Steven Avery

The Pret Archive site (Todd Dennis) has an article:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Pret...todd_p_02.html
'The Abomination of Desolation Has Been Placed'

that gives a reasonable explanation (without going much into alternatives that have been given).

===========================================

Notice also the picture there of :

"IMP[ERATOR] CAESAR VESPASIANUS AUG[USTUS]..." This is the beginning of the Latin inscription on this triumphal column dedicated to Titus, who led the siege against Jerusalem. The abbreviation "LEG-X-FRE" appears at the bottom, indicating that the column was erected by the Tenth Roman Legion. Most likely, this column stood at on of the entrances to the Roman temple in Jerusalem. The column was discovered as part of the foundation to a Moslem palace south of the Temple Mount." (Picture by Zev Radovan)

Also at
http://www.bible.ca/pre-flavius-jose...-fulfilled.htm
The Wars of The Jews by Flavius Josephus

And apparently in :

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
A Note on Artistic Representations of the Second Temple of Jerusalem
Asher S. Kaufman - The Biblical Archaeologist

An interesting question .. where south of the Temple Mount ? The late Ernest Martin view is the Temple was in the Silwan - City of David area which is south of the Temple Mount. Does this match up or is City of David too distant ? What do they and others say about this inscription and can it be seen today ? What Moslem palace is south of the Temple Mount ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is because Daniel has been decontextutalized. That's how the desolation can be taken for what it was not meant for by the Matthean writer. The people at the time the Daniel vision was written had seen or heard of the abomination that desolates and that's how they knew that they were in the battle of the end of days. What Daniel had said back in Babylon was all coming true. Shorn of its context, you could try to make anything of the allusion.


spin

John Kesler

Not even the NIV translates genea as "race" in Matthew 24:34, but instead mentions "race" in a footnote. Jesus' comments about the Parousia make it obvious which translation is correct. Ask your coworker to read Matthew 10, even in the NIV, and to reconcile Jesus' words that the disciples, "will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (v:23) with the interpretation that Matthew 24:34 refers to the "passing away" of the Jewish race and still hasn't been fulfilled.

And why are the two mutually exclusive? "Let the reader understand" could mean let the reader of Daniel understand, since Daniel is the book which mentions "the abomination that causes desolation."

So he doesn't believe Jesus? I'll even stick with the NIV:

gstafleu

I've always taken it to mean "wink wink, nudge nudge," in other words the in-crowd would understand what he was getting at.

Gerard Stafleu

Gawen

It does make sense to see the "readers" as using/reading OT scripture.

Jedi Mind Trick

The meaning of a word is determined by its usage. Sure it can mean race or generation but what does the structure of the Greek sentence require it to mean? How is genea being used?

judge

Lots of HB references in Matthew are decontextualised, like"out of egypt I called my son"
Quite possible.

This is all possible too, but as Matthew and possibly Jesus, takes these things typologically, quite deliberately (on occasision at least), this may not be too relevant in understanding Matthews gospel.

pharoah

Compare this to Mark 13:14:


Clearly Matthew copied this verse almost verbatim from Mark. Notice that Mark, unlike Matthew, made no explicit reference to the book of Daniel, which is why he was hinting at the reader to search the scriptures. This passage from Mark was probably written during or just after the traumatic events of 70 AD, which would explain Mark's coyness. Writing at least a decade later, poor Matthew missed the point completely.

Roller

How is "some standing here" from Mark 9:1 translated? Or "we" from 1 Thess 4:17?