and that, instead, the desolation is likely to be diverging from this prophecy.

Said another way, if “Mark” is writing after the destruction of the Temple and he is implicitly associate the prince from Daniel with (let’s say) Titus … why would “Luke” change this passage, removing Daniel (and his connection with the prince) and the prophecy of abomination?  Looking at it this way, it makes more sense that “Mark’s” version of the Olivet Discourse is pre-War, while “Luke’s” is concurrent with or post- War.

Stephen said:

In the Hebrew of Daniel 9,26 and 11,31 it should probably be understood as referring to the corruption and defilement of the temple, not its destruction, nor is 9,26 likely referring to a messiah, let alone the Messiah, but rather to an anointed high priest during the times of the Maccabean turmoil.

My view doesn’t diverge here from what you are saying.  I just think it should be clear that the defilement is the “abomination,” correct?  Does not the Greek translate to “the people shall destroy the sanctuary and the city”?  Does the Hebrew diverge here?

Stephen said:

The book of Daniel is not really featured in the Christian tradition until we get to the gospel of Mark, especially with respect to Daniel 7. Prior to that, in Paul and Q, it does not play any substantive role if memory serves (it doesn’t always so please check me on that).

Not so sure about that on Daniel. 

It is correct that the “undisputed” Pauline corpus does not mention Daniel.  But, he’s writing letters to a mainly gentile audience, which probably wouldn’t quite understand the Hebrew eschatology and apocalyptic visions from Daniel; so that’s understandable.  1 Thessalonians does include quite a bit about the second coming. 

And, the very few more direct references to Daniel are all either in Mark or eliminated in Luke; so direct quoting of Daniel is not in Q — assuming of course Q is a thing.

However,  the double-tradition of Matthew-Luke refers to “the son of man” no fewer than 10 times — including the version of the son of man who will be coming during Judgment Day (which is distinctly Daniel’s version of the son of man): “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Luke 12, Matthew 24); “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Luke 17, Matthew 24); “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Luke 17, Matthew 24).

I think it’s very hard to put a time stamp just on when Daniel prophecy entered the church.

Stephen said:

Daniel is only the ninth most frequently copied book at Qumran, behind non-canonical works such as Enoch and Jubilees. Can you point to any texts at Qumran that clearly interpret Daniel in the manner you are presuming for the Christian tradition prior to Mark?

Are you asking for texts that would interest the “son of man” in Daniel to be something akin to the Jewish messiah?

Stephen said:

I’m still skeptical that the entirety of Mark’s focus on the temple can be best explained by his writing the whole of his gospel prior to its destruction. And whatever may have been the spark that first prompted Mark or someone in his earlier tradition to begin speaking of the upcoming destruction of the temple, or at least the need to flee, regardless of when that was (eg, Florus in 65), it would remain relevant and would probably be seen as even more relevant once the destruction had taken place and the prophecy was thus confirmed. The same applies to Luke, for whom other aspects of his redaction of Mark 13 can be seen as indicating a delay of the parousia.

How much can we say the prophecy was confirmed?  The Olivet Discourse states that parousia will happen within a generation (which Luke keeps, by the way).  Assuming Jesus dies circa 33 CE, how much longer does it make sense to include this in the text?

Robert said:

Oh, by the way, I’m Robert, not Stephen.

YIKES! Sorry!!  That was carelessness on my part.