Prophecy in the Book of Daniel

The Book Of Daniel And The Second-Temple Period

1. Introduction

2. Authorship and Authenticity

3. Prophecy in the Book of Daniel

3.1. The Genre of "Apocalyptic Prophecy"

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

3.2. Daniel 2:26-45

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

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

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

3.3. Daniel 7:1-27

In Dan 7, Daniel has a prophetic dream about four beasts (a lion, a bear, a leopard and an unnamed terrifying beast), who represent four kingdoms. The fourth kingdom, represented by the unnamed, terrifying beast, will be a kingdom that will trample down the whole world. The fourth beast has ten horns, representing ten kings. After this, another horn sprouts, representing another ruler, who will subdue three other kings. The “saints” will be handed over to him for three and a half years. After this, one like a son of man will appear, coming with the clouds of heaven; he will be given authority and the “saints” will rule in the kingdom of the Most High. It is most natural to interpret the lion with the eagle wings as representing the neo-Babylonian kingdom. The lion and eagle are dominant and preditory animals and so aptly symbolize the Babylonians. The plucking of the wings off of the lion probably represents Nebudchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation (Dan 4). The bear represents the Medo-Persian kingdom, the two sides of the bear symbolizing the Medes and the Persians. The three ribs in the bear's mouth probably represent the Persians' defeat of three kingdoms: Lydia, Egypt and Babylonia. The leopard represents Alexander's kingdom followed by four smaller Hellenistic kingdoms represented by the four wings and four heads of the leopard. Finally, the fourth beast is symbolic of the Roman empire. (The leopard is an appropriate symbol of the Hellenistic kingdom, because of the quickness with which Alexander conquered the Persian empire.)

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

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

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

3.4. Daniel 8

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

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

3.5. Daniel 9:20-27

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

Those who interpret the Book of Daniel as reflecting the historical situation of the second century BCE interpret the appearance in history of the anointed one and leader in Dan 9:25 as occurring after the first seven weeks (forty-nine years); this one is identified with Cyrus, Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua ben Jozdak. On this interpretation, the second reference to the anointed one is to a different person, one who appears in history and is "cut off" sixty-two sevens (434 years) after the seven sevens (forty-nine years). (The Hebrew text of Dan 9:25 is translated as: "From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks...") This man is usually identified with the high priest Onias III, who is murdered in 171 BCE (see 2 Macc 4:1-38). The fatal weakness of this interpretation is that the period of time (434 years) is too long, so that the interpreter must assume that the author of Dan 9 has sacrificed historical accuracy to his pesher interpretation of Jeremiah's seven weeks of years. Naturally, the ruler ("people of the ruler") in Dan 9:26 is Antiochus IV, who in 169 BCE comes to Jerusalem to suppress a popular rebellion against Menelaus and his supporters. The reference to the last week (i.e., the final period of seven years) refers to the seven year period in which Antiochus aims to hellenize Jerusalem. Initially, for the first three and a half years, Antiochus IV made an alliance with Hellenizing Jews, but in the middle of the seven year period, he abolished the sacrifice and offering and erected the desolating abomination, insofar as he made pagan offerings on the altar.

3.6. Daniel 11

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

3.6.1. Dan 11:1-4

Three kings and then a fourth will arise in Persia until Alexander defeats the Persian Empire. Alexander's kingdom will be broken and be divided to the four winds, not going to his posterity. The four divisions represent the territories ruled by Cassander, Lysimachus, Antigonus and Ptolemy.

3.6.2. Dan 11:5

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

3.6.3. Dan 11:6

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

3.6.4. Dan 11:7-9

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

3.6.5. Dan 11:10-19

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

What is being described is the events in the reigns of Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BCE) (son of Seleucus II Ceraunus [227-23 BCE]), the king of the north and Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-203 BCE) and Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203-181 BCE) both kings of the south. In 219 BCE, Antiochus III attempts to annex Coele Syria, Phoencia and Palestine to his kingdom. In 217 BCE, the two kingdoms fight a monumental battle at Raphia on the border between Palestine and Egypt; Antiochus III loses and retreats (Fourth Syrian War—219-17 BCE).

Antiochus III for the next fourteen years occupies himself fighting in the east, regaining parts of the kingdom that had been lost; in 199 BCE, he attacks Egypt again after the death of Ptolemy IV and when Ptolemy V is still a young child. Allied with Philip V of Macedonia, Antiochus III defeats Scopas, the general of the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas (later renamed Caesarea Philippi). Dan 11:14 refers to Philip V and insurgents within Egypt; the Jews referred to disapprovingly in the same verse are a pro-Seleucid faction in Judea. As Dan 11:15 describes, Scopas, the Ptolemaic general, retreats to Sidon, and Antiochus III lays siege to the city, which surrenders in 198 BCE. The “beautiful land,” i.e., Judea becomes part of the Seleucid kingdom (Dan 11:16). Dan 11:17 refers to the fact that, in 197 BCE, Antiochus III takes control of other territories of what used to be under the control of the Ptolemies (Cilicia, Lycia, Caria).

After this success, Antiochus III, however, does not invade Egypt; rather, he makes a peace treaty. Antiochus III seeks to seal the treaty by giving his daughter Cleopatra (the first of several Cleopatras in Egypt) to Ptolemy V in marriage; he hopes to manipulate Ptolemy V through her "in order to destroy the kingdom" (Dan 11:17). The marriage takes place in 193 BCE. Cleopatra, however, proves to be loyal to her husband, so that the plan of Antiochus III does not succeed; she advocates an alliance with Rome in order to thwart the territorial ambitions of Antiochus III her father. As Dan 11:18 describes, Antiochus III attacks the coastal cities of Asia Minor belonging to the Ptolemaic kingdom (in spite of the peace treaty) and the Macedonian kingdom (Philip V was having problems with the Romans), and is defeated by Rome in 192 BCE and 190 BCE, when he tries to take parts of Lysimachus' former territory and parts of Greece. The “commander” referred to is the Roman general Lucius Cornelius Scipio. In 187 BCE, Antiochus is killed, described as "stumbling, falling and disappearing" in Dan 11:19.

3.6.6. Dan 11:20

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

3.6.7. Dan 11:21-24

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

3.6.8. Dan 11:25-28

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

3.6.9. Dan 11:29-35

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

3.6.10. Dan 11:36-39

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

3.6.11. Dan 11:40-45

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