quote:
I would say that the author of Mark regarded it as a fulfilment of Daniel - I can see no indication that he felt it to be merely "similar" events. Whether the author saw it as a second fulfilment requires determining his opinion of whether the prophecy had already been fulfilled or not - which we cannot even do for Matthew. We must remember that the End did NOT come according to Daniel's "predictions" so it is distinctly possible that the authors reinterpreted Daniel as referring to later events.
The idea that the use of Daniel in Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is satire. Taken at face value it seems to be a simple replacement for the authorial aside, conveying the information that the author of Mark intended that the reader should discover.
1 Maccabees also mentions the abomination of desolation and describes what happened. The author of Mark could also be referring to that incident. Notice they fled to the mountains.
The Book of Daniel is grouped with the writings in the Jewish Bible, not the prophets.
1 Maccabees 1
[54] Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;
1 Maccabees 2
[27] And Mattathias cried throughout the city with a loud voice, saying, Whosoever is zealous of the law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me.
[28] So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.
[29] Then many that sought after justice and judgment went down into the wilderness, to dwell there:
Early Jewish Writings: DanielW. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)
Early Jewish Writings: 1 MaccabeesDavid A. deSilva writes: "The book must have been written after the accession of John Hyrcanus in 134 B.C.E., since this event is the last related in the narrative. The author speaks of the Romans highly and emphasizes the Jews' friendly relations with Rome and Rome's faithfulnes as allies, necessitating a date of composition prior to 63 B.C.E. (Oesterley 1913: 60; Goldstein 1976: 63; Fischer 1992: 441; Bartlett 1998: 34). The narration of the achievements and character of the Romans in 8:1-16 is an encomium, contrasting sharply with later reflection on Roman conquest and rule as arrogance, insolence, and an affront against God. Pompey's entry into the holy places in 63 B.C.E. would have marred the author's unqualified appreciation of the Romans (as a comparison with the response of Psalms of Solomon 2; 8; 17 to that event might show). . . . The conclusion to the whole (16:23-24), while not necessitating a date after Hyrcanus's death, is certainly more naturally taken that way, given the parallels in the books of Samuel and Kings, on which the author is intentionally drawing (Oesterley 1913: 60; Pfeiffer 1949: 301; Goldstein 1976: 63; Bartlett 1998: 33). . . . It seems preferable, therefore, to consider 1 Maccabees as having originated sometime after John Hyrcanus's death in 104 B.C.E. and before Roman intervention in the dispute between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II in 63 B.C.E." (Introducing the Apocrypha, p. 248)
That one reference is not what makes the book of Matthew a satirical writing.
Daniel wasn't necessarily canonical at the time of Mark's writing. Was the writer of Mark alluding to Daniel or the actual Maccabean event which would remind the people of what did happen when they were overrun before?
In the
Septuagint, the Torah and Nevi'im are established as canonical, but, the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet (some editions of the Septuagint include, for instance I—IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm, while others do not include them, also there are the Septuagint additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel and 1 Esdras).
As I said: I think the Book of Matthew sparked the double fulfillment issue, whether seriously or in jest. I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
™ Version 4.2
