The
importance of this Scriptural expression is chiefly derived from the
fact that in St. Matthew, xxiv, 15, and St. Mark, xiii, 14, the
appearance of the "abomination of desolation" standing in
the Holy Place" (Matt.), or where "it ought not"
(Mark), is given by Our Lord to His disciples as the signal for
their flight from Judea, at the time of the approaching ruin of
Jerusalem (Luke, xxi, 20). The expression itself is confessedly
obscure. To determine its meaning, interpreters have naturally
betaken themselves to the original Hebrew of the book of Daniel; for
our first Evangelist distinctly says that "the abomination of
desolation" he has in view "was spoken of by Daniel the
prophet"; and further, the expression he makes use of, in
common with St. Mark, is simply the Greek phrase whereby the
Septuagint translators rendered literally the Hebrew words shíqqûç
shômem found in Daniel, xii, 11; ix, 27; xi, 31.
Unfortunately, despite all their efforts to explain these Hebrew
terms, Biblical scholars are still at variance about their precise
meaning. While most commentators regard the first "shíqqûç",
usually rendered by "abomination", as designating anything
(statue, altar, etc.) that pertains to idolatrous worship, others
take it to be a contemptuous designation of a heathen god or idol.
Again, while most commentators render the second "shômem"
by the abstract word "desolation", others treat it as a
concrete form referring to a person, "a ravager", or even
as a participial known meaning "that maketh desolate". The
most recent interpretation which has been suggested of these Hebrew
words is to the following effect: The phrase shíqqûç
shômem stands for the original expression bá` ál
shámáyîm (Baal of heaven), a title found in
Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions, and the semitic equivalent of
the Greek Zeus, Jupiter, but modified in Daniel through Jewish
aversion for the name of a Pagan deity. While thus disagreeing as to
the precise sense of the Hebrew phrase usually rendered by "the
abomination of desolation", Christian scholars are practically
at one with regard to its general meaning. They commonly admit, and
indeed rightly, that the Hebrew expression must needs be understood
of some idolatrous emblem, the setting up of which would entail the
ultimate desolation of the Temple of Jerusalem (I Mach. i, 57; iv,
38). And with this general meaning in view, they proceed to
determine the historical event between Our Lord's prediction and the
ruin of the Temple (A. D. 70), which should be regarded as "the
abomination of desolation" spoken of in St. Matthew, xxiv, 15,
and St. Mark, xiii, 14. But here they are again divided. Many
scholars have thought, and still think, that the introduction of the
Roman standards into the Holy Land, and more particularly into the
Holy City, shortly before the destruction of the Temple, is the
event foretold by Our Lord to His disciples as the signal for their
flight from Judea. It is true that the standards were worshipped by
the Roman soldiers and abhorred by the Jews as the emblem of Roman
idolatry. Yet they can hardly be considered as the "the
abomination of desolation" referred to in St. Matthew, xxiv,
15. The Evangelist says that this "abomination" is to
stand in the "holy place", whereby is naturally meant the
Temple (see also Daniel, ix, 27, where the Vulgate reads: "there
shall be in the Temple the abomination of the desolation"), and
the Roman standards were actually introduced into the Temple only
after it had been entered by Titus, that, too late to serve as a
warning for the Christians of Judea. Other scholars are of the mind
that the desecration of the Temple by the Zealots who seized it and
made it their stronghold shortly before Jerusalem was invested by
Titus, is the even foretold by Our Lord. But this view is commonly
rejected for the simples reason that "the abomination of
desolation" spoken of by Daniel and referred to in St.
Matthew's Gospel, was certainly something connected with idolatrous
worship. Others, finally, interpret Our Lord's warning to His
disciples in the light of the history of attempt to have his own
statue set up and worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem. The
following are the principal facts of that history. About A. D. 40,
Caius Caligula issued a peremptory decree ordering the erection and
worship of his statute in the Temple of God. He also appointed to
the government of Syria, bidding him carry out that decree even at
the cost of a war against the rebellious Jews. Whereupon the Jews in
tens of thousands protested to the governor that they were willing
to be slaughtered rather than to be condemned to witness that
idolatrous profanation of their holy Temple. Soon afterwards
Petronius asked Caligula to revoke his order, and Agrippa I, who
than lived at Rome, prevailed upon the Emperor not to enforce his
decree. It seems, however, that Caligula soon repented of the
concession, and that but for his untimely death (A. D. 41) he would
have had his statue set up in Jerusalem (E. Schurer, History of the
Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I Div. II, 95-105; tr.). In
view of these facts it is affirmed by many scholars that the early
Christians could easily regard the forthcoming erection of statue in
the Temple as the act of idolatrous Abomination which, according to
the prophet Daniel, ix, 27, portended the ruin of the House of God,
and therefore see in it the actual sign given by Christ for their
flight from Judea. This last interpretation of the phrase "the
abomination of desolation" is not without its own difficulties.
Yet it seems preferable to the others that have been set for by
commentators at large.
FRANCIS E. GIGOT
