Mark Antony and Daniel 11:36-45

But first some context from the prior verses.

I've discussed before how Daniel 11:33 summarizes the Hasmonean Kingdom's fall to Rome starting with Pompey, but I want to stress here that the use of the word "Spoil" or "Plunder" is principally fulfilled by what Crassus did in 53 BC as recorded in Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 7.

The word for Help in the KJV of verse 34 is the same word as "Help meet" or "Helper" in Genesis 2 that some argue should be translated "Rescuer".  This was possibly Julius Caesar in Josephus Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 8.  The later part of the verse may have in mind the affairs of Sextus Caesar, Bassus and Gaius Cassius Longinus in the following chapters of Antiquities. William Shakespeare's Play Julius Caesar makes a huge time jump from Acts 3 to Act 4, if you want to know what Cassius was doing during that time read Josephus Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 11 and the start of Chapter 12 where Judea and Syria come under Mark Antony's control.

Verse 35 is about people I doubt we'll find in Josephus, it could have in mind Hillel The Elder, as well as Simeon and Anna The Prophetess of Luke 2.

Daniel 11:36-39 as about Mark Antony kind of perfectly lines up with Octavian’s propaganda against Antony.  Describing him as acting like a King and discarding the gods of his fathers and his good Roman wife to worship strange foreign gods and even seemingly deifying himself.  But The Bible’s worldview is even more strict than Rome’s about what kind of behavior only God should engage in, as well as the wrongness of divorcing one woman simply because you like your new "exotic" girlfriend more.

Also when you understand how the Hebrew word for “divide” used in verse 39 does not always refer to splitting one thing into smaller things but can rather refer to a reforming or reshaping, it fits as describing Antony’s reorganization of The Roman East pretty well.

Remembering the context that this section follows verses 32-35’s account of the rise and fall of the Hasmoneans, verses 40-41 being about the finishing off of Hasmonean independence in 37 BC seems logical.  The King of the Negev (South) is Mattathais Antigonus and the King of the North is Antiochus I Theos of Commagene.

Verses 42-43 however is where this seems like the opposite of how people usually see Mark Antony’s relationship with Egypt.  

Here’s a reality that the common romantic fictionalizations of this time period waters down, no matter how you view the personal relationship between Antony and Cleopatra, Egypt was a subject state to Rome already before she was born or her father took the throne. In reality she is a client monarch of Rome taking a side in a Roman Civil War just as much as Herod was.  Acknowledging this need not affect one way or the other whatever opinion you have of Cleopatra as a person or her competence as a leader.  Yet I still wish those who want to romanticize an African Queen resisting Rome would pay more attention to the Kandake of Kush who reigned during the following decades just a little farther south.

Libyans and Ethiopians being just outside his steps refers to them being outside what Anthony controls, Rome wouldn't even try to conquer Kush till later, and the partition of the Second Triumvirate gave North Africa to Lepidus.

Verse 44 would be about Antony’s attempt to conquer Parthia in 36 BC.

“And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas in the glorious Holy Mountain” in verse 45 is kind of the lynchpin of this whole theory.

I have a long history of feeling this is about the Antonia Fortress, even way back when I had a standard Futurist/Antichrist view of this passage I felt the Antonia Fortress was relevant to this typologically as the symbol of Roman oppression within Jerusalem.  And then I argued this referred to the Antonia Fortress when building my old argument for this being about Augustus even though it made no sense for Augustus to name a fortress after Antony.

When exactly the Antonia was built is a bit unclear, none of Josephus’s references to it are to when it was first built.  There is an assumption it was built with Herod’s renovations of the Temple because of it being defined as something built to protect The Temple.  But that started years after the death of Mark Antony, Herod wouldn’t be naming something after Antony during that time.

The Antonia fortress was definitely named after Mark Antony.  So it being built by or for Mark Antony in like 36 or 35 BC is the most logical explanation for its origin.

The last thing said in this section is “yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him”.  Once again I admit this can be made to fit a lot of people, but with Antony it sure does seem like the entire drama of his final days is about all his allies abandoning him, maybe even Cleopatra depending on how you interpret her actions.

And after Antony’s death the Biblical World is ruled by the man who is identified as ruling it when Jesus was born in Luke chapter 2 verse 1, with Herod's Kingship also reaffirmed for Luke 1:5 and Matthew 2.  Meaning we are in The New Testament era for Daniel 12.

Rome was an Empire long before it stopped being a Republic

The Political upheavals of the “Late Roman Republic” that eventually lead to the Principate are at the absolute earliest usually said to begin with the Tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.  Any full study of his political program and the issues/circumstances that made it necessary fully demonstrate how Rome was already an Empire.

The word Empire does not refer to a form of Government but to one Nation or State wielding power over other nations or states, most stereotypically via military force but there are other ways.  Only when talking about Rome and people named Napoleon is that fact forgotten and the word Empire gets mistaken as meaning “ruled by an Emperor''.

Polybius was a Greek Historian who died before Caesar was born or Marius was ever Consul.  He wrote a book called The Histories that is sometimes renamed for modern editions something like “History of the Rise of the Roman Empire”.  It covers 264-146 BC, but the bulk of the focus is on 220-167 BC and Polybius’s argument that in only 53 years Rome went from just being Italy to a Superpower.

The Wikipedia page for 220 BC has a map of the Mediterranean world in that year and Rome is basically modern Italy minus Piedmont and Syracuse but plus Corsica.  However the next year the Second Punic War would start, then would come their first war with Macedon.  

167 BC is the year their last war with Macedon ended thus ending Macedon’s independence, and then Lucius Amelius Paulus went and conquered Epirus just casually on the way back home.  

146 BC is itself a notable year because that’s when Rome finally finished off both Carthage and the Achaean League.  Rome became complete master of both the Western Mediterranean and Greece. It was that year Lucius Mummius destroyed Corinth leaving the city only minimally inhabited for over a Century till Julius Caesar re-founded it shortly before his Assassination in 44 BC.

Rome was also already interfering in the affairs of those they didn’t directly control and spreading their influence.  The Roma Cult in Smyrna was founded in 195 BC long before Rome annexed any of Asia.  The Cleopatras BBC miniseries from the 80s starts it's narrative in 145 BC and from it's start one background plotline is the growing interference of Rome.

And in 133 BC the King of Pergamon died leaving his kingdom to Rome in his will, that is what gave Tiberius Gracchus his opportunity and it’s how the cities housing the Seven Churches of Revelation became part of the Roman Empire.

I’m not posting this on my usual blog for politics because no Breadtuber is going to disagree with me that Rome was already doing Imperialism, the YouTube Channel Tribunate has videos getting into the Materialist Analysis of how the Republic's Imperialism helped lead to the Civil Wars and the Principate.

Its relevance to Bible Prophecy is my annoyance at those who seek to remove Rome from the Prophecies of Daniel.  I am a believer so I don’t view The Book of Daniel as Prophecy written after the fact and I’ve already argued Daniel 7’s climax happens in the 6th Century AD.  But even if I were an Atheist who wanted to believe in an early Hasmonean era context for all of the book of Daniel, Rome as the next Empire was already apparent.  Even in the part of Daniel 11 few disagree on, verses 1-31, the emergence of Rome is felt.  Verse 19 is usually seen as alluding to the Roman-Seleucid War of 192-188 BC.  Verse 30 is about when Gaius Popillius Laenas on Cyprus stopped Antiochus Epiphanes from conquering Egypt in 168 BC.  And then verses 32 is about the rise and fall of the Hasmoneans while verse 33 is about the their fall to Rome beginning with Pompey.

Antiochus Epiphanes himself had been a hostage in Rome before he was King, in fact early on he was viewed as very Romanized.  In 173 BC he sent money to Rome to secure their support and affirm the treaty of Apamea, helped by him having the support of Rome’s ally Eumenes II. Rome was also holding as hostage Demetrius the firstborn son of Antiochus’s older brother.  So there are many reasons Antiochus couldn't defy Laenas in 168 BC.

I firmly believe Daniel 11:36-45 is about a Roman, but my mind vibrates back and forth between a few different theories.  My oldest Roman theory is Augustus which I originally wrote for a different blog but reposted here.  I very recently posted a Pompey theory but with acknowledgment of some of its weaknesses.  And now I’m even considering Mark Antony which I will make a separate post about if I’m able to perfect that hypothesis.

While I ultimately believe the Ten Horns of Daniel 7 represent the Barbarian Kingdoms that emerged while the Western Empire declined in the 5th Century. A nearer application could be tied to one of the Decemvirates of The Republican Era.

Pompey The Great and Daniel 11:36-45

Previously I have argued for this part of Daniel being about Augustus, and I’m not abandoning that theory, but as I've been learning more about Pompey’s history I’m starting to find an argument for him being the focus of this passage compelling.  I currently have no idea if anyone before me has ever attempted to argue this.

First I should address the fact that many do not believe Pompey to have been a King.  It’s pretty uncontroversial to acknowledge that the rulers of the later Roman Principate were considered Kings by people in the East regardless of their official denial of that status.  Well I’d argue that to the people in The East conquered by Pompey denying he was a King was just as absurd.  The Roman Triumph very much revolved around treating the Triumphator as ceremonially King for the Day.  Pompey had already had two Triumphs before his career brought him to Judea.  

Similar to that is the matter of how Pompey is not considered to be someone who deified himself.  But again from The Hebrew Bible POV I’d argue everything about the Triumph was a self deification, calling yourself “The Great” was a deification, and making Statues of a person is a deification. 

Speaking of which, Pompey began being called Magnus/The Great by his soldiers as early as 80 BC.  And they did so specifically to compare him to Alexander The Great, which is interesting because when Daniel 11:36 says “do according to his will” it is repeating the language of verse:3 a passage all scholars agree is about Alexander The Great.  And then verse 36 goes on to say in the same sentence “and he shall exalt himself, and magnify”, the English Word “magnify” coming from the same linguistic root as Magnus.

Verses 37-39 are the most difficult to justify applying to either Pompey or Augustus, there are ways to interpret these passages that aren’t a very face value reading.

The rest could be all about Pompey’s actions in the Near East during the later phase of the Third Mithridatic War leading up to his famous capturing of Jerusalem except the very last statement jumping forward to his end.  The only issue is the exact chronology.

The “Tents” detail fits very vividly with how Josephus describes the Roman Military Encampment setting itself up on The Temple Mount.  Pompey never military invades Egypt but they were involved in all this and we want to basically extort all most of Egypt’s Wealth from Ptolemy XII.   And he did redraw the borders of the region” dividing the land for gain”.

“He shall meet his end and none shall help him” is an admittedly vague description that could be made to fit a lot of things.  But the Vibe I feel fits Pompey’s final fate being killed by people he thought were allies in Egypt more than it does Antiochus Epiphanes or any Julio-Claudian Emperor.

Daniel 11:36-45 is about Augustus

How most of Daniel 11 is about the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BC is well known, lots of commentaries on that exist. 

Many of those commentaries don't think the Hasmonean Revolt itself is referred to however, but I think in verse 32 "the people that know their God shall be strong and do exploits" is referring to the Maccabees.  It seems "do exploits" can alternatively be translated "take action".  Then 33-35 sums up further Hasmonean history including them falling to the Romans beginning under Pompey in 63 BC the same year Augustus was born but completed with Anthony's conquest of Antigonus Matthias in 37 BC.

Augustus never admitted to being a King but we see in John 19:15 that the Israelites in Judea didn't care about those semantics.

I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.

First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age.  So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous.  What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era.  In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.

Daniel 11:40

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context, since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII.  These ships could still be aircraft carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.

Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this.  People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here.  Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.

You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra.  You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?"  The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses.  But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.

The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt.  Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands.  Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia.  And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule.  I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.

Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria, but in fact plenty happened in-between.  You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised Land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed Herod's kingship increasing his power.  A number of local governments were overthrown at this time.  However Biblical Edom, Moab and much of Ammon were part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan.  What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states.  The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.

Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third.

Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces.  It was treated as his personal possession.  Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province.  Egypt became his gold mine basically.

Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands.  And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.

Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them.  It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome.  But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.

Daniel 11:44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms.  The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia.  Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia.  But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.

The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so.  So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians.  But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.

Daniel 11:45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. the Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then.  Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during any time Roman soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels.  Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Archelaus was removed in 6 AD.

The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one.  So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple.  It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC.

Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him.  Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion.  And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.

Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria.  After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies.  Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea.  Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi.  And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip.   So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means.  Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.

Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.

Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would.  But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples.  He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharaonic worship.

In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on.  The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god.  More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.

Saying Augustus didn't honor the god(s) of his father or desire of women may seem odd, but I think those have nuances abstract applications.  A lot did change about Roman Religion during his time.

Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god.  Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks.  To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.

The word for "Strange" means foreign.  Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo.  But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus.  In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.

A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo.  Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday.  Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.

The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him.  Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil.  So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.

Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel.  Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes.  The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.

You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation.  Well how Daniel 12 can refer to the Time of Christ is something I'm working on will hopefully be able to make a post on before the end of the year.

Hadrian's Statue on The Temple Mount was The Abomination of Desolation

The one referred to by Jesus which was a repeat of Antiochus Epiphanes actions in Daniel 11.

First I want to state that Luke 21 (which isn't an Olivet Discourse, it was given in in The Temple Complex) verses 20-24 is about 70 AD, but the "Times of The Gentiles" we are still in.

Likewise in Matthew 24:21 the "Great Tribulation" is a period that began in Ancient times and which we are still in now, which is the same as the Tribulation referred to in Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24.   In Revelation 7 ALL of the Martyrs are said to have come out of Great Tribulation, not just those of a specific brief time period. 

70 AD Preterists obsess over an argument that a Biblical Generation is 40 years because the wandering in the wilderness was to kill off a generation.  But not all of them actually died, that statement was hyperbole, it was mostly just about the 10 spies who gave the bad report.  Numbers 14:33-24 clarifies it was 40 years because the spy mission was 40 days.  Genesis 6 and the lifespan of Moses support making a Biblical generation up to 120 years.

 Quadratus of Athens in his apology to Hadrian written for Hadrian's visit to Athens in 124 or 125 AD says that some of those healed and risen from the dead by Jesus were still alive at that time.  Today it is verified as being possible to live to 122.  Pliny using documents related to a Roman Census of 74 AD says in one region of Italy there were many people who were over 100, 4 were 130 and some up to 140.  So I have no doubt that in Judea some people born BC lived through the Bar Kochba Revolt and that some people who were healed by Jesus and then witnessed Him Risen made it even into the reign of Antonius Pius.

With Luke 21 it's unique characteristics are what makes it most applicable to 70 AD.  Only Luke 21 actually uses the name of Jerusalem at all, when foretelling it's desolation which is language borrowed from Jeremiah about the fall to Nebuchadnezzar indicating what happened to Jerusalem then will happen again.  Also only Luke describes a Captivity.

But Luke 21 does NOT contain a statement that this time of trouble is will never be surpassed.

The Bark Kochba revolt did not add anything to the destruction of Jerusalem since this time the Rebels never even had Jerusalem to begin with.  But for Judea as a whole that war was far more catastrophic and destructive then the 66-73 AD war and over a shorter period of time.   Many historians consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora.  It is only the fact that it doesn't have it's own Josephus that makes it less analyzed by historians and scholars and less romanticized by artists and poets.

Luke 21 is about things that happened before the "beginnings of sorrows", Matthew and Mark are about things that happen during or after.  Meanwhile the second time Matthew and Mark's discourses bring up the issue of False Christs has no parallel in Luke at all, likewise no False Prophets in Luke 21.

This is significant because contrary to popular opinion the era leading up to and during the 66-73 AD war was NOT filled with would be Messiahs.  Josephus only ever uses the word Christ when describing what Jesus was called. There were would be prophets, and secular revolutionaries, but no claimed Messiahs.  Jewish prophetic expectations of the time were generally that the Messiah can't come till after Rome has already fallen.

Bar Kochba was the first to ever claim to be the Messiah as a rebel leader, that was his innovation.  And he really was the second person after Jesus to ever truly claim that title at all.  Meanwhile since Preterists don't take literally the stuff involving the Sun, Moon and Stars, maybe Stars falling from heaven is also wordplay on the name of Bar Kochba?  Kukbe is the word used in the Peshita.

The Abomination of Desolation is a very specific phrase, that has connotations more specific then just the etymological meanings of the words used to construct it.  Of the two places where the phrase appears in Daniel the one in chapter 12 is probably what Jesus is revealing to still have at least one more yet future fulfillment.  But it's the context in Daniel 11 that defines it.

There are three or four different Hebrew words that get translated "Abomination" in the KJV, the one used in Daniel is not even related to the one used in Leviticus 18-20 and Ezekiel 40-48.  But more importantly to the topic at hand, the precise word used in Daniel is everywhere it appears a synonym for an Idol or False god, from Deuteronomy 29:17 to 1 Kings 11 to Jeremiah 32:34.

But what makes the Abomination of Desolation special is it's being placed inside The Temple (not near it) by a Pagan ruler who had outlawed their faith.  The history of the Hasmonean revolt was to first century Jews not just the reason behind Hanukkah, it was to them as the Revolutionary War or French Revolution is for modern America and France.  When Jesus used this phrase He knew exactly what imagery He was evoking and so did His audience.

Now I'm open to a more "creative" interpretation of what a Historicist (or Futurist) fulfillment of this may look like, but that's about redefining what this would mean for the New Testament Church with the help of II Thessalonians 2 just as we redefine a number of Hebrew Bible concepts under the doctrine that now we are The Temple.  But if you're going to insist this is about the Judea of that time, then you have to be specific to what that idea meant to those Judeans.

70 AD Preterists bend over backwards coming up with every excuse they can to apply that phrase to something that happened in 70 AD.  They take a passage from the Talmud claiming Titus had sex with a whore on a Torah scroll and sliced open the Veil with his sword.  Leaving aside how I doubt Titus would have had the means, motive or opportunity to do that from what the actual eyewitness Historian tells us, even this Talmud passage doesn't call that an Abomination of Desolation or compare it to Antiochus Epiphanes in any way.

The timing is also wrong, by the time Titus was able to do anything anywhere near The Temple it was already too late to run.  Jesus spoke of the Abomination of Desolation as an event that begins the time of trouble not occurring at the middle or end of it. That fit Hadrian who's said to have set up the initial Idol in 31 AD sparking the Rebellion even though the full Temple to Jupiter is built after.

An alternate 70 AD Preterist take on the Abomination of Desolation makes it about things Josephus described Zealot leaders doing in 68 or 69, but again the specific word for Abomination in this phrase is about Idolatry, not mere ceremonial desecration or uncleanness.

Preterists aren't the only ones refusing to distinguish between the Olivet Discourses, there are also Futurists who want to use Luke 21 to say Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies again.

Yes the three discourses are "parallel" in a lot of ways, but the differences are there for a reason and ignoring them because you don't want to think Jesus was foretelling more then one thing is simply not respecting the text.  In the case of Luke it has to do with how this isn't even the only place that Gospel records Jesus talking about the fall of Jerusalem, that is a theme of the entire Gospel in a way it's not in the others.

So plenty of people want to argue that Luke 21:20 is about the same thing as The Abomination of Desolation because Jesus then advises basically the same reaction.  As if there can't be more then one good reason to get out of Dodge.

Those of us who Agree Luke 21:20 is about the first Jewish-Roman War have different points in Josephus's timeline we cna look to, a time when Roman troops were close to Jerusalem in Fall of AD 66, and then when the final Siege full begins in Spring of 70.  I've come to favor the first one due to what I point in my Nero post on my other Blog about the Early Christians at Pella had protection from Herod Agrippa II.

The OG Abomination of Desolation preceded that Jewish Revolt, but since they won that war the city was never surrounded by armies.

One of the oldest examples of Patristic support for viewing the Abomination of Desolation as already re-fulfilled is Jerome applying the term to the Statue of Hadrian set up where The Temple formally stood which was seemingly still standing when he wrote his commentary on Matthew.  Jerome may have been off on saying it was specifically over the Holy of Holies, in the Bordeaux Pilgrim the two Statues he saw were separate from the "stone" the Jews anointed which I think may have been where the Ark once rested.  Epiphanes' statue was on the Brazen Altar according to 1 Maccabees 1:54-59.

We even have a secular pagan gentile source on this happening, Cassius Dio.

[69.12.1] At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, 

[69.12.2] for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposedly made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them. But when Hadrian went farther away, they openly revolted.

Meanwhile somewhat less reliable sources like the Historia Augusta say Hadrian also banned Circumcision and sacrificed Pigs to this Idol making it echo Antiochus Epiphanes even more.   It seem Pigs were depicted on Coins minted in Aelia Capitolina.

And like then this caused the war rather then being caused by it.

And like in 70 AD the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem did as Jesus advised and fled, becoming the Nazarenes of later generations, some may have went to Mesopotamia and also became among the ancestors of some West Syraic Rite sects.

Update May 13th 2026: Here's an article on an Atheist Website arguing for this interpretation.  Obviously I think they're wrong about when The Gospels were written. And again Luke is not a parallel account, it's a different speech given at a different time. 

https://vridar.org/2026/04/03/the-abomination-of-desolation-in-jesus-prophecy-more-scholars-who-support-its-surprising-identity/