What did the ANF teach about the timing of the DOL signs and AD70?

[Ted]

In researching for a paper on Matthew 24, it has become quite clear that the crux interpretum lies in verses 28-29. In all modern translations I can find, verse 29 says that "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" the Day of the Lord comes. If this is correct, the basic Preterist argument about Matthew 24 should hold.

In researching the Greek of these two verses, there appears a possibility that this may be a mistranslation. (BTW, John Reece disagrees, but "in a multitude of counselors lies wisdom," so research continues.)

My searches have led me to the Ante-Nicene Fathers. If anyone would know about this issue, they ought to. They were close in time, and spoke Greek as natives. Yet, in my searches, I have come up empty. Don't choke, DeeDee! I read your posts in old threads. None of them address this issue. And they all seem to regard the DOL and parousia as future, not past.

The ANF clearly regard the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 and part of Matthew 24. Their comments all seem to be addressed to the earlier parts of the discourse. DeeDee has listed a large quantity of quotes to this effect. But none of them, as far as I can tell, even comment on verses 28-29, with one exception.

Cyprian, in the latter part of Treatise 11 quotes a large part of Matthew 24, including those two verses. But there are two problems. The first is that he supplies this simply as a block quote, completely without exegesis of the section in question. The second is that I am reading a translation, and have not been able to locate the Greek original to determine if it is the same wording as in our modern critical sources. If it is, then the same translation question will apply. And this brings me to my questions.

1. Are there any ANF statements that exegete those two verses?
2. Is the Greek original in Cyprian the same as in Matthew?

Ted

[eschaton]

In researching for a paper on Matthew 24, it has become quite clear that the crux interpretum lies in verses 28-29. In all modern translations I can find, verse 29 says that "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" the Day of the Lord comes. If this is correct, the basic Preterist argument about Matthew 24 should hold.

In researching the Greek of these two verses, there appears a possibility that this may be a mistranslation. (BTW, John Reece disagrees, but "in a multitude of counselors lies wisdom," so research continues.)

My searches have led me to the Ante-Nicene Fathers. If anyone would know about this issue, they ought to. They were close in time, and spoke Greek as natives. Yet, in my searches, I have come up empty. Don't choke, DeeDee! I read your posts in old threads. None of them address this issue. And they all seem to regard the DOL and parousia as future, not past.

The ANF clearly regard the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 and part of Matthew 24. Their comments all seem to be addressed to the earlier parts of the discourse. DeeDee has listed a large quantity of quotes to this effect. But none of them, as far as I can tell, even comment on verses 28-29, with one exception.

Cyprian, in the latter part of Treatise 11 quotes a large part of Matthew 24, including those two verses. But there are two problems. The first is that he supplies this simply as a block quote, completely without exegesis of the section in question. The second is that I am reading a translation, and have not been able to locate the Greek original to determine if it is the same wording as in our modern critical sources. If it is, then the same translation question will apply. And this brings me to my questions.

1. Are there any ANF statements that exegete those two verses?
2. Is the Greek original in Cyprian the same as in Matthew?

Ted

Hi Ted,

The ANF clearly regard the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 and part of Matthew 24.


I'm kinda confused about what you're saying here. Are you saying that the ANF felt the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the fulfillment of Daniel 9? If so, I know of at least one ANF that didn't feel that way. If you know of some that did could we have some references?

[Solly]

Another thread on ECF's and preterism? It doesn't bode well. Is JS back?

*woz

ps, in-joke for tweb oldies.

[eschaton]

Sorry about the double post.


It appears that Iraeneus and Origen believed Antichrist, tribulation and the abomination of desolation as spoken of in the Gospels, were future. This would rule out the destruction of Jerusalim in 70 AD as the fulfillment of the Olivet discourse I believe.

Iraeneus Against the Heresies Book V
Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as Described by Daniel and Paul.

Origen Against Celsus.
Book II.
Chapter XLIX.
Book VI.
Chapter XLV.
Chapter XLVI.

Justin Martyr also apeared to view these things in a similar way.

Dialogue of Justin
Chapter XXXI.-If Christ's Power Be Now So Great, How Much Greater at the Second Advent!
Chapter XXXII.-Trypho Objecting that Christ is Described as Glorious by Daniel, Justin Distinguishes Two Advents

http://www.ccel.org

Is Solly right?

[Tim C.]

1. Are there any ANF statements that exegete those two verses?There is no treatment of those passages in the writings of the earliest Christians, Ted. As far as third and fourth century Christians and beyond, I really don't know.

-Tim

[eschaton]

If we can equate Mat 24:28 to Rev 6:12-14, then we can consider what Victorinus wrote in the third century.

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Rev 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.


Victorinus wrote:

12. "And I saw, when he had opened the sixth seal, there was a great earthquake."] In the sixth seal, then, was a great earthquake: this is that very last persecution.
"And the sun became black as sackcloth of hair."] The sun becomes as sackcloth; that is, the brightness of doctrine will be obscured by unbelievers.
"And the entire moon became as blood."] By the moon of blood is set forth the Church of the saints as pouring out her blood for Christ.

13. "And the stars fell to the earth."] The falling of the stars are the faithful who are troubled for Christ's sake.
"Even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs."] The fig-tree, when shaken, loses its untimely figs-when men are separated from the Church by persecution.

14. "And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up."] For the heaven to be rolled away, that is, that the Church shall be taken away.
"And every mountain and the islands were moved from their places."] Mountains and islands removed from their places intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution.

[Ted]

To all,

Thank you for jumping in. Let me clear up one thing. The ANF were not unified on very many issues, and eschatology is one where there is quite a diverse set of views. So please don't read my original query as suggesting that all of them believed any particular thing in this regard.

That said, there is a general agreement that, whatever the details of the parousia, it was still future in their minds as they wrote. And I haven't found any ANF who wrote about Matt 24:34 in a Preterist mode, or who even commented on it as an issue in eschatology. Similarly, 24:29 seems (in English) to require that the DOL signs and parousia follow "immediately" after the destruction of Jerusalem. Again, I have not found any ANF who comments on that. These two issues are the specific focus of my query.

When one refers to "the fulfillment of Matthew 24" it is a confusing term. After all, 24:3 pretty clearly refers to both the destruction of Jerusalem and the parousia. Now, the Preterist view fulfills both in AD70. On the other hand, Futurist (and my) view places the destruction language in AD70 and parousia in the future.

Meanwhile, is there any ANF material relating to either of those specific issues?

Ted

[Amazing Rando]

If we can equate Mat 24:28 to Rev 6:12-14, then we can consider what Victorinus wrote in the third century.

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Rev 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.


Victorinus wrote:

12. "And I saw, when he had opened the sixth seal, there was a great earthquake."] In the sixth seal, then, was a great earthquake: this is that very last persecution.
"And the sun became black as sackcloth of hair."] The sun becomes as sackcloth; that is, the brightness of doctrine will be obscured by unbelievers.
"And the entire moon became as blood."] By the moon of blood is set forth the Church of the saints as pouring out her blood for Christ.

13. "And the stars fell to the earth."] The falling of the stars are the faithful who are troubled for Christ's sake.
"Even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs."] The fig-tree, when shaken, loses its untimely figs-when men are separated from the Church by persecution.

14. "And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up."] For the heaven to be rolled away, that is, that the Church shall be taken away.
"And every mountain and the islands were moved from their places."] Mountains and islands removed from their places intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution.

What document did you get this from?

[eschaton]

What document did you get this from?

It is the commentary on Revelation by Victorinus.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-30.htm#P4546_1741041

[Ted]

While Matt 24:29 is parallel in thought to the sixth Seal (DOL signs), I note that Victorinus did not comment on the parallel. My specific interest is whether any of the ANF specifically commented on the "immediately" in verse 29. I haven't been able to find any.

Victorinus' comments appear to be placing the parousia, spiritualized as it is in his view, at least present-day to him, and therefore long after AD70.

Ted

[eschaton]

While Matt 24:29 is parallel in thought to the sixth Seal (DOL signs), I note that Victorinus did not comment on the parallel. My specific interest is whether any of the ANF specifically commented on the "immediately" in verse 29. I haven't been able to find any.

Victorinus' comments appear to be placing the parousia, spiritualized as it is in his view, at least present-day to him, and therefore long after AD70.

Ted


It's true that Victorinus did not comment on the parallel of 24:29, but he did comment on other Olivet parrallels to the seals, as you may have noticed.

6:2 The first seal being opened, he says that he saw a white horse, and a crowned horseman having a bow. For this was at first done by Himself. For after the Lord ascended into heaven and opened all things, He sent the Holy Spirit, whose words the preachers sent forth as arrows reaching to the human heart, that they might overcome unbelief. And the crown on the head is promised to the preachers by the Holy Spirit. The other three horses very plainly signify the wars, famines, and pestilences announced by our Lord in the Gospel.And thus he says that one of the four living creatures said (because all four are one), "Come and see." "Come" is said to him that is invited to faith; "see" is said to him who saw not. Therefore the white horse is the word of preaching with the Holy Spirit sent into the world. For the Lord says, "This Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall come the end."35

6:3 The red horse, and he that sate upon him, having a sword, signify the coming wars, as we read in the Gospel: "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be great earthquakes in divers places."36 This is the ruddy horse.

6:5 The black horse signifies famine, for the Lord says, "There shall be famines in divers places; "but the word is specially extended to the times of Antichrist, when there shall be a great famine, and when all shall be injured. Moreover, the balance in the hand is the examining scales, wherein He might show forth the merits of every individual. He then says:-

6:7 For the pale horse and he who sate upon him bore the name of Death. These same things also the Lord had promised among the rest of the coming destructions-great pestilences and deaths; since, moreover, he says:-

Note that Victorinus sees 6:14 as future.
Mountains and islands removed from their places intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution.

[eschaton]

So I agree with your assessment as to his feelings about the timing of Revelation. But I think he also shows a correlation of the sixth chapter to Matthew 24.

I think Iraeneus and Origen clearly indicate their feelings that Mat 24, as far as the abomination of desolation, is future. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and 'John' Chrysostom, show that Luke 21:20 and maybe Mat 24:15 were about 70AD. I haven't found anything else about 24:29 either.

It's really a fascinating study which I'm still engaged in. If you come to some conclusions let us know.

[eschaton]

Hippolytus wrote a disourse on Antichrist.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-20.htm#P4085_1270570

It agrees very closely with his commentaries on Daniel.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-17.htm#P2932_931118

He states "The stars of heaven shall fall," and the footnote given is to Matthew 24:29, but it could refer to Revelation as well. Actually, the stars falling is given in the description of the Day of the Lord in several places, as I'm sure you know. Isa 13:10 24:23 Jer 4:23-28 Eze 32:7,8 Joe 2:10,30,31 3:15 Am 5:20 8:9 Zep 1:14,15 Lu 21:25,26 Ac 2:19,20 Rev 6:12-17

Hippolytus did not agree that that 70ad was the fulfillment of the Olivet discourse, or at least not the abomination of desolation.

[eschaton]

As far as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the ANF this is all I've found.

The destruction of 70 AD is a fulfillment of Daniel's 70 weeks.
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian

The destruction of 70 AD was a fulfillment of Luke 19:43, 21:20, but not the abomination of desolation, or Daniel's 70 weeks.
Origen
Cyprian

I think it was later that John Chrysostom and Eusebius saw a fulfillment of the 'weeks'. The ANF's were mostly all futurists, and I haven't found evidence that they believed Daniel's 70 weeks or the Olivet discourse had been fulfilled.

[Ted]

Eschaton,

I won’t reveal the details of what I may have discovered, in that it is undergoing detailed review by several Greek scholars. Once their opinions are in, if they confirm my suspicions, I will present the data. But let me try to let you know the essence of where I am going.

There are two passages in Matthew 24 that seem to require that the entire discourse apply to AD70, as noted by Preterists. The obvious one is 24:34 which says that “all these things” must happen within a generation. Discounting the genea argument, the natural reading of this, taken in isolation, agrees with the Preterists.

The second passage is 24:29. While less obvious, it seems to say that “immediately after” the tribulation leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Day of the Lord signs would be seen, then God would redeem his saints. This is the basic approach taken by Ed Stevens in Expectations Demand a Rapture.

Now, the ANF were native Greek speakers and readers, who were not affected by any translation issue or versification. If they saw the issues that occupy us here, it is inconceivable that they wouldn’t have commented on them. Further, since it seems that the vast majority of them placed the Day of the Lord in their future. This speaks against the Preterist view.

So far, none of us has found a single ANF who directly addresses either passage in the context of our discussion. If our readings are correct, this is simply inconceivable. That suggests that we may be reading something into the text that is not there.

Ted

[eschaton]

Eschaton,

I won’t reveal the details of what I may have discovered, in that it is undergoing detailed review by several Greek scholars. Once their opinions are in, if they confirm my suspicions, I will present the data. But let me try to let you know the essence of where I am going.

There are two passages in Matthew 24 that seem to require that the entire discourse apply to AD70, as noted by Preterists. The obvious one is 24:34 which says that “all these things” must happen within a generation. Discounting the genea argument, the natural reading of this, taken in isolation, agrees with the Preterists.

The second passage is 24:29. While less obvious, it seems to say that “immediately after” the tribulation leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Day of the Lord signs would be seen, then God would redeem his saints. This is the basic approach taken by Ed Stevens in Expectations Demand a Rapture.

Now, the ANF were native Greek speakers and readers, who were not affected by any translation issue or versification. If they saw the issues that occupy us here, it is inconceivable that they wouldn’t have commented on them. Further, since it seems that the vast majority of them placed the Day of the Lord in their future. This speaks against the Preterist view.

So far, none of us has found a single ANF who directly addresses either passage in the context of our discussion. If our readings are correct, this is simply inconceivable. That suggests that we may be reading something into the text that is not there.

Ted

Hi Ted,

Thank you very much for the information.

My focus in this thread was your statement that the ANF's clearly regarded the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of Mat 24 and Daniel 9:27.

Although my search isn't comprehensive, the only statements that I've found that confirm that assertion are from Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. All the other related information I've found seems to support the contrary. That would include Origen, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Victorinus, Iraeneus and Justin. There may be some material I've missed, and others are welcome to present it.

I think it is particularly interesting that Origen differs from Clement on this view since the two were contemporaries and Origen succeeded him at Alexandria.

The best support for the Olivet discourse and Dan 9:27 being fulfilled by 70AD comes from the later writers Eusebius and Chrysostom. I think Eusebius misquotes Josephus about the abomination of desolation.

Thanks,
Alan F.

[Ted]

Alan,

Your research is appreciated. It's difficult to prove the negative without reading every word of the ANF, and I haven't got the time for that. So I did word and phrase searches, coming up empty with everything I could think up. Every bit of input from the rest of you is also helpful.

As this thread progresses, it is becoming more apparent that the ANF simply did not see the problems in 24:29 & 34 that we do. Since they were quite well equipped mentally, and their logic is no less practiced than ours, this is beginning to suggest that the problems we wrestle with in those texts are part of our misunderstanding.

That brings this question to the forefront: Why did they not see a problem in either verse? After all, the destruction of the temple was historical fact, and they still regarded the parousia as future...

Ted

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Alan,

Your research is appreciated. It's difficult to prove the negative without reading every word of the ANF, and I haven't got the time for that. So I did word and phrase searches, coming up empty with everything I could think up. Every bit of input from the rest of you is also helpful.

As this thread progresses, it is becoming more apparent that the ANF simply did not see the problems in 24:29 & 34 that we do. Since they were quite well equipped mentally, and their logic is no less practiced than ours, this is beginning to suggest that the problems we wrestle with in those texts are part of our misunderstanding.

That brings this question to the forefront: Why did they not see a problem in either verse? After all, the destruction of the temple was historical fact, and they still regarded the parousia as future...

Ted

Well IIRC, the allegorical hermeneutics employed from second century at least up to Nicea and even after. Especially in regards to eschatological passages. Using that hermeneutical method, problems tend not to happen.



Of course I am relying on memory of a class I took in college, which was at least 12 years ago. I could be way off.



:shrug:

[eschaton]

Alan,

Your research is appreciated. It's difficult to prove the negative without reading every word of the ANF, and I haven't got the time for that. So I did word and phrase searches, coming up empty with everything I could think up. Every bit of input from the rest of you is also helpful.

As this thread progresses, it is becoming more apparent that the ANF simply did not see the problems in 24:29 & 34 that we do. Since they were quite well equipped mentally, and their logic is no less practiced than ours, this is beginning to suggest that the problems we wrestle with in those texts are part of our misunderstanding.

That brings this question to the forefront: Why did they not see a problem in either verse? After all, the destruction of the temple was historical fact, and they still regarded the parousia as future...

Ted

Hi Ted,

I appreciate your research as well.

My studies into the writings of the church fathers continues. I will eventually document everything, but it may be some time. I may simply choose to incorporate it into a book I'm working on. Most of my research is done at ccel.org , newadvent.org. and at this preterist page:

http://www.bible.ca/indexHistory.htm

I'll offer a theory about your question. It's a conjecture really.

The early Christians obviously tied the Olivet discourse very closely to the book of Daniel as well as other OT scriptures. It may be that they felt the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was what Jesus predicted. That's what Tertullian and Clement seemed to believe. But then something happened, or didn't happen. The world didn't end. They didn't understand the end of the world as the end of the temple system any more than many of us do today.

You can see from their interpretations of Daniel that they viewed it in a historical way very much like we do today. Rome was in power and the Antichrist was due any minute. After all, Jesus said these things were going to happen within a generation.

As time went on and the end of the world didn't happen (and Jerusalem was detroyed again about 130 AD I think), guys like Origen offered an updated interpretation. Origen saw the 70 weeks fulfilled upto the Antichrist (time split theory?). Luke's destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled, but not the abomination of desolation, wheras I think Clement had equated the two. The events of 2 Thess 2 had to be accounted for. Origen, Iraeneus and later Augustine make that clear. That's even though Augustine seems to equate the abomination of desolation with the destruction of Jerusalem. Perhaps "this generation" was the Jewish race. Several fathers comment that the Jews have to be converted. I'll have to do some more research into what they felt about that.

Some other later writers such as Eusebius, Chrysostom and Sulpcius Severus simply put a little spin on Josephus and decided that things had happened as advertised. I haven't studied enough about these writers views about the end of the world.

I don't see a problem for the early inrterpreters as far as Matthew 24:29. The early Christians relied on a much more spiritual interpretation of the scriptures than we do today. You can see from Victorinus interpretaion of Revelation 6:13 that he understood it in the way Daniel spoke of the stars (Dan 12:3).

You might ask, if the early Christians understood these things as symbolic, then why did they interpret so much of the prophecies in a literal fashion? It is primarily the OT that was considered symbolic because it spoke of Jesus and the church. Jesus spoke in parables so many of His sayings were spiritual. The book of Revelation was obviously symbolic. The things that were taken literally were the epistles of the apostles because they taught in "plain language." (2 Cor 3:12) They were instructions for the churches. So of course 2 Thess 2 had to be accounted for. It is so similar to what Daniel wrote about the little horn, and Daniel was interpreted as mostly history anyway.

That's my opinion for today. Thanks for asking. Will be back next week.

AF

[eschaton]

St. John Chrysostom
Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200177.htm


After this, that they might not straightway return to it again, and say, "When?" he brings to their remembrance the things that had been said, saying, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled!"All these things. What things? I pray thee. Those about Jerusalem, those about the wars, about the famines, about the pestilences, about the earthquakes, about the false Christs, about the false prophets, about the sowing of the gospel everywhere, the seditions, the tumults, all the other things, which we said were to occur until His coming. How then, one may ask, did He say, "This generation?" Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers. For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."

For what He said above, "All these must come to pass,"and again, "the gospel shall be preached,"this He declares here also, saying, All these things shall surely come to pass, and the generation of the faithful shall remain, cut off by none of the things that have been mentioned. For both Jerusalem shall perish, and the more part of the Jews shall be destroyed, but over this generation shall nothing prevail, not famine, not pestilence, not earthquake, nor the tumults of wars, not false Christs, not false prophets, not deceivers, not traitors, not those that cause to offend, not the false brethren, nor any other such like temptation whatever.

St. Augustine of Hippo
Expositions on the Psalms

PSALM LXXXIX

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801089.htm

What is "to generation and generation"? To every generation: for the word needed not as many repetitions, as the coming and passing away of the several generations. The multiplication of generations is signified and set forth to notice by the repetition. Are possibly two generations to be understood, as ye are aware, my beloved brethren, and as I have before explained? for there is now a generation of flesh and blood: there will be a future generation in the resurrection of the dead. Christ is proclaimed here: He will be proclaimed there: here He is proclaimed, that He may be believed in: there, He will be welcomed, that He may be seen. "I will set up Thy throne from one generation to another." Christ hath now a throne in us, His throne is set up in us: for unless he sate enthroned within us, He would not rule us: but if we were not ruled by Him, we should be thrown down by ourselves. He therefore sits within us, reigning over us: He sits also in another generation, which will come from the resurrection of the dead. Christ will reign for ever over His Saints. God has promised this; He hath said it: if this is not enough, God hath sworn it. As then the promise is certain, not on account of our deserv ings, but of His pity, no one ought to be afraid in proclaiming that which he cannot doubt of. Let that strength then inspire our hearts, whence AEthan received his name, "strong in heart:" let us preach the truth of God, the utterance of God, His promises, His oath; and let us, strengthened on every side by these means, glorify God, and by bearing Him along with us, become Heavens.

[Ted]

Alan,

I’m not surprised that Chrysostom would make those comments, so long into the dark ages. A lot of allegorical methods were common by then, including the “four meanings” method (sorry, I forgot the term).

Augustine suffers the same ill, although centuries earlier, with the four senses method not yet present. But he did live in the time of active allegorical interpretation.

Ted

[eschaton]

Alan,

I’m not surprised that Chrysostom would make those comments, so long into the dark ages. A lot of allegorical methods were common by then, including the “four meanings” method (sorry, I forgot the term).

Augustine suffers the same ill, although centuries earlier, with the four senses method not yet present. But he did live in the time of active allegorical interpretation.

Ted

Ted,

I thought the apostles and Jesus taught that the OT was allegorical, or at least typological.

AF

[eschaton]

Here's what a couple of early church fathers had to say about interpretation

Irenaeus Against Heresies (a.d. 120-202)
Chapter XXVII.-Proper Mode of Interpreting Parables and Obscure
Passages of Scripture.

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and
the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously
understood by all, although all do not believe them; and224 since
they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others,
formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly
or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown225 from
the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to
which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one
Being made and governs it,-those persons will seem truly foolish who
blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold
the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters
upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their
obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God
of his own.

THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN Chapter I. 8 (225AD)

Now that we have, as it were, just glanced at the inspiration of the Divine Scriptures, we must pass on to the way to read and understand them; for very many mistakes have been made, because the right method of examining the holy texts has not been discovered by the greater number of readers. Hardhearted and unlearned readers belonging to the Circumcision have not believed on our Saviour, because it is their habit to follow the bare letter of the prophecies concerning Him, and they do not see Him with their bodily eyes proclaiming liberty to the captives,27 nor building what they think the true city of God,28 nor cutting off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem,29 nor eating butter and honey, and before He knoweth or preferreth evil choosing the good...
THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN Chapter I. 8 225AD

[Etcetera]

Ted:

A minor correction (emphasis mine):

I’m not surprised that Chrysostom would make those comments, so long into the dark ages. A lot of allegorical methods were common by then, including the “four meanings” method (sorry, I forgot the term).

Augustine suffers the same ill, although centuries earlier, with the four senses method not yet present. But he did live in the time of active allegorical interpretation.

Augustine and Chrysostom were contemporaries.

When do you think you might let drop your translational issue with Matthew 24.29? The Greek looks very straightforward to me.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

The comment about the dates for Augustine and Chrysostom came from a lecture. I didn't re-check them with another source. My bad.

I'm not going to let the translation issue go public until I have had several informed opinions. FWIW, one idea got shot down early, but strangely it exposed a different idea that appears to have legs. Time will tell.

Ted