DOES DANIEL CONTAIN PREDICTIVE PROPHECY?

This is a summary. Please refer to the detailed article for more detail, quotes and references.

INTRODUCTION
According to the book Daniel itself the visions contained in the book were received from God
(4:24) by a person named Daniel (8:1), who lived in the sixth century B.C. (2:1),.
In contrast the vast majority of modern Biblical scholars (Critics) believe that Daniel was written
during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanies, a Greek king that ruled from 175 to 164 B.C., that
much of the traumatic events described in the book actually were history when the book was
written, and that the evil king in the book Daniel is Antiochus IV. Encyclopædia Britannica state
for instance: “The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal
Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE
as their background. The book, however, was written in a later time of national crisis—when the
Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163
BCE).”
Conservative scholars believe that Daniel contains predictive prophecy. They should therefore
be able to defend their views against the general view of modern scholarship. The purpose of
this document is to do exactly that. The purpose is not to motivate for a specific interpretation,
except where a specific fulfillment supports the purpose of this document. The critical factor in
determining whether Daniel contains proper prophecy is the date when Daniel was written; in the
6th or 2nd century B.C.
This topic is of utmost importance. Fulfilled prophecy support the credibility of the Bible in an
age of uncertainty. Jesus referred to Daniel as a prophet and put it’s fulfillment in the future (Matt
24:15). If the book of Daniel is a fraud, then Christ was mistaken concerning it. Then He could
also have been mistaken about many other things. If Daniel is a fraudulent piece of literature,
then the reliability of other books of the Bible of Scripture may legitimately be questioned; in
particular the book of Revelation, because this book is based on Daniel
The Maccabean date hypothesis (that the Book of Daniel was written during the reign of Antiochis
IV) was originally advanced by the third-century A.D. philosopher Porphyrius in his work entitled
“Against Christians”. Before Porphyry the general consensus was that the book was written by
Daniel in the sixth century BC, and is truly inspired prophecy from God. Porphyry was more or
less dismissed by Christian scholarship until the time of the Enlightenment and scientific
revolution in the eighteenth century, when Porphyry's theory received increasing support from
prominent scholars. A number of highly esteemed academics wrote books in support of this view
in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Since then, the majority of scholars generally accept the
Maccabean theory without much question.
In support of their view Critics state that Daniel become more and more detailed and accurate;
it has an excellent view of history after the time of Alexander the Great, especially during the
Maccabean struggles; but his history shows many inaccuracies during the Babylonian and
Persian periods. Daniel must therefore have been written during the persecution under Antiochus
Epiphanes and before his death, even before the success of the Maccabaean [Hasmonean]
revolt; that is to say between 167 and 164. It will be argued in this article that the opposite is true,
namely that Daniel is very accurate with respect to the 6th century BC, but it becomes inaccurate
when the prophecies are applied to Antiochus IV. It will for instance be illustrated that 11:2-19
correlates very well with the history until the death of Antiochus III, but as from 11:20 many
differences arise between the text and the history of the kings after Antiochus III.
EXTERNAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
Most of this document deals with “internal evidence”, namely comparing the contents and
prophecies of Daniel with circumstances and events in the 2nd and 6th century B.C. This section,
however, deals with “external” evidence, namely what documents other than Daniel says about
the book Daniel.

Old Testament
The fact that Daniel is part of the Bible supports the view that it contains real prophecy. It would
be a real surprise to find an allegedly pseudonymous work being accepted as Holy Scripture.
The LXX was begun c.260BC, but this early translation work was only of the Torah (5 books of
Moses). Apparently the translation of Daniel into Greek was not widespread till perhaps after
c.40AD. But still the point is that it was accepted as part of the Holy Scriptures.
The Jewish Bible is divided into three sections, The Law (Torah), the Prophets and the Writings.
In the Jewish Bible Daniel is included the Writings, not in the Prophets. Critics use this fact as
proof that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (about 200
B.C.). (The Writings were closed later.) They reason that if Daniel was truly written in the sixth
century, it should have been placed among the Prophets. However, the indications (Septuagint,
Vulgate, and Christian Old Testament, Josephus and Matthew 24:15) indicate Daniel was initially
part of the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible. It was moved by the rabbis to discourage apocalyptic
and messianic expectations.
Ezekiel mentions a Daniel in 14:14, 20 and 28:3. Those brief descriptions are consistent with the
data in the book of Daniel, but Critics hold that the Ezekiel references were too early to refer to
the Daniel of the Book of Daniel. Daniel was about 8 years younger than Ezekiel, and was
promoted to Nebuchadnezzar’s “cabinet” (2:49) at least 14 years before Ezekiel wrote his book.
It therefore could quite possibly be references to the real Daniel. To whom else can it refer?

Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) contain more copies of Daniel than of any other biblical book.
The way in which Daniel was used at Qumran is indicative of its authoritative status. The
Florilegium refers to 'written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet'. This proves that by about 25 BC
Daniel was already being quoted as Scripture and that Daniel was included among the Prophets
and not among the Writings.
Portions of the Book of Daniel were copied (not "written"!) between 150 and 100 BC. Daniel was
not written at Qumran. These copies could be copies of copies; this cycle would need to be
repeated back to the original acceptance (not its writing) of the document as being "worthy of
copying". A manuscript copy dated at 100 BC, for example, witnesses to far more than the
simple fact that its contents were in existence at that date—It rather represents an end-point to an
earlier (and generally much longer) process of conception, origination, distribution, social
acceptance, veneration and "canonizing".
The presence of early mss of Daniel, when coupled with the 'high view' of Daniel as a 'prophet'
(primary, Classical authority) would indicate a pre-Maccabean date. "Equivalent manuscript finds
at Qumran of other books (Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Chronicles) where the issue of predictive
prophecy is not in question have led scholars to repudiate a Maccabean date for their
compositions. But critical scholars have refused to draw the same conclusion in the case of
Daniel even though the evidence is identical.
The commentaries on Daniel at Qumran One almost prove with certainty that Daniel existed
prior to the second century BC. One writing refers to the “Anointed of the Spirit, of whom Daniel
spoke” (Dan. 9:25-26). There is a quotation of Daniel 12:10 in the Florilegium as being from the
“book of Daniel the prophet”. Several other manuscripts also mention Daniel.
Takamitsu Muraoka did a study on 11QtJob mss and concluded that it should be dated between
250-150 BC. Next, Robert Vasholz determined that the mss of Daniel are older than the
11QtJob.
ALL of the sources closest in time, expertise, and eyewitness-access to the situation [i.e.,
Qumran, NT, Josephus, Rabbinics] describe Daniel's writings as prophecies of the future (NOT
the past!);

New Testament
In Matthew 24, the Olivet Discourse, Christ explicitly mentions Daniel and quote from his book.
He verified that the book was written by Daniel, calls Daniel a prophet and places the
'abomination that causes desolation’ (Dn11:31), the “time of trouble” (Dn12:1), and the Son of
man coming with the clouds of heaven (Dn7:13) in His future (Mat 26:64), which means that
Daniel must contain predictive prophecies.
Jesus used the title Son of Man as his preferred name for himself, often in connection with the
judgement. There should be no doubt that Christ viewed Daniel's Son of Man as referring to
Himself. This linked is made stronger by the additional of the words “coming on the clouds”
(Compare Dn7:13 to Matt 26:64 and similar verses). This is a direct claim by Jesus that he is the
Messiah.
In 2 Thessalonians Paul refers to the "lawless one's" coming as a prerequisite to the Second
Coming, which is most probably a reference to the evil king of Daniel.
Revelation is based in Daniel, as is indicated by:
o The beasts rising from the sea (Daniel 7; Rev 13),
o The time, times and half a time (Dn7:25; 12:7), and derivatives of it, which is found five
times in Revelation (11:2, 3; 12: 6, 14; 13:6).
o The beast from the sea (Rev 13) corresponds to the evil king of Daniel. (Both blaspheme
God, persecute the saints and pretend to be God.)

Other
The O.T. apocryphal book 'Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach', written around 200-180, comments
on the "famous men" as "our ancestors". It mentions many of the big names in the Bible, but not
Daniel. However, Sirach doesn't mention Ezra either, and in the scribal tradition, this is almost
incomprehensible. As long as Ezra is pre-Sirach and is not mentioned, then Daniel could be pre-
Sirach and not be mentioned. The anti-Enochian polemic/instruction might also be at play in
Sirach. If ben Sira is 'selling against' Enoch/Daniel/esoteric wisdom models, it would make sense
for him to 'ignore' Daniel, and even to 'downplay' Enoch.
The Jewish tradition always accepted the prophet Daniel as the author. In fact, Daniel's visions
contributed to an increasing diversity of views in first century Judaism on such issues as
salvation, redemption, resistance to Gentile rule, angels, resurrection, and the nature and mission
of the Messiah. Josephus (1st century) viewed Daniel as real prophecy.
The earliest copy of the book of Daniel is dated around 125-100. Its first indisputable reference
occurs in the book of 1Maccabees, written about 100 (2:59-60).
According to Daniel, the prophet Daniel achieved such high rank in the Babylonian and Persian
Empires that he was second only to the king. Many archaeological records are available from
both empires, but none mentions Daniel. There is no mention in the Jewish literature to
indicate an extraordinary prophet and high ranking official named Daniel/Belteshazzar was known
before the Hasmonean period (from 164). For Critics this is strong circumstantial evidence that
Daniel did not even exist, could not have written the book, and that the book was of later
authorship.
When the references start to appear in I Maccabees and in the Qumran scrolls, there is no
indication of a controversy around Daniel in early literature. When Daniel compiled the book
around 540 B.C., he certainly did not publish it on internet for the world to see. He was instructed
to “seal the book, even to the time of the end” (12:4). It would have taken a long time for the book
to become known widely, still a longer period before it was accepted as part of the sacred
literature and included in the canon. It probably started to become accepted as inspired only after
the prophecy regarding Greece was been fulfilled.
However, it is granted that one would expect references to this extraordinary prophet and high
ranking official earlier in the literature.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The remainder of this document deals with “internal evidence”, namely comparing the text of
Daniel with circumstances and events in the 2nd and 6th century.

LANGUAGE
Critics claim that the author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been
known to residents of Babylon in the 6th century BCE. Some also claim that the book of Daniel is
written partly in Aramaic, a language popular among the Jews in the Second century B.C. but not
at the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
There are three Greek words in Daniel and they are all names of musical instruments. Such
names have always circulated beyond national boundaries as the instruments themselves have
become available to the foreign market, like the Italian piano and viola. Greek words are also
found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth-century B.C.
Actually, the fact that there are so few Greek words in Daniel is proof that Daniel was written
when the Bible states. Had Daniel been written in the second century B.C., there would certainly
have been more Greek words in the book because by that time a Greek-speaking government
had been in control of the Holy Land for 160 years. For instance, the LXX (Greek translation of
the OT) was begun c.260BC.
The Persian loan words in Daniel do not necessarily argue against an early date for the book
since Daniel, who lived under the Persians, could have placed the material in its final form at the
latter part of his life (about 530 B.C.). Four of the nineteen Persian words are not translated well
by the Greek renderings of about 100 B.C. implying that their meaning was lost or drastically
changed meaning, making it is unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 B.C. All of the 19 Persian
loan words found in Daniel have been shown to be of Old Persian and none of which were in use
later than 300 B.C.
The Aramaic langue was the common language used in Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian
communication. Aramaic in the 6th century was equivalent to English in our day. Aramaic was
not the common language in the Maccabean period (166 B.C) where Greek became the common
language.
Daniel’s Aramaic demonstrates grammatical evidences for an early date more closely
associated with the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. than with the second century B.C. 90% of
the Aramaic words in Daniel have been found in texts of the fifth century BC or earlier. The
study of K. A. Kitchen, endorsed by the famous Aramaic scholar E. Y. Kutscher, disposed of the
linguistic argument for good: “there is nothing to decide the date of composition of the Aramaic of
Daniel on the grounds of Aramaic anywhere between the late sixth and the second century BC.”
( K. A. Kitchen)

APOCALYPTIC STYLE AND THEMES

Critics argue that the style in which Daniel was written (apocalyptic) and some of the concepts in
Daniel indicate that it could not have been written in the 6th century because it is only found in
later Biblical and extra-Biblical books.
The apocalyptic writing style was quite common in Israel from the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd
century CE. The book of Revelation in the New Testament is perhaps the best known example.
Revolutionary themes in Daniel include the prominence of angels, the last judgment, the
resurrection of the dead (Dn12:2), and the establishment of the final kingdom, heaven and hell
(Dn12:2). Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names.
However, the apocalyptic style of later books may have been inspired by Daniel. The concepts
may be new with respect for the Old Testament, but is completely consistent with the New, which
verifies that it was inspired by God.

6th CENTURY ACCURACY

Critics maintain that Daniel contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with 6th
century BCE Babylonian history, and that such mistakes would not have been made by an
important official in the employ of King Nebuchadnezzar. This section deals with the alleged
inaccuracies.

Jerusalem captured in the third year

Critical argue that Daniel 1:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of
the reign of Jehoiakim (Dn1:1), while Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in
the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This apparent error is actually a cultural difference of dating
systems. Jeremiah, a Palestinian, naturally uses the Palestinian dating system, which would
place Jehoiakim's fourth year in 605 BC. Daniel, using the Babylonian system, places
Jehoiakim's third year in 605 BC (Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co. 1969, pg. 1112)

This apparent error can easily be used in support of the sixth century date of writing. If the
author of Daniel lived in the second century during the persecution in Palestine:
o He would naturally use his native system of dating, and not the ancient, relatively
unknown system of Babylonian dating.
o He would certainly use Scripture, and refer to historical sources, such as Jeremiah,
which uses the Palestinian dating system.

Siege in 605 B.C.

Critics argue that there is no record of a siege of Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of king
Jehoiakim (Dn1:1), which would be within 608-606.
According to 2 Chronicles 36:5-8 Jehoiakim was 25 years old when he became king, and reigned
for 11 years. Then Nebuchadnezzar came up against him, and bound him up and carried him off
to Babylon. This was in 599 B.C.
However, according to 2 Kings 24:1 Nebuchadnezzar invaded the land, and made Jehoiakim his
vassal. But after three years Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.
It is known that from 609 up to 605, the army of Necho II had reclaimed the whole Levant for
Egypt, with the Judean king as a vassal to the Egyptians. In 605 Necho was defeated by
Nebuchadnezzar, commander of the Babylonian forces, and retreated all the way back to his
homeland. Nebuchadnezzar in all probability besieged Jerusalem in the same year. When
Nebuchadnezzar later returned to Palestine on his way to Egypt, his army was defeated by the
Egyptians (601). Consequently, it would make sense that Jehoiakim was a vassal to the
Babylonians from 604 to 601 and then rebelled. A siege in 605 is therefore likely.
Belshazzar; king
Daniel states that Belshazzar was king the night that Babylon fell (5:30). According to Critics
there is no evidence that Belshazzar officially held the title of "king". The last king of Babylon was
Nabonidus. He ruled from 555 to 539 B.C.E., when Babylon was captured by the Persians under
Cyrus the Great. Nabonidus had a son—Belshazzar—who ruled for a decade as crown prince
while Nabonidus was in Arabia. Nabonidus returned to Babylon before its capture by Cyrus, so
Belshazzar was not the ruler as the Book of Daniel claims, and he was never king.
However, the verse account of Nabonidus says that Nabonidus entrusted the “camp”, the
“kingship” and the army to Belshazzar, and then went on a route of the world. This is fairly
strong evidence that Belshazzar was indeed the coregent of Babylon in his father's absence, and
was there when Babylon fell in 539 BC.

Belshazzar; son
Daniel indicates that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar (Da5:2), but according to the
Nabonidus cylinder Belshazzar is the son of Nabonidus. Critics believe that during the long
period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the
last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken by the 2nd century writer as the
successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. (JE)
Conservatives have responded in two ways. Firstly that there is a distinct possibility that there
was a genetic relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his usurpation of the throne back in 556 B.C., it
would follow that his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. The word for ‘father’
could also mean grandfather. Further, the term “father” does not necessarily imply a blood
relationship. It may also specify a functional relationship.

Darius the Mede

Daniel 5:30-31 reads: "That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain and Darius
the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of 62.” (NIV) He also rules over Babylon in chapters
6 and 9 (9:1; 11:1).
However, according to historians the last king of Babylonia was defeated by the army of ‘Cyrus
the Great’ of Persia in 539 B.C.E, after he conquered the Medes eleven years earlier (550 B.C.).
Gobryas was the conqueror of Babylon and its first governor, at the head of Cyrus' army.
Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source than Daniel, except Flavius Josephus. Darius
also does not appear in the Nabonidus' chronicle. Critics therefore claim that Darius never
existed, but that the later Persian king "Darius the Great" (Darius I 521 B.C.), a later successor to
Cyrus, was confused by the author with Astyages, the last Median king. Critics claim that this
misconception on the part of the 2nd century writer was the result of texts in Isaiah and Jeremia
that predict that Medes will conquer Babilon.
Among writers maintaining an early date for the Book of Daniel, there are several interpretations
of the identity of Darius the Mede. One view concludes that Darius is another name for Cyrus
the Great (cf. 6:28). Another view is that "Darius" is an alternative name of Gubaru (sometimes
spelled as Ugbaru), the governor of Babylon appointed by Cyrus. A third view sees Darius as
another name for Astyages, the last Mede king, who was ultimately deposed by Cyrus.
Josephus makes Darius the son of Astyages and the uncle of Cyrus. Calvin and others identify
Darius the Mede with a certain Cyaxares II. Neither seems wholly satisfactory, and this is one of
the weaker points in the conservative view.

Author’s knowledge of Babylonian history

We have now dealt with possible “errors” in Daniel, for which we currently do not have complete
answers. We now turn to the opposite, namely the precision of the details within the book
relative to the city of Babylon, which argues that the writer was an eye-witness of that ancient
culture, and not a citizen of Judea some three and a half centuries later.
Asphenaz, for example, is mentioned in the first chapter of Daniel as master of the Eunuchs. His
name has recently been found on monuments of ancient Babylon which are now in the Berlin
Museum.
The prophet describes the practice of Belshazzar’s wives and concubines eating with the men
on festive occasions (5:1-4). This was the custom in ancient Babylon and Persia, but not in the
period of the Greeks.
Daniel refers to the law of the Medes and Persians (note that Medes are listed first, then the
Persians; 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15). In later history, due to Persia’ ascendancy, it becomes “the Persians
and Medes” (cf. Esth. 1:19).
Daniel locates the city of Shushan in the province of Elam (8:2), whereas later, due to boundary
relocations, Shushan was in the province of Susiana.
In style, form, and rationale there is a striking resemblance between parts of Daniel and tablets
of ancient Babylonian prophecy which is by no means easy to account for.
Scholars had to conclude that "of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the
close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature
in accuracy. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the
name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes
that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth
century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei
contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. The total information found in
all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the sixth century BC... could not have
provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel.’
To explain this further; the name Belshazzar was lost by the time of the two famous Greek
historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. (Herodotus and Xenophon) when they described
the fall of Babylon but failed to mention the relevant king. Annals in the Greek language ranging
from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent
concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian
empire. This situation goes right down to Josephus in the first century AD. Secular sources
have, since ancient times, stated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. Critics therefore
used to claim that Belshazzar of chapter 5 never existed.
The name “Belshazzar” was not discovered again until the Nabonidus Chronicle was published in
1882. Before that time archaeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the
book of Daniel. With the discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle, Daniel was proven correct. The
mystery here, if one accepts the second century date of writing, is how the author knew of
Nabonidus' leaving Belshazzar in charge.

FOUR KINGDOMS AND THEIR HORNS

This chapter discusses the animals and horns and kings which precede the malicious horn/evil
king. The question to be answered is whether the horn/king arises from Greece or from Rome.

The two views

Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 10-12 contain parallel prophecies. The prophecy in Daniel 2 does not depict
an anti-God power, but serves as an “executive summary” of the history from Babilon to the
“eternal kingdom”. It represents four empires that will successively rule by an image of a man
consisting of four metals; gold, silver, brass and iron. After the iron empire follows a period where
many kings rule (not a single empire), represented by a mixture of iron and clay. Then the eternal
kingdom follows. The first (gold) kingdom is explained as Babilon.
In Daniel 7 the same four kingdoms are represented by four animals (lion, bear, leopard and a
dreadful beast). The fragmented period is represented by the horns of the dreadful beast. During
this period a mighty king arise that blaspheme God and persecute His saints, also represented by
a horn that arises from the dreadful beast, followed by the eternal kingdom.
In Daniel 8 there are only two animals, a ram and a goat. The ram is explained as Mede-Persia
and the ram as Greece. The evil king is also depicted by a horn.
There are no animals in the vision in Daniel 10-12. The Persian kingdom is named, but none of
the later kingdoms or kings are named. In stead the names “king of the south” and “king of the
north” are used. The reader has to identify these kings are by comparing the text with history.
This is not easy, resulting in different readers applying the text differently. For this reason Daniel
10-12 has been described by some as the most complex part of the whole Bible.
The two major schools of thought represent the four kingdoms as follows:
Critics Babylon Medes Persia Greece
Conservatives Babylon Mede-Persia Greece Rome
The Critics therefore have the evil horn coming out of the Greek Empire, while the Conservatives
maintain that the evil king erupts from Rome.

Comparing the animals

Critics and Conservatives agree that the sequence of metals in D2 corresponds to the sequence
of animals in D7:
Daniel 2 Daniel 7 Meaning
Critics and
Gold Lion Babylon Conservatives further
Silver Bear agree that the horn of D7
Brass Leopard is substantially the same
Iron Dreadful Beast as the horn of D8, but
Mixture or iron & clay 11 Horn Fragmented fourth kingdom they disagree on the
relationship between the beasts of Daniel 7 and the beasts of Daniel 8. According to
Conservatives the Ram is the same as the Bear (identified in 8:20 as the Medes and the
Persians), while the Goat corresponds to the Leopard (identified as Greece in 8:21). This means
that the Iron Kingdom (dreadful fourth beast) follows after Greece. The Iron Kingdom must then
be Rome. This further means that the horn comes out of Rome.
Critical scholars make the Ram equal to the Bear plus the Leopard, while the Goat is the same as
the Fourth Beast. The following table depicts the two views:
Daniel 2 Daniel 7 Daniel 8
Conservatives Critics
Gold Lion
Silver Bear Ram = Medes & Persians
Ram = Medes & Persians
Brass Leopard Goat = Greece
Iron Dreadful Goat = Greece
Mixture= Divided 10 Horns 4 Horns
Evil Horn Evil horn Evil Horn
Eternal Kingdom
To determine which interpretation is correct, the descriptions of the animals can be compared:
The Ram corresponds to the Bear.
• The Bear is higher on one side while the Ram has two horns; one being longer.
• The Bear has three ribs between its teeth, while the Ram pushes in three directions.
• The Bear has to each much flesh while none of the animals could stand before the Bear.
The Goat corresponds to the Leopard.
• The Leopard has four wings while the Goat flies
• The Leopard has four heads while four horns grow from the Goat’s head
• The Leopard receives the kingdom while the Ram could not stand before the Goat
There are no apparent similarities between the Ram and the Leopard, not between the Goat and
the Fourth Dreadful Beast. The last two look distinctly different because the Goat first has one
prominent horn, but it breaks off, and four horns grow up in its place. On the other hand the
Dreadful beast first has 10 horns, then an 11th which “pluck out” three of the ten.
The analysis of the text supports the conservative interpretation, which means can be presented
as follows:
Daniel 2 Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Interpretation
Gold Lion Babilon
Silver Bear Ram Medes and Persia
Bronze Leopard Goat Greece
Iron Fourth Rome
Horn Horn Antichris

Media and Persia

Critics separate Media and Persia. They hold that the author of Daniel is saw them as separate
Empires since he has the Neo-Babylonian empire falling to "Darius the Mede" (5:30-31; 6:28).
This preceded the reign of the Persian king, Cyrus the Great (10:1). They admit this is historically
wrong. The Medians were conquered about 550 BCE by the Persians. The Babylonians were
conquered in 539 by the joint forces of by the Persians and the Medes, with Cyrus the Great as
their king.
However, the following indicate that Daniel’s author consistently viewed the Medes and Persians
as a single Empire:
1. Daniel prophesied that Babylon would be conquered by the joint forces of the Medes
and the Persians (5:28).
2. Daniel 6:9, 13 and 16 refers to the unchangeable law of the Medes and the Persians.
3. Dan 8:20 reads: “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of
Media and Persia”.
4. The author would be inconsistent if he describes both Media and Persia by a single
animal in Daniel 8, but as two different animals in Daniel 7 and as two different metals in
Daniel 2.
5. Daniel never refers to a separate Median kingdom. He only refers to a person
(Darius) as a Mede, but within the context of the Persian Empire (Compare 10:1; 11:1-2).
6. There is no indication in Daniel of a conflict resulting in Persia taking over from
Media.

From One From Them

The Hebrew of 8:9 reads “from one from them comes a horn from littleness”. Critics read this as
follows “from one of the four horns”, which would mean that the evil horn is a Greek king. How-
ever, this cannot be because the “one” and the “them” have different genders. The preferred
reading is “from one of the winds of the heavens”. This fits the genders perfectly, and it is also
the final phrase in 8:8.

Where is Rome? (not abbreviated)

Where is Rome in Daniel 8 and 11? This question requires a response because the text does not
seem to describe another empire between Greece and the evil horn.
In response one must note that Daniel 7 already describes the dreadful beast only very
superficially (two verse only--7:7, 19). Most of Daniel 7 describes the evil horn. In Daniel 8 says
that the little horn will grow exceeding great toward the south, the east, and toward the pleasant
land (8:9). This verse describes its horisontal expansion, while 8:10 describes its vertical
expansion towards the host of heaven and the prince of the host. The horisontal expansion is
therefore the beast itself, while the vertical expansion is its evil horn. But one sees a merging of
the beast and its horn. The focus falls on its horn, with the beast itself nearly disappears from the
scene. In fact, the horn in Daniel 8 represents both fourth beast of Daniel 7 and its horn.
There are Conservative scholars that do find Rome in Daniel 11, but it remains debatable. Daniel
11 seems to continue without an intervening empire from Greece to the evil king. Studies have
confirmed the interpretation of Critics up to 11:19, where Antiochus III dies. From that point
onwards there are similarities between the text and the history of Antiochus IV, but the description
exceeds Antiochus IV. In many cases it does not fit Antiochus IV (see below). The text seems to
describe the history up to the time of Antiochus IV, but while discussing Antiochus IV it jumps to a
future and world wide evil king. This also happens in Joel, where the prophet describes a local
locust plague, but then suddenly jumps to the day of the Lord. In Isajah 14 the author jumps from
the king of Babylon to Lucifer (14:4, 12). In Ezekiel 28:12 the author also jumps from the king of
Tyrus to an “anointed cherub that covereth”. Daniel 11 is two stories intertwined. The first starts
with the time of Persia and continues until Antiochus IV. The second starts with the later world
wide evil king with Antiochus IV as type, and continues until Michael stands up (12:1-3). It is also
similar to Matthew 24, where Jesus describes both the fall of the temple in 70 AD and the end of
the world in a single account.
Therefore, the literal Roman Empire may not be in Daniel 11, but the evil king arising from it is.
Antiochus IV is only a partial fulfillment of Daniel 11, to be followed with the final and fuller
fulfillment by an end time Antichrist, in the same way as John the Baptist was a first
representation of Elijah to come.

Horns are kings

To support their view that the horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV, Critics maintain that horns in
Daniel always represent individual kings, never empires, pointing to statements such as: “And the
ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another (horn) shall rise after
them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings” (7:24).
However, in Daniel the terms “king” and “kingdom” are used interchangeably. Sometimes a
symbol is explained as both a king and a kingdom (2:37-40; 7:17, 23). Sometimes kingdoms are
called kings (8:20, 21). Sometimes horns are called kingdoms (8:22).

Ten horns; Three uprooted

Critics interpret the ten horns of Daniel 7 as:
1. Alexander die Grote
2. Seleucus I Nicator,
3. Antiochus I Soter,
4. Antiochus II Theos,
5. Seleucus II Callinicus,
6. Seleucus III Ceraunus,
7. Antiochus III the Great,
8. Seleucus IV Philopator
9. Heliodorus,
10. Seleucus IV’s baby boy Antiochus
According to Critics the last three are the three kings that fell before Antiochus IV. However:
o The 10 horns exist simultaneously (7:8, 20).
o Antiochus IV had nothing to do with the death of his older brother Seleucus IV Philopator.
o Why include Heliodorus in the ten if he is not mentioned in Daniel 11 as a king?
o Heliodorus never ruled.
o Seleucus IV’s baby boy Antiochus never ruled.

2ND CENTURY ACCURACY

This section deals with various arguments for and against the accuracy of Daniel when compared
and applied to the crisis under Antiochus IV in the 2nd century B.C.

Second century history; Overview

Only seven years after he conquered the Persian Empire, Alexander the Great died in Babylon in
323 B.C. at the age of 33. Almost immediately his empire fragmented into separate political
entities; ruled by his generals. The strongest was the Seleucids, a dynasty established by
general Seleucus. Their kingdom extended from India to the Mediterranean Sea with its capital in
Antioch of Syria. Other were the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the far eastern sector and the
Ptolemy dynasty in Egypt and other southwestern territories of Alexander’s empire.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes was one of the Seleucid emperors. He was the son of Antiochus III the
Great (224 – 187 B.C.E.). His brother Seleucus IV Philopator ruled after the death of their father
(187-175 B.C.E.), after which Antiochus IV reigned from 175 – 163 B.C.E. (NWE=New World
Encyclopedia)
When Antiochus IV grew up the Romans were already a major military power. His father,
Antiochus III, was defeated by the Romans when Antiochus IV was still a child. The peace
agreement reached at Apamea in 188 B.C.E. (NWE) demanded that Antiochus IV be held in
Rome as hostage. He spent 14 years of his childhood in Rome.
His elder brother and reigning king (Seleucus IV) arranged for Antiochus IV to be exchanged as
hostage in Rome for Seleucus IV’s eldest son (the later king Demetrius I). While Antiochus IV
was on his way back to Antioch, Seleucid IV was murdered by chief minister Heliodorus.
Heliodorus wished to ascend the throne himself, but the Pergamene monarchs, Eumenes and
Attalus, succeeded in placing Antiochus IV upon the throne.
Meanwhile, in Judea, the Jews were divided between the conservatives who would uphold the
Jewish law and the liberals who would destroy it by living as the Gentiles do (Hellenizers).
The high priest was the most powerful man in Judea. He was equivalent to the king in many
other regions. The high priest when Antiochus ascended the throne was the conservative Onias
III. In 173 B.C. (174 according to Livius) the liberals bribed Antiochus IV to appoint a Judean
priest named Jason as high priest. Jason was Onias II’s more liberal brother, who adopted the
Greek name Jason. When Jason came into office, he immediately initiated his countrymen into
the Greek way of life. (II Macc 4:7-10).
Some years later Jason sent one Menelaus to deliver money to the king. Menelaus used the
money to secure the high priesthood for himself in the year 171 B.C. (II Macc 4:23-24; JE). Onias
made a public protest, whereupon Menelaus arranged for Onias to be killed. (II Macc 4:33,34)
Antiochus IV’s father (Antiochus III) conquered Coele-Syria (including Judea) from the Ptolomies
before his defeats against Rome. Ptolemy VI demanded the return of Coele-Syria, and perhaps
planned to invade Israel and Lebanon. Therefore Antiochus initiated a preemptive strike and
invaded Egypt in 170 B.C.E., conquering all but Alexandria. He captured Ptolemy VI but agreed
to let him continue as puppet king. This had the advantage of not alarming Rome. Antiochus then
withdrew, keeping only Pelusium, the frontier fortress east of the Nile Delta, as pawn.
Meanwhile Alexandria chose Ptolemy VI's brother Ptolemy VIII (Ptolemy Euergetes) as King. In
Antiochus' absence, the two brothers agreed to rule jointly. Hence in 168 B.C.E. Antiochus
again invaded and overran all Egypt but Alexandria, while his fleet captured Cyprus. Antiochus
was about to besiege Alexandria when an ultimatum from the Roman Senate ordered him to
evacuate both Egypt and Cyprus. No match for Rome, Antiochus accepted.
While Antiochus IV was in Egypt, a false rumor circulated that Antiochus was dead. Jason
gathered fully a thousand men and suddenly attacked and took the city. Jason then slaughtered
his fellow citizens without mercy … When these things were reported to Antiovhus IV, he thought
that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by
storm. There was a massacre of young and old. In the space of three days, 80,000 were lost.
Antiochus IV then also robbed the temple (II Macc 5:5-16), and Menelaus was restored as High
Priest.
Antiochus afterwards sent an officer through the country with armed troops, commissioned to slay
and destroy. He first entered Jerusalem amicably; then suddenly turned upon the defenseless
city. He murdered, plundered, and burnt through its length and breadth. The old City of David
was fortified anew by the Syrians, and made into a very strong fortress completely dominating the
city.
Not long after this Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should abandon his particular
customs (1M 1:41-42). All Gentiles conformed to the command, and many Israelites were in
favor of his religion. They sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath (1:43). Israel was driven
into hiding, wherever places of refuge could be found (1:53). The officers charged with carrying
out these commands did so with great rigor. The possession of a sacred book or the performance
of the rite of circumcision was punished with death. (JE)
On 15 Chislev, in the year 145 (December 6, 167 B.C.), Antiochus erected a horrible
abomination upon the altar of burnt offerings. In the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan
altars (1:54). This “abomination” was probably the Olympian Zeus, or Baal Shamem (JE).
The revolt began in the year 165 B.C.E. when Mattathias, a priest, first killed a fellow priest who
performed a pagan sacrifice in the Temple. Mattathias fled Jerusalem with his five sons (known
as the Maccabees) where, joined by many pious Jews, he started a guerrilla war against the
Seleucids. The war continued after Antiochus IV’s death against Demetrius I, until 164 B.C.E.
when Jerusalem was taken, the Temple restored and quasi-independence under Roman
protection was achieved.
On December 14, 164 B.C. they offered sacrifice according to the law on the new altar that they
had made. (1 Macc 4:52-53) This victory is still today celebrated in the feast of Hanukkah.
Josephus - a secondary but important source - reports that Antiochus visited Jerusalem
twice; in 168 and 166. His account of the first visit has Antiochus stealing nothing from the
Temple and killing only his opponents. His account of the second visit, just as that in II
Macc, has Antiochus massacring much more generally and not just some of his opponents;
massacring and enslaving thousands and also robbing the Temple. Given his usual
dependence upon I Maccabees, it is difficult to answer why Josephus departed seriously
from its story here, moving to 166 BCE events which I Macc puts in 169 BCE,. It does not
seem that Josephus knew of or used II Maccabees. (Daniel Schwartz):
With this background information, the text of Daniel, in particular the prophecies, can be
compared to these events to see whether they fit.

Theme of stories
The visions in Daniel are received against the background of historical events presented as
occurring in the 6th century. If the book was written in the time of Antiochus IV, the stories in
Daniel should be thematically consistent with the history at the time of Antiochus IV. They should
parallel the crisis four centuries later. Conservative highlight the following the stories as
substantially different from the events and circumstances in the 2nd century:
o No affliction of the type ascribed here to Nebuchadnezzar ever afflicted Antiochus.
 o Nebuchadnezzar and Darius were both converted after they had discovered their
mistakes, but this is in no way parallel to what will happen to the evil king in Danie.
o Daniel does not want the people to take up arms against godless rulers as the
Maccabees did: Daniel and his friends seem to be passive resisters.
o Whereas the evil king in Daniel deliberately attempted to root out the Jewish religion,
Nebuchadnezzar and Darius persecuted faithful Jews only inadvertently.
o The Maccabean revolt actually was a civil war between the orthodox and reformist
parties in the Jewish camp, but Daniel reflects the conflict as between the “despicable”
and the holy ones.
Critics point to the following parallels to the crisis under Antiochus IV:

• Daniel I tells of Daniel and his friends who risked their lives rather than to defile
themselves with unclean food. Under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes Jews were
allegedly ordered under penalty of death to eat "unclean" meat.

• When Daniel's friends refused to obey the king's decree, they were thrown into a fiery
furnace, but God enabled them to walk through the fire unharmed. Second Maccabees
7 tells the story of seven brothers who refused to obey the pagan decrees of Antiochus.
They were then one by one roasted alive in pans, while their mother stood by watching
and urging them not to relent, promising that the god who had given them life "will in his
mercy give you back again breath and life" (v:23).

• Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar desecrated the sacred vessels from the temple in
Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar by taking them to Babylon to put in the house of his god
(1:2) and Belshazzar by sending for the vessels during the great festival for his lords so
that they could drink wine from them while praising their gods of gold, silver, brass, iron,
and wood (5:1-4). Antiochus Epiphanes also profaned the vessels of the temple. He
entered the temple and lay "his polluted hands on the sacred vessels" (2 Macc. 5:15-16).

Rome at the time of Antiochus IV

The author depicted Antiochus IV a lot more powerful than he was; and the Romans were
understated & barely suggested in the book. The Romans already defeated Antiochus III the
Great, the father of Antiochus IV, at Magnesia in 190 B.C. in Asia Minor and at Thermopylae in
Greece in 191 B.C. Following his second invasion of Egypt a Roman ambassador asked
Antiochus IV to leave Egypt. With the victorious Romans "at the back door" in Macedonia (they
had just defeated its king, Perseus, June 22, 168), a humiliated Antiochus had to agree. It is
therefore difficult to understand why an informed Jewish author in 165 would ‘predict” dat
Antiochus IV would overcome the king of Egypt and his ally (Rome).
In the book of Daniel, 'Babylon' appears 17 times, 'Persia' 6 times, 'Egypt' 4 times and 'Greece' 3
times. Rome and the Roman(s) are never named. This fits the 6th century, when they were not
aware of Rome. If the book was really written in the 2nd century, would Rome not have been
mentioned? This is supported by the fact that Judas Maccabeus, the leader of the Jewish revolt
against Antiochus IV sent two envoys to Rome (1 Macc 8:17).

The Revolt
If the book was written during the crisis under Antiochus IV, to call the Jews up to resist him, it is
difficult to understand why the book never say that their will be a revolt, or that the revolt will
succeed. The book only describes the sufferings of the saints (12:7), until they are rescued at the
end of the world, as we know it (12:1).
Critics explain this by saying that the latest attested historical event with which the author of
Daniel was familiar, was the desecration of the sanctuary and the massacres in 167 BCE, giving
this as the earliest date for the Book of Daniel. The writer did not mention the successful
Maccabaean response to it, or the joyous occasion of the recovery and rededication of the
sanctuary only three years later, suggesting that this had not yet occurred when the book was
written.

Time of the END

In the final chapter of Daniel, the author describes the "end of history" - a resurrection of the
dead, judgment and transfer the resurrected dead to heaven or hell. The period preceding the
“end of history” is called the “time of the end”. The wars of this period are described in 11:40-45.
This is also the period when many will study the book and knowledge of the book will increase.
Then the book will be “opened” (12:9)
Critics accept that 11:40 and further do not agree with historical facts. Their solution is to
describe 11:40 and further as the author’s own incorrect predictions. The question arises why, if
the book has been written in 165 B.C., and somehow eventually became part of the canon, why
did the author not fix the text a year later, after the sacrifices were reinstated?
Another question is why would a late writer not include the Messiah in his predictions of the future
in Dn7, 8 and 10-12? The Jews expected the Messiah to come. Daniël also predicts the
Messiah in chapter 9.

Greater; Devour the whole earth

The evil king is depicted as more clever, evil and powerful than any of his predecessors,
particularly in Daniel 7 and 8. For instance, the 11th horn is larger than the other 10 horns (7:20).
It “devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces" (7:23).
History does not confirm that Antiochus IV devoured the whole earth, trampled it or broke it to
pieces The Romans defeated his father. Antiochus IV grew up as prisoner in Rome, and his
whole life he and his empire was subject to the threat of Rome’s growing power. He had some
success against the Ptolemies, but by the time Daniel was allegedly written (165 B.C.) the
Romans already commanded him to leave Egypt.
In Daniel 8 the Medo Persian Empire will become “great” (8:4), Alexander the Great will become
“very great” (8:8) but the horn will become “exceedingly great” (KJV; RSV, 8:9).
Alexander the Great is listed by Critics as the first of the ten kings. How can Antiochus IV be
described as greater than him? Seleucus I Nicator was the first king of the Seleucid branch of the
Greek kingdom. The writer of Daniel confirms his great dominium in 11:5. Antiochus III was
called “the Great” because he expanded the domain of the Seleucid kingdom to close to its
original size. Antiochus IV was weak compared to these kings.

Civil war
Daniel paints a picture of a tyrant that opposes God and His saints as first principle. The reality
at the time of Antiochus IV was that the events were, to a large extent, the result of infighting
between the Jews. The influence of the Hellenistic culture was strong, even before Antiochus IV
forced it down on the peoples of his kingdom (1 Macc 1:11-14). The leading Jews promoted
these practices (2 Macc 4:7-10), with a minority resisting it (1 Macc 2:19). The Maccabean war
began in 167 B.C.E. with a rebellion against a pro-Seleucid Jewish group that ruled Judea. In
164 B.C.E. a native Maccabean army captured Jerusalem.
Antiochus IV did not oppose God and the saints as first principle. He wrote to his whole kingdom
that all should abandon his particular customs. (1M1:41-43). He also robbed other temple
treasures (2 Macc 9:2) to pay his debt to the Romans. He attacked Jerusalem because he
thought that the city was revolting (II Macc 5:5-16).
Son of man; Messiah (not abbreviated)
One like the Son of man comes with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days (7:13). If Daniel
was a pseudographer written in the 2nd century BC, why would the writer present a character like
the “Son of man”, and why would the inspired writers of the NT accept this as a prediction of
Jesus Christ?
On the other hand the Jews expected the Messiah. Daniel also predicts the Messiah in chapter
9. But why is there no Messiah in chapters 7, 8 and 10-12? Would a late writer not include a
Messiah that would lead the Jews to world dominance, as we see in the New Testament they
expected? The prophecies of the Old Testament predicted that the other nations will see how
good Israel’s laws are, and how healthy and wealthy the people are, and would join with them,
until the whole world had joined with them, except a hostile minority. Why is this perspective not
in Daniel, if it was written in the 2nd century?

Latter end
The horn arises in the latter time of the kingdom of the four horns. (8:23): “at the latter end of
their rule” (RSV), or “in the latter period of their rule” (NASB). The Greek kingdom existed from
312 to 30 B.C. Antiochus IV reigned somewhere in the middle of this period (175-164 B.C.), not
at the end of it. The Critics’ defense will probably be that the author thought that he lived in the
latter times. This is nevertheless an important indicator, namely that this power arise while the
Greek Empire comes to its end, which means it must be Rome.

South, East and Glorious Land (Not abbreviated)

The horn “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the
pleasant land” (8:9). This means that the horn invades these areas. This fit Roman Empire.
Rome lies to the west of Judea and the areas of the previous Babilon, Persian and Greek
Empires. The “pleasant land” refers to Judea. Rome expanded mostly to the east (including
Palestine) and the south by occupying Macedonia, Sirië, Palestina and Egipte. Critics would
point to the fact that Rome also occupied major areas to the West of Rome, but perhaps that is
less important from the viewpoint of Israel.
It is difficult to fit this description to Antiochus IV. Antiochus IV did have some success to the
south (Egypt), but when the book was written according to the Critics (165 B.C.), he was already
commanded out of Egypt. He also did not invade Judea. That his father did, and also the
Romans in 63 B.C. In the east he also did not invade anything. At best he strengthened his
control over the areas which his father occupied. And if the south can be mentioned, then also
the West, because he also invaded Cyprus when he invaded Egypt.
The sequence is also wrong. If he did invade these areas, the sequence should be East, South
and Beautiful Land.

Change Times and Law

The little horn tries to change times and law (7:25). Antiochus IV did not try to change the law.
He burned all copies of the Torah he could lay his hands on.

The turning point (not abbreviated)

The vision in Daniel 10-12 is important because Critics actually derive the Antiochus-
interpretation (the Maccabean thesis) from these chapters, and then apply this interpretation to
the earlier chapters. As one critic said: “Daniel's was written during the period of the Maccabees,
in the middle of the 2nd century B.C.E., or about 400 years after the events it describes. Its
origin is betrayed in chapter 11, when Daniel supposedly prophesies about the future.”
Daniel 11 is the best support for the Critic’s view. This chapter starts with the Persian kings
(11:2). Then it jumps 150 years to a "mighty king" (Alexander the Great) (11:3). Then it
describes the two fragments of Alexander’s empire that contended for the territory of Judea under
the names “king of the north” (Seleucid dynasty of the Middle East) and “”king of the south”
(Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt). Both were descended from two of Alexander's officers.
To quote a Critic: “11:2-20 is a very accurate & historically corroborated sequence of
events from the third year (10:1) of the Persian era up to the predecessor of Antiochus IV
(Hellenist era): some three hundred and sixty six years! Only the names and dates are
missing. Most of the details are about the conflicts between the kings of the South (the
Ptolemies of Egypt) and the kings of the North (the Seleucids of Mesopotamia/Syria). The
Seleucids are shown to become stronger and stronger (despite some setbacks) all the way
to (and including) Antiochus IV (11:21-31), described as the most powerful (and diabolic) of
them all. Of course, Jerusalem was in the middle and changed hand (197, from Egypt to
Syria). These alleged prophecies are unique in the O.T. relative to their accuracy and
details!”
From 11:21 onwards it discusses the vile king. It is agreed here with the Critics that Antiochus
III’s death is described in 11:19. (A very detailed study is available comparing history with the
text.) If 11:20 describes Seleucus IV (Note; no Heliodorus), then Antiochus IV would fit the
sequence perfectly. The following indicate that the description of the vile king in Daniel 11
expands on the description of the horns of Daniel 7 and 8, which means they must be the same:
o In Daniel 8 says in a single verse (8:11) that the horn magnifies himself to the prince of
the host and takes away the daily sacrifice. In Daniel 11 these two events are separated
by 8 verses. The first event (breaking of the prince) is in 11:22 and the second (daily
sacrifice) is in 11:31. In between are described two attacks on the king of the south.
o Daniel 8 is very brief in describing the persecution of the saints (8:24) while Daniel 11
use four verses (32-35) for this purpose.
o Daniel 8 just briefly says that the horn will “magnify himself in his heart” while Daniel 11
use two verses (36-37) to say that he will “magnify himself above every god”.
o Daniel 8 is very brief in describing the horn’s methods, namely “cunning”, “deceit” and
“without warning”, while Daniel 11 use at least four verses (21-24) to explain his work
methods.
o Daniel 8 is very brief with respect to where the horn comes from (8:9), while Daniel 11
use about 20 verses to describe the preceding kings (1-20)
11:3-19 does fit the history of the Greeks Empires. The problem with the Critics’ approach is that
the description of the vile king in 11:20-39 does not fit Antiochus IV. There are similarities, but
Daniel 11:21 cannot be applied to Antiochus IV. Desmond Ford noted: “Verses 21-35 fit his
(Antiochus’s) time perfectly, but let it be noted that this interpretation by no means exhausts the
passage” (p 144; Daniel and the coming King). This is explained elsewhere. But first another
point must be made;
The generally agreed interpretation is that 11:2 refers to Xerxes when it mentions that the third
Persian king will be wealthier than his predecessors, and will attack the Greeks. This did happen,
but he lost that war against the Greeks. Then the next verse jumps over all the remaining
Persian kings for the next 150 years to the first Greek emperor, namely Alexander the Great.
Xerxes’s reign was the turning point for the Persian Empire. This same principle applies to the
Seleucids. The rule of Antiochus III the Great was a turning point for the Seleucids, for he first
expanded the empire to close to its original size, but then attacked but lost major battles against
the Romans. As a result he and his sons had to pay penalties, and left subject to the dominance
of the Romans. (The “prince” in 11:18 is interpreted by Critics and most others as the Romans.)
If the same principle applies here that applied to Xerxes, the prophecy will skip over all the
remaining Seleucid kings to the next empire (Rome), which occupied Judea in 63 BC.
This explains the significant detail given about Antiochus III. It was not to emphasize the
kings following him, but rather that his reign was the turning point for the shift in world
dominance from the Greek to the Roman Empires.

Seleucus IV
Dan 11:20 refers to “a raiser of taxes” that “shall be destroyed” “within few days”, “neither in
anger, nor in battle”. Critical apply this to Seleucus IV, but he reigned for 13 years, which is
longer than Antiochus IV did. He was murdered, which does not fit the “neither in anger”. Nor
was he a “raiser of taxes” any more than his father.

Vile
The king in 11:21 is called “vile” in the very first verse dealing with him. The context implies that
he is “vile” even before he becomes king. That would be the reason why they do not “give him”
the honour of the kingdom (11:21). This would not apply to Antiochus IV.

Deceit
There is ample evidence that the horn or vile person gains authority and rules through deceit.
Words such as “flatteries” (11:21 KJV), “intrigue” (11:21 NASB), “hypocrisy” (11:34 NASB),
“cunning” (8:25 RSV), “deceit” (8:25 RSV) are used. History does not confirm that Antiochus IV
applied deceit more that any of the kings before him.
For emphasis this point is explained in this paragraph in different words. The people do not make
him king, but somehow he does become king. He does not use violence or war to become king.
He gains power by saying one thing and then doing something else. He concludes agreements
with people but breaks the agreement whenever it suites him. The people did not want him to
become king, because in their view he is contemptible. They do not make him king, but slowly he
becomes king through political maneuvering. This does not describe Antiochus IV.

Not give him

They shall not give him the vile person the honour of the kingdom (11:21). Antiochus was given
the honour of the kingdom.

Onias and the Prince

The vile king will break the prince of the covenant (11:22). Critics maintain that Onias III is the
prince of the covenant (eg NIV). Antiochus IV replaced Onias III as high priest with Onias’s
brother Jason. In 171 B.C. Onias was killed on instigation of the then ruling high priest. A
number of reasons may be proposed why the Prince of the covenant refers to Jesus Christ and
not to Onias III, namely:
o It would not be fair to say that Antiochus IV swept Onias away before him, because it was
done on request of his fellow Jews.
o The implication of the text is that the prince is alive while the saints are persecuted and
the temple defiled (the elements of 8:11 go together), while Onias was killed about four
years before the temple was defiled.
o Surely the prince of the covenant must be the same as the prince that “confirms the
covenant with many for one week” (9:25). But Critics interpret the “prince of the
covenant” in 9:25 as the destroyer prince of 9:24, namely as Antiochus IV. This would
mean that Antiochus “breaks” himself.
o In Daniel 8 the same prince is called the Prince of princes” (8:25). Daniel also
mentions the prince of the host, Messiah the Prince (9:25) and Michael, one of the chief
 princes (10:13) and the prince of the Israelites (10:21; 12:1). The Prince of Princes must
be above all other princes; just as the God of gods (11:36) is above all gods. The Prince
of Princes must therefore be the highest of the princes mentioned.
o The heavenly being Michael is called the great prince (12:1), and is therefore probably
the Prince of princes”. He is the archangel (Jude 1:9). He is the Commander of the
angels (Rev 12:7-9).
o A High Priest is never called the “prince of the host” in the Bible. The only other place
where the phrase “prince of the host” is used is Josua 5:14-15, and here He is worshiped
by Josua.
If it is accepted that the “prince of the covenant” refers to Jesus Christ, then whether the book
was written in 165 B.C. or in the 6th century B.C. has no impact on the question whether Daniel
contains real prophecy.

Supported by few
The vile person will initially be supported by few (11:23). Antiochus IV was a Seleucid prince and
brother to the murdered king. After Heliodorus killed his brother (the previous king), the mighty
people of the empire made Antiochus IV king, and killed Heliodorus. Antiochus was supportered
by many.

Distribute the plunder

The vile person will do something which his forefathers never did, namely to distribute the plunder
amongst his friends (the initial few supporters) (11:24). Again this was not true of Antiochus IV,
more than of any previous king. To the contrary, he had to pay huge sums of money to Rome
following his father’s defeat against the Romans, and needed the money.

Magnify himself
“The king shall will exalt and magnify himself above every god. Neither shall he regard the
God of his fathers, nor have regard for any god: for he shall magnify himself above all” (11:36-
37). This was definitely not true of Antiochus IV. He promoted the religion of his fathers.
The vile king will serve and promote a “strange god”, unknown to his fathers (11:38-39). This
does not fit Antiochus either. His aim was that all people should serve the gods of his fathers.

The real issue

But the real issue is not the interpretation, but the unwillingness on the part of Critics to accept
that real prophecy is possible, because, even if the interpretation of Daniel’s visions is really
limited to the time of Antiochus IV, it still can be real predictive prophecy. The real issue is
that Critics do not accept that God knows the future. And because Daniel mentions the Greek
empire by name, and describe the fragmented Greek empires very accurately, they assume it
was written after the events described.
There are two ways of proving the Critics wrong. Firstly one may prove that Daniel wat written
before the time of Antiochus IV. Secondly one may prove that it contains prophecy of events later
than the time of Antiochus IV.

TIME PERIODS IN DANIEL

The purpose in this section is not to explain everything about these time periods, but to test the
Critic’s interpretation against the information in Daniel.
2300 Days
A “holy one” asks (KJV 8:13): “how long shall be the vision concerning the:
o daily sacrifice, and
o transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden
under foot?”
Then another “holy one” answers: “Unto 2300 evenings and mornings (2300 days—KJV); then
shall the sanctuary be restored to its rightful state” (8:14 RSV).
“2300 evening morning” is a strange expression time, which implies that it is not a literal time
period, but symbolic, similar to the “horn”.
According to 12:11 the taking away of the daily sacrifice is the same event as the setting up of the
abomination. The term “transgression of desolation” in 8:13 is probably the same as the “abomi-
nation of desolation” elsewhere in Daniel (11:31; 12:11). According to 8:13 it consists of or
results in the trampling (RSV) of both the sanctuary and the host. The conclusion is therefore
that the things mentioned in 8:13 and 14 all begin and end on the same dates.
Daniel 8 does not say when the 2300 “evening morning” begins, nor does it say that the temple
will be defiled for this period. It only says that the temple will be restored at the end of this period.
Critics interpret the abomination as the setting up of a statue of Zeus in the temple by Antiochus
IV. However, in Mat 24:15 Jesus is quoting as saying: “When ye therefore shall see the abomi-
nation of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
him understand:).” Notice that Jesus places the abomination in the temple (as Antiochus IV did),
but he places it in the future, which means that what Antiochus IV did was an example of a bigger
and perhaps spiritual fulfillment in the future.

1150 Days
Critics interpret the "2300 evenings and mornings" as "half-days", or 1150 full days. This will fit
better the time periods of the crisis under Antiochus IV. He put a stop to temple services for 1105
days. But the 2300 “evening morning” should not be understood not as 2300 sacrifices, or “half-
days”, but as 2300 full days, for the following reasons:
a) In the Bible the morning sacrifice is always mentioned first (Eg Ex 29:38-46),
while in Daniel the evening is mentioned first. The place in the Bible that does talk
about “evening and morning” is Genesis 1, where the two together refers to a single
day.
b) The Bible speaks of the two daily sacrifices as a single sacrifice (Ex 29:42).
c) “2300 evenings and mornings” should be read as 2300 evenings and 2300
mornings, because evenings and mornings are inseparable. If one says 2300
summers and winters, it means 2300 years, because summers and winters are
inseparably linked.
If the 2300 “evening morning” is properly understood as 2300 days, which is more than 6 years,
and then it does not fit the Antiochus IV thesis at all.

1260 Days
Daniel 12 starts with Michael standing up in a time of extreme trouble and saving everybody
whose names are written in the book of life. Then those that sleep in the dust of the earth awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt. The wise will shine like stars (2:1-3).
Then Daniel is instructed to seal the book until the time of the end. At that time many will study
the visions, and knowledge of it will increase. (Dn12:4)
Then somebody asks “How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?” (12:6) referring to the
wonderful things in the previous verses (Dan12:1-4). Then a man, clothed in linen, standing
above the waters of the river, held both his hands up unto heaven, and swore by him that live for
ever “that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to
scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished”. (Dn12:7)
This answer refers to a different time period. It refers back to Daniel 7, where the “time, times,
and a half” (3½ times) was first mentioned as a period of persecution. Still Daniel does not
understand (12:8), and the man in linen provides further information: “from the time that the daily
sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be a
1290 days” (12:11).
This is a clarification of the “time, times and dividing of a time” (3½ times) of 12:7. The question
is what the relationship between the 1290 days and the 3½ times is. For this we will have to go to
the book of Revelation. There we will read that the 3½ times is therefore equal to 1260 days
(compare Rev 12:6, 12:14, 11:2 and 11:3).
According to Daniel 12:11 the 1260 days (3½ times) and the 1290 days have the same end point.
This means that the 1290 starts 30 days before the 3½ times. The sanctuary will therefore be
desecrated 30 days before the start of the persecution of the saints, and this does not fit the time
of Antiochus IV. In the 2nd century it was the other way around. The persecution of the “saints”
started before the temple was desecrated. Remember that these events were history from a
second century writer’s perspective, and should therefore reflect historical reality.
Further, if the 2300 days is taken as 1150 days, and if it starts at the beginning of the 1290 days,
then it ends 140 days before the end of the 1290 days, which means that the saints are persecu-
ted for 140 days after the sanctuary has been cleansed. This also does not fit the time of Antio-
chus IV. If the 2300 days are taken as real days, then it continues for more than 1000 days after
the end of persecution, and does not fit the 2nd century either.

1335 Days
The man in linen then continues: “Blessed is he that waits, and comes to the 1335 days” (12:12).
The implied starting date for the 1335 days is the same as the 1290 days, which means that there
are 45 days between the date on which persecution ends and some unidentified joyous event.
The author of Daniel therefore envisaged quite a complex end time. Why would a second
century writer present such a complex future view? Presumably a 2nd century writer would
envisage a single end date.

Start of 2300 days

To summarise the time periods, it can be presented as follows:
Day 0: Abomination set up / Continual taken away
Day 30: Persecution starts
Day 1290: Persecution ends
Day 1335: Joyous event
Stated differently, the Persecution period (3½ times = 1260 days) forms the core. This is
preceded by 30 days, starting with the taking away of the Continual, and followed by 45 days,
ending with an unidentified joyous event.
It is still not clear where the cleansing of the sanctuary (8:14) fits into this structure. But it should
be quite clear that the temple is not trampled for a period of 2300 days. The joyous event at the
end of the 1335 days may be the cleansing of the sanctuary, which would mean that the
sanctuary would be “polluted” (11:31) for 1335 days. This would mean that the 2300 days will
start nearly 1000 days before “Day 0”.
Daniel 9
Daniel 9 differs from the other visions. It is very short (9:24-27), packed with time periods, and do
not predict a series of kings.

Discussion
In Daniel 9 the angel promises a period of 70 weeks grace for Israel and Jerusalem, to achieve
the wonderful things mentioned in 9:24. It is interesting to note that the 70 years of exile to
Babilon was linked to the sabbatical year principle, namely that the land should rest every
seventh year. The 70 years was the penalty for the previous 420 years of sin (70 weeks of years
= 490 years; deduct the 70 = 420). Then it is interesting to note that it was about 420 years from
the time of king Saul to the beginning of the 70 years. But now the emphasis is on a new cycle of
490 years
Both Critics and conservatives interpret the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as 490 years, but apply it very
differently. Critics apply the last week (seven years) to the crisis period under of Antiochus IV,
while conservatives interpret the Messiah the Prince (9:25) as Jesus Christ.
A “time, times and half a time” and “2300 evening morning” are strange expressions of time. 70
weeks is another strange way of expressing time. In the same way in which strange animals and
horns are used to represent real empires and kings, these strange time periods represent real
time periods. These strange time periods should therefore not be interpreted literally. The 70
weeks prophecy introduces the concept that a day represents a year. This raises the possibility
that this principle might also apply to the other strange time periods Daniel. In other words, that
the “2300 evening morning” may be equal to 2300 years, and the “time, times and half a time”
may be equal to 1260 years.
The 70 weeks consists of three successive periods of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week (9:24-27).
Some translations of 9:25 put the Messiah after the first 7 weeks, but fair treatment of the text
requires that the Messiah in 9:26 be the same as the Messiah in 9:25, which means that the
Messiah is cut off after the 62 weeks (9:26). The Messiah therefore appears at the end of the 62
weeks, as in the NASB, NIV, KJV, Young’s Literal and many other translations.
The events described in 9:24-27 cannot occur in the sequence given in the text. For instance:
o The last part of 9:25 (building street and wall) must take place before the first part of the
same verse (the arrival of Messiah the Prince).
o In 9:26 the city and sanctuary are destroyed, but in 9:27 he causes sacrifices to cease. If
the sanctuary is destroyed there is no need to cause sacrifices to cease.
It is therefore proposed that the text be read as presented in the tables below. In this
representation the first parts of each of the verses 25 to 27 refer to Messiah the Prince, while the
second parts refer to the city; first it’s rebuilding and then its destruction:
24: 70 weeks
upon thy people and holy city
are determined
Finish the transgression Make an end of sins
To: Make reconciliation for iniquity Bring in everlasting righteousness
Seal up the vision and prophecy Anoint the most Holy
Messiah City
25: From the going forth of the com-
mandment to restore and to build the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in
Jerusalem unto the Messiah the troublous times
Prince shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks
26: After 62 weeks shall Messiah be the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy
cut off the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be
not for himself with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations
 are determined.
27: He shall confirm the covenant with
for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it
many for one week: and in the midst of
desolate, even until the consummation, and that
the week he shall cause the sacrifice
determined shall be poured upon the desolate
and the oblation to cease
The 490 years start with the commandment to restore Jerusalem (9:25). The text does not say
what happens at the end of the first 7 weeks (49 years). One possibility is that the restoration of
the city will then be completed. The 62 weeks end with the appearance of Messiah the Prince.
Many conservatives put a “gap” between the 62 weeks and the last week, but the writer was not
aware of such a gap. In the “midst” of the last week (seven years) “he” causes the sacrifice and
the oblation to cease. “Midst” is not necessarily precisely in the middle of the seven years. The
event defining the end of the last seven years, and therefore the end of the full 490 years is not
clear from the text, except that that is when “he” no longer “confirms” the covenant (9:27).

Critical view
The interpretation of the Critics may therefore be presented in the following table:
70 weeks start Destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.)
End of first 7 weeks Cyrus issues the decree of liberation (538 B.C.)
End of 7+62 weeks The murder of the deposed high priest Onias III (171 B.C.)
Temple desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by
Midst of the last week
Antiochus Epiphanes (December 6, 167 B.C.)
CRISIS
End of the 490 years Temple services restored on December 14, 164 B.C.

The Cross
The text of Daniel 9 does not fit the Critics’ interpretation, and must be interpreted as referring to
the cross, for the following reasons:
1. The six-fold purpose of the 70 weeks is given in 9:24, for instance “to bring an end to sin
and to bring in eternal righteousness”. This is the solution to the human sin problem
(9:24), and does not fit Antiochus IV. It does fit the cross.
2. Daniel 9 implies that the sin problem will be solved through the “Messiah the Prince”
(9:25). He will be cut off (killed; 9:26) and put an end to sacrifices (9:27). This looks very
much like a prediction of the Jesus Christ and of His death o the cross, after which the
sacrificial system lost its meaning. The writer of Daniel could not have believed that the
sin problem will be solved through Onias III, who was killed 4 years before Antiochus IV
desecrated the temple.
3. The conflict in the time of Antiochus IV was more of the nature of a civic war than that of
conflict with an external oppressor. The severest condemnation of the writer of I
Maccabees goes, not to the Seleucid politicians, but to the lawless apostates among his
own people. It is difficult to see how a second century writer could write 9:24 to describe
a mostly civil war between a pro-Hellenistic and an anti-Hellenistic Jewish factions.
4. In the Critic’s view the Messiah of 9:25 is Cyrus and the Messiah in 9:26 is Onias III. But
there is not a Messiah after 7 weeks (as explained above).
5. Other Bible passages use the term “messiah” exclusively for people that rescue Israel
from danger. This could not be applied to Onias, as he died four years before the crisis.
6. Daniel 9 does not say that the destroyer prince will cut off Messiah the Prince. The des-
troyer prince is introduced only after Messiah the Prince is cut off (9:26). This does not
fit the Antiochus IV thesis, but it does fit the cross thesis, where the Romans destroyed
the city in the year 70.
 7. The Hebrew of 9:27 does not read to “conclude” an agreement, but to “confirm” an
agreement for one week. The agreement therefore existed before the last seven years,
which implies that it is the covenant between God and Israel. Antiochus IV did not
conclude or confirm an agreement with anybody for one week.
8. Jesus did confirm the covenant for one week (seven years). The last seven starts with
the coming (RSV) of the anointed (RSV). This could be the beginning of His ministry,
when He was baptized and anointed with the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:37, 38). In the “midst”
(KJV) of the next seven years he cause sacrifice to end (9:27). This could be the
crucifixion, where the Lamb of God was killed, and sacrifices lost their meaning, because
they pointed forward to the Lamb of God. But this was not the end of the period of grace
for the Jews. The message continued to go to Jews only (Acts 10:47-11:3, 18, 19) until
Peter had the dream of the animals (Acts 10:11, 12), whereby God showed him not to
“call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). This could be the end of the last seven.
9. In 11:22 the “vile person” breaks the “prince of the covenant”, which must be the same
one the one that confirms the covenant for one week (9:27). But the latter in interpreted
by Critics as Antiochus. Putting the two verses together, it would mean that Antiochus
breaks himself.
10. AE did not “destroy the sanctuary” (9:26). He defiled the temple. Refer to 1Macc.1:30-
31, 39 quoted above.
11. According to the critical view (as explained above) the complete period (586-164) is 422
years, but it should be 490 years (9:24). It is unlikely that an informed writer in 165 BC
would make such a big mistake.
12. The situation is actually worse. Critics start the 490 years with the destruction of
Jerusalem (586), but it should begin with the issue of a word to restore Jerusalem (9:25).
There are four such “words” in history. The first candidate is the one used by the Critics.
It was issued by Cyrus' in 539 B.C.E. Using this “word” would reduce the period to 529-
164=365 years.
13. But this cannot be the “commandment” referred to by Daniel because the city was still in
ruins 100 years later when Artaxerxes issued his decree in his twentieth year (444 B.C.)
(Neh. 2:2). If we use Artaxerxes’s order, the actual period until the time of Antiochus
world be 444-164=280 years, while the prophecy requires 490 years.
14. If the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 (458 BC) is the starting point, Daniel 9 gives a fairly
accurate date for Christ’s crucifixion c. AD 32.
If Daniel 9 predicts the cross, then Daniel undeniably contains proper prophecy, as copies of
Daniel (Dead Sea Scrolls) have been available to the Qumran sect before the crucifixion.

Link to other prophecies

Critics see the “2300 evening morning” as the same as the last half of the last seven years (last
week) of Daniel 9, due to similarities:
o In Daniel 9 sacrifice and oblation cease, while
in Daniel 8 “the continual burnt offering was taken away”.
o Sacrifices cease for more or less the same period:
In Daniel 9 sacrifices cease in the “midst” of the last seven years, and Critics assume that
it is reinstated at the end of the last seven years. Sacrifices therefore “cease” for more or
less 3½ years.
 In Daniel 8 the the sanctuary is cleansed after 2300 days (8:14). Critics typically interpret
the 2300 “evening morning” as 2300 sacrifices, therefore as 1150 days, which is roughly
3 years and 2 months.
o In Daniel 8 “the place of his sanctuary was overthrown” while
in Daniel 9 “the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”.
Critics also propose that the second half of the last seven years is the same as the 3½ times of
Daniel 7. However, there are significant differences between Daniel 9 and the other prophecies:
o According to the RSV translation of 9:27 the sacrifices will be ceased for half a week.
This is equal to 3½ years. Critics find support for this in the 3½ times of Daniel 7. But “2300
evening morning” is more than 6 years. Converted to 1150 days (3 years and 2 months) it is
still different from 3½ years. What would motivate a second century writer to vary the
periods from 1150 days (8:14) to 1260 days (7:25 and 12:7) to 1290 days to 1335 days, if
they all refer to the same period?
o In Daniel 8 the place of his sanctuary was cast down (8:11), but in Daniel 9 the city and
the sanctuary are destroyed (9:26).
o According the Daniel 8 the evil horn will “magnify himself, even to the Prince of the host”,
while in Daniel 9 the Messiah will be “cut off” (killed).
o The vision in Daniel 7 refers ends with the eternal kingdom (7:18, 27). Daniel 11-12
also goes to the “end of the days” (12:13), and to the time when the dead will arise (12:2). It
even talks about “everlasting life” (12:2). Daniel 8 only goes to the “time of the end” (8:17). It
does say that the horn will be broken without hands (8:25), which means supernaturally, at
the end of this world (2:45). In contrast there is no indication at all in Daniel 9 that this vision
goes even to the “time of the end”.
o The horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are preceded by beasts (kings 7:17) and horns (kings 7:24).
Daniel 11 also describes the preceding empires and kings, but in more literal terms. There
are no preceding empires or kings in Daniel 9.
o If 70 weeks have been determined for the city of “thy people” (9:24), then the city and the
sanctuary will be destroyed (9:26) after the 70 weeks, while according to the Antiochus IV
thesis the sanctuary is “destroyed” in the “midst” of the last week.
o Similarly, if 70 weeks have been determined for the city of “thy people” (9:24), then the
sacrifices will not be reinstated at the end of this period. In actual fact there is no indication in
Daniel 9 that the sacrifices will be reinstituted, as in Daniel 8. Daniel 9 ends in the
opposite, namely in increasing chaos.
It should therefore not be accepted that the last half of the last seven years are related to the
2300 “evening morning”.

Possible conservative interpretations

Conservative interpretations take the 490 years from the issue of the command to restore and to
build Jerusalem, to the crucifixion. There are, however a number of interpretations because there
are at least two such commands and at least two viable dates for the crucifixion. Scholars know
that the crucifixion was at Passover (March/April), but the year is uncertain. The more popular is
Fri 5 Apr AD 30 (on our modern Gregorian calendar), but several scholars prefer the other choice
of Fri 1 Apr AD 33 (John P. Pratt). The best summary of modern scholarship is Jack Finegan's
Handbook of Biblical Chronology, and these are the two dates which he lists as possible (John P.
Pratt). The two possible commands are Artaxerxes’s decree in the month Nisan of his twentieth
year of 444 B.C. (Neh. 2:2) and the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 (458 BC). Given these date
there are a number of possible applications:
1. From 458 to 33 is exactly 490 years. (Remember, there is no year 0.)
 2. From 458 to 30 is 487 years. This fits well, taking into account that “he shall cause the
sacrifice to cease” in “the midst of the week”, from which is understood that the cruci-
fixion would be in the midst of the last week. The 490 years then end 3 years after the
crucifixion. In the last 3 years the message were preached only to the Jews.
3. From 444 to 33 is only 476 years, but a well known approach (the gap theory) is that the
last 7 years is still to come at the end of the world. Therefore only 483 years have to be
accounted for. The 483 years are then converted to 476 years with the following logic:
The 483 years are assumed to be “Prophetic years” consisting of 360 days each, therefore
equal to 173880 days. From the first of Nisan 444 B.C. to Passover in A.D. 33 is the same
number of days. [476 x 365 = 173,740 days; March 4 [1 Nisan] to March 29 [the date of the
Passover in A.D. 33] = 24 days; add 116 days for leap years).

PHILOSOPHY
If the evidence for a sixth-century date of composition is so certain, why do scholars reject it in
favor of an unsupportable Maccabean hypothesis? The reason is that most scholars embrace a
liberal, naturalistic, and rationalistic philosophy. Naturalism and rationalism are ultimately based
on faith rather than on evidence; therefore, this faith will not allow them to accept the supernatural
predictions" (Bruce K. Waltke, "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133 [1976]: 329).
Most scholars simply cannot admit that an Almighty God inspired Daniel to write down events that
were to happen centuries later. The visions of Daniel are so precisely and succinctly written, they
are breath-taking. But the scholars, steeped in human reason and intellectual vanity, refuse to
recognize the miracle of Daniel.
If Daniel is rejected because of miracles, then all of scripture must be rejected.
Judaism and Christianity are founded on the supernatural workings of a personal God who acts in
human history, is in control of human history, and is knowledgeable about human future. Based
on this assumption, it is possible to allow the Book of Daniel not to be a book written by the
Prophet Daniel. For those who view omniscience as part of God’s character, the foretelling of
future of events is not out of the ordinary. To admit that Daniel was given incredible visions of the
future is to acknowledge that an almighty, authoritative God exists.
AJ van Niekerk Aniekerk@pgwc.gov.za