But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains… (Mk 13:14 NRSV)
In my book I exclude Mark 13:14 from my proposed original Olivet Discourse in the Gospel of Mark, but for reasons of length I do not explain why. Here I give my reasons.
The first thing to note is that the words translated as “desolating sacrilege” or (often) “abomination of desolation” are in Greek “the abomination of the desolation.” Two nouns. The “abomination” or “sacrilege” is a statue or other representation of an alien deity or king. The “desolation” is the now-polluted Temple. It is desolate. Mark creates a metonym: a noun, “desolation,” to stand in for the “polluted Temple.” If we take this verse at face value, then, Jesus is warning his disciples that at some time in the future, the Temple will be polluted, and the local Judeans “must” flee to the mountains.
But in the rest of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is not concerned to preserve the purity of the Temple: He stages the Temple Incident, interfering with the routine activities of the outer court of the Temple. He condemns the Temple, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mk 11:17). And the main group that opposes Jesus is the chief priests of the Temple! Furthermore, Mark implicitly disdains the earthly Temple when he portrays Jesus as the high priest in the heavenly Temple.
Also, if Mark wrote in Rome after 70, it would be imprudent to remind the audience of the recent Jewish War in which Titus, the brother of the current emperor, Domitian, had subdued Jerusalem, and in the process destroyed the Temple. Mark would not make the audience link Titus with “desolating sacrilege.”
Some editions of the Gospel of Mark add that the desolating sacrilege “was spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” I think this is inseparable from the phrase “let the reader understand.” The editor who wrote 13:14 is telling the reader to go and look for a precedent in the Book of Daniel.
That is poor playcraft. A playwright does not have a character tell the audience “if you don’t believe me, you can look it up in a book.” A play has to create and exist within its own world.
Here is another way in which Mk 13:14 demonstrates poor playcraft. Within the world of the play, there is no dramatic payoff to the prediction in Mk 13:14. It does not foreshadow any stage action. There is no conquest of the Temple, no pollution with a statue. And Jesus’s warning is directed to the vague group “those in Judea,” not to the disciples. The warning feels interpolated into the world of the play.
In summary, there are four good reasons to think that Mark 13:14 was not written by Mark:
- Mark’s Jesus is anti- Temple. Jesus is not concerned about its purity; in fact, he tries to disrupt its activities.
- When Mark wrote in the 90s CE, the emperor, Domitian, was the brother of Titus, the destroyer of the Temple. It would not be prudent for Mark to imply that the destruction of the Temple (Titus) had resulted in an “abomination”!
- A playwright does not tell the audience “let the reader understand.” A play exists in its own world.
- The prediction in Mark 13:14 is irrelevant to the disciples, who are Jesus’s audience in the world of the play. And there is no dramatic payoff for the prediction within the world of the play: it predicts nothing. Mark 13:14 is poor playcraft.
Addendum: Mark 13:14 introduces Mark 13:15-20. If Mark 13:14 is not original, Mark 13:15-20 is not original.