Typically, scholars date the completion of the writing of the book of Daniel to around 164 BCE, because in chapter 11, everything is very precise and accurate historically until verses 40-end are completely wrong in that Antiochus Epiphanes IV did NOT die in the land of Judah (between the holy mountain and the seas) but died fighting in Persia around 164 BCE. Since chapter 11 was precise and correct so much and then completely wrong at the end, it’s understood that the writer was guessing what would happen in the future at the point he was writing these verses. I think this is a pretty compelling argument for the dating of the book.
However, then how does one understand the 4 kingdoms prophecies in chapters 2 and 7? Seems pretty clear that the ram is the Medo-Persian kingdom, then the third kingdom is Greece, so the fourth would be Rome…and if the fourth kingdom was Rome, then wouldn’t Daniel actually be making a genuine prophecy that was fulfilled? But I don’t know enough about history to know otherwise. (I’m confused)
NW said
Typically, scholars date the completion of the writing of the book of Daniel to around 164 BCE, because in chapter 11, everything is very precise and accurate historically until verses 40-end are completely wrong in that Antiochus Epiphanes IV did NOT die in the land of Judah (between the holy mountain and the seas) but died fighting in Persia around 164 BCE. Since chapter 11 was precise and correct so much and then completely wrong at the end, it’s understood that the writer was guessing what would happen in the future at the point he was writing these verses. I think this is a pretty compelling argument for the dating of the book.However, then how does one understand the 4 kingdoms prophecies in chapters 2 and 7? Seems pretty clear that the ram is the Medo-Persian kingdom, then the third kingdom is Greece, so the fourth would be Rome…and if the fourth kingdom was Rome, then wouldn’t Daniel actually be making a genuine prophecy that was fulfilled? But I don’t know enough about history to know otherwise. (I’m confused)
NW, the writer of the Book of Daniel had a very poor grasp of prior history. He thought the Medes and the Persians were two separate unrelated entities. Allow me to recommend Rober Alter’s recent translation and commentary on the ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
The early dating of the Septuagint was part of a tale where Ptomely had 70 scribes translate the Torah into Greek, and the all did it precisely the same. Sounds kinda fishy to me.
Of course the Septuagint refers to the 70 scribes, and they were just translating the Torah. Whatever is included in the law, Daniel would not be a part of that.
This is an old post, but I wanted to thank you for this link. I didn’t buy the book, but I found something in the intro I have been looking for for a long time.
Stephen said
NW, the writer of the Book of Daniel had a very poor grasp of prior history. He thought the Medes and the Persians were two separate unrelated entities. Allow me to recommend Rober Alter’s recent translation and commentary on the ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Well that’s very kind. You should read the book though. As a matter of fact it just came out in paperback and I see on Amazon one can get already get a used copy for less than $10. Alter is a Hebrew scholar and literary critic and for about twenty years he’s been publishing these translations and commentaries of the Hebrew Bible. His notes and his discussion of word choices is worth the price of the book.
Stephen said
Well that’s very kind. You should read the book though. As a matter of fact it just came out in paperback and I see on Amazon one can get already get a used copy for less than $10. Alter is a Hebrew scholar and literary critic and for about twenty years he’s been publishing these translations and commentaries of the Hebrew Bible. His notes and his discussion of word choices is worth the price of the book.
Do you know what his background is in Hebrew? I looked at his bio, and he apparently has a doctorate in comparative literature. I read the intro to the book on Amazon, and he claimed that the books he’s discussing are clearly late, based on linguistic arguments. I’m trying to figure out if he’s an expert, or if he’s relying on someone else. If I understand right, he’s actually translating the books here–which I assume means he’s an expert in Hebrew. His bio says he’s a professor in Hebrew and comparative literature…I don’t know if that means Hebrew literature and comparative literature, or Hebrew (the language) and comparative literature.
Yes Alter is an expert in Hebrew. The translations are his and the commentaries are his. He is, however a literary scholar and not a theologian. (Thank god, pardon the pun.)
His translation of Genesis is considered a modern masterpiece. My favorite however is his translation of he Book of Samuel which of course contains the David stories. That’s the point at which Hebrew literature matches the Greeks and the Indians note for note.
All that’s left at this point are the Prophets. I look forward to Alter tackling Isaiah.
NW said
However, then how does one understand the 4 kingdoms prophecies in chapters 2 and 7? Seems pretty clear that the ram is the Medo-Persian kingdom, then the third kingdom is Greece, so the fourth would be Rome…and if the fourth kingdom was Rome, then wouldn’t Daniel actually be making a genuine prophecy that was fulfilled? But I don’t know enough about history to know otherwise. (I’m confused)
I would compare it to prophecying today that China will have the world’s largest economy some day soon. The Romans had just taken Macedon and was basically undefeated in the last few decades militarily. Rome simply was not ready to take down Syria yet. But it was powerful enough that Egypt begged it for help when Antiochus iv took all of Egypt. Then a Roman envoy brokered the peace deal there. Rome was on the edge of Egypt on the south side of the Mediteranean and the edge of Anatolia on the north side.
So yes, if the fourth kingdom is Rome, it was a bit of a prediction, but not an unseen, way off prediction.
Daniel 11 does not incorrectly identify the death of Antiochus iv. Take another look. There are two campaigns into Egypt by Antiochus iv in the Sixth Syrian war. Trying to look it up on wikipedia I get a variety of scenarios depending on if I look up “Antiochus iv”, “Ptolemy vi”, “Ptolemy viii”, or the “Sixth Syrian War.” More than likely this is because the source materials are relatively scant and so a lot has to be imagined or projected by various historians. Its fairly easy to look up the actual source materials on Attalus.org if you are curious. But the consensus on a few things seem certain:
1)The “kittim” that turned back Antiochus iv’s second campaign was the singular person of Gaius Popillius Leanas representing Rome’s interests. (So to the OP’s original question, yes Rome’s power was completely well known to the author of Daniel).
2)There were two incursions.
3) After the second incursion and subsequent abandonment of conquest of Egypt was Antiochus’s celebration at Daphne, where he performs in a play naked, names himself Epiphanes and generally makes a mockery of societal expectations.
4) After the second incursion a king arises in Armenia, which Antiochus handles quickly.
5) After Daphne Antiochus takes off for the East, putting down a revolt.
6) Antiochus invades and attempts to pillage a sacred temple at Elymais, often portrayed as a city but is actually a state. Perhaps this is at Susa in Elymais.
7) Antiochus is repelled from the temple and withdraws. He dies of unknown causes.
40 “At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him. But the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. He shall advance against countries and pass through like a flood.
Since we know there are two campaigns, and the “kittim” are not mentioned here, I think the campaigns are transposed. This is the first attack on Egypt by Antiochus iv. The Ptolemys claimed their right to Ceole Syria and prepare for war. Antiochus is more than ready, battering the Egyptian army and then attacking Alexandria. Both campaigns were very successful, but only the second campaign is stopped by the Romans, and they are mentioned much earlier. Plus, the excesses of Antiochus iv are then described earlier in the text, and we know the more famous excesses followed the Roman intervention.
41 He shall come into the beautiful land, and tens of thousands shall fall victim, but Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites shall escape from his power.
This is hard to make sense of. The “beautiful land” may have originally been written to mean Egypt, if this narrative is lifted from a historiography. Then the author of Daniel tries to make it seem like it is Judea by saying Edom and Moab and Ammonites shall escape. To be fair, the cities on the edges of Ceole Syria and the desert had very little to offer any emperor and were not worth fighting for, so perhaps that were not ruled by either empire. Of course Antiochus has to pass by Judea to get to Egypt but the previous verse has him already in Egypt and the next verse has him still in Egypt, and he does not attack Judea on the way to Egypt. Its clearly not historical, so perhaps its propaganda.
42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the riches of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians[** you do not have permission to see this link **] shall follow in his train.
This is a description of the utter victory by the Syrian forces.
This all describes Antiochus iv’s first and very successful campaign in Egypt. Nothing debatable here.
44 But reports from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to bring ruin and complete destruction to many.
This is the king arising in Armenia, or even possibly rumors of intrigue back home as the rightful heir to the throne, Demetrius, is of age and may return from Rome. The Armenian uprising was definite and Antiochus handled it quickly. Whether it was part of the Eastern campaign after the celebration at Daphne or immediately after the second campaign in Egypt is unsure. Then again Antiochus does name his child as his coruler before taking off in the campaign to regain the East.
45 He shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with no one to help him.
Ancient historians have Antiochus iv entering the temple in Elymais. This is nothing new for Antiochus, he has despoiled temples before, taking loot for his extravegant lifestyle and many wars. He is repelled and retreats to die. Elymais is roughly the same geography as ancient Elam with its capital Susa. It is a very mountainous region with a plain down to the trading port at the “sea” or the Persian Gulf today. This would be where Antiochus iv would have camped beside the sea and the “holy mountain”, referring to Susa and the Temple there.
There are further clues:
1) There is a fictional recounting where Antiochus does not die mysteriously but rather abdicates, traveling around what is now the Persian Gulf in adventures.
2) In the Book of Daniel he is either in Susa or dreaming he is in Susa at various times. In Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is in Susa and Habbakuk is transported there. He is by the river. This connects the mountainous town proper and the port at the “sea.” This is where the author envisions Antiochus iv camped in 11:45.
3) The historical recounting of Antiochus iv’s march into the East AND his plundering of a Temple there seem patterned off of Antiochus iii’s last years. Daniel’s recounting is similar as well. 18 Afterward he shall turn to the coastlands, and shall capture many. But a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed, he shall turn his insolence back upon him. 19 Then he shall turn back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found.
In summary, while the events in 11:40-41 seem out of order, they clearly happened, as well as the rest of the events through 11:45. The author is recapping the death of Antiochus iv according to the records we have.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)