"Putting these two plain-spoken accounts together, we have a concrete interpretation from Jesus Himself of the abomination of desolation mentioned by the prophet Daniel"
Second point. In my experience I have found that many people project a New Testament understanding back into the Old Testament to "interpret" an OT passage. A passage of scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean to the original recipient. Luke and Matt were not in existence when Daniel penned the prophecy so Matt and Luke has no bearing on the interpretation of Daniel ...
Now Jew in Daniels day had any knowledge of the NT, so the interpretation must only include revelation given up to that point in time. To project a NT understanding into an OT passage breaks any semblence of a consistent logical interpretative framework.
While I understand Luke and Matthew were not in existence when "Daniel penned the prophecy" - God was and is. The Bible is of God.
"To project a NT understanding into an OT passage breaks any semblence of a consistent logical interpretative framework."
Actually, the Early Church Fathers did it all the time. They wrote entire books "proving" that the NT was hidden in the OT. Justin the Martyr wrote "Dialogue to Trypho", Irenaeus wrote "Proof of Apostolic Preaching", etc... You are basing your ideas of interpretation on modernism. All the Scriptures point to Christ, and that is the way the Church interprets esp. OT Scripture.
Ex. Isaiah 7 and the virgin birth. No recipient Jew of this thought that this would refer to the incarnation of Christ. Ask any Jew about this passage and they will tell you the same. Only we, as Christians, look at this verse as a prophesy of the virgin birth.