Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course, it does mention Alexander as following on from the historical 'prediction' but the reference to the 'four horns' is of course the break - up of the empire into four under Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus and Lysimachus. It follows that the subsequent 'prophecy' is about the following events.
Well, let's look at the evidence and see who is ignoring what. I'll pull some stuff together and get back to you on this.
|
(Collated from various sources)
A legendary figure by the name of Daniel is mentioned in the Old Testament in Ezekiel 14:14,20 and 28:3' So there was a handy figure to use for prophecy
Babylon
The book opens by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and carried the king into Babylon along with some of the temple treasures. In fact, the chronology of the Exile in II Kings 24 places the first siege in the first year of the reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim's son, some eight years later than Daniel's chronology.
Dynasty XI of Babylon (Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean)
Nabu-apla-usur (Nabopolassar) 626 - 605 BCE
Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadrezzar) II 605 - 562 BCE
Amel-Marduk 562 - 560 BCE
Nergal-šar-usur (Nergal-sharezer) 560 - 556 BCE
Labaši-Marduk 556 BCE
Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus) 556 - 539 BCE
Later, Nebuchadnezzar the Second (Nabopolassar's son) inherited the empire of Babylonia. He added quite a bit of territory to Babylonia and rebuilt Babylon, still the capital of Babylonia.However, Babylonia did not hold together much after Nebuchad-nezzar died; Nabonidus, the new king, could not seem to unite the various elements of Babylonian civilization. To quote =Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia=, "A somewhat enigmatic figure, he [Nabonidus] in some way antagonized the influential priestly class of Babylon."
It's clear that Daniel was unaware that 4 Babylonian kings succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II. Daniel's history of the Exile and the fall of Babylon is at odds with known historical facts. In addition, he appears to be confused about details of the reign of the Persian kings.
Shortly after the end of Nabonidus's reign, the Persians moved in to conquer. Babylon fell, never to rise again. "And then the history of the ancient Mesopotamian empires in ended for ever" [Moscati].
(Wikipedia)
Persia and Alexander
In 539 BCE, Babylon was captured by Cyrus the Great of Persia, and lost its independence.
'Cyrus defeated Astyages, and seized control of the Median empire. Having gained control of Media, Cyrus set his sights on Babylon, and eventually took the capital city in 536 BCE. Cyrus then allowed the Jewish captives to return to their homeland'.
Cyrus, not Darius.. and he was a Persian, not a mede. The writer of Daniel seemed to have the idea that Media conquered Babylon and was then succeeded by Persia. It was the other way around: Media first, then Babylon. Forgivable mistake, perhaps, but that and the wrong kings are evidence that the writer was compiling his book of Daniel at a date remote from those times.
Daniel records that the Babylonian Empire fell to a certain king by the name of Darius, a Mede. (5:31, 9:1). Neither the Babylonian nor the Persian histories record such a person. Herodotus, who wrote his history about 440 BCE, records that Babylon fell to the Persian army, under the control of King Cyrus. Darius the Mede is never mentioned. In fact, the Median kingdom was conquered and assimilated by Cyrus as early as 550 BCE, when he defeated Astyages, king of Media.
There is good evidence that the person that Daniel imagined to be Darius the Mede was in fact Darius I Hystaspes, the king of Persia from 521 to 485 BCE. The author of Daniel, writing in the second century BCE, confused this king with his own creation, Darius the Mede.
A further point of evidence that Darius the Mede was in fact Darius Hystaspes comes from Daniel 6:1. Here, Darius is said to have set up 120 "princes" (better translated as Satraps) over the kingdom. In fact, as Herodotus points out, it was Darius Hystaspes who instituted the satrapy system.
Recognizing the problem, several Bible scholars have tried to find solutions. The most popular states that Darius the Mede was Gubaru (or Gobyras), governor of Babylon during the reign of Cyrus. The problem with this approach (quite aside from the fact that there is no historical reason to make such a connection) is that Darius is often addressed as "king" (Daniel 6:6, note the royal appellation "live forever"), and was said to have enacted laws throughout the whole kingdom (Daniel 6:8-9). Neither can be said to be true of a mere governor. Further, Gobyras was a Babylonian, not a Mede.
The Persian Kings
In Daniel 11, the angel Gabriel informs the prophet that there will be four Persian kings before the coming of Alexander the Great.
"Daniel 11:2-4 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king [Alexander] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven." [Alexander's kingdom was divided among his four generals after his death.]
Since Daniel supposedly wrote during the reign of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1), this would then make him the first Persian king of Daniel 11:2. Cyrus defeated Babylon in 536 BCE. Alexander took the kingdom from the last Persian king in 333 BCE. This gives us 203 years for the Persian reign. Split among four kings, we get an average of about 51 years each, which is somewhat excessive. The truth of the matter is that there were nine Persian kings from Cyrus to Alexander. They are:
Cyrus (549 - 529 BCE)
Cambyses (529 - 522 BCE)
Darius I (521 - 485 BCE)
Xerxes (485 - 465 BCE)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)
Daniel may have been misled by the fact that the Old Testament only mentions four of the nine Persian kings - Cyrus (Ezra 1:1), Darius I (Ezra 4:5), Xerxes I (Ahasuerus - Ezra 4:6) and Artaxerxes I (Ezra Ezra 4:7).
The Statue
Nebuchadnezzar's dream consisted of a large statue (2:31). The head was made of Gold, the chest and arms of silver, the stomach of bronze, and the legs of iron. The feet were composed of iron and clay (2:32-33). In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw a "stone cut without hands" strike the statue and shatter it to pieces (2:34). The stone then became a huge mountain which filled the earth (2:35).
Daniel then gives his interpretation of the dream. The four sections of the statue represent four kingdoms which would last from the time of Nebuchadnezzar until the end of the ages. Daniel explains that Nebuchadnezzar (i.e. Babylon) is the first kingdom (2:37-38).
The other three kingdoms are not identified by name. It is only by referring to the other visions of Daniel that we are able to determine who they are. The identity of these three remaining kingdoms is a matter of no small debate. For reasons that will become clear when the visions are examined, the best interpretation is that the silver kingdom is Media, the bronze is Persia, and the iron is Greece.
This interpretation is generally rejected by futurists, however. The reason is not hard to find. Daniel specifically predicted that the kingdom of Greece would be followed by the theocratic kingdom of God - Heaven come down to earth. Obviously, this did not happen. The implication then is that Daniel was not a true prophet of God, and the presence of this book in the Biblical canon becomes problematic.
In order to extend the reach of this, and the other visions, futurists insist that the second empire is the combined Medo-Persian empire, the third is Greece, and the fourth is Rome. The fourth empire will never really be conquered, but will be divided until the end of time, when a revived and reunited Roman empire challenges God for control of the Cosmos, and ushers in the final conflict.
There are several problems with this interpretation. First, as we shall see, Daniel refers indirectly to this dream during his interpretation of the other three visions. The remaining visions can definitely be shown to culminate in the Greek empire, and Antiochus specifically.
Second, Daniel states that the second empire would be inferior to the first (2:39). At its height, the Persian empire encompassed more than three times as much real estate as the Babylonian empire, and held power for more than two hundred years, almost a century longer than the Neo-Babylonian empire. It is difficult to see how Persia could be said to be "inferior" to Babylonia.
The Seleucids and Ptolemys
In contrast to this, Daniel's record of the Greeks, and Antiochus in particular, is detailed and precisely accurate - up to a point. That point is 164 BCE. After this point, Daniel predicts further altercations between Antiochus and Ptolemey (the Egyptian king) which never took place.
Common sense thus tells us that the book was written just before the death of Antiochus, during a severe persecution of the Jewish people.
Daniel's second vision is found in the seventh chapter of the book. In a dream, Daniel saw four beasts come up out of the sea (7:2-3). The first was a lion with eagle's wings (7:4),
The second a bear with three ribs between its teeth (7:5), t
The third a leopard with four wings and heads (7:6),
The fourth a beast with ten horns (7:7).
Out of these horns, Daniel saw a little horn emerge and uproot three of the ten (7:8).
An angel, explained that the four beasts are four kings "which shall arise out of the earth" (7:17). This then ties this vision to the first, that of Nebuchadnezzar's statue. Evidently, these four beasts correspond to the four empires of Daniel's interpretation.
The first beast, the lion with eagle's wings, is then Babylon. Jeremiah likened Nebuchadnezzar to a lion in Jeremiah 4:7, Ezekiel used an eagle to symbolize Babylon in Ezekiel 17:3. The enigmatic reference to the beast being "lifted up, and made to stand like a man" (7:4) may be a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, whom Daniel portrayed as personifying Babylon (2:37-38).
The second beast is probably Media (or, possibly, Lydia). The symbolism of the three ribs has been a matter of much speculation, but the meaning remains obscure.
The third beast is Persia. The four wings and four heads may represent the four directions of expansion, or, more likely, they are a reference to the four Persian kings that Daniel mistakenly thought ruled Persia from Babylon to Greece (11:2).
The fourth beast is Greece, or, more specifically, the Seleucid empire that resulted from the breakup of Alexander's kingdom. The ten kings are somewhat obscure. They may represent the seven kings of the Seleucid dynasty (Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Seleucus III, Antiochus III and Seleucus IV) that led up to Antiochus IV, plus Alexander and two members of the Greek ruling class whom Antiochus overtook to become king (Demetrius and Heliodorus). The latter two, along with Seleucus IV, were involved in a conspiracy to control the Greek throne. This conspiracy was foiled by Antiochus, who then secured the throne for himself (11:21).
Once again, this interpretation is rejected by futurists, who see the fourth beast as Rome. In this, they follow the lead of the author of the New Testament book of Revelation (as well as Mark and Josephus), who borrowed Daniel's imagery from this vision and applied it to Rome (Revelation 13:1-2, Mark 13:14). Since there was no time in the history of Rome that could be applied to the "ten horns", futurists see in this a prophecy of the end-times, when the Antichrist will arise out of a ten-nation confederation, composed of nations from the former Roman empire. The "little horn" of Daniel's vision is then taken to be a reference to the Antichrist.
However, as we shall see, Daniel describes the "little horn" with terminology that he elsewhere applies to Antiochus. Daniel says that the "little horn" will speak "mighty things against the Most High" (7:25). This may be a reference to the surname that Antiochus chose for himself. "Epiphanes" in Greek means "God made manifest", a blasphemous name to a Jew. We meet this same phraseology in 11:36, where the reference is again to Antiochus. The deuterocanonical book of I Maccabees uses almost the same wording of Antiochus.
"I Maccabees 1:24 And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly."
Daniel says that the "little horn" will persecute the saints of the Most High (7:25). The entire first chapter of I Maccabees details the horrors that Antiochus visited upon the Jews. At one point, the author records that Antiochus had several woman executed, along with their infants, when he found out that they had allowed their children to be circumcised (I Maccabees 1:60-61). Antiochus is again charged with the murder of the Jews in 8:24 and 11:33.
Daniel goes on to say that the "little horn" would seek to "change times and law" (7:25). This is no doubt a reference to the fact that Antiochus commanded that the Jews were no longer to observe their regular sacrifices and feasts, and forbade the rite of circumcision and the reading of the Torah.
"I Maccabees 1:44-57 For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Juda that they should follow the strange laws of the land, And forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days...That they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation...And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death."
daniel chapter 11
"3And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these.'
(describes Alexander and the division of the Macedonian empire)
Wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies
"5And the king of the south shall be strong, and [one] of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. 6And at the end of years they shall join themselves together; and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the strength of her arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in those times."
(Verses 5 and 6 refer to Ptolemy and Selecus (who is the plotter behind the scenes). The passages then describe the alliance between Ptolemy II (the King of the South - Egypt) and Antiochus II (the King of the North - the Selucid Greeks). Ptolemy gave his daughter Bernice in marriage to Antiochus but they were all brought to ruin by the plotting of Laodice, the mother of Selecus II)
"7But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come unto the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail. 8And also their gods, with their molten images, [and] with their goodly vessels of silver and of gold, shall he carry captive into Egypt; and he shall refrain some years from the king of the north."
(Verses 7 and 8 describe the victorious war of Ptolemy III, as power continued to see - saw between the two warring empires.)
"9And he shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own land." (Seleucus II defeated 242 BC)
"10And his sons (Seleucus II and Antiichus II) shall war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on, and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and war, even to his fortress. 11And the king of the south shall be moved with anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall be given into his hand. 12And the multitude shall be lifted up, and his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail."
(Ptolemy IV defeated Antochus at Raphia, 242 B.C. but the latter defeated Ptolemy at Banias as follows)
"13And the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and he shall come on at the end of the times, [even of] years, with a great army and with much substance. 14And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall."
(revolt against Ptolemy in Egypt).
"15So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mound, and take a well-fortified city: and the forces of the south shall not stand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to stand. 16But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and in his hand shall be destruction.
17And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and with him equitable conditions; and he shall perform them: and he shall give him the daughter of women, to corrupt her; (Antiochus' expedition against Egypt, marriage of Antiochus' daughter to Ptolemy.)but she shall not stand, neither be for him. 18After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; yea, moreover, he shall cause his reproach to turn upon him."
(Antiochus' plan to take over Asia Minor is thwarted by Rome)
"19Then he shall turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found."
(Antiochus was repulsed and went on a plundering expedition, but died at Elymais).
"20Then shall stand up in his place one that shall cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle."
(the next seleucid king, Selecus IV, his successor sent a tax man into Palestine to sack the treasury of the temple, without success (verse 2)
(And finally starting at verses 21 through 45 we arrive at the time of the Maccabees, and also the time of the notorious 'beast' of prophecy in Daniel, the notorious temple desecrator, the sacrilegious and insulting Antiochus IV ).
"21And in his place shall stand up a contemptible person, to whom they had not given the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in time of security, and shall obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22And the overwhelming forces shall be overwhelmed from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. 23And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully; for he shall come up, and shall become strong, with a small people. 24In time of security shall he come even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them prey, and spoil, and substance: yea, he shall devise his devices against the strongholds, even for a time."
(Verses 22 to 24 describe his conniving over the appointment to the office of high priest and his deposing of Onias III, the high priest - this is the 'Messiah' that 'cut off'.
Messiah was a term related to the running of Religious matters and, only later, came to mean the restoration of God's rule by one appointed by God, and subsequently, the Christian 'saviour' from death.
"25And 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 war in battle with an exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they shall devise devices against him. 26Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 27And as for both these kings, their hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table: but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. 28Then shall he return into his land with great substance; and his heart [shall be] against the holy covenant; and he shall do [his pleasure], and return to his own land."
(Antiochus IV's Egyptian campaign of 169 B.C.E. On his return, to deal with political problems, he looted the Jerusalem Temple treasury).
"29At the time appointed he shall return, and come into the south; but it shall not be in the latter time as it was in the former. 30For ships of Kittim shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and shall return, and have indignation against the holy covenant, and shall do [his pleasure]: he shall even return, and have regard unto them that forsake the holy covenant. 31And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual [burnt-offering],
and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate."
(Another foray against Egypt and his forced withdrawal by intervention of ships from 'Kittim' (Cyprus). In 167 B.C., he despoiled Jerusalem again
It was was this 'the abomination of desolation' - the setting up of a pagan statue in the Jerusalem temple that caused the Maccabean war.
"32And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pervert by flatteries; but the people that know their God shall be strong, and do [exploits]. 33And they that are wise among the people shall instruct many; yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil, [many] days. 34Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help; but many shall join themselves unto them with flatteries. 35And some of them that are wise shall fall, to refine them, and to purify, and to make them white, even to the time of the end; because it is yet for the time appointed. 36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done.
37Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god: whosoever acknowledgeth [him] he will increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price. 40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south contend with him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass through. 41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many [countries] shall be overthrown; but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; and he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to sweep away many. 45 And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."
(These verses envisage the defeat of Antiochus. He was defeated, but I am not certain whether this is a very poetic report of the revolt or a hope for it. In any case, it dated Daniel to c. 167 B.C.
The rest of the 'prophecy'cannot be matched with history, so is not prophetic history but prophetic guesswork.
"At the time of the end the king of the south (Ptolemy) shall attack him (Antiochus); but the king of the north (Antiochus) 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." (Ptolemy did not attack Antiochus.)
"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. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
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. 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. 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."
(None of this occurred. What actually occurred was the maccabean revolt and the expulsion of Seleucid rule from Judea. Why Daniel was allowed to remain in scripture when the latter parts of the prophecy never turned out that way is more than I can explain. I have tried to find the Jewish view (The Christian one sems to be attempts to match bits to later history and what doesn't fit is considered not have come about yet.)
"At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."
(Daniel Chapter 11 verse 40)
This goes beyond any practical guesses about the course of history at the time and roams into the realms of messianic speculation.
Conclusion:
Daniel's history of the Exile and the fall of Babylon is at odds with known historical facts. In addition, he appears to be confused about details of the reign of the Persian kings.
Media first, then Babylon. Forgivable mistake, perhaps, but that and the wrong kings is evidence that the writer was compiling his book of Daniel at a date remote from those times.
regarding the statue vision, the best interpretation is that the silver kingdom is Media, the bronze is Persia, and the iron is Greece.
Daniel's record of the Greeks, and Antiochus in particular, is detailed and precisely accurate - up to a point. That point is 164 BCE. After this point, Daniel predicts further altercations between Antiochus and Ptolemey (the Egyptian king) which never took place.
Daniel describes the intereference of Antiochus Epiphanes in Judean Temple affairs, deposing High Priests, attempting to ban Judaism and trying to set up the stature of Jupiter Ammon in the Temple - the event called 'the Abomination of desolation'. These events caused the Maccabean revolt.
After the events of 164 B.C, Daniel goes beyond any practical guesses about the course of history at the time and roams into the realms of messianic speculation.
Daniel is not a prophecy but a propaganda piece reviewing history and then envisaging a glorious outcome which did not occur.
There is no case for regarding it as prophecy relating to a time later than the Maccabean revolt.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
