Question re comment heard on the Bible Answer Man

[CodePoet]

Awhile back, Steve Gregg (author of Revelation: Four Views) was a guest on The Bible Answer Man show. He talked at length about the history of the "futurist" view and how this view was not assimilated into Protestantism until the early 1800's.

Hank Hanegraaff has used this "futurism is relatively new in Christian thought" argument more than once on his show. But what I haven't heard is anything regarding the history of partial-preterist thought. Even Gregg conceded that the Reformers were historicists eschatologically speaking. So, who were the first documented preterists (outside of the NT authors, whose writings are obviously subject to interpretation)?

Btw, I'm not asking this question to incite an argument for or against partial preterism. (Fwiw, I would probably classify myself as a partial-preterist, because at the moment that position makes the most sense to me when reading the Scriptures.) But, I guess I'm wondering if preterism is also relatively new in the context of historical Christianity. Was it ever the "orthodox" view? And, if not, isn't it a case of the pot calling the kettle black to argue against futurism by saying that it is "new?"

thanks & blessings,
Mark

[dizzle]

I think Hank is incorrect to say that futurism is new just judging by what you presented without hearing it. Dispensational futurism is new and perhaps that is what he meant, but futurism absolutely is not.

[CodePoet]

I think Hank is incorrect to say that futurism is new just judging by what you presented without hearing it. Dispensational futurism is new and perhaps that is what he meant, but futurism absolutely is not.I'm not positive, but I think Hank was referring to the "dispensational" variety of futurism. Steve Gregg did point that that "futurism" has been around since the 1500's (at least, I think that's what he said).

But either way, what about my question regarding the history of partial preterism? How long has it been around?

blessings,
Mark

[dizzle]

I'm not positive, but I think Hank was referring to the "dispensational" variety of futurism. Steve Gregg did point that that "futurism" has been around since the 1500's (at least, I think that's what he said).

Hank would be right then. However, Gregg would be incorrect, some of the earliest church fathers had futurist ideas. Notice I didn't say futurists became systemization of theology wasn't done until centuries later in eschatology. There were also some preterist ideas just as early - and some historicist ideas. All three schools can claim some early support, so the question is not one that can be answered. The first somewhat systemitized preterist would be Eusebius, still very early, but even he didnt hold to some distinctives today. Eschatology was first systematized greatly as historicism from what I can tell with elements of the other thoughts always being around.

[Etcetera]

CodePoet:

Greetings in the name.

Dee Dee already mentioned that preterist, futurist, and historicist ideas all go back well into the early church period, and she is correct. I just wanted to clarify a potentially confusing issue with the history of preterism. Some people define a preterist as one who thinks that most of the prophecies of the book of Revelation have been fulfilled (a more specific definition than simply most prophecies of the NT or such). Some preterists in the earlier centuries, like Dionysius, often did not regard Revelation as canonical. Others at least severely questioned it (Eusebius, for instance). Occasional preterist interpretations of Revelation appear to have circulated, but hardly in any systematic fashion until the Jesuit Alcazar in the early seventeenth century. Those who say that preterism began at about that time are probably operating from this more restricted definition of preterism, and speaking of systemization, not the occasional interpretation.

I like your nickname, by the way. CodePoet. Mathematical and precise (hence code), yet literate and emotive (hence poet). Or so it seems to me.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Hitch]

Part of this is because as written the NT eschatological passages were entirely futurist, so it stands to reason over the millennia some confusion woukd arise.

[CodePoet]

Hank would be right then. However, Gregg would be incorrect, some of the earliest church fathers had futurist ideas. Notice I didn't say futurists became systemization of theology wasn't done until centuries later in eschatology. There were also some preterist ideas just as early - and some historicist ideas. All three schools can claim some early support, so the question is not one that can be answered. The first somewhat systemitized preterist would be Eusebius, still very early, but even he didnt hold to some distinctives today. Eschatology was first systematized greatly as historicism from what I can tell with elements of the other thoughts always being around. Okay, that helps. Thanks!

Oh, and I wouldn't be too quick to label Gregg as "incorrect." Chances are, it is me who has incorrectly stated his position.

blessings,
Mark

[CodePoet]

CodePoet:

Greetings in the name.

Dee Dee already mentioned that preterist, futurist, and historicist ideas all go back well into the early church period, and she is correct. I just wanted to clarify a potentially confusing issue with the history of preterism. Some people define a preterist as one who thinks that most of the prophecies of the book of Revelation have been fulfilled (a more specific definition than simply most prophecies of the NT or such). Some preterists in the earlier centuries, like Dionysius, often did not regard Revelation as canonical. Others at least severely questioned it (Eusebius, for instance). Occasional preterist interpretations of Revelation appear to have circulated, but hardly in any systematic fashion until the Jesuit Alcazar in the early seventeenth century. Those who say that preterism began at about that time are probably operating from this more restricted definition of preterism, and speaking of systemization, not the occasional interpretation.
Hi Etcetera,

Thanks for providing your clarifications. I am curious about something: if Dionysius and other early "preterists" didn't accept Revelation as canonical, regarding which accepted NT books or epistles did they express preterist views? I'm espeically curious to know what early preterists thought of Jesus's Olivet discourse, or when His discourse was first interpreted in a preterist context.

I wasn't aware of Alcazar — thanks for that bit of information! So, am I to understand that he was the first one to produce a systematic treatment of preterist eschatology? Or, am I reading too much into your statement? Do you happen to know who among the Protestants followed suit?

I like your nickname, by the way. CodePoet. Mathematical and precise (hence code), yet literate and emotive (hence poet). Or so it seems to me. Thanks. I had not thought of my nickname in those terms, but your analysis is quite accurate. :wink:

So, how about enlightening me regarding your nickname?

blessings in Christ,
Mark

[Etcetera]

CodePoet:

Thanks for providing your clarifications. I am curious about something: if Dionysius and other early "preterists" didn't accept Revelation as canonical, regarding which accepted NT books or epistles did they express preterist views? I'm espeically curious to know what early preterists thought of Jesus's Olivet discourse, or when His discourse was first interpreted in a preterist context.

Olivet was the main item, I believe.

I have to make a correction to something that I said. Dionysius did not reject Revelation; he merely wrote about those who did (and who attributed the book to the heretic Cerinthus). He himself interpreted Revelation nonliterally in some way, but I do not think that he interpreted it preteristically. Also, he argued from style and considerations of the Greek that the author of Revelation and the author of John were not the same John.

I recommend Eusebius, History of the Church, book 7, chapter 25, all about Dionysius of Alexandria and his views on the authorship of Revelation. Dionysius is a fascinating character, by the way. He was known for his wisdom in practical matters, yet wrote treatises on lofty subjects as well. And he comes across as an all-around nice fellow.

He concludes his discussion of authorship:

I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing dearly the difference between the writings.

Also of great interest is the chapter immediately preceding it, about Nepos and his errant views on the millennium. It tells how one group of brethren at last persuaded another group to turn, basically, from premillennialism to amillennialism. Dionysius praises Nepos for his faith and his music, but disagrees with him with respect to the millennium. Would that all eschatological conflicts could be debated in such a spirit!

I wasn't aware of Alcazar — thanks for that bit of information! So, am I to understand that he was the first one to produce a systematic treatment of preterist eschatology?

As is usual in such situations, Alcazar apparently had predecessors, as well as those after him who rounded out the picture more fully. However, the preterists of the nineteenth century credited him with the first full-blown systematic (in the modern sense) treatment of the subject.

Do you happen to know who among the Protestants followed suit?

Of that I am not certain. Perhaps Dee Dee knows.

The interplay between Catholics and Protestants figures into what Alcazar wrote. He was a Jesuit, and at least part of the reason for his preterism was to help dispel the Protestant view that Roman Catholicism was the whore of Babylon. If he could show that Revelation was fulfilled in the first century, then it could not be speaking of Catholicism.

Many futurists and historicists use this tidbit of information to slur preterism as a Catholic weapon against Protestantism. As if the early Protestant historicism was not even more a Protestant weapon against Catholicism!! It is simply a fact that, at this stage, both preterism and historicism were developed for motives other than a pure literary interest in an ancient book called the apocalypse of John.

And it just so happens that the Jesuit was right, in my humble opinion. :smile:

So, how about enlightening me regarding your nickname?

Well, I am something of a dabbler. My interests range from biblical studies to history to linguistics to music theory and composition to fantasy to cooking to client-side web programming to Christian mysticism to education to number theory, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. (Get it?) You know what they say, jack of all trades, master of none.

In his name.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

CodePoet:

Greetings in the name.

Some preterists in the earlier centuries, like Dionysius, often did not regard Revelation as canonical. Others at least severely questioned it (Eusebius, for instance).

In him.

Etcetera.

Hi Etc,

I have recently been studying what some of the church fathers wrote about Bible prophecy. In particular I have been looking for preteristic beliefs.

I am questioning your referral to Dionysius as a preterist. I read the chapters you mentioned in Book VII, but I failed to find preterism. You are probably more familiar with this than me so it may be that you can refer me to some information that would identify him as preterist or preteristic.

It seems very unlikely to me that he would be preterist since he studied under Origen, who was most definitely futurist, but then Origen studied under Clement who is the most preteristic church father I have found so far. Do you also consider Eusebius a preterist?

I would be interested in any references you can give me to preteristic church fathers.

Thanks,
Alan

[Etcetera]

Eschaton:

I am questioning your referral to Dionysius as a preterist.

*I* am questioning it too. :smile:

I read the chapters you mentioned in Book VII, but I failed to find preterism.

You are correct. I was very clumsy. I should not have called him a preterist. He was amillennial and anti-chiliast for sure, but I do not think that we are given any information on his view of, for instance, the great tribulation or the seventy weeks. And I already admitted in post #9 that he probably did not interpret Revelation preteristically.

Do you also consider Eusebius a preterist?

To call any of the fathers of that period preterists is potentially confusing, as it is difficult for us to imagine a preterist who does not interpret Revelation preteristically. But Eusebius does regard the seventy weeks of Daniel as completed in the ministry of Christ (Demonstratio Evangelica, book 8), and the majority of Olivet as pertaining to 70 (see HE 3.5-7, for example). Also in book 8 of DE his interpretation of Micah 1.3 is very much in line with the symbolic interpretation of a preterist:

And I have pointed out that only from the date of the coming of our savior Jesus Christ among men have the objects of Jewish reverence, the hill called Zion and Jerusalem, the buildings there, that is to say, the temple, the holy of holies, the altar, and whatever else was there dedicated to the glory of God, been utterly removed or shaken, in fulfilment of the word which said: Behold the Lord, the Lord comes forth from his place, and he shall descend on the high places of the earth, and the mountains shall be shaken under him.

So I do not think that we are far off in calling Eusebius a preterist (again, however, not as fully systematized as his modern counterparts).

Thanks for catching my misstatement.

In him.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Eschaton:



*I* am questioning it too. :smile:



You are correct. I was very clumsy. I should not have called him a preterist. He was amillennial and anti-chiliast for sure, but I do not think that we are given any information on his view of, for instance, the great tribulation or the seventy weeks. And I already admitted in post #9 that he probably did not interpret Revelation preteristically.



To call any of the fathers of that period preterists is potentially confusing, as it is difficult for us to imagine a preterist who does not interpret Revelation preteristically. But Eusebius does regard the seventy weeks of Daniel as completed in the ministry of Christ (Demonstratio Evangelica, book 8), and the majority of Olivet as pertaining to 70 (see HE 3.5-7, for example). Also in book 8 of DE his interpretation of Micah 1.3 is very much in line with the symbolic interpretation of a preterist:


So I do not think that we are far off in calling Eusebius a preterist (again, however, not as fully systematized as his modern counterparts).

Thanks for catching my misstatement.

In him.

Etcetera.

Thanks for the references Etc. The more I study these things the more interesting they become. Here's what I've found from the preteristic fathers so far in regards to Daniel's seventy weeks.

Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea
Demonstratio Evangelica
Book VIII

Clement of Alexandria
The Stromata, or Miscellanies
Ch XXI

Tertullian
An Answer to the Jews.
Chapter VIII.

Tertullian and Eusebius see the crucifixion as taking away the sacrifice and oblation (Dan. ix. 24-27). They only refer to Daniel 9, and not II Thess, or other chapters in Daniel like some church fathers such as Origen did. Eusebius refers to emblems of Tiberius Caesar being placed in the temple at that time, and backs that with quotes from Philo and Josephus. He also sees the unpleasing worship of the Jews since the time of the crucifixion as the abomination of desolation. Eusebius' interpretaion is built upon that of Africanus. Eusebius also refers to the remark of Jesus about the abomination of desolation.

Clement of Alexandria believes Nero placed an abomination in Jerusalem and refers to Daniel 7 and 9. He doesn't refer to II Thes. either.

The only references to the Olivet discourse I could find in DE Book 3 was Matt.xxiv.14 though.

[Etcetera]

Eschaton:

For Olivet, my Eusebian reference was not DE chapter 8; it was HE 3.5-7. There Eusebius compares the predictions of Olivet to the history of Josephus, very much like a modern preterist does.

In him.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Eschaton:

For Olivet, my Eusebian reference was not DE chapter 8; it was HE 3.5-7. There Eusebius compares the predictions of Olivet to the history of Josephus, very much like a modern preterist does.

In him.

Etcetera.

Thanks for straightening me out on that. It does indeed appear that he felt the tribulation Christ spoke of occured in the first century. That puts him at the top of my list of preteristic fathers. I would be interested in other such information.

Eusebius seems to mistakenly indicate that Josephus said the ensigns were placed in the temple (Jos., Ant. XVIII. 3, and B.J. II. 9. 2.). I haven't been able to confirm the Philo's quote, but it's odd Eusebius points this out, and then says the abomination of desolation is actually the Jews obsolete method of worship. If you just read what he wrote in the Church History you'd think the abomination of desolation was a statue of Caesar that was placed in the temple.

Actually, Josephus never mentions Daniel in relation to the destruction of 70 AD. He sees Daniel's prophecy fulfilled by the earlier actions of Antiochus (Ant. Book VII ch 7.6) That agrees with Macc 1:55.

Thanks again and let me know of any other references.

[Etcetera]

Eschaton:

Actually, Josephus never mentions Daniel in relation to the destruction of 70 AD. He sees Daniel's prophecy fulfilled by the earlier actions of Antiochus (Ant. Book VII ch 7.6) That agrees with Macc 1:55.

Your reference to the Antiquities must be off. Book 7 is all about David. At any rate, Josephus probably refers to the Danielic prophecy of the seventy weeks in Wars 6.5.4 §312-313:

Το δ επαραν αυτους μαλιστα προς τον πολεμον ην χρησμος αμφιβολος ομοιως εν τοις ιεροις ευρημενος γραμμασιν, ως κατα τον καιρον εκεινον απο της χωρας αυτων τις αρξει της οικουμενης. τουθ οι μεν ως οικειον εξελαβον και πολλοι των σοφων επλανηθησαν περι την κρισιν, εδηλου δ αρα την Ουεσπασιανου το λογιον ηγεμονιαν αποδειχθεντος επι Ιουδαιας αυτοκρατορος.

But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.

After all, what other oracle in the scriptures could have pointed to that time (τον καιρον εκεινον) in particular? The only other candidate, really, is Numbers 24.17 interpreted in light of the sword-like star that appeared over Jerusalem according to Wars 6.5.3 §288-299:

Τον γουν αθλιον δημον οι μεν απατεωνες και καταψευδομενοι του θεου τηνικαυτα παρεπειθον, τοις δ εναργεσι και προσημαινουσι την μελλουσαν ερημιαν τερασιν ουτε προσειχον ουτ επιστευον, αλλ ως εμβεβροντημενοι και μητε ομματα μητε ψυχην εχοντες των του θεου κηρυγματων παρηκουσαν, τουτο μεν οτε υπερ την πολιν αστρον εστη ρομφαια παραπλησιον και παρατεινας επ ενιαυτον κομητης.

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself, while they did not attend nor give credit to the wonders that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword which stood over the city, and a comet that continued a whole year.

But I think that a reference to the seventy weeks is much more likely. His use of ερημιαν (desolation) here is interesting, eh? Same Greek word as in Matthew 24.15 = Mark 13.14, and in the LXX of those passages in Daniel.

In him.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Eschaton:



Your reference to the Antiquities must be off. Book 7 is all about David. At any rate, Josephus probably refers to the Danielic prophecy of the seventy weeks in Wars 6.5.4 §312-313:

Το δ επαραν αυτους μαλιστα προς τον πολεμον ην χρησμος αμφιβολος ομοιως εν τοις ιεροις ευρημενος γραμμασιν, ως κατα τον καιρον εκεινον απο της χωρας αυτων τις αρξει της οικουμενης. τουθ οι μεν ως οικειον εξελαβον και πολλοι των σοφων επλανηθησαν περι την κρισιν, εδηλου δ αρα την Ουεσπασιανου το λογιον ηγεμονιαν αποδειχθεντος επι Ιουδαιας αυτοκρατορος.

But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.

After all, what other oracle in the scriptures could have pointed to that time (τον καιρον εκεινον) in particular? The only other candidate, really, is Numbers 24.17 interpreted in light of the sword-like star that appeared over Jerusalem according to Wars 6.5.3 §288-299:

Τον γουν αθλιον δημον οι μεν απατεωνες και καταψευδομενοι του θεου τηνικαυτα παρεπειθον, τοις δ εναργεσι και προσημαινουσι την μελλουσαν ερημιαν τερασιν ουτε προσειχον ουτ επιστευον, αλλ ως εμβεβροντημενοι και μητε ομματα μητε ψυχην εχοντες των του θεου κηρυγματων παρηκουσαν, τουτο μεν οτε υπερ την πολιν αστρον εστη ρομφαια παραπλησιον και παρατεινας επ ενιαυτον κομητης.

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself, while they did not attend nor give credit to the wonders that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword which stood over the city, and a comet that continued a whole year.

But I think that a reference to the seventy weeks is much more likely. His use of ερημιαν (desolation) here is interesting, eh? Same Greek word as in Matthew 24.15 = Mark 13.14, and in the LXX of those passages in Daniel.

In him.

Etcetera.

Thanks for the correction. Here's the quote:

XII 7.6 When therefore the generals of Antiochus's armies had been beaten so often, Judas assembled the people together, and told them, that after these many victories which God had given them, they ought to go up to Jerusalem, and purify the temple, and offer the appointed sacrifices. But as soon as he, with the whole multitude, was come to Jerusalem, and found the temple deserted, and its gates burnt down, and plants growing in the temple of their own accord, on account of its desertion, he and those that were with him began to lament, and were quite confounded at the sight of the temple; so he chose out some of his soldiers, and gave them order to fight against those guards that were in the citadel, until he should have purified the temple. When therefore he had carefully purged it, and had brought in new vessels, the candlestick, the table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of incense], which were made of gold, he hung up the veils at the gates, and added doors to them. He also took down the altar [of burnt-offering], and built a new one of stones that he gathered together, and not of such as were hewn with iron tools. So on the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, which the Macedonians call Apeliens, they lighted the lamps that were on the candlestick, and offered incense upon the altar [of incense], and laid the loaves upon the table [of shew-bread], and offered burnt-offerings upon the new altar [of burnt-offering]. Now it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the month Apeliens, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad: but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apeliens, on the hundred and forty-eighth year, and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time].

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-12.htm

This is the only time Josephus actually mentions a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy that I know of. It may be that He speaks of chapter 7 here instead of chapter 9.

[eschaton]

Actually that sounds more like chapter 8 doesn't it? but about this:

>But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.<

Where in chapter Daniel 9 does it say anything about somebody ruling the whole earth? That might be Daniel 2:35 or 7:23 instead of the seventy weeks.

[Etcetera]

Eschaton:

This is the only time Josephus actually mentions a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy that I know of. It may be that He speaks of chapter 7 here instead of chapter 9.

Oh, I would say that he is speaking of chapter 11 (verse 31).

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

And I'm sure Josephus was familiar with this from I Maccabbees:

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;

[eschaton]

Eschaton:



Oh, I would say that he is speaking of chapter 11 (verse 31).

Etcetera.

Okay, 11:31. That's what my handy Scofield says. What do you think about the whole earth and Vespasian statement?

[eschaton]

Okay, 11:31. That's what my handy Scofield says. What do you think about the whole earth and Vespasian statement?

XII 7.6 When therefore the generals of Antiochus's armies had been beaten so often, Judas assembled the people together, and told them, that after these many victories which God had given them, they ought to go up to Jerusalem, and purify the temple, and offer the appointed sacrifices. ...
And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time].

Actually, He must have had chapter 8 in mind since 11 doesn't say anything about cleansing or purifying (8:14) although it does specify a limited amount of time. It may be that he ties the two together. But chapter 8 at least has to be considered. Nobody actually talks about how many of Daniel's abominations of desolations there are. Not even Jesus.

[Etcetera]

Okay, I think our lines were crossed for a bit there. You were talking about one thing, and I another.

On the Vespasian prophecy, I do not think it possible to read Daniel 9 without thinking of Daniel 2 and 7. The ushering in of eternal righteousness in 9.25 answers to the eternal authority and dominion given the son of man in 7.14, which in turn answers to the kingdom that lasts eternally in 2.44. All of these passages are speaking of the same thing, just in different ways.

Josephus was simply stating, in other words, that Vespasian was the anointed one of Daniel 9, the son of man given authority in Daniel 7, and the ruler of the final kingdom in Daniel 2, all rolled into one. I feel pretty good about such an interpretation, especially since I got most of it from N. T. Wright.

Furthermore, whatever other connotations the anointed one of Daniel 9 may have, he is certainly messianic, and that to a Jew would have spoken of rulership loud and clear.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Okay, I think our lines were crossed for a bit there. You were talking about one thing, and I another.

On the Vespasian prophecy, I do not think it possible to read Daniel 9 without thinking of Daniel 2 and 7. The ushering in of eternal righteousness in 9.25 answers to the eternal authority and dominion given the son of man in 7.14, which in turn answers to the kingdom that lasts eternally in 2.44. All of these passages are speaking of the same thing, just in different ways.

Josephus was simply stating, in other words, that Vespasian was the anointed one of Daniel 9, the son of man given authority in Daniel 7, and the ruler of the final kingdom in Daniel 2, all rolled into one. I feel pretty good about such an interpretation, especially since I got most of it from N. T. Wright.

Furthermore, whatever other connotations the anointed one of Daniel 9 may have, he is certainly messianic, and that to a Jew would have spoken of rulership loud and clear.

Etcetera.

So basically you're saying that there are two of Daniel's abominations of desolations. One for chapters 8 and 11 that was fulfilled by Antiochus, and one for chapters 2, 7, 9 that was fulfilled in 70AD. Correct?

One was an action by Antiochus. Do you agree with Eusebeius that obsolete worship was the other? Is that what NT Wright says? Was Eusebius the first one to figure this out?

[Etcetera]

Eschaton:

I am convinced that the New Testament authors, and even Jesus himself, thought in terms of (at least) two abominations of desolation. Everyone knew that there was an abomination in Maccabean times, and many (including most if not all Christians) read Daniel as meaning that there would be another. Furthermore, it is all but certain that many of the Jewish conceptions of the man of sin, or blasphemous king, of the end-times were modelled upon Antiochus.

No, I do not think I agree with Eusebius on what exactly the abomination of desolation was. I am still pondering that whole connection, as a matter of fact, but do not think that anyone ought to be looking for a literal one-to-one correspondence for the abomination, whether past or future. I say this because of Luke 21.20, which is the Lucan parallel to the abomination verses of Matthew 24.15 = Mark 13.14. There, where Matthew and Mark have the Danielic reference to the abomination (when you see the abomination of desolation), Luke clarifies (when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies... know that her desolation is near). Luke is clearly interpreting the Danielic reference, not merely applying it one-to-one. We moderns like a clear-cut photographic image, like abomination of desolation = standards in the temple or some such. I am not at all certain that the ancients were necessarily looking for that kind of thing. Even the Eusebian interpretation was not one-to-one.

In him.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Eschaton:

I am convinced that the New Testament authors, and even Jesus himself, thought in terms of (at least) two abominations of desolation. Everyone knew that there was an abomination in Maccabean times, and many (including most if not all Christians) read Daniel as meaning that there would be another. Furthermore, it is all but certain that many of the Jewish conceptions of the man of sin, or blasphemous king, of the end-times were modelled upon Antiochus.

No, I do not think I agree with Eusebius on what exactly the abomination of desolation was. I am still pondering that whole connection, as a matter of fact, but do not think that anyone ought to be looking for a literal one-to-one correspondence for the abomination, whether past or future. I say this because of Luke 21.20, which is the Lucan parallel to the abomination verses of Matthew 24.15 = Mark 13.14. There, where Matthew and Mark have the Danielic reference to the abomination (when you see the abomination of desolation), Luke clarifies (when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies... know that her desolation is near). Luke is clearly interpreting the Danielic reference, not merely applying it one-to-one. We moderns like a clear-cut photographic image, like abomination of desolation = standards in the temple or some such. I am not at all certain that the ancients were necessarily looking for that kind of thing. Even the Eusebian interpretation was not one-to-one.

In him.

Etcetera.

Here are some more quotes I have collected that might give clarification to the way the ancients looked at it.

The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding Antichrist be not as follows: "And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many; and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand."237 What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, "so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,"238 is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: "And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation."239

Origen Against Celsus. Book VI Chapter XLVI.


4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: "I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,"220 calling Antichrist "the other," because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one "who feared not God, neither regarded man,"221 to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,-that is, the earthly Jerusalem,-to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice,222 and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously."223 And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: "And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs."224 And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete."225 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet"226 (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coining and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise227 of the Son, and called us into His knowledge.

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

But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High.

Dialogue of Justin
Chapter XXXII.-Trypho Objecting that Christ is Described as Glorious by Daniel, Justin Distinguishes Two Advents.

For He brought in also a prophecy, to confirm their desolation, saying, "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that readeth understand."22 He referred them to Daniel. And by" abomination" He meaneth the statue of him who then took the city, which he who desolated the city and the temple placed within the temple, wherefore Christ calleth it, "of desolation." Moreover, in order that they might learn that these things will be while some of them are alive, therefore He said, "When ye see the abomination of desolation."

St. John Chrysostom
Homily LXXV

Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come, and to carry on his description to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of man, that is to say, of Christ, he says, "My spirit was terrified, I Daniel in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me,"123 etc. Some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. They who desire to understand the fitness of this interpretation may read Jerome's book on Daniel, which is written with a sufficiency of care and erudition. But he who reads this passage, even half asleep, cannot fail to see that the kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church before the last judgment of God shall introduce the eternal reign of the saints. For it is patent from the context that the time, times, and half a time, means a year, and two years, and half a year, that is to say, three years and a half. Sometimes in Scripture the same thing is indicated by months. For though the word times seems to be used here in the Latin indefinitely, that is only because the Latins have no dual, as the Greeks have, and as the Hebrews also are said to have. Times, therefore, is used for two times. As for theten kings, whom, as it seems, Antichrist is to find in the person of ten individuals when he comes, I own I am afraid we may be deceived in this, and that he may come unexpectedly while there are not ten kings living in the Roman world. For what if this number ten signifies the whole number of kings who are to precede his coming, as totality is frequently symbolized by a thousand, or a hundred, or seven, or other numbers, which it is not necessary to recount?

St. Augustine
City of God Book XX
Chapter 23.-What Daniel Predicted Regarding the Persecution of Antichrist, the Judgment of God, and the Kingdom of the Saints.