A RESPONSE TO CLIFFORD GOLDSTEIN

ON THE “LITTLE HORN” OF DANIEL 8

by André Reis*
_________________________________________________________________________________

W
inston McHarg’s article on the “little horn” of Daniel 8 published on Adventist Today’s blog has elicited a
heated debate. Clifford Goldstein, Adventism’s foremost apologist attempted to refute McHarg’s conclu-
sion that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is in view in the chapter.
In his rejoinder, Goldstein hits the ground running––albeit in the wrong direction––with a set of assumptions
about Daniel 8 when he writes:

It’s [sic] comes after two parallel chapters, Daniel 2 and 7, which both help set the background for interpreting Dan-
iel 8. The link between these three chapters, and this principle of amplification between them, is not an Adventist concoc-
tion; other scholars have seen it. And no wonder; it’s obvious.

He then asserts that Daniel 8 “does not appear in a vacuum” and is “parallel” to Daniel 2 and 7. All that follows is
based on this assumption and repeats the same traditional line of argumentation.
I’ll focus on this and other assumptions underpinning Goldstein’s approach (they often overlap with Marvin
Moore’s approach published here too). This essay will stay very close to the text of Daniel in its original languages in
order to glean the author’s intended meaning in these passages.

Assumption #1: Daniel 8 can only be understood in light of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.

Read as straightforwardly as possible, Dan 8 builds on the principles of world domination and effrontery to Yah-
weh found in chapters 2 and 7 but applies them specifically to the history of the Jewish people. Daniel 8 provides a
bird’s eye view of a future assault on the people of God and his sanctuary, but does not slavishly depend on Daniel 2, 7.
It contains enough information to stand on its own without depending on certain interpretative presuppositions that
Goldstein applies to Daniel 2 and 7. That is the Achilles’ heel of his approach.
First, a brief overview of the chapter.
The vision of Daniel 8 zooms in on how the Jews and in particular their sanctuary suffer under a certain political
power, the infamous “little horn.” The vision culminates with events circumscribed to “the beautiful land” (8:9), i.e.,
Jerusalem/Palestine, while chapters 2 and 7 deal with events that impact “the whole earth” (2:35; cf. 7:17). Note how
Gabriel dedicates more time to unveil the little horn’s career than those of Medo-Persia and Greece (8:15-26).
Significantly, Daniel 8 interrupts the Aramaic section of Daniel (2:4-7:28) by returning to Hebrew, the language of
the Jews and keeping it there until the end of the book. In additionÓÓdifferent from the unclean animals which dominate
Daniel 7ÓÓthe animals in Daniel 8 arise out of the sanctuary rituals: a male goat and a ram. These two important features
strongly indicate that the Jews are now the focus of the book of Daniel.
The male goat (Greece, v. 21) defeats the ram (Medo-Persia, v. 20). At the height of its power, the goat’s great horn
breaks off and in its place appear four horns which grow into the four winds of heaven (v. 8). Then, “out of one of them,”
i.e., the four horns (v. 9) comes yet another horn, this time a little one. The great horn here is unanimously interpreted

*
Published on www.atoday.org © André Reis, 2018

1
as Alexander, the Great and the four horns are his four generals: Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. As later
interpreted by Gabriel, a “little horn”/sixth king emerges in the “latter part [ÚaHarîT]” of the reign of the four Greek gen-
erals (v. 23).
Continuing with the Hebrew sanctuary themes, Dan 8:11 zooms in on the altar of burnt offering of the sanctuary:
the “little horn” removes the daily sacrifices (täãîÇ) and overthrows the entire sanctuary. It reaches up to symbolic
heavenly places (v. 10), throws down “stars” and tramples on them and the “prince of the hosts” (v. 11). These are all
symbols of the Jewish people and the sanctuary. Through “wickedness” the “host” (the people of Israel, v. 24) are brought
under the power of the “little horn” and “truth” is cast to the ground (v. 12), which appears to symbolize the rituals of
the earthly sanctuary.
The duration of the aggression then comes into view (v. 13): “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sac-
rifices [täãîÇ] and the abomination of the desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled un-
derfoot?” (NKJV). The answer is: “Until ‘evenings-mornings’ 2,300.”1 After this rather short period (roughly 6 years, 4
months) the little horn’s grip is broken, the people freed and the sanctuary re-consecrated (NRSV, “restored to its right-
ful state”) or “vindicated” (niçdaq, v. 14).
That is, in one fell swoop, the gist of Daniel 8.
Goldstein, however (cf. Moore), detaches the “little horn” from the four Greek horns and sees it coming out of one
of the “four winds” instead. In support, they capitalize on peculiar features of the chapter.
First and foremost is the question of where the “little horn” comes from. There is the notorious confusion of “ante-
cedents” in the original text; Goldstein (cf. Moore) says that “out of one of them” (8:9) must point to “winds” rather than
“horns” because “winds” is syntactically closer. And then, they’re happy to point out, there’s the problem of the pronoun
“them” which is masculine while both winds and horns are feminine. All these “mysterious” features in the text are given
great weight by both Goldstein and Moore. This odd, disembodied horn flying across the sky points cryptically to the
appearance of a yet unknown power, Rome, which ties it quite nicely to the little horn of Daniel 7, they say. In fact their
interpretation of Daniel depends entirely on the veracity of this assumption, which leads them to shout “Unclean!” at
any other interpretation of the “little horn” other than the Papacy/Rome.
How do we explain these apparent discrepancies in the text?
Several arguments can be advanced to answer this question. First, on the conflict of genders in Dan 8:9, it must be
pointed out that gender juxtaposition is a common phenomenon in biblical Hebrew; feminine nouns can take the mas-
culine suffix when plural, perhaps the most striking example is “women” which takes a masculine plural suffix, nashim.
And this also applies to pronouns as we see in Gen 31:55: “Early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his grand-
children and daughters and blessed them;” “them” here is masculine, even though it includes both genders.
Hebrew scholars define this phenomenon of masculinizing feminine forms as “zero marking.” Geoffrey Khan ex-
plains that: “Hebrew grants its ‘masculine’ forms “precedence” or “priority” or considers them “more potent.”2 The pres-
ence of mixed gender elements in Dan 8:8, 9ÓÓhorns (f), winds (f) and heaven (m)ÓÓmay point in this direction. Even
if “them” in Dan 8:9 were feminine, the expression “out of one of them” would still be ambiguous because both horns
and winds are feminine. Therefore, from a purely grammatical standpoint, there is actually little significance in the use
of a masculine gender for feminine forms.
More significantly, however, this phenomenon can be observed already in Daniel 7 where a similar gender “con-
flict” as we see in Dan 8:9 occurs in a passage also involving a “little horn”! In Dan 7:8 a “little horn” comes up “between
them” (ÄÆåÆÜôåI=3rd person, masculine, plural), the “first horns” (qarnayyäÛI feminine, plural). When the “little horn”
rises, these first three “horns” are “uprooted [ÛeTÚqarû]” which requires the 3rd person, feminine, plural verb but instead,
a 3rd person, masculine, plural verb is used! In Dan 7:24, the “little horn”/another king rises “after them” (ÛaHarêhôn: 3rd
person, masculine, plural), the “three kings” (ã~äâ̱îå, masculine, plural).
In sum, the “three horns” (feminine, plural) in Dan 7:8 get the same verbal form as the three “kings” in 7:24 (ã~äâ̱îå,
masculine plural): the “three horns” (feminine, plural) are “uprooted” (ÛeTÚqarû, masculine, plural) to make room for the
“little horn”/another king, which comes “after them” (ÛaHarêhôn: 3rd person, masculine, plural).

2
 Likewise, in Dan 8:9 the masculine plural form “them” matches the masculine plural “their rule” in 8:23. The im-
plication here is that similarly to Dan 7:8, 24, Daniel already had the four “kings” of 8:23 in mind when describing the
“four horns” of 8:8 out of which the “little horn” comes.
In light of this clear parallel, a remarkable pattern begins to emerge: Daniel appears to be anticipating details from
the interpretation of the vision into the description of the vision. We would do well to remember that Daniel most likely
wrote this chapter after the vision was interpreted by Gabriel which explains why he would have incorporated in the
description of the vision details from its interpretation. These may have stood as early hints to the reader as to the mean-
ing of these symbols in these chapters, further connecting the symbols with their interpretation
The table below helps us visualize the pattern here:

Table 1: Comparison of Gender Conflict in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8

Dan 7:8 “Little horn” appears “among them [first horns: fem., pl.]” ÄÆåÆÜôåW=3rd person, masc., plural
The “first horns [fem., pl.]” are “uprooted” ÛeTÚqarû: 3rd person, masc., plural
=
Dan 7:24 Another king rises “after them [kings, masc., pl.]” ÛaHarêhôn: 3rd person, masc., plural

Dan 8:9 Little horn comes “out of one of them” ãÆÜÉã: 3rd person, masc., plural

Dan 8:23 Sixth king rises “in the latter part of their rule” malḵû[äm: 3rd person, masc., plural

Further, since Dan 8:9 and 8:23 are clearly verbally and thematically parallel, we can easily interpolate the expres-
sion “of one” from Dan 8:9 into 8:23 and have: “in the latter part [of one] of their reigns,” tying the rise of the “little
horn”/sixth king firmly with the Greek kings.
It is curious that Goldstein (cf. Moore) have placed great weight on this apparent gender conflict and antecedent
proximity in Dan 8:9 to argue that, against all reason, the “little horn” must actually come out of one of the four winds
of heaven, when in fact the same gender “conflict” occurs with the origin of the “little horn” in Dan 7:8, and yet, they do
not argue that the “little horn” there came out of something other than the horns of the fourth beast. This is another case
of special pleading. Goldstein’s case would become unassailable if instead a “little wind” came out of the “four winds”Ó
Óin fact, the imagery of a “little wind” that grows in strength could be just as effective. But that is not what we read in
Dan 8.
The fact remainsÓÓand now with strong lexical evidenceÓÓthat the typological pattern in the visions of Daniel 7
and 8 remains consistent throughout: horns are always attached to animals in the visions, only heads beget horns, only
horns beget horns. The “little horn” in Daniel 7 rises among the horns of the fourth beast and out of one of the four Greek
horns of the male goat in Daniel 8.
And there is still one final argument from the structure of Daniel 8 to support a Greek origin for the little horn. We
must ask if it would be reasonable that the vision reveals one male goat with one great horn and then four horns just for
Gabriel to essentially say: “Daniel, forget about the five initial Greek kings, they have no relevance whatsoever to the
prophecy of the 2,300 mornings-evenings, there is yet a sixth king that will come in the future who is unknown now and
whose name I can’t give you, pay attention to that one…” In fact, the only reason the vision and the subsequent inter-
pretation are mostly about Greece (15 verses out of 27) is that the little horn must come out of one of its kingdoms.
The preceding analysis presents compelling evidence that the “little horn”/sixth king of Daniel 8 emerged from the
four preceding horns/kingdoms and never from “winds.” Scholars are virtually unanimous on this view, and with very
good reason.

3
 We read a report strikingly similar to what is described in Daniel 8 in 1 Maccabees 1:41–50, 57 (NRSV) written ca.
100 BC:

Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, 42 and that all should give up their particular
customs. 43 … they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 44 … he directed them to follow customs strange to the
land, 45 to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals,
46
to defile the sanctuary and the priests, 47 to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and
other unclean animals, 48 and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything
unclean and profane, 49 so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. 50 He added, “And whoever does
not obey the command of the king shall die…. Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred forty-fifth year,
they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering.

The “king” in this passage is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who set a statue of the Greek god Zeus and installed cultic
prostitutes inside the Jewish temple (cf. 2 Mac 6:1-12). Daniel calls Antiochus IV’s abolishing of the täãîÇ, “the daily
sacrifices” (v. 8:13) and his desecration of the Most Holy Place the “abomination of desolation” (11:31). This allusion to
Daniel in Maccabees establishes a firm Jewish interpretative tradition connecting the “little horn” to Antiochus IV.
In light of the grotesque assault of Antiochus IV on the Jews, would it be reasonable that God would have left them
in the dark regarding these aggressions by omitting these events from Daniel’s prophecies? I highly doubt it. Seen under
this prism, Antiochus IV seems like the undefeated candidate here.

Assumption #2: The “little horn” of Daniel 8 is Roman.

But Rome is not symbolized anywhere in Daniel 8 and is not part of Gabriel’s explanation either. Why should we
see Rome here? If Daniel 8 is an “amplification” (according to Goldstein) of Daniel 7, Rome (the fourth beast per Gold-
stein) should be here. But as we shall see, this conclusion is also based on circular reasoning.
Goldstein sees Rome here because he reads Daniel 8 with the same lenses as he did Daniel 7. But the symbols of
world powers in Daniel 7 are not the same as Daniel 8: we see a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, a leopard with four heads
and a terrifying beast with ten horns in Daniel 7; Daniel 8 has two, a ram and a male goat. The only shared element is a
“little horn”, but in Daniel 7 it rises among ten horns of the fourth animal (Rome per Goldstein) while in Daniel 8 it rises
from one of the horns of the male goat (Greece) as we already established beyond reasonable doubt.
But because of Goldstein’s interpretative template, he considers the “little horn” of Daniel 8 as the same historical
entity as the “little horn” in Daniel 7. For starters, this creates a conundrum for him: while a “little horn” among the ten
“horns” of the fourth animal in Dan 7:8, it must of necessity come out of one of the “winds” in Dan 8:9 for the whole
thing to work.
This is nothing but special pleading. Logically then, we must choose one of two options: (1) either the “little horn”
comes out of the same entity in both Daniel 7 and 8 or; (2) the “little horn” refers to distinct entities in these chapters.
Goldstein cannot have his cake and eat it too.
So let’s for a moment accept Goldstein’s proposal that Daniel 8 “amplifies” Daniel 7 and that they talk about the
same “little horn.” Beginning with the “amplification/explanation” in Daniel 8 the “little horn” comes out of the male
goat’s head, Greece. Since Daniel 8 provides the “key” to chapter 7 according to Goldstein, we now need to retroactively
superimpose this “little horn” template from Daniel 8 onto Daniel 7. What do we have? The “little horn” in Daniel 7
comes out of Greece (and not Rome); therefore Greece must be the fourth beast. The tension this construct creates for
Goldstein’s interpretative structure is intolerable and yet, these are the logical implications of his hermeneutical ap-
proach. (As a disclaimer, I’m not reinterpreting Daniel 7 here). No wonder there’s such insistence that the “little horn”
is Roman in Daniel 8, otherwise the whole structure collapses!

4
 Conversely, if we look at the hypothesis of a Roman “little horn” which rises after the end of the four kingdoms
(8:23), we see a major contradiction: when Rome finally displaced the last of the four Greek kingdoms in 63 BC, it was
no longer a “little horn” but rather a massive empire reaching from modern day Portugal, all of Asia Minor, Palestine
and Northern Africa. Rome fails here again as the “little horn.”
And rather ironically for the Roman hypothesis, when the Roman Empire’s iron grip finally reached Jerusalem in
63 BC, they did not desecrate the Jewish sanctuary but rather allowed the Jews to continue with their religious practices.
In fact, Herod, a Roman vassal led the Jews into a massive expansion of the Second Temple which became known and
the Herodian Temple, so the experience of the Jews under Rome seems to have been the exact opposite of the prophecy
of Daniel 8 for the Jews. When Rome destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, the Temple no longer had any significance in
theodicy and it was never “restored” so this cannot be a fulfilment of Dan 8:14. Jesus’s cryptic reference to the “abomi-
nation of desolation” of Daniel when predicting the desecration of the Second Temple in 70 CE (Matt 24:15) seems to
have been a re-application of the principles of the prophecy fulfilled in the Maccabean times and served primarily as a
sign for Christians to “leave Judea”, rather than a primary fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Ultimately, however, Jeru-
salem and the Temple were not overthrown by the Romans in 70 CE for religious reasons but for repeated insurrections
against Roman rule and taxation.3

Assumption #3: The “little horn” is “greater” than both Medo-Persia and Greece.

The objection that Antiochus was simply not “big” enough to be the “little horn” is another case of circular reason-
ing based on expectations that this is the same “little horn” of Daniel 7 which they read as the Papacy, a religious-political
power operating since the 4th century CE.
Goldstein (cf. Moore) makes theology based on translations rather than the original text. They see a progression of
“greatness” in Daniel 8 which they think culminates with the “little horn” which is far greater than the previous king-
doms combined and therefore, cannot be Antiochus IV, a puny, Seleucid king, they say.
A comparison of the Hebrew terms to describe the rise of the ram, the male goat and the little horn, reveals some
important features.
First, the ram simply wehiGdîl, lit. “grew” (8:4) with no modifier of intensity. In turn, the male goat’s rise is hiGdîl
ÚaD-meÛöD (8:8) translated as “grew exceedingly great” (NRSV) with the important Hebrew adverb meÛöD added. Lastly,
we’re told that the little horn wattiGdal-ye[er which is commonly translated as “grew exceedingly great” (v. 9; NRSV),
but as we shall see below, this translation is not decisive.
The striking difference in these three expressions of “greatness” is that meÛöD (“muchness, force, abundance, ex-
ceedingly”)4 describes only the male goat and not the ram or the little horn. This is significant because meÛöD is the choice
Hebrew adverb of intensity: the recently created earth is tov meÛöD, “very good” (Gen 1:31); the waters of the flood rise
meÛöD meÛöD, “exceedingly, mightily” over the whole earth (Gen 7:18; cf. Ex 1:7). So the male goat is the greatest power
in Daniel 8, Alexander, the Great representing the “height of its power” (v. 8).
We now see why the English translation that the “little horn” wattiGdal-ye[er, “grew exceedingly great” (8:9) is
highly debatable. This occurs because ye[er [root ya[ar] can mean “remainder, excess, pre-eminence, superiority, cord,
or string.”5 In fact, it is used mostly as “remainder, rest” in the Old Testament (68 out of 94 times). Surprisingly, the
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon only defines ye[er as “exceedingly” in Dan 8:9!
Alternatively, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament translates ye[er with the meaning of “pre-eminence”
at least once, in Gen 49:3: “you are … pre-eminent [ye[er] in pride and pre-eminent [ye[er] in power; unstable as water
you shall not have pre-eminence [root ya[ar]”6 (cf. “excelling in rank” NRSV). Certainly other cases could exist.
So, considering the range of meaning of ye[er, “exceedingly” is not a common use or a necessary first choice trans-
lation. Along with the lack of the important Hebrew intensifier meÛöD, this opens up other possibilities. The translation
“grew exceedingly great” then must be surrendered and changed to either “the little horn grew in pre-eminence,”7 or, if

5
we use the usual meaning of ye[er as “remainder”, it could be rendered: “the little horn grew the remainder [of its size]”,
that is, reached maturity.”
Some Bible versions do render it similarly; NIV: “but grew in power to the south…”; GNT: whose power ex-
tended toward the south;” YLT: “and it exerteth itself greatly toward the south.” Even if we translated the expression as
“grew greatly” (unsupported), the fact is that a horn can never be greater or stronger than the animal that carries it. If the
“little horn” was to be greater than the male goat and ram combined, it should logically have appeared as another animal
altogether, which is not the case.
It appears then that wattiGdal-ye[er, when rendered as “grew in pre-eminence” along with the geographical mark-
ers in the verse emphasize where the “little horn” became most active or pre-eminent: east and south and Palestine, and
not how “great” it was there. And history does show that Antiochus did take “pre-eminence” over the east and south
and Palestine even reaching further south to Egypt, albeit less successfully. But he did fail to “grow in pre-eminence”
against the north and west.
The objection that it grew “to the host of heaven” (v. 10) so it must be really huge is not fatal to the view presented
here. Note that the four horns were already in “heaven” (v. 8) and the little horn comes out of one of these horns “in
heaven”, so reaching the “host of heaven” i.e., the “stars” would not necessarily imply an “exceedingly great” growth
either.
In addition, there are problems with the translation of Dan 8:24. Some Bible versions consider the expression: “He
shall grow, but not with his power” as a reference to the “little horn”/sixth king’s own power (cf. KJV: “his power shall
be mighty, but not by his own power”; ASV: “but not with his own power”; NRSV: “He shall grow strong in power”).
However, “but not with his power [welö BeKöHô]” in 8:24 is an exact copy of 8:22: “four kingdoms shall arise from the
nation, but not with his power [welö BeKöHô]”; cf. NIV: “will not have the same power).” This expression in the 3rd person,
masculine, singular is a clear reference to the “great horn” (8:21) or first king’s power and not to the power of the four
kings (referred to as “kingdoms,” 3rd person, feminine, plural). Neither is this same expression referring to the “little
horn”/sixth king’s own power but rather points the reader again to the power of the “great horn”/first king. Conse-
quently, welö BeKöHô in 8:24 means that the “little horn”/sixth king, similarly to the four preceding kings, does not have
the same power “great horn”/first king. This must be so because there is no syntactical reason to translate the same exact
expression differently in such close proximity, just two verses apart and when dealing with related kings coming out of
the same animal, the male goat. Daniel must have the same meaning in mind in the entire passage and this is how the
original readers would have understood it.
The following table helps us see this important parallel:

Table 2: Comparison Between the Four Kings and the Sixth King and the Great Horn (Daniel 8)

e e
8:22: “Four kingdoms shall arise … but not with his power” = “great horn” = w lö B KöHô (3rd p., masc., sing.)

e e
8:24: “He shall grow, but not with his power” = “great horn” = w lö B KöHô (3rd p., masc., sing.)

This textual analysis leads us to some important conclusions in regards to the magnitude of the “little horn”: (1)
neither the “four horns”/four kings that follow the “great horn,” nor the “little horn”/sixth king have the same power as
the “great horn”; (2) the inferior position of the “little horn” in relation to the male goat as argued previously is further
supported; if the little horn does not have the same power as even the “great horn” of the male goat, then it cannot be
greater than Medo-Persia and Greece combined; and (3) the use of the same expression to compare the power of the
four kings and the “little horn”/sixth king in relation that of the “great horn” indicates that the “little horn” has the same
origin as all previous horns: Greece.8

6
 For these reasons, Goldstein’s (and Moore’s) argument that the “little horn” in Daniel 8 must have been greater
than Medo-Persia and Greece combined is untenable. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, following Alexander, the Great and his
four generals (the most plausible explanation for these symbols) and the last, important king of the Seleucid empire
emerges here again as the prime suspect.

And what about the 2,300 “evenings-mornings” of Dan 8:14?

Yes, that is the real question, isn’t it? (Although Adventists rarely pay attention to question it answers! One looks in
vain for Dan 8:13 in The Great Controversy).
Many calculations for the 2,300 days of the aggression of the “little horn” have been offered. If Antiochus IV is
meant as the “little horn”ÓÓwhich the Jewish tradition most definitely supportsÓÓthen one option is that the 2,300 days
from the murder of high priest Onias III in 170 BC at Antiochus’s behest, which gave rise to his oppressions, until the
Maccabean revolt in Dec 164 BC which liberated the Jews from Antiochus IV.9 This starting point for Antiochus’ op-
pression has the partial support of Josephus (cf. Wars of the Jews, 1:1).
Alternatively, if the 2,300-day period refers to 1,150 days of two evening-morning sacrifices each, this period would
cover only the attack on the sanctuary proper, beginning in ca. October 167 BC through Dec 164 BC10 (a little over 3
years), which again seems to match Antiochus IV desecrations of the temple.
Either are viable alternatives although it is impossible at this time to decide which fits better because we do not have
an external witness to these dates. In this case, we should consider as the overall point of the number 2,300 that the
oppressions of this “little horn” would last at the most 6 years, 4 months, that is, a little less than the duration of a sab-
batical, 7 year period, a symbol pregnant with eschatological meaning for Jews.

Assumption #4: The “time of the end” in Daniel 8 refers to the eschatological end.

Adventist interpretations build on the notion that the visions of Daniel 8 refer to the eschatological “time of the
end” and therefore cannot include Antiochus IV, but rather point to the Papacy. But this is an established misconcep-
tion based on an auto-pilot reading of the book of Daniel. But here again, the good old Hebrew provides clarity.

“The time of the end.” The notion of an “end-time” appears twice in Daniel 8: “the time of the end”, ‘e[-qëç (v.
17) and “the appointed time of the end”, leãôë‘D qëç (v. 19). Their meaning is clarified by a similar “time of the end,”
‘e[-qëç (Dan 11:35; cf. 40, ‘e[ qëç) when the “abomination of desolation” would appear and a time which is parallel to
“the latter part [future] of their [Greek] rule” (8:23; cf. “many days from now,” v. 26). Lastly, this “time of the end” reap-
pears twice as ‘e[-qëç in 12:4, 9 and its meaning is further elucidated by Gabriel: it is the time when the book of Daniel
would no longer be “secret” and “sealed.”
We see this unsealing of the book of Daniel predicted for the “time of the end” taking place when the Jews began
reading and understanding the prophecies of Daniel, probably shortly after the end of the Babylonian captivity or at the
latest when the book of Daniel became part of the Hebrew Bible. Thus the unsealing of Daniel in the “time of the end”
is parallel to “the latter part [future, posterity] of their rule” in 8:23, that is, the rule of the four Greek kings coming out
of Alexander the Great, which happens “many days from now” (8:26). Scholars often call this provisional, contextual
“end” the prophet’s own “eschatological horizon”11 and not the actual “end.”
Accordingly, the books of Maccabees (ca. 100 BC) indicate that the Jews understood the visions of Daniel to apply
to the desecrations of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC, especially the “abomination of desolation” pre-
dicted for the “time of the end” (cf. Dan 9:27; 11:31, 35, 40; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:41–50, 57; 2 Macc 6:1-12). These events
provide a historical starting point to understand the “time of the end” in Daniel.

7
 “The days to come, future, latter part, posterity.” It’s worth noting that Daniel uses a different expression to
describe specific periods in his visions. Dan 10:14 has: “I …have come to help you understand what is to happen to your
people the latter part of the days [bÛaHarîT hayamim]”; Dan 2:28: “[God] has disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what
will happen at the latter part of the days [Aram. ÛaHarîT yômayyä’].”
The word ÛaHarîT however can have a range of meanings such as “after part, end (of place), latter part, future (of
time), posterity, least part, back”12 and lexicons are agreed that its meaning must be decided by the context; ÛaHarîT
means “posterity, descendants” in several passages of the Old Testament (e.g., Prov 24:20; Psalm 37:37, 38; Amos 4:2,
9:1, Dan 11:4; Ezek 23:25) and also means “future” as in Jer 29:11: “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says
the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future [aharît] with hope” (NRSV, cf. also Job 8:7; 42:12;
Jer 31:17; Prov 23:18; 24:14; Isa 41:22; 46:10).
Significantly, Dan 8:23 has: “in the ÛaHarîT of their reign [ÛaHarîT malKû[äm] and while Dan 11:4ÓÓwhich explains
how Alexander’s kingdom was going to be divideÇÓÓreads: “And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up
and divided toward the four winds of heaven [cf. 8:8], but not among his posterity [ÛaHarîT] nor according to his do-
minion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these” (NKJV). Notice in Dan
11:4 how ÛaHarîT has the very narrow meaning of “posterity, descendants” and not “end”.
According to Gabriel, this vision is for the “time of the end” which is synonymous with the “latter part of their
kingdoms”, contextually interpreted as the time reign of four Greek kings which rise after the death of Alexander, the
Great in 323 BC.
Coming back to Daniel 8:23 and 11:4, since both passages are thematically related and parallel, it seems then that
the best translation of ÛaHarîT in Dan 8:23 should be “posterity, descendants” as it does in 11:4 instead of “latter part”;
thus we’d have in Dan 8:23: “And during the posterity [the period of the descendants] of these [Greek] kingdoms, when
the transgressions have reached their full measure, a [Greek] king of bold countenance shall arise, skilled in intrigue.”
Scholars are unanimously agreed that this refers to the intersection of Greek and Jewish history because the textual
evidence demands it. A cursory look at events in the second century BC appear to point to a striking fulfillment of this
prophecy in the career of the Seleucid (Greek) king Antiochus IV Epiphanes who rose in 175 BC and inflicted horrific
attacks on the Jewish people and the sanctuary. After Alexander and his sons (ÛaHarîT) were murdered, his “diadochoi,”
his four generals fought for control of different regions of his empire (8:8: “the four winds of heaven”, from 323-281
BC). When the diadochoi died, their kingdoms were in turn passed down to their descendants (ÛaHarîT), called by histo-
rians as the “epigonoi,”13 (a term commonly used for the offspring of mythological heroes). Thus taking ÛaHarîT in Dan
8:23 as pointing to the descendants of the four Greek kingdoms seems like a compelling interpretation.
But even if we take ÛaHarîT to mean the “latter part of their rule,”14 in Dan 8:23, Antiochus IV fits here too! When
he rose to power in 175 BC the Seleucid empire was in steep decline, having lost 80% of the territory it held since 303
BC (it lost Asia Minor to the Romans in 188 BC). Antiochus IV is considered the last significant Seleucid king by histo-
rians, the kings that followed him were negligible. After Antiochus IV, the Seleucid empire never regained the former
significance and became increasingly disintegrated under the power of the Parthians (141 BC) and finally fell to Rome
in 64 BC.15 Significantly, Antiochus IV’s defeat in the Maccabean Revolt (167-160 BC) set the stage for Judea to become
an independent state as evidenced by the dynasty of Jewish Hasmonean kings, 140-64 BC. After Antiochus IV, Israel
was never to be a subject of Greece again; this was “the end” of their “transgressions” against God’s people.

“The end of time.” The actual eschatological end in the book of Daniel is found in 12:13: “But you, go your way,
and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days [qëç hayyämîn].” This unique Hebrew expression qëç
hayyämîn literally means “the end of the days,” i.e., “when time will come to an end.” It appears only here in the entire
Old Testament and points to the day when Daniel would be resurrected and thus refers undeniably to the end of all
things (cf. 1 Cor 15:51-53; Rev 20:5).

8
 In sum, the expression “time of the end” in Daniel 8, 11 applies to the fulfilment of the events described in the vision
involving ancient Greece, the four Greek kingdoms and their “posterity” and the aggressions of a Greek “little horn” on
the Jews. Only once does “time of the end” refer to the eschatological end in the book, Dan 12:13.

Conclusion
The evidence gleaned in this essay indicates that when read in context and with as little external presuppositions as
possible, Daniel 8 offers the hope that the heinous assault by the villainous “little horn” against the people of God and
his sanctuary would not last forever. After a short time, the earthly sanctuary would again be consecrated. This was such
as important event for Jews that even Jesus joined in celebrating this restoration at the Feast of Dedication (Hannukah)
as recorded in John 10:22. Thus, I agree with McHarg that “The vision of Daniel 8 is probably the clearest in the whole
book.”
Further, Daniel 8 also provides principles of the struggle between good and evil which are applicable to other such
attacks on God’s people, such as the Roman attack on the Temple in 70 AD (Matt 24:15). After all, the little horn attacks
“truth” (8:12) which is an overarching principle of heaven.
And yet, in this latest essay Goldstein did not offer any new take on the issue since he published 1844 Made Simple
over a quarter of a century ago. The irony of Goldstein’s “1844 for Dummies” approach is that it does not make Daniel
8 any more simple to understand. He rather goes off on a hermeneutical tangent and applies Dan 8:14 to the 19th century
and more specifically to an apocalyptic sect in the ante-bellum United States. Goldstein removes the vision from its safe
contextual moorings, catapults its fulfilment into a quantum leap of millennia in the future leaving the loyal Jews in the
dark about the Seleucid aggression on Jerusalem and the sanctuary in the 2nd century BC and nullifies God’s promise of
restoration of his people and earthly sanctuary. Thus, what is perhaps the most spectacular fulfillment of Daniel’s proph-
ecies is effectively castrated in order to defend an interpretative tradition meant mainly as self-preservation. This is
simply too expensive exegetically, theologically and ecclesiologically speaking.

And now, a final disclaimer.

When it comes to the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecies, disconfirmation is often the norm. There are many
things we still don’t understand in Daniel and Revelation. The final, authoritative interpretation of these visions will
probably escape us fully until we enter into glory. We’d better not “add words” (Rev 22:18) to these prophecies by im-
posing on them hard interpretations which end up neutering their enduring, “present truth” significance.
Until then, we can find comfort that, all prophecies considered, God has been at the helm of history, guiding it to
its glorious consummation, although we may not have all the details, characters and timelines correct. Jesus warned us
not to worry about those things (Acts 1:6-8) but rather focus on being “his witnesses.”

At the end, God wins and I want to be part of that victory! Don’t you?

__________________________________________________________________________
André Reis has degrees in music and theology and has recently completed a Ph.D. in New Testament.

9
References:

1
Cf. C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 302-304; S. J. Schwantes, “ʿEreb Boqer of Dan
8:14 Re-examined,” AUSS 16 (1978): 375–85.
2
Geoffrey Khan, ed., “Gender Representation in Biblical Hebrew,” Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistic, vol. 2 (Leiden, Brill:
2013): 20-22.
3
See Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem: the Biography (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2012), 3-13. I thank Angus McPhee for pointing
out Montefiore’s important book to me.
4
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v., “‫”מ ֹאד‬. ְ
5
When ye[er is used along with me’öD the meaning of “exceedingly great” can be deduced, as in Isa 56:12: gäDôl ye[er me’öD, “great beyond
measure” (NRSV).
6
John E. Hartley, “936 ‫יָתַ ר‬,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 420.
7
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v., “‫”יֶתֶ ר‬.
8
Cf. John E. Goldingay, Daniel, vol. 30, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 217, note 24.a-a.
9
Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 230.
10
Ibid., 229.
11
Cf. Carol Ann Newsom and Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2014), 63.
12
R. Laird Harris, “68 ‫אָ חַ ר‬,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 33.
13
Cf. Droysen, Johann Gustav, Geschichte der Nachfolger Alexanders (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1836), 517.
14
Cf. Goldingay, Daniel, 217: “in the closing period of their rule”.
15
Cf. Susan M. Sherwin-White, Amalie Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1993), 215-235.

10