Book of Daniel

G. L. Archer, "Daniel." Expositor's Bible Commentary 7.1-157 (1985); J. G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary (1978); J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (1977); id., Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (1994); P. R. Davies, Daniel (1988); J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (1989); D. W. Gooding, "The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel." Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981) 43-79. L. F. Hartman and A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (1978); A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (1978); T. Longman III, Daniel (1999); T. McComiskey, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Literature," Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 18-45; J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (1964); P. A. Porter, Metaphors and Monsters: A Literary-Critical Study of Daniel 7 and 8 (1983); L. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (1973); E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (1949); B. K. Waltke, "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976) 319-29.

The first six chapters of the Book of Daniel consist of narratives told in the third person concerning Daniel and other obedient Jews in captivity first among the Babylonians and then the Medes and Persians. Although it is often disputed, Ezek 14:14, 20 may refer to Daniel, the focus of the narratives of Dan 1-6 and the recipient of the revelations in Dan 7-12: "Even though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves (14:14) and "even though Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst" (14:20). Likewise, in Ezek 28:3, the prophet says sarcastically, "You are wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you", which is also a possible reference to the same man. (According to Jub. 4:20, a Dan'el was the uncle of Enoch, but this obviously is not Daniel the prophet.) It should be noted, however, that the narrative in Dan 2 interprets a prophetic dream of Nebuchadnezzar in which the progress of history is laid out until the coming of the kingdom that God will inaugurate. The last half of the Book of Daniel (Dan 7-12) is of a different literary character than the first half. These chapters consist of revelations given to Daniel related in the first person, sometimes with introduction written in the third person. In Dan 7 and 8, Daniel receives symbolic visions, which an angel interprets for him. In Dan 9:20-27, the angel Gabriel discloses to Daniel significant events in the last seven years of the the remaining 490 years of disobedient human history. (Dan 9:1-19 is a prayer of repentance offered by Daniel on behalf of his people Israel.) In chapters 10-12, Daniel receives a revelation from the angel Michael concerning events in the Hellenistic period, including the Antiochan persecution, followed by the end. The revelations received by Daniel in Dan 7-12 are of a similar nature to Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchazezzar's dream in Dan 2: they concern the progress history from Daniel's time in the sixth century to the coming of the kingdom to be set up by God. Included in these revelations are the future crisis to be faced by the Jews under Antiochus IV, when the Temple will be desecrated, and their subjugation by the Romans. The time period represented by the Book of Daniel is from c. 605 BCE (1:1) to mid 530's (10:1); the events described in the book are dated to the reigns of Nebuchazezzar (chaps 1-4); Belshazzar (5-7); Darius the Mede (5:30-6:28; 9); Cyrus (10-12). (The Book of Daniel is written in two languages: Dan 1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12:13 is in Hebrew, whereas Dan 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic.) It should also be pointed out that in the LXX there are additions to the Book of Daniel: the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three are inserted into Dan 3, and the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susanna are appended to the text.

In spite of claims in the text to the contrary, most modern scholars deny that Dan 7-12 is prophecy from the sixth century describing events from the later Persian period to the Roman period, with a special emphasis on the Antiochan crisis of the second century BCE. Methodologically, because they begin from the presupposition that all historical references in it are no later than the early second century BCE, those who hold the Book of Daniel to be a literary product of the early Maccabean period a priori deny the possibility of the prediction of the rise of the Roman empire and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. (In Dan 7-12, Daniel is identified as the one who receives the revelation and speaks in the first person; in Dan 12:4, he is instructed to preserve what he has written for the time of the end.) Rather, they assume that these sections of the Book of Daniel originate in the early Maccabean period before the rededication of the Temple by Judas, and describes events up to that time, but not beyond it. Thus, the "fourth kingdom" (Dan 2) is not the Roman empire but Alexander's kingdom; likewise the "fourth beast" is Antiochus IV, not some distant world ruler. The true author(s) is supposed to have written under the cloak of pseudonymity, similar to other pseudepigraphic texts, such as the Enochan literature or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Likewise, the narrative in Dan 2 in which Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream, is dated to Hellenistic period some time before the appearance of Antiochus IV. The assumption is that, if the author would have referred to Antiochus' persecution if it had occurred. (The narratives about Daniel in Dan 1-6 are often assumed to be once independent legends about Daniel originating much later than the sixth century, the historicity of which is questionable.) Thus, according to most scholars, what is ostensibly prophecy in Daniel is actually recent history. In fact, they claim that where there is prophecy it is invariably off the mark. The most blatant prophetic error is said to be the prediction that Israel's eschatological kingdom would arise after the death of Antiochus IV. In addition, such scholars assume that the text is composite and not a unity; in other words, the work of several authors has been incorporated into it. They also allow for the possibility of re-interpretation of earlier "prophecies" by means of interpolations.

The major reason for holding the view of the late date for the Book of Daniel is that its “prophecy” is so detailed and accurate that it is assumed that it could only have been written after the fact (a vaticinium ex eventu); this is especially true of Dan 11, where the history of the conflict between the Ptolemaic kingdom ("King of the South") and the Seleucid kingdom ("King of the North") is described accurately and in detail. Other pseudonymous writings attributed to authors from an earlier period also date from this period, although they, unlike the Book of Daniel, are attributed to well-known figures from Jewish tradition, like Moses or Enoch. There are other examples from the second-Temple period of the genre of history as prophecy (1 Enoch 83-90 [Animal Apocalypse]; 93:1-10; 91:11-17 [The Apocalypse of Weeks]; Jub. 23:14-31). Nevertheless, assuming that God could reveal accurate and detailed knowledge of the future, there is no reason to deny that the sixth-century Daniel could have written the book or at least provided the raw materials from which the book that bears his name was composed. On this view, later, second-century authors imitated Daniel's prophecy, but were really writing recent history in the guise of prophecy.

Another reason for rejecting the sixth-century date of the Book of Daniel is its alleged historical inaccuracies. It is argued that, if he was really writing in the sixth century, the author would not have made the historical errors that he is alleged to have made about that historical period. Although, due to a lack of historical data, many of these issues are not fully resolvable, nevertheless, a reasonable explanation for each supposed historical inaccuracy is possible (see R. Dillard and T. Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 329-52; see also the older but still useful work of E. J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, 360-77 and R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1103-34). There is no denying that conservative scholars usually assume a priori that the Book of Daniel originates in the sixth-century, usually for dogmatic reasons relating to their views on the inspiration of scripture. Nevertheless, such a position is not blind faith, but can supported by reasonable historical arguments, even if the data are often insufficient to conclude firmly on way or the other.

Jehoiakim becomes king in 609 BCE; on the Babylonian reckoning, the third year of his reign would be 605 BCE (year of accession plus three years). Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father, Nabopolassar, as king in September, 605 BCE upon the latter's death in August, 605 BCE (see D. J. Wiseman, The Chronicles of Chaldean Kings). Earlier in 605 BCE, before his accession as king, Nebuchadnezzar had successfully led the Babylonian forces against the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish; the result was that the Babylonians had control of the whole territory of "Hatti," which included all of Palestine (see Jer 46:2). This information derives from clay tablets that have now become known as the Babylonian Chronicles: "At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole of the Hatti-land. For 21 years Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's Father) had ruled Babylonia. On the eighth of Ab he died; in the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon and on the first day of Elul (= Sept. 6, 605 BCE) he sat on the royal throne in Babylon." This information about Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by Berosus, a Babylonian priest who wrote a history of his people: "When his father Nabopollassar heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and the places about Coelesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, while he was not himself able any longer to undergo the hardships [of war], he committed to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was still but a youth, some parts of his army, and sent them against him. So when Nebuchadnezzar had given battle, and fought with the rebel, he beat him, and reduced the country from under his subjection, and made it a branch of his own kingdom; but about that time it happened that his father Nabopollassar fell ill, and ended his life in the city Babylon, when he had reigned twenty-one years; and when he was made aware, as he was in a little time, that his father Nabopollassar was dead, and having settled the affairs of Egypt, and the other countries, as also those that concerned the captive Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and those of the Egyptian nations; and having committed the conveyance of them to Babylon to certain of his friends, together with the gross of his army, and the rest of their ammunition and provisions, he went himself hastily, accompanied with a few others, over the desert, and came to Babylon. So he took upon him the management of public affairs, and of the kingdom which had been kept for him by one that was the principal of the Chaldeans, and he received the entire dominions of his father" (History of Chaldaea: as quoted by Josephus in Ant. 10.219-27; Apion 1.128-32). If "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" in Dan 1:1 means the fourth year of his reign in 605, then Nebuchadnezzar made appearance in Jerusalem in 605 BCE, which is historically plausible since this would place it after the the battle of Carchemesh. This explains his presence in the region. Based on what is recorded in Dan 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar also lay siege to Jerusalem during this time. That, according to Berosus' account, Nebbuchanezzar took back to Babylon "Jewish" prisoners supports the claim that he was involved in a military campaign against the Judeans, which would mean laying siege to Jerusalem (contrary to Collins, Daniel, 130-33). Indeed this is how Daniel ae al. ended up in Babylon. It follows that the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as "king" in Dan 1:1 is slightly anachronistic, but understandable, since when he besieged Jerusalem he was not yet king Jeremiah's statement that Nebuchadnezzar's siege of the city was in the first year of his reign (and the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign) (25:1) is correct because later that year he became king: 605 BCE was his year of accession.

Even if the book of Daniel was written by an otherwise unknown Jew of the early Maccabean period, one would still have to attribute to him prophetic ability, since he appears to predict the rise of the Roman empire and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70. These historical realities still lay in the future for a second-century BCE author, and, from a second-century perspective, the rise of the Roman empire was by no means certain and inevitable. To interpret the “fourth kingdom” [Dan 2] as that of Alexander the Great requires the postulation of a Median kingdom (chest and arms) as the successor of the neo-Babylonian kingdom and predecessor of the Persian (midsection and thighs), which historically is incorrect. This would mean that the author has erred. Similarly, to interpret the "fourth beast" [Dan 7] as the Seleucid kingdom is scarcely appropriate, for, even if Jews suffered under his persecution, Antiochus could hardly be described as a world ruler (see 7:23). To say that the author erroneously thought the Seleucid kingdom would become a worldwide kingdom begs the question. Likewise, the interpretation of the destruction of the Temple by the "people of the ruler" [Dan 9] as referring to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV is unconvincing, because according to the prophetic timetable (490 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem), Antiochus' reign as Seleucid king is excluded as historically too early.

Some support for an earlier date for the Book of Daniel is the fact that several copies of the Book of Daniel have been discovered at Qumran, indicating the popularity of the text (1QDan a, b; 6QDan; 4QDan a, b, c, d, e) and that, in the text 4Q174 (Flor), while interpreting Dan 12:20 in pesher fashion, the author refers to Daniel as "the prophet," indicating the community's belief that Daniel was not only a real person, but a prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah. To call Daniel a prophet further implies that, in the view of the Qumran community, the Book of Daniel is a prophetic book having the same status as the other prophetic books. The manuscript 4Q174 (Flor) dates from the end of the first century BCE, but the work itself is probably older than this. If so, then it seems impossible that a text composed during or shortly after the Antiochan persecution could have been accepted as canonical so quickly, especially given its spurious origin. Its status as scripture at Qumran implies that the Book of Daniel predates the second century, and may even reach back to the sixth century. It must be conceded, however, that the use of the Book of Daniel in the Qumran community does not necessarily prove its antiquity, because works from the second century BCE, such as the Book of Jubilees and four of the five books of 1 Enoch were also found in the Qumran library. (There are allusions to the Book of Daniel in Sib. Or. 3.396-400 [= Dan 7:7-8]; 1 Macc 2:59-60 [= Dan 3, 6] Bar 1:15-18 [= Dan 9:7-11] , but, since these texts are relatively late, these allusions to the Book of Daniel cannot serve as proof for its pre-Maccabean provenance and certainly not for a sixth-century origin.)

Other evidence suggesting an early date for the Book of Daniel is the the probability that Wisdom of Ben Sira is literarily dependent upon the Book of Daniel, even though the man Daniel is not mentioned in Sir 44:1-50:21. The Greek translation of Ben Sira has parallels to LXX Daniel (Sir 24.32; 39:8a-b; = Dan 12:3). More importantly, in the Hebrew original of Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sir 36:10 ("Hasten the end and remember the appointed time) has parallels with Dan 8:19, 11:27, 35. Likewise, in both the Hebrew terms "end" (qes) and “appointed time” (mo'ed) occur together and refer to the eschaton (Sir 36:10; Dan 8:19, 11:27, 35). Similarly, Sir 4:18 ("God reveals the hidden things") is parallel to the Aramaic Dan 2:22 ("He reveals deep and hidden things"). Finally, Sir 36:17 ("Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn") has parallels with Dan 9.18-19. Since he wrote his wisdom text c. 190 BC in Jerusalem, a few decades before the appearance of Antiochus IV, if Jesus ben Sira was dependent upon the Book of Daniel (as opposed to the alleged anonymous author of the Daniel Apocalypse being dependent upon Ben Sira), then the Book of Daniel would not be vaticinia ex eventu, and could be from the sixth century. It seems more likely that Jesus ben Sira was literarily dependent upon the Book of Daniel rather than the reverse, because his work is interspersed with Old Testament allusions and quotations, whereas the Book of Daniel is original and unique among the canonical texts. (See Douglas E. Fox, "Ben Sira on OT Canon Again: The Date of Daniel," WTJ 49 [1987] 335-350.)

For what it is worth, Josephus, reflecting the accepted view of his day (first century) holds that the Book of Daniel is prophetic, having been written by the sixth century Daniel (Ant. 10.266-81; see 12.322). In his opinion, the accurate predictions of the Book of Daniel are proof that Providence (pronoia) directs human affairs, contrary to Epicureanism. Josephus also claims that when Alexander arrived in Jerusalem, in the process of defeating and dismantling the Persian empire, the Book of Daniel was shown to him, “in which he [Daniel] had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians.” Alexander took this one described in the Book of Daniel to be himself (Ant. 11.337). (Supposedly, Alexander had a vision while in Macedonia indicating that he would defeat the Persians by God’s help.) If this is true, then a second-century date for the book of Daniel obviously is excluded. Jesus also interpreted Daniel as predicting the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (Matt 24:15), as did the early rabbis. Modern scholars, however, view such ancient testimony as naive; the only enlightened ancient was Porphery, who alone recognized that Daniel was history and not prophecy. As Jerome writes, "Porphyry wrote his 20th book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was written by the individual to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some person living in Judea at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; he further alleged that Daniel did not prophesy the future so much as he related the past, and lastly whatever he spoke of up until the time of Antiochus contained genuine history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false inasmuch as he would have not foreknown the future" (Commentary on Daniel).

The prophecy in the Book of Daniel differs from that in other Old Testament prophetic books; it has certain distinctive traits that justifies one in classifying it literarily as belonging to the genre of "apocalyptic prophecy" (R. Dillard and T. Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 342). First, Daniel's prophetic visions often relate to the distant eschatological future, a future that his own generation will not live to see; the assumption is that history is deterministic, so that human response to the revelation will not change the pre-determined course of events. Thus, the purpose of disclosing such knowledge is informative only. (Other examples of eschatological prophecy include Isa 24-27 and Zech 12-14.) Second, what is revealed to Daniel is not for general dissemination; rather the revealed knowledge is accessible only to a few (see Dan 8:26; 12:4). Third, the revelation given to Daniel is mediated by angels, whereas the more traditional prophets receive the content of their prophecy directly from God. Fourth, the prophecies given to Daniel, unlike the other prophets, are stated in highly symbolic terms, to the point of being unintelligible without interpretive assistance.

3.2. Daniel 2:26-45: Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

26 The king said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, "Are you able to make known to me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?" 27 Daniel answered the king, "No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery which the king has asked, 28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these: 29 To you, O king, as you lay in bed came thoughts of what would be hereafter, and he who reveals mysteries made known to you what is to be. 30 But as for me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living has this mystery been revealed to me, but in order that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your mind. 31 "You saw, O king, and behold, a great statue. This statue, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32 The head of this statue was of fine gold, its breast and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces; 35 then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.36 "This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the sons of men, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, making you rule over them all--you are the head of gold. 39 After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these. 41 And as you saw the feet and toes partly of baked clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the baked clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so they will mix themselves with the seed of men, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever; 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

Nebuchadnezzar's had a dream of a large statue of a man. Its head was made of gold, its chest and arms of silver, its midsection and thighs of bronze and its legs of iron and its feet of iron mixed with clay. The king then saw a rock cut out of a mountain not by human hands appear and smash the statue to pieces. The wind blew away what remained as if it were chaff, and the stone became a great mountain that filled the earth. The meaning of the dream eluded all involved, because only God reveal such "mysteries" (2:28-30), which pertain to the "latter days" or the eschatological climax of history (2:28).

Collins argues that the organization of history into four successive kingdoms was a common idea in the ancient world (Daniel, 166-70; The Apocalyptic Imagination, chap. 3). As evidenced in Sib. Or. 4:49-101 and a fragment from the Roman chronicler Aemilius Sura, the four successive kingdoms are the Assyrian, the Median, the Persian and the Macedonian. According to Collins, the author of Dan 2, modified this traditional historical schema by replacing the Assyrian kingdom with the neo-Babylonian; the result, however, was a historical error, for the Median kingdom existed as simultaneous with the neo-Babylonian and not as its successor. It is for this reason that the author introduces the (unhistorical) figure of Darius the Mede as the successor to Belteshazzar (Dan 5:30). Collins writes, "Daniel 2 does not specify the identities of the other kingdoms. The fourth...is surely the Hellenistic kingdom. Since the first is Babylon, the second and third must be the Median and the Persian empires. This sequence of kingdoms is in fact presupposed throughout Daniel (hence the introduction of Darius the Mede). It is not an historical sequence but is adapted from the traditional schema of Assyria, Media, Persia, and Greece by substituting Babylon for Assyria. The inclusion of Media can be explained only by reference to the schema" (The Apocalyptic Imagination, 95). If the fourth kingdom, however, is the Roman empire, then it is unnecessary to conclude that the author falsified history by inserting the Media kingdom between the Babylonian and Persian kingdoms.

The following interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream is revealed to Daniel. The four metals of the statue represents four successive kingdoms. Although only the first kingdom is explicitly identified, being the neo-Babylonian (gold), the other three kingdoms are probably the Medo-Persian (silver), the Hellenistic (bronze) and Roman (iron and clay) respectively. The Medo-Persian kingdom is said to be inferior to the neo-Babylonian, but in what sense this is true is not explained. The duality of the kingdom represented by the two arms may symbolize that the second kingdom consisted of two kings of two nations, the Medes and the Persians (see Josephus, Ant. 10.208). Following the rise of the fourth kingdom, God will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. This kingdom will replace the fourth kingdom, which is symbolized by the stone from the mountain that is not cut by human hands smashing the feet of the statue. The fourth kingdom will be partly strong as symbolized by iron and partly weak, as symbolized by clay. (The feet and the toes of the statue are made partly of iron and partly of clay.) The mixture of the iron and clay symbolizes that this kingdom will be divided, which accounts for its weakness. The Roman empire was never homogenous, especially in the east, and many of the nations and peoples forced into submission to Roman rule were always ready to rebel; the result was a constant weakness in parts of the empire, so that the Romans were forced constantly to maintain the conquered territories in a state of submission by military force. The reference to the mingling with the seed of men in Dan 2:43 may refer to the Roman practice of establishing Roman colonies in conquered territories; in some cases, such intermingling of the colonists (usually retired soldiers who had been given land grants) with the aboriginals led to the Romanization of the conquered territories, but in other cases it did not.

Interpreters who assume a late date for the Book of Daniel claim that the author erroneously thought that there was a world-wide Median kingdom (whose sole ruler was Darius the Mede [6:1; 9:1]) that supplanted the neo-Babylonian kingdom, which explains why he believed that the "fourth kingdom" was Alexander's unified kingdom. This is in spite of the fact that in Dan 8:20-21, the Medo-Persian empire is understood as one kingdom, being depicted as a goat with two horns. Such an interpretation is necessary because, for such interpreters, it is axiomatic that a second-century Jew could not have foreseen the rise of the Roman empire. Those who interpret the fourth kingdom as that of Alexander usually interpret the two legs of the statue as representing the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms, even though Alexander's unified kingdom was divided into four smaller kingdoms. (The claim is that it was only these two successor kingdoms were of interest to the author and his readers because only they had any influence on the affairs of Judea.) (Hartmann and DiLella, The Book of Daniel, 148). In addition, the statement "They will mix themselves with the seed of men, but they will not hold together" is often interpreted of attempted intermarriages between the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic dynasties, as in Dan 11:6, 17 (Collins, Daniel, 170). Hartmann and DiLella argue that Dan 2:43 was a gloss to the original story. The aim of the glossator was to re-interpret the inability of iron and clay to intermix as symbolic of the abortive attempts to unify the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms through intermarriage (see Dan 11:6, 17) (The Book of Daniel, 149).

1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream, and told the sum of the matter. 2 Daniel said, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. 3 And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. 4 The first was like a lion and had eagles' wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand upon two feet like a man; and the mind of a man was given to it. 5 And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides; it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, 'Arise, devour much flesh.' 6 After this I looked, and lo, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back; and the beast had four heads; and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. 9 As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. 10 A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. 11 I looked then because of the sound of the great words which the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. 13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. 15 "As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious and the visions of my head alarmed me. 16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made known to me the interpretation of the things. 17 'These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever.' 19 "Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrible, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze; and which devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; 20 and concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up and before which three of them fell, the horn which had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and which seemed greater than its fellows. 21 As I looked, this horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom. 23 "Thus he said: 'As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces. 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. 25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time. 26 But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.'

In Dan 7, Daniel has a prophetic dream about four beasts (a lion, a bear, a leopard and an unnamed terrifying beast), who represent four kingdoms. The fourth kingdom, represented by the unnamed, terrifying beast, will be a kingdom that will trample down the whole world. The fourth beast has ten horns, representing ten kings. After this, another horn sprouts, representing another ruler, who will subdue three other kings. The “saints” will be handed over to him for three and a half years. After this, one (appearing) like a son of man will appear, coming with the clouds of heaven; he will be given authority and the “saints” will rule in the kingdom of the Most High. It is most natural to interpret the lion with the eagle wings as representing the neo-Babylonian kingdom. The lion and eagle are dominant and predatory animals and so aptly symbolize the Babylonians. The plucking of the wings off of the lion probably represents Nebudchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation (Dan 4). The statement that "the mind [lit. heart] of a man was given to it" is probably a reference to Nebuchadnezzar's repentance and restoration (Dan 4). The bear represents the Medo-Persian kingdom, the two sides of the bear symbolizing the Medes and the Persians. The three ribs in the bear's mouth probably represent the Persians' defeat of three kingdoms: Lydia, Egypt and Babylonia. The leopard represents Alexander's kingdom followed by four smaller Hellenistic kingdoms represented by the four wings and four heads of the leopard. The leopard is an appropriate symbol of the Hellenistic kingdom, because of the quickness with which Alexander conquered the Persian empire. Finally, the fourth beast is symbolic of the Roman empire. (Hartmann and DiLella claim that a rearrangement of the text is required: the reference to the three ribs in the mouth orginally is said to belong to the description of the lion, whereas the standing upright should be part of the description of the bear and not the lion [The Book of Daniel, 209]. Such a textual transposition, however, is unjustified.)

The meaning of the ten kings represented by the horns of the fourth beast, followed by an eleventh ruler who will subdue three kings and then persecute the "saints" (i.e. Jews) for a period of three and a half years, however, is in question even among conservative scholars. (For example, it is disputed whether the Roman empire should be understood as having two phases—a present and future, so that the eleventh king, symbolized by the little horn, is to be expected in the future phase of the Roman empire.) Another question that needs to be answered is whether the three and a half years are lunar years (354 days per year with or without an intercalated month of twenty-nine or thirty days seven times in a period of nineteen years), solar years of 364 days as adopted by some Jews, or solar years of 360 days (see Rev 12:14; 6; 13:5). At any rate, it is clear that a king will arise in the Roman empire who will persecute Jews for a period of three and a half years, after which God will destroy him and give the kingdom to "the saints, the people of the Most High." The "one like a son of man," i.e. one who resembles a human being, who comes with the clouds of heaven, appears before God, "the Ancient of days," and to whom is given an eternal kingdom probably represents the Jewish people, in the same way that the four beasts represented other nations (Dan 7:13-14).

Interpreters who assume a second century date for the apocalypse of Dan 7 view the bear as representing the Median kingdom and the leopard as symbolizing the Persian empire, in spite of fact that a leopard with four heads and four wings is most naturally interpreted of Alexander and the four Hellenistic kingdoms that arose after his death. It is claimed that the four heads and wings represent four Persian kings, mentioned in Dan 11:2 (Collins, Daniel, 298). From this it follows that the fourth kingdom is the Seleucid kingdom, even though the Seleucid kingdom could hardly be described as "devouring the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it" (Dan 7:23). Thus, according to the author of Dan 7, after the last Seleucid king, who would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Jews will receive from God a world-wide kingdom, which, of course, did not happen. On this interpretation, the ten horns representing ten kings (7:24) are the ten kings, inclusive of Antiochus IV, of the Seleucid dynasty, beginning with Alexander: (1) Alexander (336-323 BCE); (2) Alexander Aegus (323-312 BCE); (3) Seleucus I (312-280 BCE); (4) Antiochus I (280-61 BCE); (5) Antiochus II (261-46 BCE); (6) Seleucus II (246-26 BCE); (7) Seleucus III (226-23 BCE); (8) Antiochus III (223-187 BCE); (9) Seleucus IV (187-75 BCE); (10) Antiochus IV (175-64 BCE) (Hartman and DiLella, The Book of Daniel, 213-14). The small horn that grows up among the ten horns (Dan 7:80 is said to symbolize that Antiochus IV was an illegitimate king, as Dan 11:21 claims (Collins, Daniel, 299). The fact that no reference is made to the desecration of the Temple implies that the author of Dan 7 wrote before 167 BCE, although Antiochus IV had already begun to oppress the Jews (It is hard to believe, however, that before 167 BCE, Jews would describe Antiochus as he is supposedly described in Dan 7, even though he had plundered the Temple in 169 BCE. He did not become the arch-villain that he is in Jewish historiography until after his pogrom against the Jews.)

It should be noted that Sybiline Oracles (3:381-400) interpret the ten horns in Dan 7 as ten kings who preceded Antiochus Epiphanes. Josephus identifies the "little horn" in Dan 7:20-27 with Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant. 10.269-75).

Furthermore, some scholars who interpret the fourth kingdom as the Seleucid kingdom identify Dan 7:8, 11a, 20b, 21, 22, 24b, 25, which refer to the small horn, as later interpolations into an original text that had no such references (H. L. Ginsberg, "The Book of Daniel" Cambridge History of Judaism followed by Hartman and DiLella, The Book of Daniel, 202-20). On this tradition-historical reconstruction, the interpolator makes Antiochus IV the eleventh king, not the tenth as he was in the original tradition, and interprets the ten kings not as preceding Antiochus IV but as contemporary with him, so that he is able to subdue three of these, usually identified as Artaxias of Armenia in 166 BCE (Diodorus 31.17a), Ptolemy VI Philometor in 169 (Polybius, History, 38) and Ptolemy VII Euergetes in 168 (Polybius, History, 38; Diodorus 31.17a). The author of the original Dan 7 (minus the interpolations) wrote his work before Antiochus' desecration of the Temple, whereas the interpolator did his work after the beginning of Antiochus' persecution of the Jews and desecration of the Temple. In this new historical context, the interpolator puts a limit on Antiochus' persecution (three and a half years). Redactional reconstructions of this sort, however, are notoriously difficult to prove.

1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was at the river Ulai. 3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the river. It had two horns; and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4 I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward; no beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power; he did as he pleased and magnified himself. 5 As I was considering, behold, a goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6 He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the river, and he ran at him in his mighty wrath. 7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns; and the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled upon him; and there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. 8 Then the goat magnified himself exceedingly; but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven. 9 Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them. 11 It magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host; and the continual burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and truth was cast down to the ground, and the horn acted and prospered. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" 14 And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state." 15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, "Gabriel, make this man understand the vision." 17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened and fell upon my face. But he said to me, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end." 18 As he was speaking to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me and set me on my feet. 19 He said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. 20 As for the ram which you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power. 23 And at the latter end of their rule, when the transgressors have reached their full measure, a king of bold countenance, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24 His power shall be great, and he shall cause fearful destruction, and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people of the saints. 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall magnify himself. Without warning he shall destroy many; and he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes; but, by no human hand, he shall be broken. 26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings which has been told is true; but seal up the vision, for it pertains to many days hence." 27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days; then I rose and went about the king's business; but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.

Daniel has a vision of a ram with two unequal horns charging west, north and south; then he sees a goat with a prominent horn attacking the ram and shattering the two horns, after which the goat becomes great and grows four horns. The goat represents Alexander, who defeats Darius III and the Medo-Persian empire symbolized by the ram with two unequal horns. (There are two horns because the kingdom was constituted by the Medes and Persians, but they were uneven because, after the Persian Cyrus came to power c. 550 BCE, the Persians gained ascendency over the Medes.)The four horns represent the four divisions of Alexander’s unified kingdom. After he died in 323 BCE there followed a protracted struggle among his would-be successors; after the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia (301 BCE), the following division of territory resulted: Cassander ruled Macedonia and Greece, Lysimachus Thrace and western Asia Minor, Ptolemy Egypt, Coele-Syria (Palestine and southern Syria) and part of Asia Minor, and Seleucus the remainder (see Map of Hellenistic Kingdoms in 300 BCE).

Daniel also sees another horn coming from one of the four horns, which "grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land" (8:9). The "glorious land" refers to Israel (see Ezek 20:6, 15; Jer 3:19; 11:45; 1 Enoch 89:40; 1 Macc 2:12). It is also said that this little horn grew great towards the host of heaven, which is a reference to the stars and heavenly beings. The result will be the taking away the sacrifices for 2,300 mornings and evening. In other words, a king will arise and oppress the Jews, suspending operations within the Temple for 2,300 "evening-mornings" ( 'ereb boker) days. The little horn from the other horn represents Antiochus IV, descendent of Seleucus I, who took control of much of Antigonus's territory. (This little horn, therefore, is not the same as the little horn in Dan 7:8; nevertheless, both oppress the Jewish people.) The reference to Antiochus' causing a host of the stars to be cast down to the ground, and his trampling on them is obscure. The "host of heaven" elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible refers to the stars (Isa 34:4) and more particularly the stars as objects of worship (Deut 4:19; Jer 8:2; Zeph 1:5). It seems that Antiochus is being accused of exalting himself above the pagan gods, represented by the stars, which is consistent with his self-designation as King Antiochus God Manifest (Basileus Antiochos Theos Epiphanês) (see Isa 14:13). The point is that Antiochus had divine pretensions. (see Hartmann and DiLella, Daniel, 236; Goldingay, Daniel, 209-11). (A parallel to Antiochus' self-exaltation to the "stars" occurs in 2 Macc 9:10: "On account of the intolerable smell, no one was able to carry the man who a short time ago supposed that he could touch the stars of heaven.") In his self-exaltation as divine, Antiochus even sought to rival God, designated as the "Prince of hosts" insofar as he suspended the tamid offering (morning and evening sacrifices) in the Temple (8:11) (see the term "Prince of princes" in 8:25 as a synonym for the "Prince of hosts"). The period of time during which the Temple will be desecrated and the sacrifices suspended, the 2,300 "evening-mornings," has been interpreted as 2,300 morning and evenings, i.e., 2,300 times when the tamid offering was to be made, or 1,150 complete days and as designation for 2,300 complete days, on the assumption that the phrase "evening-morning" denotes a day. The Temple was rededicated on Chislev 25, 148 S.E. (= December 14, 164 BCE), as 1 Macc 4:52 indicates, while 1 Macc 1:54 states that the desecration of the Temple (when a desolating sacrificed was placed on the altar) began on Chislev 15, 145 S.E. (= December 6, 167 BCE); this makes 1,103 days during which the Temple was desecrated, too few on either interpretation of 2,300 "evening-mornings." If one assumes that the meaning is 1,150 days, that is, 2,300 mornings and evenings, one must therefore date the beginning of the Antiochan crisis forty-seven days earlier than when the desolating sacrifice was placed on the altar. But it is conceivable that, forty-seven days before the desolating sacrifice was placed on the altar, the daily morning and evening sacrifices had ceased to be offered, which is the focus of the prophecy in Dan 8. On the assumption that the meaning is 2,300 days, then the beginning of the trouble is taken back to the year 171 BCE, the year Menelaus is appointed high priest and has Onias III murdered. (The time of the oppression of the Jewish people in Dan 7:25 is three and a half years, which, depending on the calendar used, is equivalent to 1,239 days [lunar calendar of 354 days], 1,260 [solar calendar of 360 days] or 1,274 [solar calendar of 364 days]; the phrase "2,300 days and evenings" on either interpretation does not agree with any of these options, suggesting that two different separate persecutions are intended in Dan 7 and Dan 8.) There is a reference not only to the suspension of the tamid offering but also the desolating rebellion (hps' smm) (8:13), which is not identified. Presumably it is identical to the desolating abomination in 11:31; 12:11 (see 9:27). In 1 Macc 1:59, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "desolating sacrifice" occurs and it is identified as the pagan altar build on top of the original altar, on which was sacrificed unlawful sacrifices.

20 Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before Yahweh my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, 21 while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. 23 At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision. 24 Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed one the prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the anointed one cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

While reading about Jeremiah's prophecy that Israel's exile would last for seventy years (see Jer 25:11; 29:10), Daniel is told that "seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgressions, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy” (Dan 9:24). In other words, even though the Israelites would be free to return to their land after seventy years, the fulfillment of the eschatological promises would not be until much later. Seventy-sevens represents a period of 490 years; this is what remains until the time of the end. The reference to seventy weeks conforms to the sabbatical chronology found in Lev 25-26, being ten jubilees (10 x 49 years, i.e., seven weeks of years) (Collins, Daniel, 352-54). (In later periodizations of history the numbers ten and seven figure prominently as a schematic numbers; see 4Q181 frg. 2.3; 1 Enoch 10:11-12; 93.9–10; 91.11–17 [Apocalypse of Weeks]; 83–90 [Dream Visions]; and the Book of Jubilees) From the time of the issuing of the decree to return to the land until the appearance of the anointed one, the ruler, there will pass “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens” (483 years). (Why the period of sixty-nine sevens is divided into seven sevens and sixty-two sevens is debated.) There were, in fact, three official decrees to rebuild the Temple: 1. The decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5) in 538/37 BCE; 2. The decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) in 458 BCE; 3. The second decree of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:5-8, 17, 18) in 445 BCE. Most likely, the second date is intended by Daniel 9:24, which would put the date for the coming of the anointed one in 26 (keeping in mind that between 1 BCE and 1 CE is only one year). This is the approximate date of Jesus' baptism, which marks the beginning of his ministry. Then, after the sixty-two sevens, the anointed one will be cut off and have nothing; the “people of the ruler” will destroy the city and the sanctuary. What appears to be described is the destruction of the city and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. The interpretation of Dan 9:27, which concerns the last week (seven years) is controversial. The problem lies in identifying to whom the personal pronoun “he” refers. Many interpret the antecedent of “he” as avidic a future Antichrist (the horn in Dan 7:20; 24), while others interpret the pronoun as referring to the DMessiah.

Those who interpret the Book of Daniel as reflecting the historical situation of the second century BCE interpret the appearance in history of the anointed one and leader in Dan 9:25 as occurring after the first seven weeks (forty-nine years); this one is identified with Cyrus, Zerubbabel or the High Priest Joshua ben Jozdak. On this interpretation, it is assumed that two events are in view, the appearance of the anointed one after seven weeks (forty-nine years) and the cutting off of another anointed one after another sixty-two weeks (434 years). In other words, the second reference to the anointed one is to a different person, one who appears in history and is "cut off" sixty-two sevens (434 years) after the seven sevens (forty-nine years). (The Hebrew text of Dan 9:25 is translated as: "From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks...") It is assumed that the word that goes forth is not an edict from a Persian king but a divine word about the restoration of Jerusalem and so refers to the prophecy in Jer 25:1 "The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon)" (605 BCE) or, more commonly assumed, Jer 29:10 "This is what Yahweh says: 'When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place'" (Hartmann and DiLella, The Book of Daniel, 247-52; Collins, Daniel, 355). This means that the probable starting point of the 490 years is 594 BCE, the likely date when Jeremiah sends his letter recorded in Jer 29. The second anointed one who is cut off is usually identified with the high priest Onias III, who is murdered in 171 BCE (see 2 Macc 4:1-38). So the weakness of this interpretation is that the period of time (434 years) is too long (594 BCE - 490 BCE = 104CBE), so that the interpreter must assume that the author of Dan 9 has sacrificed historical accuracy to his pesher-type of interpretation of Jeremiah's seven weeks of years. Sometimes it is said that the author miscaluculated and worked in very round numbers, but this seems improbable. Naturally, the ruler ("people of the ruler") in Dan 9:26 is Antiochus IV, who in 169 BCE comes to Jerusalem to suppress a popular rebellion against Menelaus and his supporters. The reference to the last week (i.e., the final period of seven years) refers to the seven year period in which Antiochus aims to hellenize Jerusalem. Initially, for the first three and a half years, Antiochus IV made an alliance with Hellenizing Jews, but in the middle of the seven year period, he abolished the sacrifice and offering and erected the desolating abomination, insofar as he made pagan offerings on the altar.

Josephus presents his own interpretation of the fulfillment of the prophecy in Dan 9:27. After the destruction of Jerusalem, he writes that Daniel spoke about the Roman empire and predicted that the Romans would destroy the city (Ant. 10. 276-77). In War 4. 385-88, he explains that the Zealots who controlled the city, disregarded the ancient prophecy that the city would be burned and the Temple destroyed in war; this would occur when Jews defiled the Temple (mianosi to tou theou temenos). It seems that the prophecy that Josephus has in mind is Dan 9, and he sees the "the abomination that causes desolation" as the defilement of the Temple by the Zealots. Earlier, Josephus describes how the Zealots, murderers and thieves, occupied the Temple, using it as a fortress (War 4.152-53, 170-74) and how two of their number murdered a certain Zecharias in the Temple (War 4.340-44). Added to this was the investiture of the unqualified Phani, son of Samuel, as High Priest (War 3.155-61).

In Dan 11, events that affect the Jews until the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV are described. Although none of them is named, it is easy to identify the participants in the events described, since the prophecies are so specific. Those interpreters who assume that the author of Dan 11 wrote after the fact interpret the chapter as history rather than prophecy until Dan 11:40, at which he begins to make (inaccurate) predictions about the final events in the life of Antiochus that lead to his punitive death.

2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. 3 Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will. 4 And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these.

Three kings and then a fourth will arise in Persia. The fourth king must be Xerxes, the three preceeding kings are probably Cambyses (529-522 BCE), Smerdis (522-21 BCE), Darius Hystaspes (521-486 BCE). (Cyrus is not in the list because he is reigning when the prophecy is given.) (Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 281). Xeres provokes the Greeks by invading their territory, which led to a prolonged conflict (Herodotus, Histories). The mighty king that arises after the fourth Persian king is Alexander the Great, who conquers the Persian empire. Upon his death Alexander's unfied Hellenistic kingdom is divided among four of his successors (diadochi) . These four kings are Alexander's kingdom will be broken and be divided to the four winds, not going to his posterity. The four divisions represent the territories ruled by Cassander, Lysimachus, Antigonus and Ptolemy.

Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and his dominion shall be a great dominion.

Dan 11:5 describes the ascendancy of Seleucus I. Seleucus I flees his satrapy in Babylonia, and goes to Egypt in 316 BCE for fear of Antigonus; Seleucus I offers his services to Ptolemy I Soter, and becomes "one of his princes." Together, in 312 BCE, they defeat Demetrius, the son of Antigonus at Gaza (This was part of the war that ensued after Cassander's challenge of the successor chosen by his father Antipater). After the peace agreement reached in 311 BCE, Seleucus regains control of Babylonia, and, after the battle of Ipsus, takes control of much of Antigonus' former territory. This is what Dan 11:5 means when it says that the prince of the king of the south will rule a realm greater than that of the king of the south (Arrian, Expedition of Alexander, 7.22).

After some years they shall make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make peace; but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his offspring shall not endure; but she shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her.

In Dan 11:6, it is foretold that the kings of the south and the north will form an alliance by marriage, which will not endure. This describes the attempted alliance between Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-46 BCE) with Antiochus II Theos (261-46 BCE); the former gives his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus II, who then divorces his own wife and half-sister, Laodice, and removes his sons by her (Seleucus and Antiochus) as heirs. This passage predicts that "she" (i.e., Berenice) will be “handed over,” along with her royal escort, her son and her supporters; this describes how, after Ptolemy II's death, Antiochus II violates the pact and takes up with is former wife, who poisons him and kills the infant son of Berenice, Berenice and many of her Egyptian attendants.

In those times a branch from her roots shall arise in his place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail. 8 He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north. 9 Then the latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land.

Dan 11:7-9 says that a branch from her roots will arise, who will come against the king of the north and enter the fortress of the king of the north; he will plunder the king of the north and even bring the gods back with him as spoils of war. After this, he will refrain from attacking the king of the north, but the king of the north will invade the land of the south and return to his own land. This passage refers to the events of the Third Syrian War—246-41 BCE. Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 BCE), brother of Berenice, captures the cities Seleucia and Antioch and portions of the Seleucid empire; he does not retain control over these territorial gains, but instead plunders the territory, bringing his plunder it back to Egypt. (See Josephus, who says that Ptolemy III went to Jerusalem and offered sacrifices of thanksgiving to God at the Temple and made votive offerings [Apion 2.5].) Seleucus II later invades Egypt in 242 BCE, which ends disastrously for him. In 240 BCE, he is forced to return to Antioch.

His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north; and he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude, greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies. 14 In those times many shall rise against the king of the south; and the men of violence among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision; but they shall fail. 15 Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siege works, and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his picked troops, for there shall be no strength to stand. 16 But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and all of it shall be in his power. 17 He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom; but it shall not stand or be to his advantage. 18 Afterward he shall turn his face to the coast lands, and shall take many of them; but a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him. 19 Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found.

According to Dan 11:10-19, there will be a conflict between the sons of the king of the north and the king of the south. The sons of the king of the north will attack the king of the south; in anger the king of the south will attack the king of the north, who will be defeated, in spite of his army. The king of the south, however, shall not prevail; the king of the north shall rise again and after a few years shall advance again against the king of the south. The lawless among Daniel's people will support him, but will fail. Then the king of the north will lay siege and take a fortified city; the forces of the south will not stand, not even the picked troops. The king of the north will take the position in the beautiful land; he will set himself to control the other's kingdom, but make peace with the king of the south. In order to destroy his kingdom, he will give the king of the south a woman in marriage, but this plot will not succeed. Afterwards, he will turn to the coast lands, but shall return to his own land in failure.

What is being described is the events in the reigns of Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BCE) (son of Seleucus II Ceraunus [227-23 BCE]), the king of the north and Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-203 BCE) and Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203-181 BCE) both kings of the south. In 219 BCE, Antiochus III attempts to annex Coele Syria, Phoencia and Palestine to his kingdom. In 217 BCE, the two kingdoms fight a monumental battle at Raphia on the border between Palestine and Egypt; Antiochus III loses and retreats (Fourth Syrian War—219-17 BCE). Despite his victory, Ptolemy IV Philopator did not gain any decisive military advantage over Antiochus III the Great (Dan 11:12) (On this period of history see Polybius, Histories, 5).

Antiochus III for the next fourteen years occupies himself fighting in the east, regaining parts of the kingdom that had been lost. In 199 BCE, he attacks Egypt again after the death of Ptolemy IV in 204 BCE and when Ptolemy V is still a young child (Polybius, Histories, 15.25.3-18). This is what is described in Dan 11:13: "For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude, greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies." Allied with Philip V of Macedonia, Antiochus III defeats Scopas, the general of the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas (later renamed Caesarea Philippi). Dan 11:14 probably refers to Philip V and insurgents within Egypt; the Jews referred to disapprovingly in the same verse are a pro-Seleucid faction in Judea. As Dan 11:15 describes, Scopas, the Ptolemaic general, retreats to Sidon, and Antiochus III lays siege to the city, which surrenders in 198 BCE (see Josephus, Ant. 12.133). The “beautiful land,” a reference to Judea becomes part of the Seleucid kingdom (Dan 11:16) (see Josephus, Ant. 12.129-53; he cites an otherwise unknown passage from Polybius, Histories in 12.135-36). The reference to the fact that "a commander shall put an end to his [Antiochus'] insolence refers to his defeat at the hands of the Romans at Thermopylae in 191 BCE and at Magnesia in 190 BCE. The commander was Lucius Cornelius Scipio (Livy 37.40-41). While the Macedonian kingdom was at war with the Romans, Antiochus III attempts to take for himself parts of the Macedonian kingdom.

After this success, Antiochus III, however, does not invade Egypt; rather, he makes a peace treaty. Antiochus III seeks to seal the treaty by giving his daughter Cleopatra (the first of several Cleopatras in Egypt) to Ptolemy V in marriage; he hopes to manipulate Ptolemy V through her "in order to destroy the kingdom" (Dan 11:17). The marriage takes place in 193 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 12.154; Polybius, Histories, 28.20.9). Cleopatra, however, proves to be loyal to her husband, so that the plan of Antiochus III does not succeed; she advocates an alliance with Rome in order to thwart the territorial ambitions of Antiochus III her father. As Dan 11:18 describes, Antiochus III attacks the coastal cities of Asia Minor belonging to the Ptolemaic kingdom (in spite of the peace treaty); he takes control of territories that used to be under the control of the Ptolemies (Cilicia, Lycia, Caria). In 187 BCE, Antiochus is killed, described as "stumbling, falling and disappearing" in Dan 11:19.

Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle.

Dan 11:20 describes the rise of one who shall send an official to collect taxes for the glory of the kingdom, but who will not reign long, dying neither in anger or in war. This refers to the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator, who had to raise taxes in order to maintain the standards of his father's kingdom; he is assassinated. Heliodorus and possibly the brother of Seleucus IV, Antiochus IV, are responsible for his assassination (Appian, Syr. 45).

21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, and the prince of the covenant also. 23 And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully; and he shall become strong with a small people. 24 Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province; and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers' fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time.

The contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given is Antiochus IV, since he was not in line to the throne. After the Battle of Magnesia, Antiochus IV was taken as a hostage to Rome; after fourteen years, however, for unknown reasons, Demetrius I, the eldest son of Seleucus IV, was sent to Rome to take his place as a hostage. When Seleucus IV was assassinated, Antiochus foiled a plot by Helidodorus to support the installation as king of the younger son of his brother, also named Antiochus. Having usurped the throne, Antiochus arranged to have his nephew murdered. The reference to his obtaining the kingdom by flatteries no doubt refers to his court intrigues in order to obtain power illegitimately, for Antiochus had made alliances with King Eumenes of Pergamum and Attalus his brother. Dan 11:22a refers generally to Antiochus' military successes, whereas the reference to the sweeping away and destruction of "the prince of covenant" probably refers to the removal of Onias III from his position as High Priest. Dan 11:23 probably refers to Antiochus' making an alliance with the pro-Seleucid and hellenizing faction in Judea, prominent in which were the Tobiads, after which he and his allies sought to introduce hellenizing reforms and establish Jerusalem as a Hellenistic city-state. That this was an unprecedented policy towards the Jews is indicated by 11:24: "What neither his fathers nor his fathers' fathers have done." Since the return from exile, Jews in Judea had been allowed to live under the Law and to be ruled by the High Priest; this right was confirmed by Antiochus III (Ant. 12.3.3; 135).

3.6.8. Dan 11:25-28

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him. 26 Even those who eat his rich food shall be his undoing; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. 27 And as for the two kings, their minds shall be bent on mischief; they shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail; for the end is yet to be at the time appointed. 28 And he shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land.

Dan 11:25-28 describes Antiochus' war with the the Ptolemaic kingdom, known as the Sixth Syrian War in 169 BCE (1 Macc 1:16-19; Josephus, Ant. 12.242-44; Polybius, Histories, 27.19; 28.18-21). Ptolemy VI Philometer seeks to regain territory lost during the Fifth Syrian War, and to that end invades Palestine in 170 BCE. It seems, however, that Antiochus was just as eager for war as his Ptolemaic counterpart. Antiochus defeats the Ptolemaic army, and then takes the fortress of Pelusium situated on the border of the two kingdoms (see 1 Macc 1:16-19). The reference to "those who eat his rich food" (11:26), who will be responsible for the undoing of "the king of the south," Ptolemy VI Philometer," is to the king's advisors, Eulaeus and Lenaeus, who advised him to invade Palestine (see Polybius, Histories, 28.21). Antiochus took captive Ptolemy VI Philometer, who was actually his nephew, since he is the son of Antiochus' sister, Cleopatra, but in Egypt another king had been crowned, Ptolemy VII Euergetes II Physcon, the brother of the now captured Ptolemaic king. Thus, Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI Philometer agree to cooperate against this new rival, but do so insincerely, each seeking to deceive the other and thereby gain the advantage; this is what Dan 11:27: "And as for the two kings, their minds shall be bent on mischief; they shall speak lies at the same table." In the end, their plotting was to no avail, because Antiochus was not able to secure control of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Dan 11:28 obliquely describes Antiochus' intervention into the internal affairs of Judea on behalf of the then High Priest Menelaus, who had been forced to take refuge in the Akra against his rival and former High Priest, Jason. After suppressing this revolt against Menelaus, Antiochus plundered the Temple, which explains why he returned to his land "with great substance" (1 Macc 1:16-28; 2 Macc 5). His action explains why he is described as being "set against the holy covenant" (Dan 11:28). Antiochus appointed Philip, a Phrygia, as royal governor in Jerusalem (2 Macc 5:22).

In 168 BCE, Antiochus IV undertakes another military campaign against the Ptolemaic kingdom, "the king of the south" (1 Macc 1:29-64; 2 Macc 5:24-6:11; Ant. 12.5.4; 248-56; War 1.1.2; 34-35; see Polybius, Histories. 29.27.1-8; Diod. 31.2; Appian, Syr., 66; Justinus, 34.3.1-3, Livy 45.12.1-8; Tacitus, Hist. 5.8). The two brothers, Philometer and Physcon had reconciled and agreed to share power, thereby annulling Antiochus' alliance with the former; it was this betrayal and the consequent loss of control over the Ptolemaic kingdom that caused Antiochus to go to war against Egypt for the second time. But this time, he comes up against the Roman general Gaius Popillius Laenas, because the Ptolemies are now allied with the Romans. The "ships of the Kittim" in Dan 11:30 refer to the Roman legions who had recently arrived in Egypt. Antiochus unwillingly withdraws out of fear for Roman military power: "He shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back" (Dan 11:30). On his return to Antioch, Antiochus takes drastic action against the Jews in Judea. He sends Apollonius to Jerusalem with orders forcibly to hellenize Jerusalem and Judea (see 1 Macc 1:31-33). The Temple is desecrated, the continual burnt offering (tamid offering) is removed and the desolating abomination, the pagan altar placed on top of the altar in the Temple, is constructed. Those Jews who resist are executed. Those pro-Hellenistic Jews allied with the Seleucids, however, are left unharmed; these are described as "those who forsake the covenant" (Dan 11:30) and "those who violate the covenant" (Dan 11:32). The reference to "those who are wise" is to those leaders of the anti-Hellenistic party, probably identical to "the pious ones" (Chasidim) in 1 Macc 2:42; 7:13; 2 Macc 14:6; these would help other Jews to understand what was happening, even though they would suffering under Antiochus' pogrom. What these leaders know is that the persecution is temporary and designed ultimately "to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white" (Dan 11:35). The little help received by "those who are wise" probably refers to the modest successes, initially at least, of Matthatias and later Judas in bringing relief to the persecuted Jews.

Antiochus IV is described as "exalting himself above every god" (Dan 11:36), which is probably a reference to the fact that he takes the appellation "God Manifest" (Theos Epiphanes). In this way, he magnifies himself above all, not giving heed to any god (Dan 11:37). He also speaks arrogantly against "the God of gods," the one and true God of Israel (see Deut 10:17), which probably alludes to blasphemy uttered by him. (Exactly in what that blasphemy consisted is unknown.) Antiochus is said to reject the gods of his fathers and the one beloved of woman in favor of a god not known to his fathers: the god of fortresses. This may refer to the fact that Antiochus gives preference to Zeus Olympios, identified as the god of the Jerusalem Temple, rather than Apollo, the god of the Seleucid dynasty (see 2 Macc 6:2). (The god identified as "the one beloved by women" could be Dionysius or Adonis.) If so, then Zeus Olympios is the god of fortresses, for the god of the Akra in Jerusalem and other fortresses in Judea was Zeus Olympios and not the God of the Jews.

3.6.11. Dan 11:40-45

40 At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him; but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train. 44 But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

The events described do not fit what is known of Antiochus IV after his persecution of the Jews. For this reason, commentators who hold to a second-century date for the Daniel apocalypse usually claim that Dan 11:40 marks the transition between recent history narrated as prophecy and genuine prediction, which was inaccurate in every detail. The conservative position, however, is that Dan 11:40-45 refer to another, still-future oppressor of the Jews, who would be Antiochus-like in many ways.