Text:

After tēs erēmōseōs ‘of desolation’ Textus Receptus adds to rēthen hupo Daniēl tou prophētou ‘that was spoken by the prophet Daniel,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

hotan de idēte ‘but when you see’: refers to a single definite event.

to bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs ‘the abomination of desolation’: the Greek phrase is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew shiquts shomem in Dan. 11.31, 12.1 (cf. also 9.27) ‘the detested thing causing horror’ (Brown, Driver and Briggs). It is generally held that the phrase in Daniel referred to the heathen altar erected in the Temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C. (cf. 1 Macc. 1.54). In the O.T. shiquts refers generally to a heathen idol or false god, or any other symbol of heathenism. The verb shamem means ‘to appal,’ ‘to cause horror.’

The Greek phrase means literally ‘the detested thing causing desolation.’ The cryptic language of Mark does not make clear what is desolated by the ‘abominable thing.’ Various translations are proposed for the phrase: ‘the dreadful desecration’ (Goodspeed), ‘the appalling Horror’ (Moffatt), ‘the destructive desecration’ (Williams).

hestēkota ‘standing’: the accusative case of the masculine participle hestēkōs, meaning properly ‘he who stands.’ Whereas to bdelugma ‘the detestable thing’ to which the participle refers is neuter, either ‘the detestable thing’ is personified (cf. Swete), or else it is thought of as being a man (the Antichrist – so many commentators). Against Revised Standard Version it would be preferable to translate ‘standing where he should not’ rather than ‘it.’

histēmi ‘stand’: as in 9.1 the emphasis here is more on the idea of ‘being’ or ‘existing’ than on ‘standing’ as such.

hopou ou dei ‘where (he) ought not to be’: for dei ‘it is necessary,’ ‘it is fitting’ cf. 8.31.

ho anaginōskōn noeitō ‘he who reads is to understand’: as Revised Standard Version parentheses indicate, this is a note added by the author (cf. a similar instance in 7.19) calling the reader’s attention to what he is reading. It is probable that ‘the reader’ is the man who would be reading the passage aloud to the assembled congregation, not to the individual reading alone. It is not agreed what is the specific thing to which the author calls the reader’s attention: many take it to refer to the enigmatic phrase ‘the abomination of desolation,’ admonishing the reader to understand the phrase in light of its use in the O.T., while others take it to refer to the vague designation of the place where ‘the abomination of desolation’ would stand. It has also been suggested that the note, possibly a marginal note at first, called the reader’s attention to the masculine hestēkota ‘standing’ which the reader would be tempted to read as a neuter, agreeing with to bdelugma ‘the abomination.’

anaginōskō (cf. 2.25) ‘read,’ ‘read aloud.’

noeō (cf. 7.18) ‘understand,’ ‘comprehend.’

hoi en tē Ioudaia pheugetōsan eis ta orē ‘those who are in Judea are to flee to the mountains’: in the hill country to the west of the Jordan they would find refuge from the desolation sweeping Judea.

pheugō (cf. 5.14) ‘flee.’

eis ta orē (cf. 3.13) ‘to the hills,’ ‘to the hill country.’

Translation:

Desolating sacrilege is not an easy expression to translate, for the words include complex concepts which are not clearly defined, either in their immediate forms or in the larger context. The only alternative in most languages is to attempt to use some descriptive phrase which will approximate the meaning of the Greek, but not reproduce it in any word-for-word relationship, e.g. ‘the hated (thing) which does terrible destruction’ (Yucateco), ‘the foul object which desolates the town,’ in which ‘desolate’ must occur with a direct object (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘that which is bad which destroys’ (Central Mazahua, Tzeltal), ‘fearful thing which destroys’ (Yaka), and ‘loathsome thing which destroys’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave).

See the desolating sacrilege set up involves a construction which requires two clauses in many languages, since the object of the first verb see is also the subject of the second verb set up, e.g. ‘see the desolating sacrilege: it will be set up where it ought not to be.’

If the interesting shift in the Greek from the neuter to the masculine, implying evidently a personification of the desolating sacrilege, can be reproduced in another language, this should be done, but in most instances this cannot be accomplished without considerable confusion to the reader.

Let the reader understand is in the form of a third person imperative, which is paralleled in other languages by a statement of obligation, e.g. ‘the one who is reading should understand.’ The same type of adaptation may be required in the case of the last clause, e.g. ‘those who are in the Judea country should flee to the mountains.’

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .