Is it absurd to say that the 'overspreading abominations' was the reinstatement of animal sacrifice in defiance of Christ's finished work? As Covenantee has been saying, this was the standard view of the historical church. Take for example, the historian Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8 Chapter 2 – From Daniel):
"And he will confirm a Covenant with many one week," and in half the week the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and on the Holy Place shall come the abomination of desolation, and until the fullness of time fullness shall be given to the desolation ...
... moreover, half through this (Daniel 70th) week, during which He confirmed the said Covenant with many, the sacrifice and libation was taken away, and the abomination of desolation began, for in the middle of this week after the three-and-a-half days of His Teaching, at the time when He suffered, the Veil of the Temple was torn asunder from the top to the bottom, so that in effect from that time sacrifice and libation were taken away, and the abomination of desolation stood in the holy place, inasmuch as the Being had left them desolate ...
... At his Passion the Veil of the Temple was wholly rent in twain, and from that moment the sacrifice and libation well pleasing to God according to the ordinance of the Law was in effect taken away, and when it was removed, the abomination of desolation, as the prophecy before us says, appeared in its place.
There are two separate times
in Daniel that the word "abomination" is associated with the temple, with one huge difference:
1. The abomination of desolation (singular) set up by Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not result in the destruction of the temple: After he was ousted by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, rededicated, and reconsecrated to God.
2. The abominations (plural) that were committed in Daniel 9:27
did result in the destruction of the temple (Matthew 23:38; Daniel 9:27).
Antiochus is interesting, because
(i) he is the biblical type of the man of sin (compare Daniel 11:36-37 & 2 Thessalonians 2:4).
(ii) the abomination he set up is mentioned in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, and Daniel Chapter 12 is complemented (completed) by Jesus in Revelation 10 (compare Daniel 12:7 and Revelation 10:5-7), then compare the whole of Daniel Chapter 12 with Revelation Chapter 10).
Hence Daniel Chapter 12 both repeats what has been previously said about Antiochus, and seems to link this to the end of the Age and return of Christ - again showing that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
What you quoted about
the tearing of the veil is interesting indeed, because:-
2 Thessalonians 2:4 uses the Greek word naos for "temple", which refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple (hieron is used for the entire temple complex in Jerusalem), and
the last time the word naos is used in reference to the Jerusalem temple, is in the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in that temple.
hieron is used for the temple complex in Jerusalem in all these verses:
Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20; Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.
Note: Jesus was not a priest in terms of Moses' law and was not allowed into the naos (the holy places, where only the priests were allowed).
naos is used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem only until the verses talking about the tearing of the veil:
-- in the temple complex (naos) --
Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5.
-- Body of Christ (naos) --
(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)
-- The veil torn (naos) --
(Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.)
Then, Acts 7:48 and 17:24:
Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.
Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.
After this (and aside from the only time naos is used in the New Testament when it's not referring to the sanctuary of God), only in reference to:
-- the church & the temple in heaven (naos) --
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22.
Only once in the New Testament is
naos not referring to the sanctuary of God: Acts 19:24.
So unless Revelation 11:1-2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 are the only exceptions, naos refers to the church after the tearing of the veil.
With regard to Revelation 11:1-2, the important fact that everyone seems to overlook is that there is no city mentioned in the Revelation other than:-
(i) New Jerusalem; and
(ii) Babylon the Great; and
(iii) the city"spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."(Revelation 11:8).
(iv) The cities of the nations that fell in Revelation 16.
There is
no verse in the Revelation where Babylon the Great or the other cities mentioned in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are called
"the holy city", but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city"
three times:- Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.
Revelation 11:2 is talking about
the holy city. The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).
So which temple (naos) is Revelation 11:1-2 referring to?
And which temple (naos) will the man of sin seat himself up in (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Compare Revelation 13:5-7.
1. The abomination of desolation (singular) set up by Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not result in the destruction of the temple: After he was ousted by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, rededicated, and reconsecrated to God.
2. The abominations (plural) that were committed in Daniel 9:27 would result in the destruction of the temple (Matthew 23:38; Daniel 9:27).