bdelugma

The noun belongs to a word family descending from βδέω, to stink, which also yields the classical adjective βδελυρός and the deponent verb βδελύσσομαι, rendered by LSJ and Thayer as turning away from something on account of its stench. Robert Beekes regards that derivation as semantically strained for βδελυρός and suggests a Pre-Greek origin, so the stench etymology is the standard lexical view rather than an established fact. The abstract noun itself is essentially a Jewish-Greek formation: Thayer calls it a biblical and ecclesiastical word noting that it renders mostly תּוֹעֵבָה, also שִׁקּוּץ and שֶׁקֶץ; Foerster (TDNT 1:598-600) and Spicq (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament) treat it as a Septuagint creation whose dominant object is idolatry; and it is conspicuously missing from the documentary parallels Moulton and Milligan assembled, which is itself evidence that it was not a word of everyday commercial Koine. BDAG defines it as something that is totally defiling, an abomination or pollutant. For the Septuagint senses Muraoka and Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie are the standard tools; the mapping is not one to one, since προσόχθισμα and ἀκαθαρσία were also available and were distributed variously, so the Greek terminology partly reorganizes the Hebrew categories. Whether תּוֹעֵבָה is intrinsically ethical or a boundary marker is a live debate: Phyllis Bird reads it as boundary marking rather than ethical, Weinfeld situates the broad Deuteronomic usage in the wisdom tradition, Milgrom and Levine read the Levitical prohibitions inside a purity system, Klawans (Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 2000) distinguishes ritual from moral impurity and locates this vocabulary at the moral end, and Feinstein resists over-sharp distinctions between the Levitical and Deuteronomic contexts. The phrase βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως comes from Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, rendering שִׁקּוּץ מְשֹׁמֵם; Theodotion's Daniel at 9:27 reads βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων. Since Nestle the Hebrew phrase has widely been read as a deliberate distortion of בַּעַל שָׁמַיִם, Baal Shamem, the deity identified with Zeus Olympios to whom 2 Maccabees 6:2 says Antiochus IV rededicated the temple; Ginsberg endorses the pun, Collins and Hartman with Di Lella treat it as plausible, and others prefer simply to render the Hebrew as an appalling abomination. 1 Maccabees 1:54 applies βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως to what was set upon the altar on 15 Kislev of 145 in the Seleucid era, December 167 BCE, and so forms the bridge between Daniel and the Gospels; whether the object was a pagan altar, a statue of Zeus Olympios, or a sacred stone is disputed. In Mark 13:14 the neuter noun is followed by a masculine participle, a construction according to sense that Marcus makes the linchpin of his reading: Mark envisions a person, not a statue. Marcus (Mark 8-16, Anchor Yale) and Stein, with Witherington, favor the Zealot occupation of the temple in the winter of 67 to 68 CE; Yarbro Collins and Theissen treat the Caligula crisis of 40 to 41 CE as the tradition-historical background of the pre-Markan material; older commentators such as Meyer preferred the Roman standards of 70 CE; France, following Caird, and Wright read the discourse as prophetic language about Jerusalem's fate within history; Ford allows a double reference including a future figure, comparing 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. Nearly all interpreters take the aside "let the reader understand" as the evangelist's own parenthesis to whoever reads the text aloud, signalling a cryptic and topical referent. On Revelation, Beale and Beasley-Murray read the abominations of 17:4-5 and 21:27 as idols and idolatrous practice, the pairing with πορνεία reflecting the prophetic figure of idolatry as adultery. At Luke 16:15 Fitzmyer, Marshall, Bock and Nolland read the word against the wisdom background of Proverbs, where arrogance of heart is an abomination to the LORD.