The Book of Daniel: A Critical Examination
 |
| View as PDF |
“And at the temple he will set up an
abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out
on him.”
-
Daniel, 9:27 (New
International Version)
The
Book of Daniel is one of the most quoted apocalyptic books in the Bible, second
only to the Book of Revelation. Used
especially by Christians, the Book of Daniel is often times touted as a
historically-accurate account of the Jewish exile in Babylon, and for also
containing “prophecies” about the End Times.[1] Like the Book of Revelation, the Book of
Daniel has been used by fanatic Christians to “predict” such events as the
coming of the Antichrist as well as Jesus’ second coming.[2] But are these claims true? Is the Book of Daniel a historically-accurate
book which also contains “fulfilled” prophecies about Jesus (peace be upon him)
as well as prophecies of future events that have yet to be fulfilled?[3] Or, like the Book of Revelation,[4]
is it merely a product of its own time which has been misinterpreted by
overzealous believers? In this article,
we will attempt to answer these questions.
Beginning with a brief background discussion, we will then summarize the
Book of Daniel from beginning to end and finally provide a critical analysis of
the text. Based on this discussion, it
will be shown that the Book of Daniel, like the Book of Revelation, is indeed a
product of its own time and does not refer to events that will occur in the
near future.
The
Book of Daniel – Background
Unlike
the Book of Revelation, whose author identified himself as “John”,[5]
the Book of Daniel does not actually state that the author was a man named
“Daniel”. Rather, the book gets its name
from the main character, the prophet Daniel (peace be upon him).[6] So, who was the author of this book? According to the “United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops”, the author is simply “unknown”.[7] On the other hand, the Babylonian Talmud
actually attributes authorship of the book to a group known as the “Men of the Great Assembly” and not to the prophet Daniel.[8]
Also unlike the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel
actually enjoyed general acceptance.
While the Book of Revelation was the subject of great controversy
regarding its “canonicity”, the Book of Daniel seems to have been considered
“canonical” by Jews by the 2nd-century BCE, as evidenced by some
incomplete manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.[9] Also, among Christians, there was no debate
regarding its authenticity or canonical nature.
Nevertheless, the book has been treated differently by
Christians and Jews. As “The Jewish
Study Bible” states:
“[i]n the Christian Old Testament Daniel is placed with the
major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, while in the Jewish Scriptures
it is placed with the Kethuvim, or Writings.”[10]
Thus, while the authorship of the book remains a mystery,
it is clear that there were few questions, if any, regarding it authority.[11]
But
what can be said about the date of composition?
Most faithful Christians and Jews maintain that the book was written
during the Babylonian exile in the 6th-century BCE.[12] However, modern scholars question this date
and most assign a date no earlier than the 2nd-century BCE. According to the USCCB, the book:
“…was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167-164 B.C.)…”[13]
Likewise, Bryan S. Rennie,
professor of religion at Westminster College, states:
“The most obvious conclusion would be that the Book of Daniel
was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV,
during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked.”[14]
However, some sources have questioned the 2nd
century date, at least for the entire book. The “Jewish Virtual Library” divides the Book
of Daniel into two components, “Daniel A” (Chapters 1-6) and “Daniel B”
(Chapters 7-12).[15] Based on this division, it then dates “Daniel
A” to the middle of the 3rd-century BCE, while “Daniel B” is dated
to the reign of Antiochus IV (2nd-century BCE). The Italian historian Arnaldo Momigliano (d.
1987) likewise suggested a 3rd-century date,[16]
but elsewhere, he dated the “final version” to about 165 BCE (i.e. 2nd-century
BCE).[17] Similarly, Raymond Hammer (d. 1994) suggested:
“…that the stories in the first part of the book were already
well known before their incorporation into the book and adaptation to the main
message of the writer.”[18]
Finally,
“The Jewish Study Bible” explains:
“…the dating of at least the last [chapters] of Daniel can be
established precisely. […] The
predictions are detailed and accurate until the end of the Maccabean revolt in
164. At that point, however, they veer
dramatically…and scholars assume that the author lived and wrote at the precise
time when the predictions become inaccurate.”[19]
While
debates regarding the date of composition will no doubt continue, it seems unlikely
that the Book of Daniel was actually written in the 6th-century BCE,
as apologists often claim. However, it
also seems unlikely that the entire book was written in the 2nd-century
BCE. The presence of “Daniel” in the
Dead Sea Scrolls certainly shows that a 2nd-century BCE date is
unlikely, at least for the entire book (if the book was actually written
in two parts).[20] Furthermore, the claim that certain
linguistic features in the Book of Daniel, such as the use of Greek words,
prove a 2nd-century BCE date are weak. As the Christian scholar David Malick states:
“Three Greek loan words in Daniel need not argue for a late date
since there may well have been Greek writing prior to Plato (370 B.C.) where
these words could have been used, and since they are the names of musical
instruments which often are circulated beyond national boundaries, and since
Greek words are found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the
fifth-century B.C.”[21]
Michael Shepherd, professor of Old Testament
and Hebrew at Louisiana College, provides a more cautious view and seems to be the
most reasonable since it avoids the two “extreme” positions. He states:
“…it is best to say that the sixth century date and the second
century date are two extremes on a spectrum and that the actual date of the
book could be anywhere in between the two.”[22]
Thus,
as far as a date of composition is concerned, it seems likely that the Book of
Daniel could have been written earlier than the 2nd-century BCE, but
most certainly received its final form by that time. There is also little doubt that the last six
chapters were written during the Maccabean revolt and the traditional
suggestion that the entire book was written in the 6th-century BCE
is without merit.
The
Book of Daniel – Summary
Chapter 1:
The book begins with an immediate reference to the siege
of Jerusalem by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar:
“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.”[23]
Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overran
the kingdom of Judah and carried off “the articles from the
temple of God” to Babylon, where they were placed in “the treasure house of [Nebuchadnezzar’s] god”.[24]
Shortly afterward, Nebuchadnezzar ordered that some
individuals from among the captured children of Israel should be brought into
his court so that they may be taught “the language and
literature of the Babylonians”.[25] Among those chosen were Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael and Azariah.[26] As part of their three-year training period,
they were to be given “a daily amount of food
and wine from the king’s table.”[27] But Daniel, being faithful to his religious
duties, refused to eat or drink from the king’s table for fear of being “defiled”, and instead asked that they be given “nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink”, a
request that was granted.[28]
Finally, after three years, Daniel and the others were
presented to the king and entered into his service. After questioning them, Nebuchadnezzar found
them to be better in “wisdom and
understanding” than all of his “magicians and
enchanters”.[29] Daniel remained in the service of the king “until the first year of King Cyrus”.[30]
Chapter 2:
In his second year as king,[31]
Nebuchadnezzar had dreams which greatly “troubled” him.[32] When he summoned his “magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers” to describe
and interpret his dreams,[33]
they stated:
“No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do
not live among humans.”[34]
This response greatly angered
Nebuchadnezzar, who then “ordered the execution of
all the wise men of Babylon”.[35] After pleading with the king for some time,
Daniel and his companions prayed to the “God of heaven” to
reveal the details of the king’s dreams, a prayer that was answered that very
night.[36]
Having had the mystery revealed to him, Daniel went to
the king and explained the meaning of the dreams, attributing his abilities to “a God in heaven who reveals mysteries”.[37] Daniel then described the dream:
“Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large
statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. The head of the statue was made of pure gold,
its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron,
its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. While you were watching, a rock was cut out,
but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and
smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the
gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in
the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that
struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.”[38]
Finally, Daniel interpreted the dream, describing
Nebuchadnezzar himself as the “head of gold” on the
statue.[39] As for the rest of the statue, Daniel
informed the king that it represented three more kingdoms which would follow
his, the last of which will be a “divided kingdom” (due
to its being part “baked clay” and
part “iron”).[40] Following these kingdoms, a final kingdom
would replace them and “endure forever”,[41]
and was symbolized in the dream as:
“…a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver
and the gold to pieces.”[42]
After having been explained the meaning of his dreams,
the king “fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him
honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him”.[43] He also made Daniel the “ruler over the entire province of Babylon” and
made Daniel’s companions “administrators over the
province” as well.[44]
Chapter 3:
Sometime after,[45]
Nebuchadnezzar reverted to his wicked ways by building “an image of gold” and “summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers,
treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come
to the dedication of the image”.[46] He also ordered all people to worship the
image.[47] He also ordered that anyone who did not
worship the image would “immediately be thrown
into a blazing furnace”.[48] In obedience to this decree, all of the “nations and peoples of every language”
worshiped the golden image, except for the Jews.[49] Nebuchadnezzar’s astrologers informed him
that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah,
respectively) did not heed the decree and refused to worship the Babylonian
gods or the image of gold that the king had built.[50] When Nebuchadnezzar summoned the three Jewish
administrators and threatened them with death, they still refused to obey his
decree. He even credulously asked them:
“Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”[51]
Furious with their refusal to
obey him, Nebuchadnezzar ordered that they be thrown into the furnace, which
was to be heated “seven times hotter than
usual”.[52]
But
then something miraculous happened.
After the three men were placed in the furnace, Nebuchadnezzar witnessed
a fourth man in the furnace as well, whom he described as looking “like a son of the gods”, and he saw that all four men were
“unbound and unharmed”.[53] Having witnessed the miraculous way in which
the three men were saved, Nebuchadnezzar praised the God who had saved them and
made a new decree:
“Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language
who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into
pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can
save in this way.”[54]
Finally, he promoted the three
faithful men.[55]
Chapter 4:
Once again, Nebuchadnezzar had a dream which he
desperately wanted to be interpreted.
But this time, he was praising “the Most High God” and
described the visions that had terrified him.[56]
After seeking the advice of the “wise men of Babylon” (the “magicians, enchanters and astrologers”), who
failed to interpret the visions, the king once again sought the advice of
Daniel, whom he referred to as “Belteshazzar, after the
name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him.”[57]
Nebuchadnezzar described seeing “a tree in the middle of the land” so big that “its top touched the sky” and that “it was visible to the
ends of the earth”.[58] From this tree, “every creature was fed”. But then, he saw “a holy one, a messenger coming down from heaven” who declared that the tree should be cut
down, leaving only the stump and roots and bound with iron and bronze.[59] The messenger also declared that the “tree”
would “live with the animals” and
his mind would be changed from that of a man to that of an animal until “seven times pass by for him”.[60]
The king then asked Daniel to
interpret the dream. Daniel replied
solemnly that the “tree” was in fact Nebuchadnezzar himself since:
“[y]ou have become great and strong; your greatness has grown
until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the
earth.”[61]
As for the interpretation of the cutting of
the “tree” and his banishment among the animals, Daniel explained it as meaning
that the king himself:
“…will be driven away from people and will live with the wild
animals; you will eat grass like the ox and be drenched with the dew of heaven.
Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is
sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes. The command to leave the stump of the tree
with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you
acknowledge that Heaven rules.”[62]
Finally,
Daniel advised the king to renounce his sins “by
doing what is right” and
to be “kind to the oppressed”.[63]
However, Nebuchadnezzar foolishly
decided not to heed Daniel’s advice, remaining boastful of his power.[64] He then heard a voice from heaven which
declared that his power had been taken away from him.[65] And so, the prophecy was fulfilled and
Nebuchadnezzar, the great Babylonian king:
“…was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His
body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers
of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.”[66]
Fortunately, after the end of the seven-year period,
Nebuchadnezzar humbled himself before “the Most High” and “honored and glorified him”, thereby regaining his
“sanity”. Moreover, he regained his
throne, becoming “even greater than
before”
and continued to “praise and exalt and
glorify the King of heaven”.[67]
Chapter 5:
Belshazzar, king of Babylon, held a great feast which a
thousand of his “nobles”
attended.[68] They drank wine from “the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father” had
seized from the temple in Jerusalem and “praised the gods”.[69]
Suddenly, the king saw “the fingers
of a human hand” writing on the wall of the palace, which greatly
troubled him.[70] The joy and revelry of the feast suddenly
gave way to fear. The fearful king then
called for his “enchanters, astrologers
and diviners” to decipher the mysterious writing on the wall, just as Nebuchadnezzar
had done on the occasions of his troubling dreams and visions. [71] And just as the “wise men” could not interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams, so
too did the “wise men” of Belshazzar’s court fail to
interpret the writing.[72] But just when it seemed hopeless, the queen
came into the “banquet hall” and told him of “a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in
him”
and whom “[y]our father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed
[as] chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners”,
obviously referring to Daniel.[73]
Daniel was brought to the king, who asked him if he was
indeed “Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah”.[74] Belshazzar asked Daniel to read the writing
on the wall, and offered him certain rewards if he could do so successfully.[75] Daniel, while nobly refusing the gifts,
nevertheless agreed to interpret the writing for the king.[76] After recounting the rise, fall and
redemption of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel turned to Belshazzar’s sins, saying that
he had not “humbled himself”
despite knowing all that had happened to his “father”
Nebuchadnezzar.[77] Finally, Daniel proceeded to interpret the
writing:
“This is the inscription that was written: mene, mene, tekel, parsin. Here is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an
end. Tekel: You have
been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”[78]
Belshazzar, having had the writing deciphered, rewarded
Daniel as he had promised, which Daniel apparently accepted, despite initially
rejecting any rewards for his services.[79] Later that night, however, the king was slain
and “Darius the Mede took over the kingdom”,
bringing an end to the once mighty Babylonian Empire.[80]
Chapter 6:
Darius, the conqueror of Babylon, appointed 120 satraps
to rule his kingdom, each “with three
administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel”.[81] Daniel performed his duties and distinguished
himself so much that the king even “planned to set him over
the whole kingdom”, earning him the envy and ire of the other
administrators and satraps.[82]
The envious administrators and satraps conspired together
to destroy Daniel, but failed to find any charges against his character or in
his “conduct of government affairs”.[83] Thus, they agreed that they could not bring
any charges against him unless it had “something to do with the
law of his God”.[84]
Their
wicked plot involved tricking Darius into issuing a decree that “anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next
thirty days”, except to the king himself, would be “thrown into the lions’ den”.[85] They also urged the king to issue the decree
to “put it in writing so that it cannot be altered-in accordance
with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed”, to
which Darius agreed.[86]
When
Daniel heard of the decree, he went to his house and prayed three times a day in the direction of Jerusalem,
getting down on his knees and “giving thanks to his
God, just as he had done before”.[87] The conspirators went to his house to catch
him in the act of praying and immediately informed the king.[88] Upon hearing the charge, Darius was “greatly distressed” and was “determined to rescue Daniel”.[89] However, as the law of the Medes and Persians
could be repealed, even by the king, Darius was forced to order Daniel’s arrest
and execution in the lions’ den.[90] Even so, Darius said to Daniel:
“May your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you!”[91]
The
lions’ den was sealed with a stone and the king’s “signet ring” and the “rings
of his nobles”, after which Darius “returned to his palace
and spent the night without eating and without entertainment” and
was unable to sleep.[92]
When dawn came, Darius rushed to the lions’ den and
called out to Daniel to see if he had survived by the will of his God.[93] Remarkably, Daniel answered in the
affirmative, indicating that:
“My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the
lions. They have not hurt me, because I
was found innocent in his sight.”[94]
Chapter 7:
In the first year of Belshazzar’s reign as king of
Babylon, Daniel had a mysterious dream, in which he saw “the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea” and “four great beasts” emerge from the sea.[95] The first beast was “like a lion” and had the “wings
of an eagle,”, the second “looked like a bear” with “three ribs in its mouth”, the third “looked like a leopard” with four wings and four
heads, and the fourth had “large iron teeth” and
ten horns and was the most powerful of them all.[96]
In addition to seeing the ten horns of the fourth beast,
Daniel also saw yet another horn, “a little one” which “uprooted” three of the first horns. The little horn “had eyes like a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully”.[97]
Then, Daniel saw “the Ancient of Days” with
clothing “as white as snow” and
hair that was “white like wool”. He was seated on a throne that was “flaming with fire” and “ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him”.[98]
As Daniel was watching, the “little horn” continued to speak boastfully, until it
was eventually killed. Its body was
destroyed “and thrown into the blazing fire”,
whereas the other three beasts “had been stripped of
their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time”.[99]
Next, Daniel beheld “one like a son of man,
coming with the clouds of heaven”.[100] This man “was given authority,
glory and sovereign power” and was “worshiped” by “all nations and peoples of every language”.[101] He was given “an
everlasting dominion that will not pass away” and his kingdom would “never be destroyed”.[102]
These visions greatly troubled Daniel and he asked that
they be explained to him. One of the
angels told him that “the four great beasts
are four kings that will rise from the earth”.[103] As for the fourth beast, which was the most
powerful, it was explained that it was another “kingdom” that
will “devour the whole earth”.[104] The “ten horns”
represented “ten kings” of this kingdom.[105] The “little horn” was
yet another king who would “subdue three kings” and “speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try
to change the set times and laws”.[106] However, the “little
horn”
would eventually be defeated and “the sovereignty, power
and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy
people of the Most High”.[107]
Chapter 8:
In the third year of Belshazzar’s reign, Daniel had yet
another vision.[108] This time, Daniel saw “a ram with two horns”, one of which was longer than
the other.[109] This ram, which “did as it pleased”, was eventually confronted and
defeated by a goat “from the west” that
had “a prominent horn between its eyes”.[110]
This “goat became very great”, but eventually, it too lost
its power and “the large horn was broken off” and
replaced by four other horns.[111] Out of these four horns came a small horn
whose power grew “toward the Beautiful
Land”.[112] This horn “took away the daily
sacrifice from the Lord and his sanctuary was thrown down”.[113]
Daniel
then heard two angels (“holy ones”)
conversing and one asked how long it would take “for
the vision to be fulfilled”.[114] The other angel responded that:
“It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary
will be reconsecrated”.[115]
Next, the archangel Gabriel explained the meaning of the
vision to Daniel.[116] He explained that the vision was about “the time of the end” and that the “two-horned ram” represented “the
kings of Media and Persia”, while “the shaggy goat”
represented “the king of Greece” and
the “large horn” represented “its
first king”.[117] As for the other “four horns”, they represented “four kingdoms” that would emerge from the first king’s
nation but would not “have the same power”.[118]
Finally, the smaller horn represented “a fierce-looking king” who would “become very strong”.[119] This wicked king would “cause astounding devastation” and destroy “the holy people”.[120] He would also “take
his stand against the Prince of Princes”, yet despite his power, he too
would be destroyed, “but not by human power”.[121]
After having this vision, Daniel “lay exhausted for several days”. Once he recovered, he “went about the king’s business”.[122]
Chapter 9:
In the first year of Darius, the son of
Xerxes (or Ahasuerus), Daniel understood from reading the Book of Jeremiah “that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years”.[123] Thus, Daniel prayed to God to forgive the
Israelites for their sins and to “turn away your anger and
your wrath from Jerusalem…”[124]
As he was praying, Daniel was visited by Gabriel at “about the time of the evening sacrifice”.[125] As before, Gabriel came to help Daniel
understand the prophecies. He thus
explained that:
“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city
to finish transgression, 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 Place.”[126]
Gabriel
also explained that from the time the command to rebuild Jerusalem goes out “until the Anointed One” comes, there would be “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens”.[127] But after sixty-two “sevens” have passed, Gabriel explained that “the Anointed One will be put to death” and “the people of the ruler…will destroy the city and the
sanctuary”.[128]
From that point on, Gabriel explained, there would be
endless war until the ruler who destroyed Jerusalem would “confirm a covenant with many for one seven” (i.e.
for seven years).[129] But half-way through this period, the ruler
would “put an end to sacrifice and offering” and “set up an abomination that causes desolation” in the
temple until the end.[130]
Chapter 10:
In the third year of “Koresh”,[131]
the king of Persia, Daniel had another vision.
While standing on the bank of the Tigris River with other people, Daniel
saw a man whose face was “like lightning” and
whose eyes were “like flaming torches”.[132] However, only Daniel saw this mysterious
being, while the rest of the people did not see him. Even so, they were terrified and “fled and hid themselves”.[133]
Overcome with fear as before, Daniel was comforted by
Gabriel, who explained that Daniel’s prayers (see Chapter 9) had been heard but
that Gabriel had been unable to visit him for twenty-one days because “the prince of the Persian kingdom” had
prevented him.[134] Only when Michael came to help him was
Gabriel free to visit Daniel and explain what will happen to the Israelites “in the future”.[135]
But Daniel was still overwhelmed from his experience and
he became “speechless”. But after being healed, Daniel was able to
speak with his angelic visitor who told him that he would soon go to “fight against the prince of Persia”, after
which the “prince of Greece” would
come.[136]
Daniel 11:
Daniel 11:
Gabriel further explained to Daniel about
future events. He revealed to Daniel
that there would be four more kings in Persia, the fourth of which would be “far richer than all the others”, and would march
against Greece.[137] Afterwards, “a
mighty king” would arise, who would “do as he pleases”, but
whose empire would be “parceled out toward the
four winds of heaven”.[138]
Then, a certain “king of the South” would
make an alliance with the kingdom of “one of his commanders” (the “king of the North”).[139] After the daughter of the “king of the South” would be “betrayed”, a king would arise from her family to avenge
her death.[140] This new “king of the South” would
attack the “king of the North” and be
victorious against him, carrying off valuables to Egypt.[141] The “king of the North” would
then invade the lands of the “king of the South”, only
to retreat and regroup.[142] Then, the “king of the South” would
attack the “king of the North”, and
would “slaughter many thousands”.[143]
But the “king of the North” would
muster yet another army.[144] Rebellions would begin against the “king of the South”, including by the “violent” among Daniel’s people, but they would not be
successful.[145] The “king of the North” would
fortify himself and occupy “the Beautiful Land”.[146] He will then make an alliance with the “king of the South”, but under false pretenses.[147]
Eventually, one of the successors of the “king of the North” (who would be “a contemptible person”)[148]
would attempt to invade the “South”, but would be turned back in defeat.[149] In his fury, he would desecrate the temple
and abolish the Jewish sacrifice.[150] He would set up the “abomination that causes desolation”, but
the faithful “people who know their God” would
resist him.[151] The king would “exalt and magnify himself above every god”,
including the “gods of his ancestors” and
the god “desired by women”, and would even say things “against the God of gods”.[152] Instead of all these other “gods”, the king
would “honor a god of fortresses”.[153]
During “the time of the end”, the
king would be attacked by the “king of the South”, but
the former would “invade many countries” , including Egypt, Libya and Cush.[154] Yet despite his power, he would still “come to his end” and would not be helped by
anyone.[155]
Chapter 12:
After the death of the king, the archangel
Michael would descend.[156] After a time of great distress, all true
believers (those whose names will be “found written in the
book”)
would be saved, and there would be a resurrection of the dead.[157]
Daniel then saw two angels talking about all of the
events of the end times, and one informed the other that the events would last “for a time, times and half a time”.[158] When Daniel asked what the “outcome” would be, he was told that many would be “purified” but that the “wicked” would
continue in their wicked ways and will not understand.[159] However, he was informed that there would be 1,290
days between the end of the daily sacrifice and the setting-up of the “abomination that causes desolation”, and
that those who patiently wait for the end of 1,355 days would be “blessed”.[160]
Daniel –
Analysis and Historical Context
Having summarized the content of the Book of Daniel, let
us now conduct a critical analysis of the text.
Like the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel has been a favorite of
fanatics who seek to predict when the events described within would actually
occur. However, as we will now see,
these fanatics have failed to adequately understand the proper historical
context. Thus, they have failed to
understand that, like the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel is not
prophesying events in our time or in the near future, but was more concerned
with events in the author’s time. We
will also discuss the evidence of inconsistencies and historical errors. Our discussion of the Book of Daniel will be
divided into specific topics, such as contradictions/inconsistencies,
historical errors, false prophecies and discussions of the various
interpretations of the book and apologetic defenses of authenticity and
accuracy.
Contradictions/Inconsistencies
-
As we saw in the summary above, the book begins with the
sacking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Babylonian Empire. As a result of his victory, he carried off
relics of the temple as well as many Jews back to Babylon. This occurred in the “third year” of the reign of Jehoiakim. However, elsewhere in the Bible, it is stated
that Jerusalem was conquered after Jehoiakim’s death, during the reign of his
son Jehoiachin![161] Therefore, unless Jerusalem was attacked on
two occasions, the Bible provides contradictory accounts of its capture.[162]
Another contradiction in the text can be seen in the
beginning of the second chapter. It is
stated that in the “second year” of Nebuchadnezzar’s
reign, he had dreams of an enormous statue.
Only Daniel was able to know what the dream was and provide its
interpretation. Yet, this story directly
contradicts what we learned earlier in chapter 1. Daniel and his companions were still supposed
to be in their three-year training period if the dream occurred in
Nebuchadnezzar’s “second year”! Therefore, it would mean that in the second
year of this period, Daniel went to the king and interpreted his dream, before
his training was completed. In addition,
it would mean that Daniel and his companions became provincial rulers before
the end of the period! In chapter 1,
Daniel and his companions were presented to the king after their training was
completed, which means that they would already have been provincials
rulers. Yet the text states that only
after completing the three-year period did they enter into the king’s
service! There is a clear contradiction
and no amount of mental gymnastics can explain it. As Hammer puts it:
“…there must be a mistake in calling this ‘the second year’ of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. […] If the chronology of this verse were correct,
Daniel would be a ruler before his graduation!”[163]
Moving forward, a minor inconsistency can be seen in
chapter 5, when Belshazzar was holding his lavish feast. When the king saw the mysterious hand writing
some indecipherable words on the palace wall, he brought the astrologers and
diviners to read the words, just like Nebuchadnezzar. Yet when these men were unable to read the hand
writing on the wall, Belshazzar then summoned Daniel, who by this time would
have had a great reputation as a wise man.
However, the text seems to suggest that Daniel was no more well-known
than when he first arrived in Babylon during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and
Belshazzar certainly did not know him![164] It was not until the “queen-mother” remembered Daniel’s exploits and advised
Belshazzar to summon him that the illustrious and wise Daniel was finally
called.[165]
Additionally, the fact that Belshazzar was completely
unaware of Daniel appears to contradict the statement of Daniel himself in
chapter 8:
“I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then
I got up and went about the king’s business.”[166]
How could Daniel have done “the king’s business” if the king and his court
didn’t even seem to have heard of him? In
the moment when the king would have needed Daniel’s services the most, no one even
thought of him, except the queen![167] It is an irreconcilable contradiction.
Another inconsistency, and one that has far more
egregious theological significance, can be seen in chapter 7. In his “vision”, Daniel saw the “Ancient of Days” and provided a vivid
description of this being (who was obviously “God”), including clothing that “was white as snow”, and hair that “was white as wool”. But as historians have recognized, this
description of a white-haired God seems to be influenced by pagan
mythology. According to Hammer:
“[t]he imagery probably comes from Canaanite mythology, in which
El was regarded as an aged deity with grey hair.”[168]
Moreover,
the imagery of a “son of man”
approaching the “Ancient of Days” shares
similarities with Canaanite myth.
According to Hammer:
“[i]n Ugaritic texts Baal, the younger god, is described as the
one who slew the dragon Itu and so gained victory over the sea, thus
establishing his kingship. (In verses
13-14 the second figure is seen as the recipient of authority at the hand of
the ‘ancient in years’ and this may reflect the ancient mythology preserved in
the enthronement festival of New Year rites.”[169]
Thus,
the anthropomorphic characteristics of God raise serious questions about the
influence of pagan culture on Jewish monotheism. Given the fact that pagan cultures dominated
the Holy Land for hundreds of years, it is not surprising that some theological
influences did occur.
Historical Problems -
In Chapter 1, the author introduced Daniel and his
companions, who had been among the exiles carried off to Babylon. They had been selected to be trained in
Babylonian culture and specifically in “the language and
literature of the Chaldeans”.
The reference to “Chaldeans” is in itself not problematic, since it
could be used as an ethnic term,[170]
but the Book of Daniel mainly uses it as a term for “astrologers” or those who
study the heavenly bodies.[171] However, this usage was only common in the later
Hellenistic (Greek) world, and was not used in that sense in earlier times.[172] Thus, the reference to Chaldeans as “astrologers” is an anachronism and is further proof of
the Hellenistic backdrop in which the book, or at least some parts of it, was
written.
Another historical inconsistency in the first chapter is
the giving of Babylonian names to Daniel and his companions. As previously mentioned, the names reflected
Babylonian culture, and more specifically, the religion of Babylon (see
note #25). However, as also previously
noted, the names were actually incorrect and “mangled” forms of Babylonian
names. This fact naturally raises some
logical questions:
1.
Why would the
Babylonians have deliberately given such names to Daniel and his
companions?
2.
Why would they
deliberately insult their gods and religion?
Since there would have been no
reason for the Babylonians to give such insulting names, scholars agree that
they are the author’s own invention or a later corruption.[173] In either case, what is more interesting is
that the practice of giving foreign names was very common in the later
Hellenistic period. As Hammer explains:
“[t]his practice was very common in the Greek period and
encouraged in the Hellenizing policy of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.”[174]
Thus, the claim that Daniel and
his companions were given (corrupted) Babylonian names may actually just be a
reflection of the practice of the Greeks, a practice which was naturally
detested by the author. Of course, if
they were actually given pagan names, it is interesting that despite Daniel’s
resistance to eating food from the king’s table (for fear of eating unclean
food), he didn’t seem to show any resistance to being given a pagan name![175]
Another historical problem arises from the other dream
that Nebuchadnezzar had, as recounted in chapter 4. In this dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw a very
large tree which was then cut down and given the mind of an animal. As before, it was Daniel who was called upon
to interpret the dream. This time,
Daniel informed the king that the “tree” was himself, the king of the
Babylonian Empire, which was the most powerful nation on earth at the time. So is there historical evidence that
Nebuchadnezzar was temporarily removed from power and went insane? Stated plainly, the answer is no. As previously stated (see note #65), there is
no historical evidence to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzar lost the throne
of Babylon for a period of seven years, only to regain it later after
undergoing a religious transformation. According
to Hammer, while the 4th-century BCE historian Megasthenes (c. 300
BCE) wrote that Nebuchadnezzar “was inspired by some god
or other, and spoke of a calamity from the roof of his palace”, no other
historical source mentions Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity and absence for a period
of seven years.[176] In fact, Hammer argues that it is much more
likely that the story fits more closely with the reign of Nabonidus, the last
king of the Babylonian Empire.[177] As it turns out, it is likely that the story
has changed over time, and there is support for this theory from an unlikely
source: the Dead Sea Scrolls.
As previously mentioned, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide
historical evidence that the Book of Daniel enjoyed widespread acceptance by
Jews as early as the 2nd-century BCE, shortly after it received its
final form. However, the Dead Sea
Scrolls also provide evidence of a variant version of the story recounted in
chapter 4. For among the many
manuscripts discovered in the caves of the Dead Sea valley, one particular
scroll known as “The Prayer of Nabonidus” shows
that it was this king, and not Nebuchadnezzar, who was stricken with a disease “for a period of seven years”.[178] Of course, this in itself does not prove that
the historical Nabonidus was actually stricken with a disease and repented of
his sins, though there are possible parallels between his sojourn in Arabia
(for which we know very little about) and the seven-year period of insanity
described in the Bible and “The Prayer of Nabonidus”
scroll.[179] However, what we can be almost certain about
is that the original story in chapter 4 was not about Nebuchadnezzar, but
Nabonidus, regardless of whether the story is historically accurate or not.
Moving on, in chapter 5, where King Belshazzar was
confronted by the mysterious hand, we find three additional historical
problems. The first has to do with the
description of Belshazzar as “king”. Historical evidence suggests that Belshazzar
was never regarded as the king, but rather as the “crown prince”. Two
historical documents, dated from 543 BCE to 542 BCE, attest to Belshazzar as
the “crown prince”.[180] Moreover, the Babylonian New Year festival
was not held for several years, during the time that Nabonidus was in
Arabia. Since the festival required the
presence of the king, historians generally agree that Belshazzar was not
regarded as the king.[181] Therefore, the Bible’s description of him as
the king of the Babylonian Empire is historically untenable.
The
second historical problem in chapter 5 has to do with the description of
Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s “father”. The reality was that Belshazzar’s father was
Nabonidus, which is why Belshazzar was the “crown prince”.[182] Apologetic claims that Nebuchadnezzar was
Belshazzar’s “nonliteral” father are based on
mere assumptions that assume the book’s infallibility and not on any concrete
evidence.[183]
Finally,
the third historical problem has to do with the ending of the chapter with
Belshazzar’s death and the conquest of Babylon by a certain individual known as
“Darius the Mede”. As previously mentioned, it is well known
that the Persian king Cyrus the Great conquered the Babylonian Empire around
539/538 BCE.[184] Indeed, Cyrus was mentioned directly in
chapter 1 as well.[185] Who then was “Darius
the Mede”?
As it
turns out, there is no historical evidence of a ruler known as “Darius the Mede” who conquered the Babylonian
Empire. In fact, “Darius” was a Persian
name, not Median,[186]
and the Persian Empire actually had three rulers named Darius, neither one of
which was the first Persian king to conquer Babylon.[187] Interestingly, Darius I captured Babylon in
520 BCE after a rebellion.[188] Thus, scholars have theorized that the
author possibly confused the capture of Babylon by Darius I with the conquest
of Babylon by Cyrus the Great almost 20 years earlier.[189] In any case, what is clear is that history
does not know of a ruler known as “Darius the Mede”, who
conquered the Babylonian Empire during the reign of Belshazzar, and the
assertions made by apologists lack any solid basis.[190]
Moving
on to chapter 6, a major historical absurdity can be seen in the decree of the
Persian king Darius (who is not a historical figure anyway), who was fooled by
some administrators (who were jealous of Daniel) to issue a decree requiring
all people to pray to the king and to no other deity or human being. Assuming that Darius was actually Cyrus the
Great, as Christian apologists have suggested (wrongly as we have seen), then
the claim that Cyrus would have issued such a decree is ludicrous. As the Encyclopedia Iranica states:
“Cyrus himself may have been a worshiper of Ahura Mazdā, but
almost nothing is known about his personal beliefs. According to Xenophon
(Cyropaedia 4.5.14), in religious matters Cyrus followed the instruction of the
Magians at his court.”[191]
Hence, there is no reason to
believe that the historical Cyrus would have issued such a decree since his
court followed the teachings of Zoroastrianism, a religion which would have
forbidden such behavior.
In addition, if “Darius the Mede” was
not Cyrus the Great, but some other Persian ruler, it would still be absurd to
claim that such a decree would have been issued. As “The Jewish Study Bible” states:
“[t]he interdict is historically implausible. No king of this period who claimed divine
status forbade the worship of other gods.
Darius the Persian was supportive of local religions, including that of
the Jews. The exclusive worship of one
god was a Jewish view, and this exclusive notion is projected onto an Eastern
divine monarch. The narrative thus
reflects Jewish tensions about remaining monotheistic in a mixed Diaspora
culture.”[192]
False Prophecies -
The
Book of Daniel is often seen as a book of prophecies by zealous Jews and
Christians. But as is often the case
with Biblical prophecies,[193]
the prophecies that Daniel supposedly saw in his dreams and visions failed to
come true.
The
first example can be seen in Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
of the statue in chapter 2. Daniel
informed Nebuchadnezzar that the parts of the statue represented different
kingdoms. It was explained that the head
made of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar’s own kingdom and the rest of the parts
represented other kingdoms that were to come.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Daniel was
actually written in the 5th century (which is clearly not the case
as explained above), this “prophecy” may appear very impressive. After all, following the fall of the
Babylonian Empire, there came other kingdoms: Media, Persia, and Greece, as
well as a divided Greek empire after the death of Alexander the Great. However, the problem with this “prophecy” is
that these earthly kingdoms were supposed to be replaced by God’s kingdom, as
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream showed. The last
part of the dream foretold the coming of a divine kingdom which would “endure forever”. But what actually happened is that while the
Greek kingdoms (representing the lowest part of the statue) were indeed
replaced by a Jewish kingdom (God’s “kingdom”), this kingdom was then itself
conquered by the Romans.[194] Thus, the dream did not come to fruition,
despite the claims of apologists.
Additionally,
a similar prophecy can be seen in chapter 7, the first of the “vision”
chapters, in which Daniel himself sees mysterious visions of the “future”. The first “vision” showed that different
earthly kingdoms would arise to dominate the world, but each would be
overthrown by a more powerful kingdom, ultimately culminating in a kingdom of the
“son of man”, which would “endure forever”.
But as we just saw, this kingdom did not survive for that long. While the Jewish rebels did succeed in
driving the Seleucids from Judea, the kingdom they founded did not survive
long, and it was eventually conquered by the Roman Empire.[195]
Indeed,
in chapter 11, the author provided a detailed chronology of events, which have
been conclusively linked with actual events during the period of Seleucid domination
of Palestine. But as scholars have
noted, after summarizing the events leading up to “the time of the end”,[196]
the author’s seemingly amazing attention to detail seems to dissipate when
describing the events in the end times.
As “The Jewish Study Bible” states:
“…the predictions do not correspond to events as known from
other sources, and scholars agree that the author must have been writing at the
time of the events described in the preceding [verses]. What is described is a cataclysmic battle of
the major powers that would mark the end of the present age (cf. Ezek. 38-39),
but the campaigns predicted here did not occur.
This helps to date Daniel to the middle of the persecutions of Antiochus
IV.”[197]
Perhaps
the best example of the sudden failure of the author to accurately predict the
events of the end times can be seen in the prediction of Antiochus’ death. As Hammer observes:
“[i]t is assumed that [Antiochus] will make a further attack on
Egypt…and perish in Palestine, the place where he has committed his greatest
atrocities.”[198]
Yet, there is no historical
evidence of Antiochus’ attack on Egypt.[199] What is worse is that Antiochus came “to his end” not in Palestine but in Persia, where he
succumbed to an unknown disease.[200]
Finally, the book ends with the promise of the
resurrection of the dead. The time when
this would happen was explained by one of the angels as occurring 1,335 days
after the Jewish sacrifice was abolished by Antiochus IV.[201] Of course, this never happened. It was yet another false prophecy. Life went on as usual and the world did not
come to an end.
The Use
and Abuse of the Book of Daniel -
Thus far, we have discussed several problems
within the Book of Daniel that have been known to scholars for decades, and
that reveal its true historical status as a man-made book and not the
“inspired” word of God. Let us now turn
our attention to how the book has been used and abused by those who continue to
believe in its divine origin as a book that prophesies the “end times”.[202]
As we have seen, the Book of Daniel
does indeed make prophecies about the coming of God’s kingdom on earth, but
those prophecies were made within the historical context of the Jewish struggle
against Greek tyranny, and still failed to come true. However, while this is the scholarly
interpretation, the faithful continue to believe that the book makes prophecies
which have not yet come true, but will so in the future.[203]
Moreover,
Christian apologists insist that the Book of Daniel predicted the coming of
Jesus (peace be upon him) as well as his crucifixion.[204] So is there evidence that certain parts of
the Book of Daniel predict the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him)? An objective analysis of the text will show
that the answer to this question is “no”.
According to Daniel 9:25, there
would be 69 “sevens” (i.e. weeks), which in the context of the chapter refers
to 69 periods of seven years each,[205]
from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the “Anointed One”. In
total, “seventy sevens” or 490 years were to pass before the Jews would be
redeemed.[206] The prophecy also states that the “Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing”, which
Christians interpret as referring to the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon
him),[207]
followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the placing of the “abomination that causes desolation” in the temple, which they interpret as
referring to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[208]
However,
the context simply does not allow for such an interpretation. In fact, the events described in Daniel 9 can
be reliably traced to historical events which occurred during the struggle
between the Jews and the Seleucids in the 2nd-century BCE, and not
the 1st-century CE. As Hammer
explains:
“…the final week (i.e. seven years) is the crucial period,
starting with the murder of Onias III, the high priest (described as the
removal of ‘one who is anointed’ in verse 26) in 171 B.C. Halfway through this period has occurred the
desecration of the temple, when Antiochus ‘put a stop to sacrifice and
offering’ (verse 27).”[209]
Furthermore,
“The Jewish Study Bible” observes regarding the “Anointed One” that (emphasis
in the original):
“[i]n the context of the other historical references…the anointed
leader probably refers to either Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua (Ezra
3.2; Hag. ch 1; Zech. 6.9-15, while the anointed one is most likely the
high priest Onias III, killed in 171 BCE (2 Macc. 4.30-34).”[210]
Another
reason the prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus (peace be upon him) is that
the death of the “Anointed One” was supposed
to happen 62 weeks (434 years) after the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem. The year of Jesus’ alleged death is not known
with any certainty, though Christians generally settle for the year 30 CE. However, since Christians also cannot
ascertain with certainty as to when the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem was
even made, only through generous assumptions can they finagle the chronology of
events to coincide (and only roughly at that!) with the approximate year of
Jesus’ death! For example, Christian
apologist Matt Slick admits:
“…there is much debate among scholars regarding the decree to
which Daniel is referring. There does not
seem to be an easy solution.”[211]
He and other apologists generally settle on the
year 457 BCE as the most likely date of the declaration, but even with that
assumption, the prophecy fails to complete the full 483 years required, since
483 minus 457 equals 26. In other words,
the death of the “Anointed One” should have
occurred in the year 26 BCE. But, the
earliest date for Jesus’ death is assumed to be 30 CE![212]
Moreover,
as Chris Sandoval notes, the Christian interpretation ignores the clear
parallels between chapters 8 and 9, the former of which definitely refers to the
tyranny of Antiochus IV.[213] Thus, the interpretation posited by
Christians is rather fanciful.[214] It is clear that the correct interpretation
is that the prophecy was referring to events in the 2nd-century BCE.
Finally,
let us briefly discuss the appeals made by some Christian apologists to the
famous Jewish commentator Rashi and his explanation of Daniel 9.[215] First and foremost, the apologists point to
Rashi’s explanation of Daniel 9 in “Messianic” terms, and use that as proof
that since Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed to be the Messiah, Daniel 9 must
be referring to him since it is “Messianic”.[216] However, this view has serious flaws when we
actually read Rashi’s commentary.
First of
all, the “Anointed One” of Daniel 9:25 was
identified by Rashi as Cyrus the Great, and not the king Messiah, while the “Anointed One” who was to be “put to death” was identified as Agrippa, who was
king of Judea as the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[217] Thus, Rashi was only referring to events he
believed were to occur before the coming of the king Messiah, not during
his life or after (since the conquest of Jerusalem actually happened
after the time of Jesus). The actual
reign of the Messiah, according to Rashi, was to occur sometime in the future.[218] Moreover, since we know from the text that
the time of the end was to occur very shortly after the second “Anointed One” was to be “put
to death”, there is absolutely no possibility of applying this prophecy
to Jesus anyway. Also, Rashi claimed
that the “abomination that causes desolation”
was to remain on the Temple grounds until “the days
of the king Messiah”, but it is of course well known that the pagan
altar that the Romans set-up after the conquest has long disappeared from
history.[219]
Second,
the Christian claim that the “Messiah” would bring “atonement” for sins (based
on their flawed reading of Daniel 9:24) is simply a case of interjecting their
theology into the text. They assume from
the start that the Messiah came to die for humanity’s sins, and then assume
that Daniel 9:24 must be referring to this.
But when reading Rashi’s commentary, we see nothing about the Messiah
“atoning” for humanity’s sins. In fact,
he only mentioned the Messiah after the ending of “transgression” and “sin”! As Rashi stated (emphasis ours):
“…so that Israel should receive their complete retribution in
the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that
their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their
iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them
eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the
Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through
the king Messiah.”[220]
We can see that
the termination of “transgressions” and the ending of “sins” needed to occur first,
after which the reign of the Messiah would begin. We can also see that there is no mention of
the Messiah dying for the sins of the “world”, let alone for the sins of the
Jews.[221] In fact, the subjugation of the Jews under
Titus was supposed to serve as expiation for their sins. In other words, they had to “atone” for their
sins by suffering under Roman persecution and exile. Thus, the apologetic claims are foolish and
do not warrant serious consideration.
Conclusion
In this article, we have discussed
the Book of Daniel, its importance to Jews and Christians and the mysterious
prophecies that it makes. Like the Book
of Revelation, it has been at the center of great controversy and has been
touted by believers as an amazing example of the accuracy of Biblical
prophecies. However, in our discussion,
it has been demonstrated that the Book of Daniel needs to be read in its proper
historical context, just like the Book of Revelation. The “prophecies” in the first six chapters were
not made hundreds of years before they took place, but rather after the fact,
while the “prophecies” in the last six chapters were meant to be fulfilled in
the time of the Seleucid domination of Palestine. Like the Book of Revelation, the Book of
Daniel has no relevance to modern times.
The author’s “prophecies” of a cataclysmic battle between good and evil
never came true, and will probably never come true. The Jews did succeed in resisting the
Seleucid king Antiochus IV, and eventually drove the Greek armies out of the
Holy Land, but their kingdom survived for a short time, and hardly endured as
it was supposed to. Not only does it
have false prophecies, but the Book of Daniel is also hindered by historical
inaccuracies and internal contradictions.
And perhaps most importantly for those Christians who believe that it
predicted the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him) as well as his death and
atonement for the sins of humanity, the book does not provide any impressive
evidence. Thus, an objective analysis reveals an interesting and mysterious
book, but one that is the result of fallible men and not the result of divine “inspiration”.
And
Allah knows best!
[1] For Christians, “Daniel” is also important since, as they claim:
“…this text is
certainly an amazing prophecy that one definitely should use in his or her
apologetic case for Jesus as the Messiah” (https://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus).
We will discuss this claim later on.
[2] According to one such fanatic source, the “Antichrist” will be a Middle
Eastern individual who:
“…will rule a
region north of Israel in the first part of the Tribulation, as Daniel calls
him the ‘king of the north’ and Isaiah and Micah call him the ‘Assyrian’” (http://www.trackingbibleprophecy.com/antichrist.php).
As we will see, however, this claim is without any
foundation because when the Book of Daniel is read in its proper historical
context, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was not prophesying events
in our time.
[5] Revelation 1:2, 4.
While Daniel (peace be upon him) is not mentioned
in the Quran or the authentic Ahadith, he is generally regarded by Muslims as
an Israelite prophet who lived sometime after David (peace be upon him) (http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=88907).
Other than this, not much more is known about
him.
[8] Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible
(New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2009), p. 65.
[9] Ibid.
See also Arnaldo Momigliano, Essays on Ancient
and Modern Judaism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp.
84-85.
The 1st century CE Jewish historian
Josephus related a story about Alexander the Great being shown a copy of the
Book of Daniel (Antiquities of the Jews, 11:8:5), which would mean that
it was well known to Jews as early as the 4th century BCE (since
Alexander’s conquest of Palestine occurred sometime around 333 BCE). Not surprisingly, this is used by some
Christians to prove that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th
century, during the Babylonian exile (http://www.biblequery.org/dan.htm).
Yet scholars generally reject the story. For example, Momigliano stated:
“I shall say
immediately and dogmatically that I assume there is no truth in the visit of
Alexander to Jerusalem. It is not
recorded by any respectable ancient source on Alexander and is full of
impossible details” (Essays on Ancient and Modern Judaism, op.
cit., p. 81).
Indeed, it is hard to believe that the proud
Macedonian king who aspired to conquer the world would have humbled himself
before the Jewish High Priest in such a way!
[10] The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 1642.
[11] However, it should be
stated that the Book of Daniel may not have enjoyed universal acceptance among
Jews. Scholars point to the apocryphal
book “Ecclesiasticus” (written around 190-180 BCE) to argue that the Book of
Daniel must not have existed at that time, since the author of Ecclesiasticus
did not mention it or allude to it in anyway.
This is also used as proof for a 2nd-century date for the
Book of the Daniel. However, as Frank W.
Hardy theorizes, it is possible that the author of Ecclesiasticus was aware of
the Book of Daniel but simply did not regard it as reliable. He writes:
“Ben Sira held the
opinion, and stated it in so many words, that dreamers and dreams were fools
and foolishness, respectively. […] If Ben Sira believed dreamers were fools,
and thought of Daniel primarily
as a dreamer, one could
hardly expect Ben Sira to
name Daniel as one of
Israel's great and illustrious figures of the past. For Daniel to be passed over in silence would be
much more consistent with the
passage just quoted than prominent mention of him a few chapters later would
be” (http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/BenSira.pdf).
Gleason L. Archer gives an approximate date of 530
B.C., and refers to the book as the “memoirs” of Daniel, based on his
experiences living under the Babylonian empire (https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-daniel#P59_10765).
See also Raymond Hammer, The
Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible: The Book of Daniel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 4-6.
[16] Momigliano stated (emphasis ours):
“Outside Greek
historical thought, the idea of a succession of empires appears first in the
Book of Daniel, chapter 2, if we date this chapter, as I believe we
must, about 250 B.C.”(Arnold
Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Middletown: Wesleyan
University Press, 1987), p. 8).
[17] Momigliano, Essays on Ancient and Modern Judaism, op. cit., p.
83.
[18] Hammer, op. cit., p. 5.
[19] The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., p. 1642.
Moreover, it states:
“[Chapters] 1-6,
probably originally oral, circulated most likely in the 4th to 2nd centuries
BCE, when they were collected into a cycle of Daniel legends. [Chapters] 7-12 are most likely written
compositions, datable to the last year of the Maccabean revolt (164 BCE). In editing [chapters] 1-12 together, the
author of the visions made the whole into an apocalyptic book” (Ibid., p. 1640).
[20] As Christian apologist David Malick points out:
“Manuscripts
discovered at Qumran (e.g., a Florilegium found in cave 4Q), which date from
the Maccabean period make it very unlikely that the book was written during the
time of the Maccabees (e.g., 168 B.C.) since it would have taken some time for
it to have been accepted and included in the canon” (https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-daniel).
Of course, this does not mean that the entire
book was present at Qumran. More likely,
some parts may have been present (including a variant story involving the
Babylonian king Nabonidus, as we shall see later), while the second part of the
book was still in the process of being written.
[21] Ibid.
Similarly, claims that the use of Aramaic or
Persian words in the Book of Daniel support a 2nd century BCE date
also appear to be weak (Ibid.).
Regarding the use of Aramaic, Kenneth A. Kitchen
states:
“…there is nothing
to decide the date of composition of the Aramnaic [sic] of Daniel on the
grounds of Aramaic anywhere between the late sixth and the second century BC.
Some points hint at an early (especially pre-300), not late, date…” (http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_kitchen.pdf)
Additionally, the “Jewish Virtual Library” states:
“The popular story
book Daniel A was composed in Aramaic because by the third century B.C.E. it
was the language of the majority of Jews; and Daniel B, being a continuation of
Daniel A, was written in the same language” (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04854.html).
[22] Shepherd, op. cit., p. 66.
[23] Daniel 1:1.
[24] Daniel 1:2.
[25] Daniel 1:4. Some translations
use the word “Chaldeans” instead of “Babylonians”. As we will see, the use of this
word is a clue to the Greco-Roman world in which the Book of Daniel was
compiled in its final form.
[26] Daniel 1:6. Daniel and his
companions were also given Babylonian names.
Daniel was named “Belteshazzar”, while his companions were named
“Shadrach”, “Meshach” and “Abednego”, respectively (Daniel 1:7).
According to Hammer, these names reflected distorted names of the
Babylonian gods (Hammer, op. cit., p. 20). It is also interesting that:
“[a]part from the
mangling, no exception is taken to the use of the foreign names, and they are
duly accepted as alternative names” (Ibid.).
One has to wonder why pious Jews so easily accepted
these pagan names, whereas Daniel was so adamant in not eating any unclean food
from the king’s court (Daniel 1:8)!
Also, since the names represent “mangled” names of the Babylonian gods,
we have to wonder why the Babylonians would have deliberately done so. Incidentally, the use of foreign names by
Jews is also a clue to the original context in which the book was compiled, as
we will see later.
[27] Daniel 1:5.
[28] Daniel 1: 8-15.
[29] Daniel 1:20.
[30] Daniel 1:21. Cyrus “the Great”
was the king of the Persian Empire and conquered Babylon around 539/538
BCE. The phrase “first year” thus refers to the year of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon (http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/1#34001021-1).
[32] Daniel 2:1.
[33] Daniel 2:2. The NIV states that
the word “astrologers” could also be rendered as “Chaldeans” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21761a). Indeed, the USCCB renders the
verse as:
“So
he ordered that the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and Chaldeans…” (http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/2).
It also states:
“…because the
Babylonians gave serious study to the stars and planets, “Chaldeans” were
identified with astrologers throughout the Hellenistic world” (http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002002-1).
However, as we will see, the use of the word
“Chaldeans” to refer to “astrologers” does not reflect historical usage in the
6th-century BCE.
[34] Daniel 2:11.
[35] Daniel 2:12. This decree
evidently included Daniel and his companions (v. 13), despite the great
impression they had left on Nebuchadnezzar only one year earlier.
[36] Daniel 2:16-19.
[37] Daniel 2:28.
[38] Daniel 2:31-35.
[39] Daniel 2:36-38. In describing
Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion and power, Daniel states:
“Your Majesty, you
are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and
might and glory; in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the
field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over
them all. You are that head of gold.”
[40] Daniel 2:39-43.
[41] Daniel 2:44.
[42] Daniel 2:45.
It seems clear that the various kingdoms
represented Media (silver), Persia (bronze) and Greece (iron). The “divided kingdom” (iron and clay) clearly
refers to the kingdoms that were created after the death of Alexander the Great
(Hammer, op. cit., pp. 32-33). We
will discuss this in more detail later.
[43] Daniel 2:46. The USCCB states
that Nebuchadnezzar ordered “sacrifice and incense” to be offered to
Daniel (http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002002-1).
[44] Daniel 2:48-49.
[45] According to the Greek translation, this was in the 18th
year of Nebuchadnezzar (Hammer, op. cit., p. 39).
[46] Daniel 3:1-2.
This image was “sixty cubits high and six cubits
wide”, which was equivalent to “about 90 feet high
and 9 feet wide” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21809a).
According to the USCCB, the immense proportions of
the statue:
“…were not uncommon
in antiquity; a cubit was about a foot and a half. The unrealistic proportions
of this statue suggest a comic effect” (http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/3#34003001-1).
Regarding the “satraps, prefects, governors…” Hammer explains that nearly all of the titles are Persian in origin
(Hammer, op. cit., pp. 39-40).
[47] Daniel 3:5.
[48] Daniel 1:6.
[49] Daniel 3:7-8.
[50] Daniel 3:12. It should hardly
have come as a surprise to Nebuchadnezzar that his Jewish administrators would
not worship his gods or the golden image.
Nebuchadnezzar seems to have forgotten that they worshiped “the God of gods
and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries” (Daniel 2:47)!
[51] Daniel 3:15. This is more
evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s poor memory!
[52] Daniel 3:19.
[53] Daniel 3:25.
[54] Daniel 3:29.
[55] Daniel 3:30.
[56] Daniel 4:1-6. Here,
Nebuchadnezzar speaks in the first person and addresses “the nations and
peoples of every language, who live in all the earth”, which is obviously impossible.
[57] Daniel 4:6-8. It is of course
strange that Nebuchadnezzar would begin by praising “the Most High God” and then refer to Daniel as “Belteshazzar, after the name of my
god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him”.
[58] Daniel 4:10-11. For this tree to
have been “visible to the ends of the earth”, the earth
would have to be flat, at least in his dream!
[59] Daniel 4:13-15.
[60] Daniel 4:15-16. The NIV
indicates that “seven times” can also mean “seven years” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21854d). Indeed, the USCCB translates
the phrase as “seven years” (http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/4).
[61] Daniel 4:22. Of course, despite
the enormous size of the Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, it was hardly
a global empire. Even at its peak of
power, the empire did not stretch much further than modern-day Iraq to the
east, Turkey to the north and the Sinai Peninsula to the west (http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/images/babemmap.jpg).
By contrast, by the year 1279 CE, the Mongol Empire
stretched from China and Korea in the east, parts of Russia and Europe to the
north and as far as Syria to the west (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/medieval/mongols/map1259max.jpg)! Thus, Daniel’s description of
Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was certainly over-exaggerated.
[62] Daniel 4:25-26.
[63] Daniel 4:27.
[64] Daniel 4:30.
[65] Daniel 4:31.
[66] Daniel 4:33. It is quite clear
from the text that Nebuchadnezzar was stricken with insanity, which explains
his animal-like behavior. However, as we
will see later, this incredible event is lacking in historical evidence and if
it even happened, it was probably not Nebuchadnezzar but Nabonidus, the last
king of the Babylonian Empire, who suffered this divine judgement.
[67] Daniel 4:34-37. Again, as we
will see, the absence of Nebuchadnezzar from the throne of Babylon lacks
historical support.
[68] Daniel 5:1.
[69] Daniel 5:2-5. The fact that
Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as Belshazzar’s “father” will be discussed in the next section, as it seems to contradict
established history.
[70] Daniel 5:5-6.
[71] Daniel 5:7.
[72] Daniel 5:8.
[73] Daniel 5:10-11. Most likely,
this was actually the “queen-mother” and not Belshazzar’s own
wife. Some have equated her with
Nitrocris, who was a widow or daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (Hammer, op. cit.,
p. 63).
[74] Daniel 5:13. As we will see,
Belshezzar’s unfamiliarity with Daniel seems to contradict the second part of
the Book of Daniel, where Daniel is shown doing the “business” of the king.
[75] Daniel 5:16. Belshazzar offered
to clothe Daniel with “scarlet”, give him “a chain of gold” and to install him as “the third ruler in the kingdom”. The practice of wearing scarlet
or purple robes “was a sign of dignity among the Persians…and the Seleucid
rulers”, and suggests that this part of the story is an
anachronism owing to the author’s 2nd-century BCE knowledge and
experience (Hammer, op. cit. p. 62).
[76] Daniel 5:17.
[77] Daniel 5:18-22.
[78] Daniel 5:25-28.
[79] Daniel 5:29.
[81] Daniel 6:1.
[82] Daniel 6:3-4.
[83] Daniel 6:4. As Hammer explains:
“[t]he fact that
the other ministers and satraps try to discover some other
malpractice…indicates that they were motivated by envy rather than
anti-Semitism” (Hammer, op. cit., p. 69).
[84] Daniel 6:5.
[85] Daniel 6:6-7.
[86] Daniel 6:8-9. As we will see,
for the Persian king to issue such a decree would have been unthinkable, given
his religion and general policies of religious tolerance.
[87] Daniel 6:10.
[88] Daniel 6:11-13.
[89] Daniel 6:14.
[90] Daniel 6:15-16.
[91] Daniel 6:16.
[92] Daniel 6:17-18.
[93] Daniel 6:19-20.
[94] Daniel 6:21-22.
[95] Daniel 7:1-3.
[96] Daniel 7:4-7.
[97] Daniel 7:8. As we will see
later, this is a clear reference to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV
Epiphanes. We will discuss this wicked
figure in more detail in the next section.
“It speaks rather
of the ultimate character of God’s tribunal” (Hammer, op. cit.,
p. 77).
But as we will see later, the descriptions
attributed to God probably originated from pagan mythology.
[99] Daniel 7:11-12.
[100] According to the NIV, the Aramaic phrase rendered “son of man” is “bar enash”, which means “human being”. However, the translators state
that they chose the phrase “son of man” solely:
“…because of its
use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus, probably based largely on this
verse” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21947a).
However, as we will see later, the passage in
question cannot be referring to Jesus anyway.
[101] The word rendered as “worshiped” is more correctly translated as “served”, since it is used in Daniel 3:28:
“They trusted in
him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives
rather than serve or worship any god except their own God” (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/yiflechun_6399.htm).
Indeed, Daniel 3:28 uses different words for
“serve” and “worship”, so it is clear that the NIV translators chose to
deliberately mistranslate the word in 7:14 due to their Christian bias.
[102] Daniel 7:13-14. As we will see,
when read in the historical context in which the Book of Daniel was written, it
becomes clear that the “kingdom” of this “son of man” actually did not endure and was eventually destroyed.
[103] Daniel 7:17.
[104] Daniel 7:23. This is yet another
exaggeration.
[105] Daniel 7:24.
[106] Daniel 7:24-25. Again, it is
obvious that the author had Antiochus IV in mind.
[107] Daniel 7:26-27.
[108] Daniel 8:1.
[109] Daniel 8:3-4.
[110] Daniel 8:4-5. The “goat” was able to “cross the whole earth without touching the ground”, which describes the remarkable speed with which it would conquer
everything in its path.
[111] Daniel 8:8.
[113] Daniel 8:11. This is yet another
reference to the actions of Antiochus IV.
[114] Daniel 8:13.
[115] Daniel 8:14.
[117] Daniel 8:17-20. Clearly, this “first king” is Alexander the Great, who defeated the powerful Persian Empire and
overthrew its king, Darius III (Hammer, op. cit., p. 90).
[118] Daniel 8:22. This clearly refers
to the four kingdoms that arose after the death of Alexander the Great and the
division of his empire. These four
kingdoms were Macedonia and Greece, the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, the
Seleucid dynasty in the Middle East and Asia and the kingdom of Lysimachus in
modern-day Turkey (https://www.wdl.org/en/item/11739/).
[119] Daniel 8:23-24.
[120] Daniel 8:24.
[121] Daniel 8:25.
[122] Daniel 8:27. The fact that
Daniel was going about “the king’s business” shows that he was
acquainted with Belshazzar’s court. This
will be discussed later.
[123] Daniel 9:1-2. The reference to a
certain “Darius son of Xerxes” will be discussed in
more detail later. For now, we can see
that Daniel is now living under the Persian Empire, which overthrew the
Babylonian Empire.
[124] Daniel 9:16. The prayer of
Daniel spans from verses 4-19.
[125] Daniel 9:21.
[126] Daniel 9:24.
The “seventy sevens” have been the subject of much debate, and in recent times, Christian
apologists and fundamentalists have joined in on the debate with amusing
theories about this subject (http://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus). However, as we will see, these
theories are simply more examples of wishful thinking on the part of these
apologists, similar to their fantastical theories about the Book of Revelation.
[127] Daniel 9:25. While the NIV
refers to “the Anointed One”, it also has a
footnote which states that another reading is “an anointed one” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+9&version=NIV#fen-NIV-22014f).
Hammer renders it as “…one anointed, a prince” (Hammer, op. cit., p. 94).
In other words, the Christian apologists have once again attempted to
misconstrue the text for ideological reasons.
It is obvious that they are trying to apply this “prophecy” to Jesus, as
is their modus operandi!
[128] Daniel 9:26. Hammer renders the
verse as “…one who is anointed shall be removed…” (Ibid.). Again, as we will see,
the attempt by Christians to apply this verse to Jesus’ crucifixion is wishful
thinking.
[129] Daniel 9:26-27. As we will see,
this is an obvious reference to the reign of Antiochus IV and not to some
future event involving the “Anti-Christ” as some Christians claim (for example,
see http://www.endtime.com/q-and-a/daniel-927/).
[130] Daniel 9:27. This is again a
clear reference to Antiochus.
[131] Koresh is equivalent to Cyrus (Hammer, op. cit., p. 99).
[132] Daniel 10:6. The man is
understood to be Gabriel (Ibid., p. 102).
[133] Daniel 10:7. Hammer sees
parallels between this incident involving Daniel and the incident of Paul’s
vision on the road to Damascus, as told in the New Testament (Ibid.)
[134] Daniel 10:13. The identity of
the “prince of Persia” is a matter of
debate, but the majority view appears to be that he was the “patron” or “guardian” angel of the kingdom of Persia. As Hammer states:
“…each nation was
thought to have its own patron angel, just as Michael was seen as Israel’s…” (Ibid., p. 103).
However, some sources believe that the “prince” was actually a human figure, such as Cambyses, the son of the Persian
king Cyrus the Great (http://biblehub.com/context/daniel/10-13.htm).
[135] Daniel 10:13-14.
[136] Daniel 10:20. If the “prince of Persia” is indeed the “patron” angel of Persia, then the “prince of Greece” would obviously be the “patron” angel of Greece. But if this is true, then it would suggest
what Hammer describes as “the notion of celestial warfare”, which is
hinted at in the non-canonical book of 2 Maccabees (Hammer, op. cit., p.
103). Since 2 Maccabees is nearly
universally believed to have been written in the 2nd-century BCE
(Hammer gives it a date of c. 124 BCE), it provides further proof that the
second-half of the Book of Daniel was also written in that time since it has
similar theology (Ibid., p. 12).
[137] Daniel 11:2-3. According to
Hammer, the fourth king is most probably Xerxes, who led a major campaign
against Greece in 480-479 BCE (Ibid., pp. 107-108).
[138] Daniel 11:3-4. This again refers
to Alexander the Great, whose empire was divided amongst his generals. See notes #116 and #117.
[139] Daniel 11:5. The “king of the South” is a king of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt (Ptolemy was one of
Alexander’s generals), which ruled Egypt until 30 BCE, after Alexander’s empire
was divided up (Ibid., p. 108).
The “king of the North” refers to a king of the Seleucid dynasty. As Hammer explains, Seleucids served under
Ptolemy until 312 BCE (the division of Alexander’s empire had been agreed upon
in 321 BCE) and eventually controlled territory spanning from Asia Minor to
India, thereby surpassing the kingdom of Ptolemy in power, as Daniel 11:5
states: “…one of his commanders will become even stronger than he…” (Ibid.)
[140] Daniel 11:6-7. This refers to
the murder of Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, who in c. 248 BCE, gave her
hand in marriage to Antiochus II, the grandson of Seleucus (Ibid., p.
108).
[141] Daniel 11:7-8. The invasion of
the Seleucid kingdom was carried out by Ptolemy III, the brother of Berenice
(Ibid., p. 109).
[142] Daniel 11:9. This refers to the
attempted invasion of Egypt by Seleucus Callinicus in 240 BCE, which ended in
defeat for the Seleucid king (Ibid.)
[143] Daniel 11:11-12. At the battle
at Raphia in 217 BCE, Antiochus III suffered a major defeat at the hands of
Ptolemy, and Palestine was re-annexed by Egypt (Ibid.).
[144] Daniel 11:13.
[145] Daniel 11:14. Some Jews are said
to have sided with Antiochus III against Egypt (Ibid.).
[146] Daniel 11:15-16. Again, the “Beautiful Land” is the Holy Land, including Jerusalem.
See note #111.
[147] Daniel 11:17. Antiochus gave his
daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194/193 BCE, but Cleopatra
persuaded her husband to ally himself with Rome, thus spoiling Antiochus’ plan
to increase his power (Ibid.).
[148] Daniel 11:21. This is referring again
to Antiochus IV!
[149] Daniel 11:29-30. Verse 30
mentions “ships of the western coastlands”, which would
oppose the “king of the North” (Antiochus IV). The Hebrew phrase is actually “ships of Kittim”, which originally referred to the Greeks. However, in the Qumran scrolls (specifically,
in the “Commentary on Habbakuk”), “Kittim” was used as a reference to the Romans (Ibid., p. 110). Indeed, Roman intervention kept Antiochus IV
out of Egypt (Ibid., p. 111).
[150] Daniel 11:30-31.
[151] Daniel 11:31-32. Antiochus IV is
infamous for his desecration of the temple, where he installed a statue of
Zeus, the “abomination that causes desolation” first mentioned in Daniel 9:27 (Ibid., pp. 99, 113).
[152] Daniel 11:36-37. The god “desired by women” is identified by scholars as Tammuz (Ibid., p. 113). This pagan deity is also mentioned in Ezekiel
8:14.
[153] Daniel 11:38. The “god of fortresses” was “Jupiter Capitolinus” (Zeus). Hence, Antiochus IV suppressed the cults of
Apollo and Tammuz, while promoting that of Zeus (Ibid.). Thus, he did not single out the Jews
only.
[154] Daniel 11:40-43.
[155] Daniel 11:45.
[156] Daniel 12:1.
[157] Daniel 12:1-2. Some would be
resurrected “to everlasting life”, while others “to shame and
everlasting contempt”.
[158] Daniel 12:7. According to
Hammer, the phrase “for a time, times and half a time” means three and a half years (Ibid., p. 118).
[159] Daniel 12:8-9.
[160] Daniel 12:11.
According to 2 Kings 24, Nebuchadnezzar attacked
Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim. However, 2 Chronicles 36 states that
Jehoiachin was simply “brought” to Babylon and only mentions an attack on Jerusalem
during the reign of Jehoiakim.
[162] Hammer asserts that the author dated the “first” capture of Jerusalem
to 606 BCE in order “to extend the [Jewish] exile to the seventy years foretold by
Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11-16; 29:10)” (Hammer, op. cit.,
p. 19).
[163] Ibid., p. 26.
Incidentally, at least one Greek manuscript (MS
967) of the Book of Daniel refers to the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s
reign, not his second (Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise:
Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Nampa: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 2007), p. 82). This would
make more sense.
[164] Belshazzar even asked Daniel:
“Are you Daniel,
one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah?” (Daniel 5:13).
[165] It seems likely that it is simply a literary device used by the author
for dramatic effect, as Hammer explains:
“... [Daniel’s]
initial absence is a device to make his later appearance even more
effective. He steps in when everyone
else has failed” (Hammer, op. cit., p. 64).
Of course, if it is simply a literary device, then
the Book of Daniel should be read as a dramatic literary work rather than
“scripture”!
[166] Daniel 8:27.
[167] This is especially glaring given that the queen stated that
Nebuchadnezzar had appointed Daniel as:
“…chief of the
magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners” (Daniel 5:11).
[168] Hammer, op. cit., p. 77.
[170] Ibid.
[171] For example, in Daniel 2:2, the author claimed that Nebuchadnezzar had
brought “the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers (Chaldeans)” to explain the meaning of his
dream.
[172] As Hammer states:
“…the book of
Daniel reflects later Graeco-Roman usage, which saw in the Chaldaeans a
professional class of astrologers, magicians and wise men” (Ibid.).
The USCCB also admits:
“…because the
Babylonians gave serious study to the stars and planets, “Chaldeans” were
identified with astrologers throughout the Hellenistic world” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002002-1).
[173] Stefanovic, op. cit., p. 57.
Interestingly, the name “Nebuchadnezzar” is also a corruption of the actual Babylonian name “Nabu-kudurri-usur” (or “Nebuchadrezzar”), which means “Nabu protect my
boundary stone” (Hammer, op. cit., p. 19). “Nabu” was one of the Babylonian gods.
[174] Ibid., p. 20.
[175] Similarly, Daniel didn’t seem to mind when Nebuchadnezzar actually
prostrated to him (2:46). In fact, this
part of the story so disturbed Josephus that he attempted to interpret it in a
way that seemed less blasphemous. As
Hammer explains:
“[t]he Jewish
historian, Josephus, was troubled by the language and tried to interpret
Nebuchadnezzar’s action as his recognition of Daniel’s God-given wisdom. Hence, the king venerates not so much Daniel
as God who had revealed the secret to Daniel” (Ibid., p.
34).
Some later Jewish interpreters also simply assumed
that Daniel declined the homage paid to him, though the text does not describe
his reaction (The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., p. 1646).
[176] Hammer, op. cit., p. 48.
[178] Hammer, op. cit., p. 48.
For the text of “The Prayer of Nabonidus”, see Geza
Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: The Penguin
Press, 1997), p. 573.
While some scholars dated this story as being older
than the Book of Daniel, Vermes considered a late 2nd-century or
even early first-century BCE date “to be less adventurous” (Ibid.). In either case, it is
proof of variant legends about the Babylonian kings that were circulating among
the Jews.
[179] Hammer, op. cit., p. 49.
[180] Ibid., p. 61.
[181] Ibid.
[182] Ibid.
[183] For example, Stefanovic claims that the Aramaic word for “father” could
mean “a grandfather” or “a remote ancestor” (Stefanovic, op. cit., p. 180).
However, he does admit that “there is no material proof” for the claim that Belshazzar was “Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson through
his mother but not his father” (some apologists have suggested
that the queen was a widow or daughter of Nebuchadnezzar whom Nabonidus had
married). Also, as Hammer notes,
Belshazzar was already an adult when Nabonidus had become king. Thus, he could not be considered “the actual son of
such a marriage” (Hammer, op. cit., p. 63).
[185] Daniel 1:21.
[186] Hammer, op. cit., p. 66.
[188] Hammer, op. cit., p. 66.
[189] Ibid.
[190] For example, one proposed apologetic solution to the enigma of “Darius the Mede” is that he was the Persian general Gobryas or one of Cyrus’ relatives,
who had been made “king of Babel in name” (http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/daniel_aalders.pdf).
But this “explanation” is typical of
apologists. Without any recourse to the
pesky thing known as “evidence”, these apologists make an assumption and then
assume that the assumption could be true!
Similarly, Stefanovic proposes the view that “Darius the Mede” was the “Median title” or “throne name” of Cyrus the Great, although again, he presents no reasonable evidence
(Stefanovic, op. cit., p. 200).
The fact is that while Cyrus was known as “King of the Medes” (because
he had conquered the Media before conquering Babylon), no historical source
refers to him as “Darius the Mede” or even just
“Darius”.
Fortunately, other Christian sources analyze the
Bible based on the evidence. Thus, the
USCCB admits that “Darius the Mede” was:
“…unknown outside
of the Book of Daniel. The Median kingdom did not exist at this time because it
had already been conquered by Cyrus the Persian. […] The character of Darius
the Mede has probably been modeled on that of the Persian king Darius the Great
(522–486 B.C.), the second successor of Cyrus” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/6#34006001-1).
As it turns out, this sort of confusion is not
unusual for ancient sources and is found in other historical sources as
well. As the Encyclopedia Iranica
states:
“Other scholars
have proposed that verse 6:28 should be interpreted as referring not to Darius
and Cyrus but to Darius as a throne name for Cyrus (Wiseman, p. 15); the age of
sixty-two years would certainly fit with the facts known about the life of
Cyrus. D. J. Wiseman (pp. 12-14) has suggested further that all the names of
the Achaemenid kings were throne names, hence liable to confusion in the minds
of subjects living far from the court. As the names of the Achaemenid kings
were later lost, even in the Persian tradition, it is not surprising that in an
area far from Persia the names and events of the Achaemenid period were reported
incorrectly. Failure to recognize the distinction between Mede and Persian is,
of course, found in other texts and was not unusual” (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-ii).
In fact, the author of the Book of Daniel also
erred in regards to another Persian ruler, a certain “Darius son of
Ahasuerus” (Daniel 9:1).
The name “Ahasuerus” was the Hebrew version of the Persian name
“Xerxes”, but we know of no Persian ruler named “Xerxes” who had a son named
“Darius” (Hammer, op. cit., p. 96).
In fact, the historical Xerxes (485–465 BCE) was the son of Darius I
(521-486 BCE) (Ibid.). Moreover, neither
Darius nor Xerxes were Medes “by descent”, as claimed in the
opening verse of chapter 9 (The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., p.
1659).
Thus, it seems likely that the author simply
confused the names of the Persian rulers.
However, in the case of “Darius son of Ahasuerus”, it is also possible
that the author was trying to harmonize the Persian background of Darius and
Xerxes with the “Darius the Mede” of chapter 6
(Ibid.).
In other words, Cyrus the Great was a follower of
the Zoroastrian religion, a monotheistic religion which worshiped the god
“Ahura Mazda”. Thus, for Cyrus to issue
a “decree” requiring all of his subjects to pray to him only, even if for a
30-day period, is historically implausible.
Christian apologists have struggled to explain this
historical problem, and have suggested ridiculous theories as a result. For example, Stefanovic writes:
“If the king in
question was Cyrus, who was very popular in Babylon, a decree of this kind
would have made sense during the period when the gods from the temples of the
surrounding towns were still in Babylon or were in the process of being
returned to the temples from which they had been taken” (Stefanovic, op. cit., p. 215).
Unfortunately, this theory fails to take the
religious beliefs of Cyrus’ court into account and is simply an
assumption. Moreover, why would Cyrus
have made such the violation of this decree a capital offense simply because
the other gods were still being moved to their respective temples?
It would seem that, in all likelihood, the story of
Cyrus’ decree was an anachronism and was influenced by the historical context
of 2nd-century Palestine, when it was under Seleucid control. Unlike the Persian kings, Greek kings were
not above demanding that they be worshiped, and as we have seen already,
Antiochus IV considered himself to be divine and worthy of worship, as the
title “Epiphanes” shows (see note #194).
[192] The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., p. 1654.
[193] For an analysis of some Biblical prophecies, see the articles:
[194] The famous Maccabean Revolt succeeded in wresting control of Judea from
the Seleucids, leading to the creation of the Hasmonean dynasty, which would
rule the Holy Land until 63 BCE, when it was conquered by the Roman leader
Pompey (Vermes, op. cit., p. 52).
Some Christian apologists claim that the dream was
actually predicting the rise of the Roman Empire as well, claiming that the
second kingdom of silver was actually a combined Medo-Persian Empire and the
third kingdom was that of Greece. Thus,
the fourth kingdom was Rome (https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-daniel#P79_15948). This interpretation was
seemingly shared by the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, who explained in his
commentary to Daniel 2:44 that the kingdom of the Messiah was to be set-up
during the time of the Roman Empire (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16485#showrashi=true).
However, even if this interpretation is correct, it
still ends in a false prophecy since the apologists still fail to take the rest
of the dream into consideration. If Rome
was the last of the earthly kingdoms, then which divine kingdom replaced it and
has endured ever since? One also has to
wonder what Messianic kingdom was set-up during the time of the Roman Empire,
as Rashi thought. The answer is there
was no such kingdom!
Furthermore, it is actually more likely that the
author regarded Media and Persia as two separate empires. When the mysterious hand predicted the fall
of Belshazzar’s kingdom, it clearly stated (according to Daniel) that
Belshazzar’s kingdom was:
“…divided and given
to the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5:28).
[195] In chapter 8, another vision represented the earthly kingdoms of
chapter 7 in symbolic language, depicting them as different animals, a literary
technique that clearly influenced the author of the Book of Revelation. For example, a joint Median-Persian kingdom
was represented by a ram (which contradicts chapter 5), while the kingdom of
Greece was represented by a goat. But
when the power of the goat was broken and replaced by smaller kingdoms (horns),
one particular horn gained prominence.
As previously explained, the kingdom of Alexander the Great was broken
up into 4 smaller kingdoms, one of which became more powerful than the others
(the Seleucid kingdom). Based on this
historical context, it is clear that the small horn described in verse 9 was
none other than the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whose name literally
meant “god manifest” (The Jewish Study Bible, op.
cit., p. 1642). In chapter 7, the
“little” horn is described as having “a mouth that spoke boastfully” (Daniel 7:8), a clear reference to Antiochus’ claims to divinity.
Additionally, in chapter 8, the horn is described
as taking away “the daily sacrifice”, another clear
reference to Antiochus, who “suppressed the practice of Judaism and turned the Temple
into a pagan worship site” (The Jewish Study Bible, op.
cit., p. 1658).
[196] Daniel 11:40.
[197] The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., pp. 1664-1665.
[198] Hammer, op. cit., p. 112.
[199] Ibid., p. 114.
[200] Ibid.
[201] Daniel 12:11-12.
Most scholars believe that the 1,335 days are
either an editorial “gloss” or an “interpolation” which was added to extend the
time period when earlier estimates failed to pin point the exact time. As Hammer explains:
“…the time of
severe persecution will last for three and a half years, as in 7:25. […] In place of the 1150 days (cp. 8:14) we
have successive changes to 1290 and 1335 days (12:11f.), but whether these are
glosses or not is unclear” (Ibid., p. 118).
He further adds (emphasis in the original):
“[t]he majority of
commentators take these verses as successive glosses which seek to prolong the time
of waiting. […] The first correction to
1290 days may be an attempt to give the longest period for three and a half
years. The addition of another 45 days
could perhaps have been intended to provide further time for the establishment
of the new kingdom after the death of Antiochus and the rededication of
the temple to the worship of Yahweh” (Ibid., p. 119).
[202] In this regard, the Book of Daniel is similar to the Book of
Revelation. Both books have been used to
predict the “end times” by fanatics.
[203] There are many such
theories (see note #2 for an example), and it is outside the scope of this
article to discuss them. However, since
we have already established that the events described in the Book of Daniel were
supposed to happen in the 2nd-century BCE, there is no need to waste
time in discussing the silly theories made by some fanatics!
[204] For example, according to the Christian apologist Matt Slick of the
“Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry” (CARM), Daniel 9:
“…is certainly an
amazing prophecy that one definitely should use in his or her apologetic case
for Jesus as the Messiah” (https://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus).
[205] As the website “Jews for Judaism” explains:
“Daniel chapter 9
uses the Hebrew word (שבעים ~ Shavuim) to represents a period of
time multiplied by seven. For various reasons this word is translated as
“weeks” and means a multiple of seven years rather than a multiple of seven
days” (https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/).
[206] Daniel 9:24.
For the interpretation of the “seventy sevens” as
490 years, see Hammer, op. cit., p. 98.
Also, see The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., p. 1660.
[207] As Slick claims:
“…though it is
difficult to demonstrate the exact time of the decree for the start date or the
exact date of Christ’s crucifixion, Daniel definitely predicts an event that
would take place extremely close to Christ’s life” (http://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus).
[208] Quoting other Christian apologists, Slick writes:
“Ankerberg, Weldon,
and Kaiser note, ‘Whoever the Messiah is, He will appear on the scene after the
rebuilding of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25-26) and be killed before Jerusalem and
the temple are again destroyed’” (Ibid.)
[209] Hammer, op. cit., p. 95.
[210] The Jewish Study Bible, op. cit., p. 1660.
For the identification of the first “Anointed One”
with either Zerubbabel or Joshua and the second one with Onias III, also see
Hammer, op. cit., p. 99.
Thus, Matt Slick’s rather excited declaration that
Daniel 9 is referring to the coming of the Messiah because “[t]he text uses
the word Messiah!” is premature.
The verse may be “messianic” but not in the sense that Slick and other
Christians want it to be.
[212] Apologists may argue
that it is only a 4 year difference, but since they are the ones arguing that “[o]nly God could
have predicted the coming of His Son with such amazing precision”, it would be fair to
say that God seemed to miss the date by 4 years, a gap that is very unbecoming
of the Almighty (Ibid.)!
[213] Sandoval states:
“The classical
interpretation also ignores the obvious parallels between Daniel 9:24-27 on the one hand, and Daniel 8:9-26; 11:31-45 on the other. Actually, all three
passages unmistakably describe Antiochus Epiphanes committing a desolating
sacrilege or "abomination that makes desolate" at the Temple and
bringing normal Jewish sacrifices to an end for about three and a half years
(cf. Daniel 7:25; 12:6-7,11). Daniel 9 places this event at the end of the
seventy weeks, and the other two passages place it at "the time of the
end." The "abominations" of "the prince who is to
come" in Daniel 9 are to be understood in the light of
the unspeakable blasphemies of Antiochus Epiphanes described in the other two
passages (cf. also Daniel 7:8,20,25)” (http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html#origin).
[214] Similarly, the theory
that the proclamation of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1-8) was the starting point
also fails. The claim that the
proclamation was made in the year 444 BCE is simply an assumption which has no
historical evidence to support it. As
the website “Jews For Judaism” observes:
“…there is no
reliable source stating that it occurred exactly in 444 BCE. It seems that
Christian [sic] picked this passage out of
convenience and assigned it this specific date, because if you start at 444 BCE
and count 69 weeks of years (483 years) you reach 39 CE” (https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/).
In
fact, even Slick admits that this date is unlikely:
“The decree
recorded in Nehemiah is unlikely to be the decree that Daniel is referring to
since he expresses disappointment that the rebuilding had not already taken
place…” (https://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus).
[216] We have already seen
that the prophecies in Daniel 9 cannot be referring to Jesus (peace be upon
him), given the clear historical context.
Rashi
lived in the 11th-century CE, so he was obviously still expecting
the coming of the Messiah.
[219] Of course, Rashi’s
attempt at applying the events discussed in chapter 9 to the Roman conquest was
simply mistaken. The internal evidence
suggests that the events were supposed to occur during the era of Seleucid
rule, as shown above. Even so, the pagan
altar set-up by Antiochus IV has also disappeared from history!
Christians
may argue that these events will be fulfilled during the second coming, but
this argument fails because the Tanakh does not mention a “second coming” of
the Messiah anywhere.
[221] The above Christian
website claims the following:
“…Christians have a
clear basis for their Messianic interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, namely, that
the Messiah died for the sins of the world during the very times specified by
Daniel” (http://www.biblestudying.net/rabbinic1.html).
But
this is simply wishful thinking and just another example of apologists
inserting their own preconceived notions into the text. There is no mention of the Messiah dying for
anyone’s sins, whether it was the Jews only or the entire world. In fact, there is no mention of the Messiah
at all, but rather two different “Anointed” individuals! In addition, the author of the Book of Daniel
clearly had very different “times” in mind from Rashi, as we have seen. He was clearly not referring to the
era of Roman domination, so Rashi was mistaken in that regard. The reason seems clear. Acknowledging the actual historical context
would have been an inconvenient truth!
Salamualakum wa rahmat tu lahi wa barakatu. Interesting analysis of the Book of Daniel. If I may make one comment, my understanding of Daniel 2 regarding "God's Kingdom" was about the caliphate and here's why:
ReplyDeleteThe gold empire as described by Daniel was Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian Empire.
The silver empire was to be Medo-Persia, which began with Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. This silver empire was supreme in the Near and Middle East for about two centuries.
The bronze empire was the Greco-Macedonian empire established by Alexander the Great. The bronze empire lasted for about 260 or 300 years before it was supplanted by the fourth empire.
The iron empire was the Roman empire that succeeded the Greco-Macedonian Empire. Iron connotes toughness and ruthlessness and this empire reached its widest extent under the reign of Trajan, who reigned from 98-117 C.E. and the Roman empire itself dominated for many centuries.
Everyone identifies these four empires as was just done. However, here Christians and Jews try to twist the meaning of this dream. In my study of their writings on this chapter, I have noticed that they are helpless to explain it from here. So they bring up many irrelevant and illogical complexities into the interpretation. They try to specially emphasize the ten toes of the image, instead of just following the history.
Here the interpretation of Daniel gives us some more details concerning this fifth empire. The feet of the image were part iron and clay, the Roman empire eventually split into two empires, one being stronger than the other. It split into the new western Roman Empire centered in Rome and the eastern Byzantine Empire centered in Constantinople. The new Roman Empire centered in Rome was the clay part of the feet as it decayed earlier in the 5th century but the Byzantine Empire, the iron part, remained for about 1000 years. Attempts were made to bring the two together, but they failed.
So the order is as follows
1..Gold Head: Babylonian Empire (626 BC - 539 BC)
2.Silver Chest/Arms: Medo-Persian Empire (539 BC - 330 BC)
3.Bronze Belly and Thighs: Greecian Empire (330 BC - 63 BC)
4.Iron Legs: Roman Empire (63 BC ->)
5.Iron/Clay Feet: Byzantine/Roman Empire (565 CE)
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteInterpretation for the 10 toes (Split from Rome's fall)
The ten toes that the Christians and Jews go into so much complexity abouts interpretation is as follows. The toes represent kingdoms, Edward Bishop Elliott, in his commentary, Horae Apocalypticae suggests the following lists as examples. Edward observes that there were 10 kingdoms present in the period 486-490: But he also argues, convincingly, that the primary period intended by both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, is about 532-33 AD... So at that time, he lists the following 10 kingdoms:
1. The Saxons, originating the English nation.
2. The Franks, originating the French nation.
3. The Alamanni, originating the German nation.
4. The Visigoths, originating the Spanish nation.
5. The Suevi, originating the Portuguese nation.
6. The Lombards, originating the Italian nation.
7. The Burgundians, originating the Swiss nation. (532 AD)
8. The Heruli, were annihilated by the little horn. (493 AD)
9. The Vandals, were annihilated by the little horn. (534 AD)
10. The Ostrogoths, were annihilated by the little horn. (538 AD)
the last three kingdoms are the horns in Daniel 7:7-8
“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots:…” (Daniel 7:8)
“… he shall subdue three kings.” (Daniel 7:24)
Finally the prophecy concludes:
“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” (Daniel 7:27)
This coincides with well with the incident during the prophecy made by the Prophet(saw) at the Battle of Khandaq:
A large rock was causing great difficulty in digging the trench for the pick mattock could not break it. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed about it, he went down into the trench and struck the stone with the pickax breaking one-third of the rock. Thereupon the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, Glory be to God, the keys of Syria have been given to me. With the second blow of the pick, the Prophet (peace be upon him) hewed another one-third of the rock and said, Glory be to God, the keys of Persia have been given to me. By God, I see white castle of Madain (Ctesiphon). In the third attempt, the remaining portion of the rock was broken into pieces. The Prophet (peace be upon him) then said, Glory be to God, I have been given the keys of Yemen. By God, I can now see the gate of Sanaa. (Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p. 194).
So the timeline is as follows:
1..Gold Head: Babylonian Empire (626 BC - 539 BC)
2.Silver Chest/Arms: Medo-Persian Empire (539 BC - 330 BC)
3.Bronze Belly and Thighs: Grecian Empire (330 BC - 63 BC)
4.Iron Legs: Roman Empire (63 BC ->)
5.Iron/Ceramic Feet: Byzantine/Roman Empire (565 CE)
6. Stone from Heaven: Islamic Caliphate (632 CE)
If you watch this link you can see the empires mentioned above fall.
http://explorethemed.com/RiseIslam.asp
bro faiz, salaam
ReplyDeleteakhee, you gonna laugh silly on this
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/5963/Avoiding-the-negative-prophecy-in-Daniel-12#.V_JBxjMrLnA
The Book of Daniel is not found in Prophets in the T’nach and is not considered prophecy.
That answers your question.
There is no prophecy in the Book of Daniel.
Do you have a different question?
::::::::::
notice how the bloody missionary have desire to see "end time" prophecy in daniel, yet yahood are telling him "shut up... no prophecy in daniel"
but jesus clearly failed:
ReplyDeleteRight after Luke’s Jesus mentions the desolation of Jerusalem, he instructs his disciples at that time to flee to the mountains, just as the Maccabean
revolutionaries fled to the mountains in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Then Luke says (v. 24) that Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. What does this mean? It means that once the Romans attack Jerusalem, their time is pretty much up. When their time is up, that’s when the Son of Man will come on the clouds to avenge his people. There will be portents in the heavens, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and, according to Luke, “People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (21:26). Note that this describes a worldwide judgment, not merely a judgment on Jerusalem (which has already taken place). The judgment upon Jerusalem is precisely what instigates the judgment upon the world. Luke’s Jesus goes on:
Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.
I make it clear in my chapter what this means. According to Luke, the redemption of the people of God follows immediately upon destruction of Jerusalem. When the Son of Man comes, that is the redemption of the people of God, not the judgment against them (which has already taken place). Kevin, I think, misses this. Luke’s Jesus concludes the discourse, saying,
Be alert at all times, praying that you may have the strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.
If the disciples are able to escape the suffering that will come upon Jerusalem, then they will be there to stand before the Son of Man when he comes to deliver them from the Gentiles, when the Gentiles’ time has been fulfilled. This is precisely the same script we see in Daniel 11-12, as well as the same script we see in Zechariah 14, where God brings the Gentiles against Jerusalem in order to judge Jerusalem, only immediately to turn around and wipe out the Gentiles for doing so, ushering in an era of everlasting peace for Jerusalem and God’s people, and the worldwide hegemony of Israel. This is precisely what we see in Luke 21.
end quote
funny thing is the man worshippers helped the killers of their god steal land after more than 1000 years of being kicked out of the land
now they want to reACTUALISE "prophecy" by going back to bits from nt and saying "this referring to the future"
these people are nut cases.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is from many sides, a lot of imaginative proposals for both Daniel (who do not count among the prophets) and the interpretation of the book Daniel. (It's today indisputably proven beyond any doubt that the original Book of Daniel is copied, paraphrased, and certain verses authored, between 170 and 164)
ReplyDeleteBut one thing is both historians and Biblical experts agreeing about:
*It has nothing with the present time, or "Jehovah's Kingdom" to do . . . . . . .*
One of the more plausible interpretations of "the prophecy" is:
• *Three kings* shall yet arise for Persia; _"Cause"_ means: to rule:
The three kings which should rule in Persia, is undoubtedly:
• 1) - _Cyrus' son *Cambyses*_
• 2) - _The deceiver *Smerdes*_
• 3) - _*Darius Hystaspes*_.
*The fourth*, who must accumulate *more wealth* than all the others, there is no doubt that it's:
• 4) - _*Xerxes*_, which was famous for its wealth
• 5) - _*Alexander the Great*_ - The mighty king "which became the absolute ruler, ruler of any extent any Persian king ever had ruled".
• And then come his kingdom's sharing between the generals and their wars.
• _*Nothern and Southern Kings:*_
• King of the south (Egypt) shall become mighty.
• 6) - _*Ptolemy*_ took Cyprus, Phoenicia, Caria, Cyrene with many islands and cities within Egypt, which made his kingdom powerful.
• But another of Alexander's princes appears in the expression "*one of his princes*" were mightier:
• 7) - Seleucus, who ruled over Syria and Macedonia and Thrace, which was three parts of Alexander's empire, and in addition had a strong domination in Egypt.
There were brought frequent wars between Egypt and Syria kings; especially was this the case with Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt another king, Antiochus Teos, Syria's third king.
6) - Ptolemy and 7) - now Antiochus Teos was finally agreed to make peace on terms that Antiochus Teos repudiated his wife Laodice and his two sons and married Ptolemy's daughter Berenice; consequently brought Ptolemy as his daughter to Antiochus, as he gave her a substantial dowry.
Why this has come true: But some years later joins the Confederation, and the South king's daughter takes into king of the north to provide peace;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel1.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm
Our Holy Islam teach us lesson of love and kind to each other. Quran is our holy and last book of religious Islam. Quran teach us to spend our life according to Allah,s orders and Muhammad (PBUH), orders. I am doing my duty to teach the Quran to my Islamic brothers. We should must teach and quran reading to understand the Islam and Allah and his Last prophet of Allah Muhammad (PBUH).
ReplyDelete