Daniel's Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical.html

     In the last post, we examined at the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, and 8. Contrary to the traditional view, but in line with the modern scholarly view, we determined that these prophecies deal with the period between the 6th century BC and the mid-2nd century BC. Here, we will look at Daniel 11, the longest prophecy in the book of Daniel, to see how it fits with these other prophecies. Does it also describe the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, or does it look forward to a yet future time?

    Background

    The prophecy begins by giving a short background account of the Persian Empire and the beginning of the Macedonian Empire. The first verse states:

“Three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth will be much richer than them all, and by his strength through his riches, he will stir up all the kingdom against Greece.”

The four Persian emperors mentioned in this verse can most likely be identified with Cyrus the Great, Cambyses II, Darius I, and Xerxes I, who together ruled from 539-465 BC. Xerxes I was indeed richer than the other kings and undertook many construction projects throughout the Empire. He attempted an invasion of Greece in 480 BC, but failed.

    The prophecy then fast-forwards more than a hundred years to the conquests of Alexander the Great in 336-323 BC:

“Then a strong king will arise, who will rule with great dominion and do according to his will. Yet as soon as he arises, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not according to his posterity nor his dominion, for his kingdom will be uprooted and go to others.”

This accurately describes the beginning of the Macedonian Empire. Alexander rapidly conquered Persia and other Near Eastern territories, but unexpectedly died without an heir in 323 BC. The empire ended up being divided among his four generals and split into four different kingdoms: the Ptolemaic Kingdom (Egypt), the Seleucid Kingdom (Syria), the Antigonid Empire (Greece), and the Antipatrid Kingdom (Macedon).

    The kings of north and south

    Following verse 4, A. E. Knoch argues that the rest of the prophecy is about the end of the age, based on the phrase “after some years” (lit. “at the end of these years”) in v. 6. However, “the end” is a relative term, so this isn’t a very strong argument. All other interpretive schools are agreed that at least vv. 5 through 20 continue to describe Greek history, as confirmed by the match between known history and the rest of the prophecy.

“Then the king of the south will grow strong, but one of his officers will grow stronger than him and shall rule a greater dominion than him.”

    From an Israelite perspective, the kingdom to the south would be Egypt, which means that the “king of the south” in Daniel 11 can be identified with the ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The first king, Ptolemy I Soter, had an admiral, Seleucus I Nicator, who in 311 BC gained control of the territory of Babylon, and later Syria, beginning his own dynasty (the Seleucid Kingdom).

“After some years, they will make an alliance, for the daughter of the king of the south shall go to the king of the north to make an agreement. But she will not retain her power, nor shall his offspring. She will be given up, she and her attendants and her child and the one who strengthened her.”

    Again, the “king of the south” refers to the Ptolemaic Kingdom (south of Israel), while the “king of the north” refers to the Seleucid Kingdom (north of Israel). Around 250 BC, the Seleucid king Antiochus II married the daughter of Ptolemy II, Berenice. However, this alliance failed, because Antiochus II’s spurned former wife Laodice killed Berenice and her infant son, along with her former husband.

“In those times a branch from her roots will rise up in his place. He will come with an army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and take action against him and prevail. Even their gods, and their idols, and their articles of precious gold and silver, he will carry off to Egypt. He will refrain from attacking the king of the north for some years. Yet he [the king of the north] shall invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but will return to his own land.”

    After the murder of Berenice, her brother Ptolemy III attacked the Seleucid king Seleucus II, and soundly defeated him in 245 BC, taking back to Egypt 40,000 talents of gold and looted statues of Egyptian gods. Over the next few years, Seleucus II re-conquered many of the lands that had been captured, and even made forays into Ptolemaic territory. In 241 BC, a treaty was signed, and there was no further conflict between the Ptolemys and the Seleucids for the rest of Ptolemy III’s reign (246-222 BC).

“His sons will wage war and assemble a large multitude of forces that will overwhelm and pass through, and will carry the war as far as his fortress. And the king of the south will be moved with rage, and go out and fight the king of the north, who will muster a large multitude, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy. When the multitude has been carried off, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall overthrow myriads, but he will not prevail. For the king of the north will again raise a multitude larger than the former, and after some years, he will advance with a great army and many supplies.”

    The sons of Selecus II, Seleucus III and Antiochus III ‘the Great’, mustered a large army to fight against the Ptolemys in the Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BC). Antiochus III rapidly conquered the land of Palestine and even carried the war all the way to the heartland of Egypt, in the Battle of Raphia (217 BC). However, Ptolemy IV defeated Antiochus III in this battle, and a peace treaty was signed which lasted until Ptolemy IV’s death in 204 BC. After his death, in the Fifth Syrian War (202-197 BC), Antiochus III made great gains against his successor Ptolemy V and re-conquered Palestine.

“In those times many shall rise up against the king of the south. The violent ones among your people will exalt themselves to fulfill the vision, but they will fail.”

    During the Fifth Syrian War, Ptolemy V was forced to deal with internal rebellions at the same time that Antiochus III was attacking him. Even some Jews supported Antiochus III against Ptolemy V, in the hope that he would reward them with independence, but their efforts failed (Josephus, Antiquities XII.3.3).

“Then the king of the north will come and build a siege mound and take a fortified city. And the forces of the south will not stand, not even his best troops, for they will have no strength to resist. But he who comes against him will do according to his will, and no one will stand against him. He will stand in the Glorious Land, and all of it will be in his power. And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom. He will make peace with him and give him a woman in marriage, in order to destroy his kingdom, but it will not succeed or be to his advantage.”

    Antiochus III defeated Scopas, the general of Egypt, at the Battle of Panion in 199 BC. Scopas and his troops fled to Sidon, but Antiochus III besieged the city and forced them to surrender. This effectively transferred all of Palestine from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule, thus making Antiochus the de facto ruler of “the Glorious Land.” Antiochus III then betrothed his daughter Cleopatra I to Ptolemy V as part of a peace treaty, intending for her to undermine the Ptolemaic Kingdom from the inside, but she ended up siding with her new husband instead.

“Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastland and shall capture many, but a ruler will bring an end to his insolence, and will turn his insolence back upon him. And he shall turn his face back toward the fortress of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and not be found.”

    Antiochus III next attempted to invade Greece, and succeeded in 192 BC, but was soundly defeated by the Romans in 191 BC, forcing him back to Asia Minor. The next year, the Romans invaded Asia Minor as well, and in 188 BC, they signed a peace treaty which forced Antiochus to abandon most of his lands in Anatolia. This led to several revolts throughout the Seleucid Kingdom, and Antiochus III died in 187 BC while trying to put down a revolt in Persia.

“There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes for the glory of the kingdom, but within some days he will be destroyed, though not in anger nor in battle.”

    Antiochus III was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, who sent his official Heliodorus to Jerusalem to pillage the Jewish treasury, in order to fund Seleucid campaigns (2 Macc. 3). However, Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BC, possibly by Heliodorus himself, who took over as regent for Seleucus IV’s infant son Antiochus.

    The reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes

    Some argue that there is a break between vv. 20 and 21, so that the verses after this describe a future end-times ruler. However, verse 21 begins with “There shall arise in his place,” which is the same phrase used in verse 20 to describe the succession of Antiochus III by Seleucus IV. Therefore, it seems more likely that verse 21 continues the history of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Kingdoms. This is confirmed by the match between historical events of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the prophecy of vv. 21-39.

“There shall arise in his place a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty, but he shall come in suddenly and seize the kingdom by intrigue.”

    Seleucus IV was succeeded in 175 BC by his infant son Antiochus and his minister Heliodorus, who acted as regent for the young Antiochus. However, within just a few months, Seleucus IV’s brother Antiochus IV returned and proclaimed himself coregent, seizing the throne. Eventually, he murdered Heliodorus and the young Antiochus, just as his father was deposed earlier. (Recall that this was also prophesied in Daniel 7:24.)

“And with the force of a flood, armies will be swept away and be broken before him, even the prince of the covenant.”

    This is essentially a summary of Antiochus IV’s reign. He was a militarily powerful leader who repeatedly defeated internal revolts, most notably, the revolt of the Jews as described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. He even orchestrated the murder of the Jewish high priest Onias III in 171/0 BC (2 Macc. 4:30-38).

“And after an alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully and become strong with a small number of people. Suddenly he will come into the richest places of the province and do what none of his forefathers had done, lavishing them with plunder and spoil and riches.”

    Antiochus IV came to power with the help of Eumenes II, the king of the relatively smaller kingdom of Pergamum, which was itself an ally of Rome. This made it possible for him to sign a peace treaty with the Roman Empire in 173 BC. Unlike his predecessors, he spent lavish amounts of money on his troops, even giving them a year’s salary in advance (1 Macc. 3:27-30). He also lavished gifts upon the people of Syria in an attempt to win them over.

“And he shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. He will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a large army, but the king of the south will be stirred up to battle with an even greater army. Yet he will not succeed, for plots will be devised against him. Those who eat of the royal rations shall destroy him, his army shall be swept away, and many shall be slain. And the two kings, their hearts bent on evil, shall sit at one table and speak lies. But it shall not prosper, for the end will be at the appointed time.”

    Antiochus IV attacked the Ptolemaic Kingdom in 169 BC. Although this prophecy indicates that Ptolemy VI had a larger army than Antiochus IV, he was defeated, and the Seleucids captured the border fortress of Pelusium. Before Ptolemy VI could flee to safety, his own generals Comanus and Cineas launched a coup and took control of the Egyptian government. At the end of the year, Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI met to work out an agreement, by which Ptolemy VI would act as Antiochus’ puppet king in Memphis.

“He shall return to his land with great riches, and his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant, so he shall do damage and return to his own land.”

    As Antiochus IV returned from his victory in Egypt, he took all of the treasures out of the temple at Jerusalem, which caused much sorrow among the people of Israel (1 Macc. 1:20-28).

“At the appointed time, he will return and go to the south, but this time will not be like before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he will be grieved and return.”

    The very next year (168 BC), Ptolemy VI repudiated his agreement with Antiochus IV, which led Antiochus to attempt to invade Egypt again. However, he was stopped by a Roman ambassador, Gaius Popillius Laenas, who forced him to withdraw. Note that “ships of Kittim” are a reference to the Romans, as confirmed by the use of this phrase in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [1] Antiochus IV was reportedly humiliated by this event, and he took it out upon the Jews.

“In rage, he will do damage against the holy covenant and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. His forces will occupy and defile the temple and fortress, and they shall take away the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation. He will flatter with smooth words those who forsake the covenant”

    In the summer of 167 BC, Antiochus IV sent a contingency of Syrian troops to Jerusalem, where they plundered the city and slaughtered many of the people, even preventing them from offering the daily tamid sacrifices (1 Macc. 1:29-40). Antiochus IV also wrote to the people of Israel forcing them to Hellenize and forsake the Mosaic Law under threat of death (1 Macc. 1:41-53). Six months later, the Syrian troops in Jerusalem also set up a pagan altar on top of the Jewish altar, which the Maccabees referred to as “the abomination of desolation” (1 Macc. 1:54).

“...but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. The wise among the people will give understanding to many, and yet they shall fall by sword, by flame, by captivity and plundering, for many days. Now when they fall, they will be aided with a little help, but many shall join them insincerely. And some of the wise will fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed, until the time of the end, for there is still an interval until the appointed time.”

    This is a summary of the Maccabean revolt which took place between 167 and 164 BC. According to the book of 1 Maccabees, during this persecution, many of the people in Israel “chose to die rather than be defiled by food or profane the holy covenant, and they did die” (1 Macc. 1:63).

“But the king shall do according to his will, and shall exalt and magnify himself above any god, and speak blasphemies against the God of gods. He shall prosper until the period of wrath is completed, for what has been determined shall be done. He will not respect the god of his ancestors, nor the one beloved by women, nor any god, for he shall exalt himself above them all. He will honor the god of fortresses instead of these, a god which his ancestors did not know, and will honor him with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him, he will make them wealthy and appoint them as rulers over many and distribute the land for a price.”

    Some commentators believe that this section applies to the final end-times ruler rather than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but there is no clear break in the text between vv. 35 and 36, and this description still applies accurately to Antiochus IV. This Seleucid king was the first king to refer to himself as “god” (theos) and “god manifest” (theou epiphanous) on coinage, which led to his epithet “Epiphanes.” Notably, he did not honor the patron god of his ancestors, Apollo, but instead worshipped Zeus Olympias and even set up an altar to him in the Jerusalem Temple (the abomination of desolation). Those who supported him and his cause were lavished with gifts (1 Macc. 2:17-18).

    The end of the Seleucid Kingdom

    Although vv. 21 through 39 are an extremely accurate description of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the following verses do not align with the history of his reign. For this reason, many modern commentators have thought that the book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt (ca. 164 BC) and wrongly predicted its outcome. More conservative commentators argue instead that these verses refer to the final end-times ruler and have not been fulfilled yet. Both of these options would make this prophecy utterly useless to Daniel’s intended readership, the Jews of the Maccabean revolt. Is there another possibility for interpreting these last few verses?

    First, this prophecy is said to take place at “the time of the end” (v. 40). This could refer to the end of the age and Jesus’ second coming, but again, that would make this prophecy utterly useless for Daniel’s intended readership. Rather, we should look back to v. 27, which states that the alliance between Ptolemy VI and Antiochus IV failed because “the end will be at the appointed time.” This end must have something to do with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Kingdoms, not an undefined future time. Elsewhere in the book of Daniel, the “end” refers specifically to the end of the Macedonian kingdoms (Dan. 8:19), which began around the time of Antiochus IV and continued until 27 BC.

    Did anything like the prophecy in vv. 40-45 happen at the end of the Macedonian kingdoms? As it happens, this prophecy seems to be fulfilled by the events surrounding the end of the Seleucid Kingdom:

“At the time of the end, the king of the south will contend with him, and the king of the north will come against him like a whirlwind with chariots, and horsemen, and many ships. He shall advance against countries and overwhelm them and pass through.”

    Although there were only two main characters (the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings) earlier in the prophecy, now there are three: the king of the south, the king of the north, and an undefined “him” who they both attack. Since vv. 36-39 describe the Seleucid king (Antiochus IV), the most likely option is that “him” also refers to the Seleucid king. This means that we are now dealing with the Ptolemaic king (the king of the south), the Seleucid king (the king of the north), and another “king of the north.”

    The details of this prophecy find a match at the end of the Seleucid Kingdom. Throughout this period, there were dynastic squabbles between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. This ended in 64 BC when the Roman army under the command of Pompey defeated the last Seleucid king, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, in a whirlwind campaign in which he annexed all the major cities of Syria.

“And he will enter the Glorious Land, and many countries will be overthrown, but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and Egypt will not escape. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and Kushites will be at his heels.”

    In 63 BC, after he annexed Syria, Pompey went south and conquered the Hasmonean Kingdom (Israel), incorporating it into the Roman Empire as the province of Judaea. He attacked the Nabateans, who controlled the land east of the Jordan including ancient Edom, Moab, and Ammon, but the siege of Petra failed in 62 BC and the Romans were unable to conquer their land. In 58 BC, the Romans took control of Egypt and exiled their king Ptolemy X, although they allowed him to return as a puppet king in 55 BC.

“But news from the east and the north will trouble him, and he will go out with great fury to conquer and annihilate many. And he shall plant the tents of his pavilion between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, but he shall come to his end, and no one shall help him.”

    Despite the great success of the Roman Empire on the Mediterranean coast, they were constantly antagonized by the Parthian Empire to the northeast, which controlled the territory of modern-day Iraq and Iran (ancient Mesopotamia and Persia). In 54 BC, the Roman ruler Crassus, who was part of the First Triumvirate along with Pompey and Caesar, crossed the Euphrates river to invade Parthia. Before the campaign was over, he returned to Judaea and pillaged the land and the temple, undoubtedly pitching his tent between the Mediterranean and Mount Zion at some point (Josephus, Antiquities XIV.7.1-3). Crassus continued his campaign against the Parthian Empire in 53 BC, but faced a mutiny and was killed by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae.

    In summary, the prophecy in Daniel 11:40-45 is not meant to describe the end of the Maccabean revolt, nor the end of the age at Jesus’ second coming, but the end of the Seleucid Kingdom at the hands of the Roman Empire. Whereas the other interpretations make this prophecy completely useless for Daniel’s intended readership — the Jews of the Maccabean revolt — this interpretation of the prophecy would give them hope that their Seleucid oppressors would not last forever, but would themselves be destroyed in the end. The remarkable agreement between this prophecy and the Roman conquests of 64-53 BC makes any other interpretation unlikely.

    The Day of Yahweh

    After describing the end of the Seleucid Kingdom, the prophecy goes on to state the following:

“At that time, Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, shall stand up. And there shall be a troublesome time such as there never was, since the first nation until that time.”

    This passage is traditionally understood to refer to the tribulation at the end of the age. However, if Dan. 11:40-45 refers to the Roman annexation of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, which seems certain based on the remarkable match of events, then “at that time” cannot refer to the end of the age. Rather, it must refer to the time of Roman domination of Palestine. With this in mind, the “troublesome time” can only refer to the catastrophic events of the First Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73), which involved the destruction of the Second Temple and unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people. [2]

“But at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book.”

    Although numerous Jews were killed during the First Roman-Jewish War, the true Israel, the remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus (cf. Rom. 11:1-5), was saved from the catastrophic events. According to the ancient historians Eusebius and Epiphanius, the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem fled the city prior to the outbreak of war, thus staying safe from its onslaught. [3]

“Many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake; some to perpetual life, and others to shame and perpetual contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars perpetually.”

    This is where exegesis of Daniel’s prophecy becomes difficult. All of the previous prophecies find a clear historical fulfillment, but no resurrection of people took place during the First Roman-Jewish War, not even a ‘spiritual' resurrection to heaven — that is, not if one takes seriously the biblical testimony about the state of the dead. There are two possibilities here. First, it may be that Daniel is indeed referring to the resurrection at the end of the age; it was common for Old Testament prophets to switch from historical judgments to the eschatological Day of Yahweh, often without warning of any transition. [4]

    Second, another (perhaps more likely) possibility is that Daniel is referring to the corporate resurrection of the believing Israelite remnant. An interesting parallel is Ezekiel 37, which speaks of bones arising and becoming living people, but the interpretation of the prophecy shows that it refers to Israel as a whole returning from exile (vv. 18-23). Compare this to Jesus’ words in John 5:24-25:

“Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my words and believes the One who sent me has perpetual life and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Truly, truly I say to you, the time is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”

    Some might argue that this is referring proleptically to the resurrection at the end of the age. However, “now” (nun) always refers to the present time, and is never used in prolepsis. (Note that in John 5:28-29, where Jesus is indisputably referring to the end of the age, he says only that “the time is coming” — not that it “now is.”) Therefore, it is quite possible that Daniel is saying that true Israel will be vindicated (and corporately ‘resurrected’ as in Ezek. 37) by the events of the First Roman-Jewish War, while the unbelieving Israelites will be ashamed. Admittedly, however, this is speculative.

    After this excursus, Daniel states that he saw a vision of several men who were discussing the “end of these wonders” (Dan. 12:6). One of the men said that the end would come in “a time, times, and half a time... when the shattering of the holy people comes to an end” (v. 7). This refers back to Daniel 7:25, which states that the period of Antiochus IV’s persecution would last for three and a half years (cf. Dan. 8:13-14).

    Next, the messenger tells Daniel that from the time that the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days (v. 11), which is also three and a half years, plus an intercalary month. Again this refers to the period from the beginning of persecution in Summer 167 BC to the re-dedication of the temple in Chislev 164 BC. The messenger also tells Daniel that those who persevere until 1,335 days will be happy (v. 12); although the meaning of this is not certain, it could refer to the Maccabean fortification of Jerusalem, which took place shortly after the re-dedication of the Temple (1 Macc. 4:60-61). Finally, he comforts Daniel with the knowledge that he will be raised in the Day of Yahweh (v. 13). [5]

    In summary, the entire prophecy of Daniel 11 should be understood to refer to the historical events from the beginning of the Persian Empire (539 BC) to the First Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73). None of this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, except for the resurrection in Daniel 12:13 (and possibly Dan. 12:2-3). The purpose of this prophecy is to provide comfort to the righteous Jews during the Maccabean revolt, so that they know that their oppression will eventually end, their oppressor will be destroyed, and they will ultimately be rewarded in the resurrection at the end of the age.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_0276931272.html

______________________________

[1] 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 4Q161 frgs. 8-10 3.5-8; 4Q169 1.3.

[2] If you have a strong stomach, see Josephus’ account of the war in his Wars of the Jews books 5-7.

[3] Eusebius, Church History 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.7.8.

[4] For example, see Isaiah 7, Isaiah 22, and Amos 5, which prophesy the Day of Yahweh in relation to the Assyrian conquest of Israel; see also Jeremiah 31, the book of Joel, and the book of Zephaniah, which prophesy the Day of Yahweh in relation to the Babylonian conquest of Judah; see especially Isaiah 61:1-2, cf. Luke 4:16-21, which shows that such prophecies can switch referents even in the same sentence.

[5] Although “the end of days” in Dan. 12:13 is sometimes interpreted to refer to the end of the aforementioned 1,335 days, no resurrection took place in 163 BC, so this must not be the case. Instead, it is probably a general term for the Day of Yahweh, like "the last day" in the New Testament (e.g., John 11:24).