Christian Biblical Reflections.38

CBR Book of Daniel. Selections: 20-25

                It’s been one year occupied with the Book of Daniel in CBR, I had no idea that it would take such a turn. As I posts these submissions of Selections 5-25, having already shared 1-4, I am writing the Reflections & completing the Chronology to the Persian period overtaken by Alexander the Great. I cite my notice in Christian Biblical Reflections.33    Posted on February 29, 2020 to apply here & now, but I have updated within it to apply to the current state or status. The Links likewise I make no changes for now, but will after posting CBR  on Daniel when completed. There are only 3 or 4 cases of the Selections or sub-selections where I needed copyright permission, which I was given freely & kindly. I will hereby now & hereafter express to those who have asked, and to all others, all that I write & publish in any media & at any time is shared free & grateful to be of any help to those who seek God’s Christ, God’s Book, & God’s truth in the journey of life. I apologize & regret that I have not regularly interacted with others in my posts. Anyone is always welcome to email for my personal response & reply. I have tried very hard to limit the pages of this chapter, part, & section of volume two of CBR, but ‘que sera’ it has swelled to 1,000 pages for the Book of Daniel, thus requiring volume 2 to become volumes 2 & 3, the Poetic Books & Major Prophets as vol.2, Daniel & the 12 Minor Prophets vol. 3. mjmselim, 2020.

          ((Not wishing to delay any further, and still several months (now several weeks as of July 2020) from completing the remaining Selections & the writing the Reflections on the whole, I share it with others who might have interest in this Key prophetic Book. The original in PDF of the Selections of Calvin’s & Newton’s & Lowth’s & many others of the 25 Selections,  are from very old editions which typefaces that has caused considerable labor to edit. These 4 Selections, along with Selections 5-25 now shared in this & the other numbers,  are of great importance to the later & modern interpreters & commentators of the Book. The Analysis & Digest was done months ago (now a year has passed; during which the doctors say I need a heart transplant, which I refuse; thus my times are marked; but God is good to me in this as in all things in Christ); the Chronology is incomplete (but I have added many names, dates, & details up to the end of the Persian Empire period, leaving the Greek & Roman period to be completed in the section of the 12 Minor Prophets), and to be completed when the Reflections are written. The Selections to be added are from the 19th-21st centuries, which all are dependent on these earlier Selections that are herein given. (Here is the list of the 25 Selections relevant to the Book of Daniel in CBR: 1-25: 1. Jerome.  2. Calvin. 3. Newton. 4. Lowth.  5. Stuart.  6. Barnes.  7. Auberlen.  8. Tregelles.  9. Japheth Ben Ali.  10. Rashi.  11. Darby.  12. Montagu.  13. Miller.  14. Folsom.  15. Smith.  16. Rule.  17. Pusey.  18. Keil.  19. Zōckler.  20. Driver.  21. Wilson.  22. Seder Olam Rabba.  23. Larkin.  24. 1st Maccabees.  25. Josephus.)     If the Lord permits, the 12 Minor Prophets, being an Appendix to Daniel & the 3 Major Prophets, will follow. As in Ezekiel, I’ve had to change my style in reflecting on this Book. mjm.Christian Biblical Reflections.33    Posted on February 29, 2020.))

The PDF is attached. The link to my One Drive files are:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)

CBR files in PDF & Word:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD

Here is the link to my Internet Archive.org library page for those interested:

https://archive.org/details/@mikemjm

20. Driver.

The Book of Daniel with Introduction & Notes by Samuel Rolles Driver 1901 by Samuel Rolles, Regius Professor of Hebrew of the University of Oxford. Edited for the Syndics of the University Press.  Cambridge, University Press. 1900  Cambridge Bible for Schools & Colleges, Gen, Editor, Old Testament & Apocrypha, A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D.

                Contents:  Chronological Table.   Introduction:

§ 1. Person of Daniel & Contents of Book

§ 2. History  embraced  by  Book of David

§ 3. Authorship & Date  

§ 4. Some  characteristic features  of Book of  Daniel

§ 5. Versions, Commentaries,  &c.

                Text & Notes.   Additional Notes: ix, xxiii, xlvii, lxxvi, xcviii.

On term  Chaldaeans.

On terms ‘Excellent’ & ‘Excellency ‘ in A. V., R. V., &  P.B.V. of Psalms.

On  Nebuchadnezzar’s madness.

On Four  Empires of  Daniel 2.

On Expressiot1 ‘011e like unto a son of man in Dan. 7.

On  Ruins of Susa.

On  Prophecy  of the Seventy  Weeks’

On  Expression   ‘abomination of desolation’     

                Appendix: Inscription recording vote of thanks to Eumenes & Attalus passed by Council & people of Antioch.

                Index: B.C.

                Chronological Table: (B.C.)

605.  Defeat of Egyptians by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish.

604.  Nebuchadnezzar.

586.  Fall of Jerusalem.

561.  Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach).

559.  Nergal-Shar-Uzur (Neriglissar).

555. (9 months). Labashi-Marduk (Laborisoarchod).

555.  Naru-Na’jid (Nabonnedus, Nabonidus).

538.  Cyrus. Return of Jews under Zerubbabel.

529-522. Cambyses.

522 (7 months). Gaumata (Pseudo Smerdis).

511-485. Darius Hystaspis.         

485-465. Xerxes.

333.  Persian empire overthrown by Alexander the Great.

323. Death of Alexander.

                Kings of Syria: (B.C.)

312. Seleucus I (Nicator).

280. Antiochus l (Soter).

261. Antiochus II (Theos).

249. Antiochus II receives in marriage Berenice,  daughter  of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

246. Seleucus II (Callinicus).       

226. Seleucus III (Ceraunos).

223. Antiochus III (the Great).

198. Antiochus the Great defeats Ptolemy Epiphanes at Paneion & obtains possession of Palestine.

194-3. Antiochus the Great marries his   daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy Epiphanes.

187. Seleucus IV (Philopator).

175-164. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes).

175. Jason purchases high-priesthood from Antiochus, expelling his brother Onias III.

172. Menelaus, outbidding Jason, becomes High-Priest.

170. Antiochus: 1st Expedition into Egypt. Returns & Enters Temple, & Carries Off Sacred Vessels.

168. Antiochus 3rd (or 2nd?) expedition into Egypt.

168. Apollonius surprises Jerusalem on Sabbath-day.

168. Antiochus measures against Jews. Desecration of Temple (25 Chisleu).

167.  Rise of Maccabees.

166-5. Victories over  Generals of Antiochus.

165.  Re-dedication of Temple (25 Chisleu).

164.  Death of Antiochus.

                Kings of Egypt: (B.C.)

322. Ptolemy I (Lagi), Satrap.

305. Ptolemy I (Lagi), King.

285. Ptolemy II (Philadelphus).

247. Ptolemy III (Euergetes I).

222. Ptolemy IV (Philopator).

205. Ptolemy V (Epiphanes).

182. Ptolemy VI (Eupator).

182-146. Ptolemy VII (Philometor).       

                Daniel: Introduction: § 4. Some characteristic features of the Book of Daniel. As has been pointed out in § 1, the first part of the Book of Daniel (chs. 1-6) consists essentially of a series of didactic narratives; the second part of the Book (chs. 7-12) as also ch. 2, in so far as a succession of world-empires forms the subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, deals with what, viewed from Daniel’s standpoint, is future, and is apocalyptic in its character. It will not be necessary to dwell further upon the narrative portions of the Book; but something remains to be said with regard to its apocalyptic parts, and also on some of the more characteristic doctrines which find expression in it. And firstly, as regards the symbolism and the veiled predictions, which form such conspicuous features in these parts of the Book. Symbolism is employed already by the later prophets to a greater extent than is the case with the earlier prophets. Thus in Ezekiel we have the allegories of the vine-tree (ch. 15), the abandoned infant (ch. 16), the two eagles and the vine (ch. 17), the lion’s whelps (ch. 19), the two harlots (ch. 23), the flourishing tree (ch. 31), the shepherds and their flock (ch. 34); and in Zech. we find a series of visions, in which the prophet sees, for instance, the Divine horses, symbolizing the ubiquity of Jehovah’s presence upon the earth (1:8-17), four horns symbolizing the powers of the world arrayed against Israel (1:18-21), a golden candlestick, representing the restored community (ch. 4), and chariots proceeding to the different quarters of the earth, symbolizing the fulfilment of Jehovah’s judgements (6:1-8). But, as applied in Daniel, both the symbolism and the veiled predictions are characteristic of a species of literature which was now beginning to spring up, and which is known commonly by modern writers as Apocalyptic Literature.

                The word “apocalypse” means disclosure, revelation; and though ordinary prophecy contains “disclosures,” whether respecting the will of God in general, or respecting the future, the term is applied in particular to writings in which the ‘disclosure,’ or ‘revelation,’ is of a specially marked and distinctive character. The beginnings of this type of writing are to be found in those post-exilic prophecies of the O.T. relating to the future, which are less closely attached to the existing order of things than is usually the case, and which, though they cannot be said actually to describe it, may nevertheless be regarded as prophetic anticipations of the final judgement, and consummation of all things, as Is. 24-27, Zech. 14, Joel 3:9-17. (* Cf. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 475 f., 481, 488 f.; and the present writer’s Joel and Amos (in the Cambridge Bible), p.32.*) But at a later date, apocalyptic prophecy assumed a special form, and became the expression of particular feelings and ideas.

                Apocalyptic prophecy arose in an age in which there were no longer any prophets of the older type, addressing themselves directly to the needs of the times, and speaking in person to the people in the name of God: and it consists essentially of a development and adaptation of the ideas and promises expressed by the older prophets, designed especially with the object of affording encouragement and consolation to faithful Israelites in a period of national distress. The call to repentance, and rebuke for sin, which formed the primary and central element in the teaching of the older prophets, assumed in the age now under consideration a secondary place: Israel was subject to the heathen, and the crying question was, When would its long and humiliating servitude be at an end? When would the older prophecies of future glory and triumph over the heathen be fulfilled? How much longer would Jehovah’s promised redemption be deferred? Hence, in the form of prophecy which now arose, a much more prominent place was taken than had formerly been the case by visions of the future: older, but hitherto unfulfilled, promises of Israel’s destined glory were reaffirmed, and were made the basis of larger and broader outlooks into the future. Its mode of representation was artificial. The disclosures which were the most characteristic element of apocalyptic prophecy were not made by the author in his own person, they were placed in the mouth of some pious and famous man of old —an Enoch, a Moses, a Baruch, an Ezra: from the standpoint of the assumed speaker the future was unrolled, usually under symbolic imagery, down to the time in which the actual author lived: the heavens were thrown open, glimpses were given of the offices and operation of the celestial hierarchy: God’s final judgement both upon His own people and upon the powers opposed to it was described: the approaching deliverance of the afflicted Israelites was declared: the resurrection and future lot alike of the righteous and of the wicked were portrayed in vivid imagery. The seer who is represented as the author of the book, sometimes beholds these things himself in a vision or dream, but often he holds discourse with an angel, who either explains to him what he does not fully understand, or communicates to him the revelations in their entirety. Naturally there are variations in detail: the subjects enumerated do not appear uniformly with precisely the same prominence; hortatory or didactic matter is also often present as well: but speaking generally some at least of them are present in every ‘apocalypse,’ and constitute its most conspicuous and distinctive feature. A brief account of two or three of the more important apocalypses may help to give substance to what has been said.

                The Book of Enoch is the longest known work of the kind; and in its earliest parts (for it is evidently of composite authorship) is certainly the nearest in date to the Book of Daniel. It is said of Enoch in Gen. 5:24 that he ‘walked with God’; and the expression was taken in later times to mean not only that he led a godly life, but also that he was the recipient of supernatural knowledge. The “Book of Enoch’ gives an account of the knowledge which he was supposed in this way to have attained. The oldest sections of the book are chs. 1-36, 72, 108, probably (Dillmann, Schūrer) c. 120 B.C., and chs. 83-90 may even, according to Charles, be almost contemporary with Daniel (B.C. 166-161). In chs. 1-36 Enoch first (ch. 1) tells how he had had a vision of future judgement: God would appear, “with ten thousands (10,000) of His holy ones’ (Jude 14,15) on Mount Sinai, to punish the fallen angels, and wicked men, and to reward the righteous with peace and felicity. In chs. 17-36 he relates how he had been led in vision through different parts of the earth; and had been shewn by an angel, Uriel or Raphael, the fiery abyss prepared for the rebellious angels, Sheol, with four divisions set apart for different classes of the departed (22), Jerusalem (25-26), Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) close by (27), and Paradise, with the tree of life, in the far East (32). The ultimate lot of the righteous, as depicted here, is not, however, eternal life in heaven, but long, untroubled life in an ideal Paradise on earth. In chs. 83-90 —perhaps, as just said, the oldest part of the book, Enoch recounts to his son Methuselah two visions which he has seen. The first vision (83-84l) describes the approaching Deluge; the second (85-90) unfolds, in a symbolical form, the leaders of the chosen race being represented by domestic animals, bulls or sheep, and the Gentiles by different wild beasts and birds of prey, the entire history of the patriarchs and Israel, from Adam to the author’s own time; after that (90:18 ff.) God Himself appears to judge the world, Israel’s oppressors are destroyed, and the Messianic kingdom is established. The events indicated by the symbolism are usually sufficiently clear; but sometimes (as in Daniel) there is ambiguity: indeed, the date of this part of the book depends upon whether the ‘great horn’ which grows upon one of the “sheep’ in 90:9 is to be interpreted (with Dillm., Schūrer, and others) of John Hyrcanus (B.C.135-105), or (with Charles) of Judas Maccabaeus (B.C. 165-161). As illustrating Dan. 10:13, 20,21, 12:1, it is worth noticing that Israel, after its apostasy, is committed to the charge of 70 “shepherds’ (i.e. angels), who are held responsible for what happens to it, and are afterwards called up before God for judgement (89:54-90:17, 22-25).

                Chs. 91-93, also addressed to Methuselah, contain another historical apocalypse: the history of the patriarchs and of Israel is divided into seven weeks, in the first of which lives Enoch, in the second Noah, &c. (but without any names being actually mentioned); at the end of the seventh week, which is described as an age of apostasy, the writer lives himself: the eighth week, that of ‘righteousness,” sees the kingdom of God established in the land of Israel: in the ninth week it is spread over all the earth: in the tenth week will be the ‘eternal judgement’ upon the fallen angels; there will then follow ‘weeks without number in goodness and righteousness, and sin will no more be mentioned forever’ (93:1-10, 91:12-17). Chs. 104-105, addressed to Enoch’s sons, consist of a series of woes pronounced upon sinners, intermixed with exhortations to follow righteousness and avoid the ways of sin and death.

                In all the preceding sections of the book there is either no Messiah, or, at most (90:37), a Messiah who is merely a superior man, mentioned only in passing, very different from the glorious super-human Messiah of chs. 37-71.

                Chs. 37-71, commonly known as the ‘Similitudes,’ date, according to Dillm., Charles, and others, from shortly before B.C. 64, according to Schūrer, from the time of Herod. In these chapters the Messiah is a much more prominent and also a much more exalted figure than in the other parts of the book. The chapters consist of three ‘similitudes,” or visions. In the first (38-44) Enoch sees the abodes of the righteous, and the ‘Elect One’ (the Messiah), the Almighty surrounded by myriads of angels, and with the four “presences,” Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel, ever praying before Him, and is admitted also to the ‘secrets of the heavens’ (including the explanation of different natural phenomena, as lightnings, wind, dew, &c.). In the second vision (45-57) he beholds the Messianic judgement, the ‘Elect One,” or the “Son of Man,’ beside the “Head of Days” (the Almighty), and afterwards sitting on the ‘throne of His glory,’ for the purpose of judging the world; after the judgement, the fallen angels and wicked kings are cast into a furnace of fire; a resurrection of Israelites takes place (51:1), the righteous ‘become angels’ (51:4), and crying everlasting felicity. In the third vision (58-69), but with many interpolations, interrupting the connexion) Enoch describes more fully the ultimate felicity of the righteous (58) in the light of eternal life (58:3), and in the immediate presence of the “Son of Man’ (62:14), and the judgement of the Messiah upon angels and men (61-63, 69:26-29). The imagery of the ‘Similitudes’ is fine: and the thought is often an expansion of parts of Daniel (see the notes on 7:9,10, and p.106 f.).

                The Apocalypse of Baruch was written probably shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), at a time when the problem which seemed to the Jews so difficult of solution was, how God could have permitted such a disaster to fall upon His people. Baruch, after the Chaldaeans have carried off the mass of the people, having fasted (cf. Dan. 10:3) for seven days, is told to remain in Jerusalem in order to receive disclosures respecting the future; and, after a second fast (12:5), hears a voice telling him that the heathen also will receive their punishment in due time (13:5): he debates at some length with God respecting the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous, but is given to understand that these anomalies will be adjusted in a future life. After a third fast, and prayer (ch. 21), Baruch sees the heavens opened (Ezek. 1:1), and is assured, in answer to his further questionings, that the time of redemption is not now far distant: ‘Behold, the days come, and the books will be opened in which are written the sins of all those who have sinned, and the treasuries in which the righteousness of all those who have been righteous in creation is gathered’ (24:1): the period of coming tribulation is divided into 12 times, each marked by its own woe (26-27); at the end of the twelfth time, the Messiah will be revealed, those who have “fallen asleep in hope” will rise again, and a reign of happiness will begin upon earth (29-30). Soon afterwards Baruch has a vision of a great forest, with a vine growing opposite to it: the forest was laid low till only a single cedar remained standing; this, after being rebuked by the vine for its iniquities, was destroyed by fire, while the vine spread, and the plain around blossomed into flowers. The forest is explained to signify the four empires which oppressed Israel: the vine was the Messiah, who should destroy the last empire (the Roman) for its impieties, and establish a rule of peace (36-40). On the strength of this revelation, Baruch exhorts the elders of the people to obedience and patience (44-46). In a fourth vision Baruch sees a great cloud rising up from the sea, and pouring down upon the earth black and bright waters alternately, twelve times in succession, the last bright waters being followed by waters blacker than any which had preceded, and these being followed by lightnings, and twelve rivers ascending from the sea (53). After a prayer (54), the interpretation of the vision is disclosed to him by the angel Ramiel: the twelve black and bright waters symbolize twelve evil and good periods in the history of the world: the eleventh dark waters symbolizing the Chaldaean disaster, the twelfth bright waters the restoration of Jerusalem, the blacker waters which followed, the future consummation of troubles, the lightning and the twelve rivers, the Messiah, and the felicity which he would bring (56-74).

                A third apocalypse is the Fourth (4th) Book of Esdras (2nd Esdras of the English Apocrypha), written most probably under Domitian (A.D. 81–96). Chs. 1-2, 15-16, are Christian additions: the Apocalypse itself consists only of chs. 3-14. It contains seven visions, purporting to have been seen by Ezra whilst in captivity. In the first of these Ezra, having unfolded to God in prayer his perplexity at the sight of Israel suffering at the hand of a nation more wicked than itself, is told, in the course of a colloquy with the angel Uriel, that he is not in a position to judge of the dealings of Providence (3:1-5:13). In a second and third vision (5:20-6:34, 6:36-9:25), the same subject being continued, Ezra is taught (among other things) that the events of history must run their appointed course, and that in a future state the righteous and the wicked will each be rewarded according to their due: there will be ‘seven ways’ of punishment for the one, and ‘seven orders’ of blessedness for the other (7:79–99, R.V.). In the fifth vision Ezra sees in a dream an eagle rising up out of the sea, with 12 wings and three heads: as he watched her spreading her wings over the earth, he perceived eight smaller wings growing up out of them: the 20 wings and the three heads bare rule over the earth in succession until a lion appeared, and in a loud voice rebuked the eagle for its tyranny and cruelty, and bade it disappear (11). The interpretation follows. The eagle is the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel, i.e. according to the interpretation adopted by the author (p.95, 99 n.), the Roman empire: the wings and heads are different Roman rulers”: the lion is the “anointed one’ (the Messiah), who should arise in the end of the days out of the seed of David, and reprove and overthrow these rulers, and give rest and peace unto his people, for 400 years (12:24; see 7:28 f.), until the final judgement. The sixth vision (13), of the one ‘in the likeness of a man,’ is summarized below, p.107 f. In the seventh and last vision (14), we have the curious story of the manner in which, the law having been burnt, the 24 books of the O.T., as well as 70 other ‘apocryphal’ books, were written, in the course of 40 days, by five scribes, at Ezra’s dictation.

                The Assumption of Moses, written, as 6:2-9 shews, within a very few years of the death of Herod, B.C. 4, –contains an ‘apocalypse’ of the history of Israel from their entry into Canaan till the days of Herod (chs. 2-5). Ch. 7 describes the rule of impious and scornful men, preceding the time of the end. Chs. 8-9, as the text at present stands, foretell a ‘second visitation’ destined then to befall the nation, which reads like a repetition of the persecution of Antiochus: indeed, it is possible that Dr Charles is right in supposing that it is really a description of that persecution, and that the two chapters have become displaced from their proper position after ch. 5.  Ch. 10 is a Psalm of triumph over the approaching judgement. From the death of Moses till the final judgement there are assigned (10:12) 250 “times,” or weeks of years, i.e. (cf. 1:2) it is placed A.M. 4250.

                The so-called Sibylline Oracles, a heterogeneous compilation, in Greek hexameters, of materials of very different origin and dates, partly Jewish and partly Christian, —contain in Book III. (ll. 162-807) a long “apocalypse,” in which the seventh Ptolemy (Physcon, B.C. 145–117) is more than once referred to (ll, 191-193, 316-318, 608-610), and which is considered by the best authorities to have been written c. 140 B.C. This apocalypse contains a survey of the history of Israel from the age of Solomon: Antiochus Epiphanes is referred to in all probability in ll. 388-400 (see p. 98), and certainly in ll. 612-615; the Sibyl also foretells the advent of the Messianic king, his vengeance on his adversaries, the prosperity which will prevail under him (652-731), and the signs which are to herald the end of all things (795-807)”. (* The names are not given; and very different opinions have been held as to what rulers are meant. See Schūrer, ii. 65off. (ed. 3, 1898, iii. 236 fi.).*)  (* See further, on both these and other “Apocalypses,’ Charles’ translations of the Book of Enoch, the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Assumption of Moses; the introductions and translations in Kautzsch’s Pseudepigraphen des A T.s (1899); the art. Apocalytic Literature in the Encyclopaedia Biblica; the arts. Baruch, Enoch, &c. in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible; Schūrer, ii. 610-691, 790-807, § 32 (ed. 3, iii. 190-294, 420-450); Dillmann in Herzog”, xii. 342 ff.; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha (1891); and comp. the remarks of Wellhausen in his Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. (1899), pp. 226–234.*)

                These examples will illustrate sufficiently the general character of the Jewish ‘Apocalypses.’ While including an element of exhortation, and theological reflexion, they are in their most distinctive parts imaginative developments, varying in detail, but with many common features, partly of the thought (which is usually placed as a ‘revelation’ in the mouth of an ancient seer) that the movements of history, including the course and end of the distress out of which the apocalypse itself arose, are predetermined by God; partly of the eschatological hopes which the writer expects to see realized as soon as the period of present distress is past, but which vary in character —being for instance more or less material, and being with or without a Messiah— according to the individual writer. And these are just the features which appear in the Book of Daniel. It is of course not for a moment denied that the Book of Daniel is greatly superior to the other ‘apocalypses’ that have been referred to, not only for example is its teaching more spiritual, but it is entirely free from the fantastic and sometimes indeed absurd representations in which the non-canonical apocalyptic writers often indulge: nevertheless, just as there are Psalms both canonical and non-canonical (the so-called ‘Psalms of Solomon’), Proverbs both canonical and non-canonical (Ecclesiasticus), histories both canonical and non-canonical (1st Macc.), “midrashim’ both canonical (Jonah) and non-canonical (Tobit, Judith), so there are analogously apocalypses both canonical and noncanonical; the superiority, in each case, from a theological point of view, of the canonical work does not place it in a different literary category from the corresponding non-canonical work or works. Probably, indeed, the Book of Daniel formed the model, especially in chs. 7-12, upon which the non-canonical apocalypses were constructed: it is at all events undoubted that there are many passages in the book which furnished in germ the thought or imagery which was expanded or embellished by subsequent apocalyptic writers.

                Comp., for instance, not merely the general mode of representation by means of symbolism and visions, the latter being often explained to the seer by the intervention of an angel; but also, more particularly, in Enoch, the titles ‘Most High’ (see on Dan. 3:26), and ‘watcher,’ or wakeful one (see on 4:13), the representation of the Almighty as an aged man, seated as judge on His throne, surrounded by myriads of angels (7:9, and p.106 f.), the books in which the deeds of men are recorded (7:10), and those in which the citizens of the Messianic kingdom are registered (12:1), the resurrection and ‘eternal life’ (12:2), the ‘son of man’ (7:13, and p.106 f.), the saints compared to stars (8:10, and 12:3), the fear at the sight of the vision, and the restoration by an angelic touch (8:17,18, 10:8 f.), the revelation designed for the future, not for the present (8:26b, 12:4), the 10 ‘weeks’ into which the history of the world is divided (En. 93, 91:12-15), the names and ranks of angels (more fully developed than in Dan.), with Michael appointed guardian over Israel (Dan. 8:16, 10:13); comp. in Baruch and 2nd Esdras, also, the fast, predisposing to a vision (Dan. 10:3.; see on vv. 5-9).

                The Book of Daniel is also one of the sources of the imagery, or the expression, of the Book of Revelation: see on 3:4, 7:3,  7 (‘ten horns’:  Rev.  12:3,  13:1,  17:3,  7,  12,  16), 8,9 (‘white as snow’), 10 (thrice), 13 (Rev. 1:7, 13, 14:14), 21 (Rev. 13:7),  25 (Rev. 12:14; cf. also the 41 months of  tribulation  in 11:2, 13:5 (see v. 7), and the  1260  days  of  11:3 and  12:6 each  being  equal  to  3½  years), 27,  8:10  (Rev. 12:4),  10:6  (Rev. 1:14b, 15), 12:1, 7  (Rev. 10:5,6, 12:14). Comp. also p.97 f.

                It remains to consider briefly certain doctrines and representations, which are characteristic of the Book of Daniel.

                I. The Kingdom  of  God.   One of  the  most fundamental ideas in  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of God over the kingdoms of the world. This is the thought expressed already in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in ch. ii., where the stone ‘cut out without hands,’ falling upon the feet of the colossal image, and causing it to break up, and afterwards itself filling the entire earth, represents the triumph of the kingdom of God over the anti-theocratic powers of the world. It is the same ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world, which, with increasing distinctness of detail, and with more special reference to the climax of heathen hostility to  the truth in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, is depicted in chs. vii.­ xii.: upon a divinely appointed succession of world-empires follows at last the universal and eternal kingdom of the holy people of God, a kingdom which (ch. vii.) contrasts with all previous kingdoms, as man contrasts with beasts of prey. The book is thus dominated, ‘not only by an unshaken confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth, but also by an over-mastering sense of a universal divine purpose which overrules all the vicissitudes of human history, the rise and fall of dynasties, the conflicts of nations, and the calamities that overtake the faithful.’ (* Ottley, Bampton Lectures, 1897, p. 332.).

                 According to the Book of Daniel, when the need of the saints is the greatest, through the exterminating measures of Antiochus Epiphanes (7:11, 25, 8:24,25, 11:31-39, 12:7b), the Almighty will inter­pose: His throne of judgement will be set up, and the powers hostile to Israel will be overthrown (2:35, 44, 7:9-12, 22a, 26, 8:25 end, 11:45 end); everlasting dominion will be given to the people of the saints, and all surviving nations will serve them (7:14, 22b, 27); sin will be abolished and forgiven, and everlasting righteousness be brought in (9:24). The righteous dead of Israel will rise to an eternal life of glory; the apostate Jews will rise likewise, but only to be visited with contumely and shame (12:2,3). The inauguration of the kingdom of God will follow immediately upon the overthrow of the ‘fourth empire’ in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes.

                This representation of the future kingdom of God, though it differs in details, and displays traits marking the later age to which it belongs, is, in all essential features the same as that which is found repeatedly in the earlier prophets. The earlier prophets, as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Second Isaiah, all pictured the advent of an age, when the trials and disappointments of the present would be no more, when human infirmity and human sin would cease to mar the happiness of earth, when Israel, freed from foreign oppressors without and purified from unworthy and ungodly members within, would realize its ideal character, and live an idyllic life of righteousness and peace upon its own soil (see e.g. Hos. 14:4-8; Is. 1:26, 4:2-4, 29:18-24, 32:1-8, 33:24, &c.), and when the nations of the world would either be themselves incorporated in the kingdom of God (Is. 2:2, 19:18-25; Jer. 3:17; Is. 51:4,5, 56:7), or would be held in more or less willing subjection by the restored  and invigorated  people of  Israel  (Am. 9:12;   Is. 11:14, 14:2, 14:14, 60:10, 14, 61:5), or,-which is more particularly the representation of the later prophets, in so far as they re­mained irreconcilably hostile, would be destroyed (Zeph. 3:8 [but contrast 3:9]; Ez. 38-39; Is. 60:12,  63:3-6, 66:15, 16; Joel 3:9-17; Zech. 14:12-13). (* On the prophetic pictures of the future kingdom of God, see more fully Kirkpatrick’s Doctrine of the Prophets; the present writer’s Isaiah, his life and times, or the third of his Sermons on the Old Testament.).

                In  comparing  these  representations  with  that  contained  in the Book of  Daniel,  there  are  two  important  points  which ought to be borne in mind,  one  a  point  of  difference,  the  other  a point of resemblance. The point of difference is that the representation in Daniel is  more  distinctly  eschatological  than are those  of  the  earlier  prophets.  The  change  did  not  take place at once; it was  brought  about  gradually.  At  first  the future contemplated by the prophets consisted  of little  more  than a continuance of the existing state of society, only purged by a judgement from sin, and freed  from  trouble;  but  gradually  it was severed more and more widely from the present order  of things: whereas for long the  prophets  had  been  content  to look at the destinies of the nation as a  unity, without distinctly facing the question of the ultimate fate of individuals, in course of time the destinies of individuals began to claim consideration; the judgement which was to introduce God’s kingdom assumed more and more the character of a final judgement, which, as soon as the idea of a resurrection began to  be current, was regarded as held by God over the dead as well as  over the  living; and the expectation of a glorified earthly life of righteous Israelites, which was the prevalent ideal of the Old Testament, became gradually transformed into the belief in a spiritual or heavenly life of all righteous men in  general,  which  is  the  ideal revealed in the New Testament.  (* Comp. A.  B. Davidson, art. Eschatology  in Hastings’ Dict.  of the Bible, p. 738b.*)   Some  of  the  later  prophets, the Book of Daniel, and the  Apocalyptic  writers spring from the transition-period, in which the former of these ideals was gradually merging into the other, and in which the line of demarcation between the earthly and the heavenly ideal was not always clearly or consistently drawn, so that it is not always easy to be confident in particular passages which of the two ideals the writer means to express. The passages from the prophets in which the character of the representation is such as to suggest that it is beginning to be eschatological, are Is. 26:18-19; Joel 3:9-17; Mal. 4:2-3.  The representation  in Daniel is of the same intermediate character; it is more distinctly eschatological than the passages just quoted, but less so  than, for instance, parts of  the  Book of  Enoch.   The scene of judge­ment in 7:9-14 belongs far more to the other world than any other  representation of  God’s judgement  to  be found  in  the Old Testament;  and  in 12:2  the  doctrine of a  resurrection  is taught more distinctly and definitely than is the case in any other Old Testament writing (see below, p. 92).

                The characteristic point of resemblance between the repre­sentation of the kingdom of God contained in the Book of Daniel and that found in earlier prophets is this. It was a great and ennobling ideal which the prophets, as described briefly above, projected upon the future, and it was one which was portrayed by many of them in brilliant colours. But it was an ideal which was not destined to be realized in the manner in which they anticipated. The prophets almost uniformly fore­shortened the future: they did not stop to ask themselves how national character was to be regenerated and transformed: and consequently they did not realize the length of period which must necessarily elapse, for God does not in such cases inter­ pose by miracle,-before corrupt human nature could be so transformed as to produce a perfect or ideal society. Isaiah and Micah pictured the Messianic age as commencing immediately after the troubles were past, to which their nation was exposed at  the  hands of  the  Assyrians  (Is. 11:1-10, see 10:28-34; 29:19-26, see 5:31; 31:7, 32:1-8, see 31:8; Mic. 5:4; the prophets of the exile pictured it as beginning with the restoration  of   Israel to  Palestine. Neither of these antici­pations corresponded to the event: in each case the somber reality contrasted strongly with the glowing delineations of the prophets. The same foreshortening of the future is characteristic, of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel. A careful study of Dan. 7-12 makes it evident that the reign  of  righteous­ness, and the everlasting dominion of the saints, are represented as beginning immediately after the fall of Antiochus: as in the case of  the  other  prophets, the  ideal consummation  of history is thus conceived by the writer as being much closer  at  hand than actually proved to be the case.

                The facts just referred to meet an objection which might otherwise perhaps be felt against the interpretation of the visions adopted in the present commentary, on the ground that the age of righteousness (7:27, 9:24), or the resurrection (12:2), did not actually follow immediately after the fall of Antiochus: the ideal glories promised by Isaiah and other  earlier  prophets were not realized, as these prophets in many cases plainly shew that they expect them to be realized, in the immediate future; the Book of Daniel, regarded from this point of view, is conse­quently in exact analogy with the writings of the earlier pro­phets. The non-agreement (as it seems) of the particulars contained in 11:40-45 a with the event (see the notes) is also in exact accordance with the same analogies: the earlier prophets often foretell correctly a future event, e.g. the failure of Sen­nacherib’s expedition against Jerusalem, or the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, though the details by which they imagi­natively represent these events as accompanied do not form part of the fulfilment, but merely constitute  the drapery in which  the prophet clothes what is to him the important and  central idea (see, for example, Is. 10:28-34, 23:15-18, 30:32,33, 46:1,2.) (* Comp. the writer’s Isaiah, pp. 61, 73, 94, 106, 111-146n.*) In the same way, Antiochus did actually meet his doom shortly, as foretold in Dan. 11:45b (cf. 8:25 end, 9:27 end), though the circumstances under which the writer pictures him as advancing towards it (11:40-45a) do not correspond to what we know of the historical reality . (* The idea that prophecy is ‘history written beforehand’ is radically false: it is a survival from an age in which the prophets were  not studied in the light of history, and it is a source of many and serious misunderstandings of their meaning (comp. Kirkpatrick,  Doctrine  of the Prophets, pp. 15-17, 194-6, 401-6, 524 f.)*)       

                2. The Resurrection. The ordinary belief of the ancient Hebrews on the subject of a future life, was that the spirit after death passed into the underworld, Sheol, the ‘meeting-place,’ as Job (30:23) calls it, ‘for  all living,’ good  and  evil alike (Gen. 38:35; Is. 14:8,9, 15), where it entered upon a shadowy, half-conscious, joyless existence, not worthy of  the  name  of ‘life,’ where communion with God was at  an  end,  and  where God’s mercies could be neither  apprehended  nor acknowledged (Is. 38:18; Ps. 6:5, 30:9, 87:10-12, 115:17, &c.). But the darkness which thus shrouded man’s hereafter did not remain in the O.T. without  gleams  of  light; and there are three lines along which the way is prepared for the fuller reve­lation  brought  by  the  Gospel.  There  is,  firstly,  the   limitation of the power  of  death set forth  by the  prophets,  in  their visions of a glorified, but yet earthly,  Zion  of  the  future:  ‘For  as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people, and  the  work  of their hands shall my chosen ones wear out’ (Is. 65:22; cf. 65:20, where it is said that death at  the  age  of 100  years  will  be regarded then as premature); or even its abolition altogether, ‘He hath swallowed up death for ever’ (Is. xxv. 8). There is, secondly, the conviction  uttered  by  particular  Psalmists  that their close fellowship with God implies and demands  that  they will themselves be personally superior to death: ‘Therefore my heart is glad and my  glory  (i.e.  my spirit]  rejoiceth:  my flesh also dwelleth securely. For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol1;  thou  wilt  not  suffer  thy godly one  to  see  the  pit’  (Ps. 16:9, 10; cf. 17:15, xlix. I 5, lxxiii. 26; Job xix. 26). (* The idea that prophecy is ‘history written beforehand’ is radically false : it is a survival from an age in which the prophets were  not studied in the light of history, and it is a source of many and serious misunderstandings of their meaning (comp. Kirkpatrick,  Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 15-17, 194-6, 401-6, 524 f.)*). (* Not ‘in Sheol’ : the hope expressed by the Psalmist is not that he will rise again, but that he will not die.*)  (*1 See further the notes on these passages in the Cambridge Bible; and the Introduction to the Psalms, pp. 75-78.*) And, thirdly, we meet with the idea of a resurrection, which, however, only takes shape gradually, and is at first a  hope  and  not  a dogma, national and not individual, and in the Old  Testament, even to the end,  is  limited  to  Israel.  The  hope  is  expressed first,  though  dimly,  in  Hos.  6:2,  where  it  is  evidently national: ‘After two days he will revive us: in  the  third day he will raise us up, and we shall  live  before him’:  and the promise  in Hos. 13:14 is national likewise.  (*3 Cf. Oehler, Theol. of the O.T., § 215.*)  The passage which comes next chronologically is Ezek. xxxvii., the vision of the valley  of dry bones, where, by the express terms of v. 11  (‘Son  of  man, these bones are the whole house  of  Israel‘),  the  promise  is limited to Israel, and where also, as Prof. Davidson points out, what the prophet contemplates is a resurrection, not of indi­viduals, but of the  nation,  it is a  prophecy  of  the  resurrection of the nation, whose condition is figuratively expressed by the people when  they  represent  its  bones  as  long  scattered  and dry. (* ‘In his notes on the chapter in the Cambridge Bible.)  In the next prophecy in which the idea occurs, the (post­ exilic) apocalyptic prophecy, Is. 24-27,  there  is,  however, an advance, and the resurrection of individual  Israelites  is certainly contemplated, though rather as the object of a hope or prayer than as a fixed doctrine: the  people  confess  that  they could not  effect  any  true  deliverance  themselves:  ‘We  were with child, we  writhed  in  pain,  when  we  bare, it  was  wind, we made not the land salvation, neither were inhabitants of the world brought forth‘; they turned therefore to God: ‘May Thy dead live! may my dead bodies arise!,’ and the prophet  breaks in with the words of jubilant assurance: ‘Awake, and  sing aloud, ye that dwell in the dust; for a dew of lights [a dew charged with the light of life) is Thy dew, and the earth shall bring forth the Shades!’ The dwindled and suffering nation is thus represented as replenished and strengthened by the resur­rection of its deceased members. ‘The doctrine of the resurrec­tion here presented is reached through the conviction, gradually produced by the long process of revelation, that the final re­demption of Israel could not be accomplished within the limits of nature. It became clear that the hopes and aspirations engendered by the Spirit in believing minds pointed forward to the great miracle here described, and thus the belief in the resurrection was firmly bound up with the indestructible hopes of the future of Israel.  The idea is represented in a form which is immature in the light of the New Testament,’ but it marks almost the highest development of O.T. revelation on the subject. (* Skinner, in the Cambridge Bible, ad loc.*) That the hope is  limited  to Israel, appears both from the words of the passage itself, and also from v. I 4, where it is denied of Israel’s foes (‘ The dead live not (again), the Shades arise not ‘).

               The last  passage  in  the  O.T. in which  the  idea  is  expressed is Dan. 12:2, ‘And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dusty ground shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting  abhorrence.’  Here a  resurrection  of the wicked is taught for the first time,  as  also  a  doctrine  of future rewards and punishments: both doctrines  are,  however, still applied only to Israelites,  and  (as  the  word  ‘many’ shews) not even to all of these; the writer, it seems, having in view not individuals as such, but those individuals who had in an extra­ ordinary degree helped or hindered the advent  of  God’s king­dom, i.e. the Jewish  martyrs  and  apostates  respectively,  the great majority of the nation, who were of average character, neither overmuch righteous nor overmuch wicked, remaining still in Sheol (*Cf. the note ad loc., and Charles, Eschatology, p. 180. The idea that the resurrection was to be limited to Israel appears also among the later Jews; indeed, it became ultimately the accepted doctrine that it was to be limited to righteous Israelites, the wicked being either annihilated, or confined in prison-houses of perpetual torment: cf. e.g. 2nd Macc. 7:9, 1, 36; Psalms of Sol. 3:13, 16, 13:9, 10, 14:6, 7, 30:13-15; Apoc. of Baruch 30; Joseph.  Ant. XVIII.  i. 3  (the creed of the Pharisees); and see Charles on Enoch 51:1, Weber, Altsynag.Theo!. p.372 ff.*) The  nature of the  future reward and retribution is also left indefinite, the expressions used being quite general. (* See further, on the subject of the two preceding paragraphs, Salmond’s Christian Doctrine of Immortality, ed. 3 (1897), pp. 233-267.*)

                It does not fall within the scope of a Commentary on Daniel  to trace the development of the  doctrine  in subsequent times; it must suffice to point out generally how, in the century or so following the age of the Maccabees, the religious imagination of pious Jews, meditating upon the intimations of a future  life contained in the Old Testament, and combining them with different prophetic representations of the future triumph of the kingdom of God, arrived at fairly definite, though not always perfectly consistent, conceptions of a resurrection, a final judgement,  a  place  of  punishment  (Gehenna), Paradise, and a future life (which  is  more  or  less  spiritually  conceived, ac­cording to the point of view adopted by the particular writer); and   how, further, by  this  means  currency  was  given  to  certain figures and expressions, in which even our Lord and His Apostles could clothe appropriately the truths enunciated by them. (* The writer has sketched the growth of belief in a future state, with special reference to the Book of Enoch and the Targums,  in  the fourth of his Sermons  on  subjects  connected  with  the  Old  Testament (pp. 72-98); for more detailed particulars see Charles’ Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian (1899), chaps. 5-8.*)

                4. Antiochus Epiphanes and Antichrist. The Jews had suffered often at the hands of foreign rulers; but Antiochus Epiphanes was the first foreign king who persecuted them expressly on account of their religion,  and  not  only  forbade them, under pain of death,  to  practise  any  of  its  observances, but when they resisted him, avowed openly his determination to extirpate their nation (1st Macc. 3:35,36). By all loyal Jews  he was regarded in consequence with far  greater aversion  than  any of their previous conquerors or oppressors; and his hostility to their religion, combined with his ostentatious admiration of Hellenic deities, and the assumption by  himself  of  Divine honours (see p.191), caused him to be viewed by them as the impersonation of presumptuous and  defiant  impiety.  These are the traits which appear prominently in  the  descriptions  of  7:8b, 20b, 21, 25, 8:10-12, 25, 11:36-38. Many of the older interpreters supposed the description in ch. 7, and also that in vv. 36-45 of ch. 11, to rfer  not  to  Antiochus Epiphanes, but to the future ‘Antichrist.’ The figure of ‘Antichrist,’ the future ideal arch-enemy of the Messiah and of Israel, is ultimately of Jewish origin; but it was appropriated at an early date by the Christian Church, and received a Christian colouring. (*Cf. 2  Esdr. 5:6;   Apoc. of  Baruch  40:1,2.    If chaps. 8-9 of  the Assumption of Moses are not displaced (p.83), the writer  expected the time of the end to be preceded by a period of persecution almost exactly resembling that of Antiochus.*) St John, though he spiritualizes the idea, applying it to tendencies already at work, attests its currency even in the Apostolic age (1st John 2:18, 23, 4:3; 2nd John 7); and St Paul (2nd Thess. 2:3-10) develops it with fuller details. This interpretation of the passages of Daniel is indeed, upon exegetical grounds, untenable: never­ the less, it is true that Antiochus, as described in Daniel, is to a certain degree a prototype of the future Antichrist,  and  that traits in St Paul’s description have their origin in the Book of Daniel. (*Cf. pp. 65, 99 f., 193.*) In 2nd Thess. it is said that the coming of Christ is to be preceded by a great falling away (‘apostasy’ –(‘ apostasia)), in which the ‘man of sin‘ (or, according to what is probably the better reading, ‘the man of lawlessness’) will be revealed, who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called ‘God’ or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of  God, setting himself forth as ‘God’ (cf. Dan. 11:36, 37): there is something (vv. 6,7) which for the time prevents his appearance, though, when he does appear, he will be slain by the Lord Jesus, with the ‘breath of his mouth’ (cf. Is. 11:4). (*Where, according to an old, though of course incorrect, Jewish exegesis, the ‘wicked’ is the future arch-enemy of the Jews.*) The beast having seven heads and ten  horns, who in  Rev. 13:1-8  rises out  of the sea, and has given him ‘a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies,’ who receives authority ‘to do (his pleasure) [poiēsai] during  forty and  two  months’  (= 3½  years), and   ‘to make war with the saints and overcome them,’ and whom all inhabi­tants of the earth (except those whose names are written in the ‘book of life’) ‘will worship’ (cf. vv. 12-r 5, xix. 20), is in all probability  ‘Nero redivivus’;  but traits of the  representation, as will be evident from the words quoted, are suggested by the descriptions in Dan. 7:8, 20,21, 25, 8:24 [LXX. Theod. (poiēsei), xi. 28 and 30 [poiēsei], 36, of Antiochus Epiphanes”. (* See further the article ‘Man of Sin‘ in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, and (with fuller details) ‘Antichrist‘ in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.*) Many of the Fathers, also, drew afterwards pictures of Antichrist, formed by a combination of the representations in Dan. vii. and xi. 36–45 (according to the interpretation mentioned above) with those contained in the New Testament”; but it lies beyond the scope of the present introduction to pursue the history of the subject further. (* See e.g. Iren. v. 25; Hippolytus (c. 220 A.D.), ed. Lagarde, pp. 101-114, &c.*)   

                Daniel 7: Additional Note on the Four Empires of Daniel II, VII.

                It is generally agreed that the four empires represented by the composite image in ch. 2 are the same as those represented by the four beasts in ch. 7; there is also no doubt that the first empire in ch. 7 is the same as the first empire in ch. 2, which is expressly stated in 2:38 to be that of Nebuchadnezzar, and that the kingdom which is to succeed the fourth is in both chapters the kingdom of God: but the identification of the second, third, and fourth empires in the two chapters has been the subject of much controversy. It is also further a question, to which different answers have been given, whether the same three kingdoms in these two chapters are or are not identical with those denoted by the two horns of the ram, and by the he-goat in 8:3-5, i.e. (as is expressly explained in 8:20,21), with the kingdoms of Media, Persia, and Greece. The following tabular synopsis (based upon that of Zūndel) of the two principal interpretations that have been adopted, will probably assist the reader in judging between them.

                                                A.

                Chapter 2. = Chapter 7. = Chapter 8.

C.2: Golden Head = C.7: Lion & Eagle’s Wing’s =  C.8:-?-    = Babylonian Empire

C.2: Silver Breast & Arms = C.7: Bear & Mouth & 3 Ribs = C.8: Ram & 2 Horns (Short & Long) = Medo-Persian Empire.

C.2: Bronze Belly & Arms = C.7: Leopard & 4 Wings = C.8: Goat & 1 Horn & 4 Horns & 1 Horn & 4 Horns  = Grecian Empire (Alexander & Successors).

C.2: Iron Legs & Feet & Toes Mixed Iron-Clay = C.7: Beast & Iron Teeth & 10 Horns & 1 Little Horn. = C.8: -?-  = Roman Empire.

                                                B.

                Chapter 2. = Chapter 7. = Chapter 8.

C.2: Golden Head = C.7: Lion & Eagle’s Wing’s =  C.8: -?-    = Babylonian Empire

C.2: Silver Breast & Arms = C.7: Bear & Mouth & 3 Ribs = C.8: 1st Ram’s Horn: Shorter  = Median Empire.

C.2: Bronze Belly & Thighs = C.7: Leopard & 4 Wings = C.8: 2nd Ram’s Horn: Longer  = Persian Empire.

C.2: Iron Legs & Feet & Toes Mixed Iron-Clay = C.7: Beast & Iron Teeth & 10 Horns & 1 Little Horn.= Goat & 1 Horn & 4 Horns & 1 Little Horn  = Grecian Empire (Alexander & Successors).

                The difference between the two interpretations comes out most markedly in the explanation given of the fourth empire: A, for convenience, may, therefore, be termed the Roman theory, and B the Grecian theory.

                A. This interpretation is first found1 in the apocryphal book of 2nd Esdras (written probably under Domitian, A.D. 81-96), 12:11 f., where the eagle, which Ezra is supposed to see in his vision and which unquestionably represents the imperial power of Rome, is expressly identified with the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel: though (it is added) the meaning of that kingdom was not expounded to Daniel as it is expounded to Ezra now. (* It is implied also (apparently) in Joseph. Ant. x. xi.7.*) The same view of the fourth kingdom is implied in Ep. Barnab. 4:4-5 (c. 100-120 A.D.), where the writer, in proof that the time of trial, preceding the advent of the Son of  God, is at hand, quotes the words from Dan. 7:7,8, 24, respecting the little horn abasing three of the ten horns. (* The writer seems to have understood by the ‘horn’ the Roman emperors: but there is great difficulty in determining precisely which  are  meant;  see  in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition (1878), p. 69 f.*)  Hippolytus (c. 220 A.D.) expounds Dan. 2 and 7 at length in the same sense (ed. Lagarde, 1858, pp. 151 ff., 171 ff., 177 ff.). The same interpretation was also general among the Fathers; and it is met with likewise among Jewish authorities. Among modern writers, it has been advocated by Auberlen, Hengsten­berg, Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfūllung, I841, p.276 ff.), Keil, Dr Pusey, and others.

                Upon this view, the fourth empire being the Roman, the ten toes, partly of iron and partly of clay, of the image in ch. 2, and the ten horns of the fourth beast in ch. 7, represent ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is supposed to have broken up, each retaining to a certain extent the strength of the Roman, but with its stability greatly impaired by internal weakness and disunion: the ‘mouth speaking great things,’ which is to arise after the ten kingdoms and to destroy three of them, being Antichrist, who is identified by some with the Papacy, and by others is supposed to be a figure still future. (⦁Cf.  Hippolytus,  p.172,  ‘The legs  of  iron  are  the   Romans,  being  as  strong as iron; then come the toes, partly of iron, partly of clay, in order to represent the democracies which are to arise afterwards (similarly, p. 152); p.153,  ‘the  little horn growing up among the others is Antichrist.’*)

                Thus Dr Rule writes: (Historical Exposition of Daniel the Prophet, 1869, p.195 ff.) ((‘This little horn is too like the Papacy to be mistaken for anything else; and taking, this for granted, as I believe we may venture to do, ten kingdoms must be found that came into existence previously to the establishment of the Pope’s temporal power in Italy.’ Accordingly the ten kingdoms enumerated by him are:

                1. Kingdom of the Vandals in Africa, established A.D. 439.

                2. Venice, which became an independent state in A.D. 452, and long maintained an extremely important position in the affairs of Christendom.

                3. England, which, properly so called, was founded in A.D. 455, and in spite of the Norman Conquest still retains her independence.

                4. Spain, first Gothic, A.D. 476, then Saracenic, and still Spain.

                5. France. Gaul, conquered by the Romans, lost to Rome under the Visigoths, and transferred to the Franks under Clovis, A.D. 483.

                6. Lombardy, conquered by the Lombards, A.D. 568.

                7. The exarchate of Ravenna, which became independent of Constantinople in 584, and flourished for long as an independent state.

                8. Naples, subdued by the Normans about 1060.

                9. Sicily, taken by the Normans under Count Roger about 1080.

                10. Rome, which assumed independence under a Senate of its own in 1143, and maintained itself so till 1198. “The tumultuary revolution headed in Rome by Arnold of Brescia, tore away the ancient city from its imperial relations and brought the prophetic period of the ten kingdoms to its close.”

                The little horn diverse from the ten, having eyes and a mouth speaking very great things,’ is Pope Innocent III. (A.D. 1198–1216), who immediately after his consecration restored, as it was called, the patrimony of the Church, by assuming absolute sovereignty over the city and territory of Rome, and exacting of the Prefect of the city, in lieu of the oath of allegiance which he had hitherto sworn to the Emperor of Germany, an oath of fealty to himself, by which he bound himself to exercise in future the civil and military powers entrusted to him, solely in the interests of the Pope. ‘Here is the haughty speech, and here are the watchful eyes to survey the newly usurped dominion, and to spy out far beyond.” Of the three ‘horns’ which fell before Innocent III and his successors, the first was thus the Roman Senate and people, with the so-called patrimony of St Peter, in the year 1198; the other two were the two kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, which having in 1060 and 1080 fallen under the rule of the Dukes of Normandy, were afterwards offered by Urban IV to the Duke of Anjou, to be held by him in subjection to the Church, with the result that ultimately, in 1266, ‘the two Sicily’s,’ as they were afterwards called, fell under the subordinate rule of a branch of the house of Bourbon, and so remained until recent times. The war on the saints is referred to the Inquisition, organized by Innocent III and carried on by his successors, and abetted “by every device of oppressive legislation, and artful diplomacy.’ “Concerning the change of times and laws, a few words will suffice. “He shall think to change times” by the substitution of an ecclesiastical calendar for the civil. He shall ordain festivals, appoint jubilees, and so enforce observance of such times and years as to set aside civil obligations, and even supersede the sanctification of the Lord’s days by the multiplication of saints’ days. With regard to laws he will enforce Canon Law in contempt of Statute Law, and sometimes in contradiction to the Law of God.”

                Auberlen, on the other hand”, points more generally to the many different ways in which the influence of Rome has perpetuated itself even in modern Europe. (*Der Prophet Daniel (1857), pp. 252-4.*) The various barbarian nations out of which have developed gradually the states of modern Europe, have, he observes, fallen largely under the spell of Roman civilization. ‘Roman culture, the Roman church, the Roman language, and Roman law have been the essential civilizing principles of the Germanic world. The Romance nations are a monument of the extent to which the influence of Rome has penetrated even into the blood of the new humanity: they are the products of the admixture “by the seed of men.”  But they do not cohere together: the Roman element is ever re-acting against the Germanic. The struggles between Romans and Germans have been the determining factor of modern history: we need mention only the contests between the Emperor and the Pope, which stirred the Middle Ages, and the Reformation, with the consequences following from it, which have continued until the present day.            The fourth empire has thus a genuine Roman tenacity and force; at the same time, since the Germans have appeared on the scene of history, and the iron has been mixed with the clay, it has been much divided and broken up, and its different constituent parts have shewn themselves to be unstable and fragile (Dan. 2:41,42). The Roman element strives ever after universal empire, the German element represents the principles of individualism and division.” Hence the ever fresh attempts, whether on the part of the Pope, or of a secular prince, as Charlemagne, Charles V., Napoleon, and even the Czar, to realize anew the ideal of Roman unity. Against these attempts, however, the independent nationalities never cease to assert, as persistently their individual rights. Politically and religiously, the Roman, the German, and the Slavonic nationalities stand opposed to one another: in the end, however, after many conflicts, they will resolve themselves into ten distinct kingdoms, out of one of which Antichrist –a kind of exaggerated, almost superhuman, Napoleon— will arise, and realise, on an unprecedented scale, until Providence strikes him down, the ‘daemonic unity’ of an empire of the world.))

                So far as the mere symbolism of the vision goes, there is no objection to this interpretation. The kingdom which is to ‘tread down and break in pieces,’ with the strength of iron, “the whole earth’ (7:23; cf. 7:7, 2:40) might well be the empire of the Romans, who by their military conquests subdued, one after another, practically all the nations of the then known world; and it has been contended, not without some show of plausibility, that the imagery of the second kingdom agrees better with the Medo-Persian than with the Persian empire: the bear, it is urged, with its slow and heavy gait would be the most suitable symbol of the Medo-Persian empire, of which ‘heaviness,’ as exemplified by the vast and unwieldy armies which its kings brought into the field”, was the leading national characteristic, while the three ribs in its mouth are more naturally explained of three provinces absorbed by the empire of the Persians”, than of any conquests made by the Medes. (* Darius Hystaspis was said to have led 700,000 men into Scythia: Xerxes’ expedition against Greece numbered 2,500,000 (2 1/2 mil.) fighting men: Darius Codomannus, at the fatal battle of Issus, commanded 600,000 men (Pusey, p.71).*) (* Media, Assyria, and Babylonia Hippolytus); Persia, Media, and Babylonia (Jerome, Ephr, Syr.);  Lydia, Babylonia, and  Egypt  (Hofmann, Keil. Pusey1  p. 70).*)    These explanations of the imagery, however, though they fall in with the interpretation in question, cannot be said to be so certain, upon independent grounds, as to require it: Alexander’s military successes were also such that he might be spoken of as subduing the whole earth; and we do not now that the suggested interpretation of the symbolism of the bear is really that which was in the mind of the writer of the chapter.

                The great, and indeed fatal, objection to this interpretation is, however, that it does not agree with the history. The Roman empire, the empire which conquered and ruled so many nations of the ancient world,­ (* ‘Empire’ is  of course used here generally  in  the  sense of ‘power’:  at  the time when many of these conquests were made,  the  Romans, as is well known, were under the rule of neither  ’emperors’ nor  ‘kings’.*) –whether it be regarded as coming to its close when in A.D. 476 Romulus Augustulus, at the bidding of Odoacer, resigned his power to the Emperor of the East, or whether that act be regarded merely as a transference of power from the West to the East, and its real close be placed, with Gibbon, at the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, or whether, lastly, it be held, with Bryce, to have prolonged a legal existence till in 1806 the Emperor Francis II resigned the imperial crown, –has passed from the stage of history; nor, whichever date be assigned for its close, and, in the natural sense of the word, the ‘Roman empire’ ceased to exist at the first of these dates, can any “ten’ kingdoms be pointed to, as in any sense arising out of it? The non-natural character of the ‘praeterist’ explanation of Dr Rule must be patent to the reader. “Futurist’ expositors suppose that the kingdoms represented by the ten horns are yet to appear”. (* Auberlen, as cited above; Keil, p. 224; Dr Pusey, p.78 f.*) But these kingdoms are to ‘arise out of the fourth empire (Dan. 2:24); clearly therefore the fourth empire must still exist when they appear; but the Roman empire is beyond controversy an empire of the past. Auberlen’s explanation, ingenious as it is, cannot be deemed satisfactory”. (* It is remarkable, if Daniel’s vision really extends so far as to embrace the history of Europe, that the first coming of Christ, and the influences wrought by Christianity, should be ignored  in it.  The explanation  that Daniel,  “being a statesman and an Israelite, saw nothing of the Church” (Auberlen, p. 252) is surely artificial and improbable.*)

                The interpretation under discussion is in fact one which, in view of the circumstances of the age, might readily have suggested itself to Christian expositors of Daniel, while the Roman empire was still the dominant power in the world; but it is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable. The early Christians believed that they were living in an age in which the end of the world was imminent; and it was in this belief, as Mr. (now Bishop) Westcott has pointed out, that the interpretation in question originated. “It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object of immediate expectation, and the Roman empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no place in the anticipation of the first Christendom; and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory which took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false. (* Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, s.v. ‘Daniel‘.*)

                B. This interpretation appears first in Ephrem Syrus (c. 300-350 A.D.); ((* Or at least, for the first time distinctly; for a passage in the so-called ‘Sibylline Oracles’ (see the Introduction, p.83) makes it probable that the ‘ten horns’ were understood of the Seleucidae as early as c. 140 B.C. After describing (iii. 381-7) how Macedonia will bring great woe upon Asia, and overcome Babylon (alluding manifestly to Alexander the Great), the Sibyl continues (388 ff.): ((* [I substitute Driver’s Greek citation with Milton S. Terry’s English Translation (1899), & quote from 380-395, doubled & single lines, every 5th line marked with an *.]:

*Woe, woe, to thee, O Libya, and woe, woe: O sea & land! Ye daughters of the West:
How shall ye come upon a bitter day!  & ye shall come pursued by cruel strife:
Dreadful and harsh; dire judgment will set in: *And by force ye will all to ruin come:
Because ye marred the Immortal’s mighty house: & with iron teeth ye chewed it terribly.
So shalt thou see thy land full of the dead.   By war, & every spirit of violence,
*Famine, and pestilence, & barbarous foes:  Thy land all desert & the city waste.
And there shall shine at evening-time a star:  Which they will call a comet, baleful sign
To mortals of dire famine, sword, and death:  *And ruin of great leaders & chief men.

                The ‘man clad with purple, fierce, unjust fiery, lightning-born‘; who is to enslave Asia is, it seems, Antiochus Epiphanes (whose invasion of Egypt is certainly referred to in II 611–615). The race which he wishes to destroy, but by which his own race will be destroyed, is that of his brother Seleucus IV (B.C. 187-175), whose son, Demetrius I, caused the ‘one root’ which Antiochus left, viz. his son and successor, Antiochus V. Eupator (164-162), to be put to death (1st Macc. 7:1-4): this the writer expresses by saying, ‘the destroyer (Ares, the god of war) will cut him off out of ten horns’, i.e. as the last of ten kings. The (illegitimate) ‘plant” planted beside him is Alexander Balas, who defeated and slew Demetrius I, the “warrior father of a royal race’ in 150 (1st Macc. 10:49 f.), and usurped the throne of Syria from 150 to 146. In 146, however, Alexandar Balas (l. 399) was attacked and defeated by Demetrius II, son of Demetrius I, and his father in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, and soon afterwards murdered (1st Macc. 11:8–19; Jos. A rut. xiii. iv. 8). The ‘horn’ growing alongside, that was then, to rule, is the parvenu Trypho, guardian of the youthful Antiochus VI, who having procured the death of his ward, held the throne of Syria from 142 to 137 (1st Macc. 12:39, 13:31 f., 15:37). If this highly probable interpretation is correct (and it is accepted by Schūrer), the “ten horns,’ though not entirely, are nevertheless largely (see p.101 f.) the same Seleucid princes as in Dan.; and it is reasonable to regard the passage as indicating the sense in which the ‘horns’ of Dan. were at the time when it was written (see further Schūrer, ii. p.798 f.). 2nd Esdr. 12:11 (cited p.95), where the interpretation of Dan. vii. 7:7,8 given in vv. 23-26 seems to be corrected, may also perhaps justify the inference that this interpretation had previously been the prevalent one: it would be but natural that, when the empire of the Greeks had passed away, without the prophecy being fulfilled it should be re-interpreted of the Romans (cf. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, p. 173). *))  (* See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740).*)  it was adopted afterwards by several later and mediaeval scholars; more recently it has been advocated in England by Mr (now Bishop) Westcott, and Prof. Bevan; and on the Continent by Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch”, Kuenen, Meinhold, and others”. (* In his art. ‘Daniel‘, in the 2nd edition of Herzog’s Real-Encyklopādie (1878): It is also adopted by Buhl in the corresponding article in the 3rd edition (1898) of the same work.*)      (* It is adopted also in the art. ‘Daniel’, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, by Prof. E. L. Curtis, of Yale, and in that in Black’s Encyclopaedia Biblica (col. 1007), by Prof. Kamphausen, of Bonn.*)    The strongest arguments in its favour are derived (1) from the positive objections stated above, to the “Roman’ interpretation, for an intermediate view, which has been suggested, viz. that the four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Syrian, has little to recommend it: and (2) from the description of the ‘little horn’ in Dan. 7, viewed in connexion with what is said in other parts of the book. In ch. 8 there is a ‘little horn,’ which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (8:10-12, 25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the ‘little horn’ in ch. 7 (7:8 end, 20,21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world’s history, should be intended. It is true, there are details in which the two descriptions differ, ch. 8 dwells for instance a good deal more fully on the particulars of Antiochus’ assaults upon the faith: but entire identity would be tautology; the differences affect no material feature in the representation; and there is consequently no better reason for supposing that they point here to two different personalities than for supposing that similar differences in the representations of ch. 2 and ch. 7 point there to two different series of  empires. Again, the period during which the persecution in ch. 7 is to continue is “a time, times, and half-a-time’ (i.e. 3 1/2 years) –exactly the period during which (12:7: cf. v. 11; and on 9:27) the persecution of Antiochus is to continue: is it likely that entirely different events should be measured by precisely the same interval of time? And thirdly, if the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes is in 12:1-3 (see the notes) followed immediately by the Messianic age, is it probable that in chs. 2 and 7 this should be represented as beginning at an indefinite date in the distant future? The age of Antiochus Epiphanes is in fact the limiting horizon of the book. Not only does the revelation of chs. 10-12, culminate in the description of that age, which is followed, without any interval, by the period of final bliss, but the age of Antiochus himself is in 8:19 (as the sequel shews) described as the ‘time of the end’: can there then, asks Delitzsch, have been for Daniel a ‘time of the end” after that which he himself expressly describes as the ‘end’? “There might have been if the visions which ex hyp. represent the Roman age as following that of Alexander and his successors, were later in date than those which do not look beyond the period of the Seleucidae. In point of fact, however, the dream of ch. 2, and the vision of ch. 7, are both of earlier date than the visions of ch. 8 and ch. 9.” (* The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to, p. 474.)     

                For these reasons it is impossible to think either that the ‘little horn’ of ch. 7 represents any other ruler but Antiochus Epiphanes, or that the fourth empire of ch. 2 and ch. 7 is any other than the Greek empire of Alexander’s successors. That the symbolism of the two visions leaves “nothing to be desired’ upon this interpretation, has been shewn by Delitzsch. “By the material of the feet being heterogeneous is signified the division of the kingdom, in consequence of which these offshoots (‘Auslāufer‘) of it arose (cf. 11:5); by its consisting of iron and clay is signified the superior strength of the one kingdom as compared with the other (11:5); by the iron and clay being mingled, without being organically united, is signified the union of the two kingdoms by matrimonial alliances (11:6, 17), without any real unity between them being attained. And how naturally are the silver breast and arms referred to the Median empire, and the brazen belly and loins to the Persian ‘After thee,” says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (2:39), “will arise another kingdom, inferior to thine.’ Was then the Persian empire inferior to the Chaldaean? It may be answered that it was so in its Median beginnings. But what justification is there for referring the word ‘inferior’ to the beginnings of the second empire, rather than to the period when it displayed most fully its distinctive character? The reference is to the Median Empire which because it was in general of less importance than the others, is passed by in the interpretation (2:39) in few words. Of the third empire, on the contrary, it is said (ibid.) that it will “bear rule over all the earth.” That is the Persian empire. Only this is again a universal empire, in the fullest sense of the term, as the Chaldaean was.    The intermediate Median empire, weaker than both, merely forms the transition from the one to the other. (* Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on 2:39, that, according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.*)

                What, however, upon this interpretation of the fourth empire, is denoted by the “ten horns”? The most probable view is that they represent the successors of Alexander upon the throne of Antioch, the line out of which Antiochus Epiphanes, the ‘little horn,’ ultimately arose. ‘That all ten appear simultaneously is a consequence of the vision [comp. in ch. 2 how the four successive empires appear as parts of the same image], and does not authorize the conclusion that all were contemporary, though of course the three uprooted by Antiochus must have been contemporary with him (Delitzsch). The first seven of  these successors are: (1) Seleucus (I) Nicator (B.C. 312-280); (2) Antiochus (I) Soter (279-261); (3) Antiochus (II) Theos (260-246); (4) Seleucus (II) Callinicus (245-226); (5) Seleucus (III) Ceraunus (225-223); (6) Antiochus (III) the Great (222-187); (7) Seleucus (IV) Philopator (186-176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some, (* Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476.*) they are (8) Heliodorus, the chief minister of Seleucus Philopator, who, having poisoned his master, aimed at the throne for himself, and would, no doubt, have secured it, had not Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Rome in time, with the help of Attalus and Eumenes of Pergamum, to prevent it (see further on 11:20); (* Cf. Appian, Syr. 45: (ton de Hēliodōron…eis tēn archēn biazomenon ekballousin); and (of Antiochus) (tēs archēs harpazomenēs hupo allotriōn basileus oikeios ōphthē).*) (9) Demetrius, son of Seleucus Philopator and nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after his father’s murder was the legitimate heir to the throne, but who was detained as hostage at Rome in lieu of Antiochus Epiphanes, and only actually succeeded to the throne after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death; (10) Ptolemy (VII.) Philometor, king of Egypt, also nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes (being son of his sister Cleopatra), whom, according to Jerome, a party in Syria desired to place on the throne, but whom Antiochus ‘by simulating clemency’ displaced: (* The statement, sometimes made, that Cleopatra herself claimed the throne of Syria for her son, is only matter of inference (cf. Pusey, p.150). It is, however, true that the claim was afterwards (148-147 B.C.) raised, and even acted on by the Roman senate (Polyb. xxxiii. 16), on behalf of Philometor’s son-in-law, Alexander Balas; and that Philometor, having marched into Syria to assist Alexander in enforcing his claim, was actually for a short time king of Syria (1st Macc. 11:13; Polyb. xl. 12; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4: see Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p.366, and the configured on p.376).*) Philometor afterwards laid claim to the Syrian provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but being attacked by Antiochus, he fell into his uncle’s hands, and had it not been for the interference of the Romans, would, in all probability, have permanently lost the crown of Egypt (see more fully on xi. 21). These three men, as Ewald points out, were all politically prominent at the time; they all stood in Antiochus’s way, and had in one way or another to be put aside before he could secure his crown: they might thus, in the imagery of the vision, be well described as ‘plucked up (7:8), “falling down” (7:20), or ‘abased’ (7:24), before him. Others, arguing that the fourth beast represents the Greek supremacy as a whole, consider that Alexander, the first king, should not be excluded from the enumeration: they accordingly begin the list with him, obtaining then (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) Demetrius: upon this view it is supposed that the murder of Seleucus Philopator, though in fact the work of Heliodorus, was attributed popularly at the time to the suggestion, or instigation, of Antiochus (who, indeed, almost immediately succeeded his brother, and consequently was the one who, to all appearance, benefited most materially by his removal). The exclusion of Ptolemy Philometor from this enumeration, is thought to be a point in its favour; for before the accession of Antiochus, he was not, it is pointed out, king of Syria, and it is doubtful (p.101, note) whether even any claim to the throne was then made on his behalf. Others, again, doubt whether Demetrius is rightly included among the ten kings (for though he was the lawful heir aſter his father’s death, he was not actually king at the time here referred to), and prefer, therefore, (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) an unnamed brother of Demetrius, who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus”. One or other of these alternatives may be reasonably adopted, as sufficiently satisfying the requirements of the case; our knowledge of the times does not, unfortunately, enable us to decide with confidence which deserves the preference.

                (Bleek supposed that the ten horns represented the parts of Alexander’s empire which, after his death, became independent kingdoms, the number ten being chosen in view of the generals who, in the partition of B.C. 323, obtained the chief provinces, viz. 1) Craterus (Macedonia), 2) Antipater (Greece), 3) Lysimachus (Thrace), 4) Leo. matus (Little Phrygia on the Hellespont), 5) Antigonus (Great Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia), 6) Kassander (Caria), 7) Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), 8) Lao medon (Syria and Palestine), 9) Pithon (Media), 10) Ptolemy Lagi (Egypt). However, according to Justin (13:4) the entire number of provinces was not 10, but 28, and the principle upon which 10 are selected out of them appears to be arbitrary; moreover, these provinces were not independent kingdoms, but satrapies of an empire still regarded as one and undivided (see Pusey, p. 153 ff).)

                Additional Note on  Prophecy of  Seventy (70, LXX) Weeks. Daniel 9.

                Probably no passage of the Old Testament has been the subject of so much discussion, or has given rise to so many and such varied interpretations, as this. Already Jerome wrote”, (* Comm. on Dam., ad loc. (ed. Vallarsi, v. 681; ed. Migne, v. 542). They may be seen summarized in Zōckler, p.187. None of the interpretations which he mentions has found a sponsor in modern times.*) “Scio de hac quaestione aberuditissimis viris varie disputatum et unumquemdue pro captu ingeniisui dixisse quod senserat’ [I know that this cherished [crude, rude] poison changes disputes, and  solely by his capacity who ingeniously asserts what is perceived (Whitaker ?)]; after which he proceeds to give, in some cases quoting the explanations in full, nine different interpretations: though, deeming it “dangerous’ to decide between the opinions of magistri Ecclesiae and to prefer one above another, he leaves it to his reader to determine which he will adopt. Since the time of Jerome the number of divergent interpretations has greatly increased. They differ primarily in the terminus ad quem which it is desired, or which it is thought possible, to reach; this necessitates differences in the terminus a quo adopted, and also in the manner of calculating the ‘weeks,’ which have been treated sometimes as consisting of solar years, sometimes of lunar years, sometimes as jubilee-periods of 7×7 years, sometimes as mystic or symbolic periods, not necessarily equal in length; the order 7+62+1, implied apparently by the text, has been inverted, and altered into 62+7+1, or 62+1+7; the 62 weeks, instead of following the 7, have been made to begin concurrently with them; intervals, not taken account of in the prophecy, have been assumed in the period covered by it; the author, it has been supposed, has followed an erroneous chronology. The reason why commentators have had recourse to these varied and often singular expedients is that, understood in the plain and obvious meaning of the words, the ‘week’ being naturally allowed to signify a week of years, the prophecy admits of no explanation, consistent with history, whatever; and hence, if it is to be explained at all, an assumption, or assumptions, of some kind or other, must be made; and the only question that can arise is, What assumption is the least violent one, or most adequately meets the requirements of the case? It will be unnecessary to review at length the bewildering mass of explanations that have been offered”; the majority are so artificial, or extravagant, that they cannot be regarded as having a serious claim on the reader’s attention. (* A synopsis will be found  in Zōckler’s Comm. (1870),  p.185 ff.;  and  in Van  Len­nep’s De Zeventig Jaarweken van Daniel, 1888, p.99 ff.*) The two principal explanations will however be noticed in some detail; and specimens of others will be placed before the reader.

                Two exegetical conditions may be premised, which it seems reason­able that any sound interpretation ought to satisfy:  (1)  the  ‘weeks‘ must have the same value throughout; (2) they must be distributed  in the order in which they appear in the prophecy, i.e. 7, 62, and 1. It is the plain intention of the prophecy to answer Daniel’s questionings and supplication (vv. 2, 18,19, 22), by assigning certain dates, marking stages in the future history of Jerusalem and ending with the consummation of the Divine purpose towards it; and if these dates were to be fixed by variable standards, or if the stages were to be taken as following one another in an inverted order, not indicated in the terms of the text, no definite information would be conveyed by the vision, and the intention of the prophecy would be frustrated.

                (i) The traditional explanation of the passage makes it a prediction of the Advent (v. 25) and Death (v. 26) of Christ, of the abolition of Levitical sacrifices by His sacrifice, once for all, upon the Cross (v. 27), and of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus (v. 26). There are, no doubt, expressions in the version of Theodotion and the Vulgate, and still more in the Authorized Version, which directly suggest this interpretation, for instance, “to anoint the most Holy’ (tou chrisai hagion hagiōn, ut…ungatur sanctus sanctorum), “unto the Messiah the Prince‘ (heōs christou hēgoumenou, usque ad Christum ducem), “shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself’ (occidetur Christus; et non erit eius Populus, qui eum negaturus est; Theod. here (exolothreuthēsetai chrisma, kai krima ouk estin en autō)) (* i.e. (mashach) for (mashiach): so LXX. (apostathēsetai chrisma kai ouk estai).*) ‘and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease‘ (Theod, and Vulg. here, somewhat less pointedly, (kai dunamōsei), confirmabit autem pactum multis hebdomada una; et in dimidio hebdomadis deficiet hostia et sacrificium); but these renderings are interpretations, of which one (‘but not for himself’) is impossible, while the others are, to say the least, exegetically doubtful, and certainly in no case necessary (see the notes ad locc.). Thus, to take here but one expression, the crucial term ‘Messiah’ depends upon a wholly uncertain exegesis: nowhere else in the O.T. does ‘māshīach’, used absolutely, denote the ideal, or even the actual, ruler of Israel: the expression used is always either “Jehovah’s anointed,” or ‘my, thy, his anointed’; and though the later Jews unquestionably used the term ‘meshīchā’ ‘the anointed one’ (the ‘Messias‘ of the N.T.) to denote Israel’s expected ideal king, it is just the question when this usage began, and whether it was current as early as when the book of Daniel was written: certainly, if the book was written by Daniel himself, its appearance in it would be extremely unlikely. Even, indeed, if more than this were conceded, and it were granted that the word might have this sense in Daniel, there would be no proof that it must have it, and the rendering would still remain exegetically a matter of uncertainty.

                When, moreover, the passage is examined in detail, positive objections of a serious, not to say fatal kind, reveal themselves.

                (1) If the Crucifixion (A.D. 29) is to fall (v. 27 A.V.) in the middle of the last week, the 490 years must begin c. 458 B.C., a date which coincides with the decree of Artaxerxes, and the mission of Ezra (Ezr. 7), and which is accordingly assumed as the terminus a quo by Auberlen, Pusey, and others. Unfortunately, however, this decree is silent as to any command to “restore and build Jerusalem”; nor was this one of the objects of Ezra’s mission to Judah. Others, therefore, adopting the same general view of the meaning of the prophecy, assume as the terminus a quo the permission given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, in his 20th year, to visit Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the walls (Neh. 1-3). To urge the objection that at this time Jerusalem itself was already rebuilt (cf. Hag. 1:4), and that the work of Nehemiah was only to rebuild the walls of the city, might be deemed hypercritical: it is a more substantial objection that Artaxerxes’ 20th year was B.C. 445, which brings the terminus ad quem 13 years too late, a serious discrepancy, when the prediction is a minute one, and given (ex hyp.) by a special supernatural revelation. In so far also as this interpretation is usually adopted by those who believe the book to have been written by Daniel himself, it can hardly be considered probable that the terminus a quo should be a point some 80 years or more subsequent to the date (B.C. 538) at which the prophecy itself is stated to have been given (ch. 9:1).

                (2)   The  interpretation depends: upon the unnatural interpunction of 8.25 adopted in A.V., viz.’ unto an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks ; it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, and that in strait of times’ : the division  of  the 69 weeks into 7 weeks and 61 weeks, without the mention of anything to mark the close of the 7 weeks, is improbable, while at the same time some mention of the time at which or during which the city is to be ‘built again’ is desiderated. Those who adopt this interpretation generally suppose the 49 years (which would end c. 409 B.C.) to mark the close of the rebuilding of Jerusalem which was begun by Nehemiah: but there is really no ground for the supposition that this work continued till then. Nehemiah rebuilt, not the city, but the walls, and  that, not after the destruction  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but after some  more recent catastrophe;   the  work  was  accomplished   rapidly  (Neh.  6:15), and even on the occasion of his second visit to Jerusalem in 432 (Neh. 13:6 ff.), there is no indication that any rebuilding, whether of the city or the  walls, was still going on. (* See Ryle on Neh. 1:3.  On Neh. 2:5 end, and 7:4, see also Ryle’s notes.*)    With the interpretation and rendering of = v. 25 adopted in R. V., the possibility ceases of identifying the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of v. 25 with the ‘anointed one’ of v. 26, and also of referring either-except upon such strained interpretations as those quoted below, pp. 148, 149-to Christ.

                (3) Christ did not ‘confirm a covenant with many for one week‘ (= 7 years); His ministry lasted at most somewhat over 3 years; and if, in the years following, He is regarded as carrying on His work through the agency of His apostles, the limit, ‘seven years,’ seems an arbitrary one; for the apostles con­tinued to gain converts from Judaism for many years subsequently.  The preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans (Acts 8), which may have happened 3-4 years after the Crucifixion, and which has been suggested as the limit intended in the prophecy, did not mark such an epoch in the establishment of Christianity as could be naturally regarded as closing the period during which the Messiah would ‘make a firm covenant with many.’

                (4) The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), which is supposed upon this view to be predicted in v. 26b, follows the date of the Crucifixion by 40-41 years. It not only, therefore, is out of place before v. 27, but does not even come within the limits of the 490 years at all. Were the prophecy perfectly general in its terms, it would, no doubt, be unreasonable to press an objection of this kind; but where periods of 7 and 34 years, in the distant future, are (ex hyp.) exactly discriminated, a fortiori a period of 40 years should be so discriminated. Auberlen, it is true, argues that the final destruction of Jerusalem is rightly excluded from the 70 weeks, because after Israel rejected the Messiah it was no longer an object of sacred but only of profane history; but if such an argument be a sound one, it surely ought to apply to the prophecy, not less than to the history, and the event in question ought not to be referred to in the prophecy at all. It is, however (ex hyp.), referred to in it; and is there, to all appearance, placed before the commencement of the 70th week.

                (5) If the R.V. of v. 27 be correct, and it is certainly the natural meaning of the Heb., a reference to the death of Christ is excluded altogether; for the verse does not then describe the final abolition of material sacrifices, but their temporary suspension for ‘

                (ii) The principal alternative interpretation is the one adopted in this Commentary in the notes on ix. 24–27. According to this view the terminus a quo is B.C. 587—6, the probable date of the promises that Jerusalem should be rebuilt contained in Jer. xxx. 18, xxxi. 38–40; the 7 weeks of v. 25 end with B. c. 538, the date of the edict of Cyrus (the “anointed one, the prince’ of this verse); the 62 weeks, reckoned from 538, end with B.C. 171 (the date of the murder of Onias III., the ‘anointed one’ of v. 26); the last week extends from B.C. 171 to B.C. 164, the reference in vv. 26b, 27, being to Antiochus Epiphanes, and to his acts of violence and persecution against the Jews. This interpretation does entire justice to the terms of the text: but it labours under one serious difficulty. The number of years from 538 to 171 is not 434 (=62 ‘weeks‘), but 367; the number assigned in the prophecy is thus too large by 67. The difficulty is usually met, on the part of those who adopt this explanation, by the supposition that the author of Daniel followed an incorrect computation. There is no intrinsic improbability, it is urged, in such a supposition: for

                (1) the difficulty of calculating dates in the ancient world was much greater than is often supposed. Until the establishment of the Seleucid era, in B.C. 312, the Jews had no fixed era whatever; and a writer living in Jerusalem (ex hyp.) under Antiochus Epiphanes would have very imperfect materials for estimating correctly the chronology of the period here in question; the continuous chronology of the O.T. ceases with the destruction of Jerusalem B.C. 586, or at least (2nd Kings 25:27) with the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (= B.C. 562); and though mention is made in the O.T. of the 70 years of the Chaldaean supremacy, or (cf. on ch. 9:2) of the desolation of Judah, the length of the period between Cyrus and Alexander the Great could be ascertained exactly only by means of a knowledge of secular history which a Jew, living in such an age, was not likely to possess. There would thus be nothing unreasonable in the assumption of a mis-computation for the interval between 538 and 171.    Cornill makes the clever suggestion that, in the absence of any fixed era for the period before B.C. 312, the 490 years were arrived at by a calculation based on the generations of high-priests. From the destruction of Jerusalem to Onias III there were just 12 generations in the high-priestly family: 1. Jehozadak (1st Ch. 6:15); 2. Jeshua (Ezr. 3:2); 3. Joiakim; 4. Eliashib; 5. Joiada; 6. Jonathan; 7. Jaddua (Neh. 12:10,11); 8. Onias I (Jos. Ant. xi. viii.7); 9. Simon I the “Just’ (ib. XII. ii. 4); 10. Oniasi II (ib. xii. iv. 1); (* Son of Simon I, though not his immediate successor in the high-priestly office: being an infant at the time of his father’s death, he was preceded in the office first by his own uncle Eleazar, and then by Eleazar’s uncle, Manasseh (Ant. xii., ii. 4, iv. 10).)   11. Simon II; and 12. his son Onias III (ib. xII.iv. 10): and a generation being reckoned at 40 years, 12 generations (=48o years) might readily suggest 69 weeks (= 483 years) for the period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the date of the death of Onias, and 70 weeks (= 490 years) for the entire interval contemplated by the author.

                (2) It is remarkable that, as has been pointed out by Schūrer”, precisely similar chronological mistakes are made by other Jewish writers. (* Gesch. des Jūd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ii. 616 (Engl. tr. II. iii. p.54).*) Thus Josephus (B.F. VI. iv. 8) says that there were 639 years between the second year of Cyrus (B.C. 537 or 536) and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70): the real interval was thus reckoned by him as longer by some 30 years than it should be. Further, the same writer reckons (Ant. XX. x.) 434 years from the Return from the Captivity (B.C. 538) to the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.C. 164–162), i.e. 374 years, and (Ant. XIII. xi. 1) 481 years from the same date to the time of Aristobulus (B.C. 105–4) i.e. 433 years, –the former calculation being 60 years, and the latter nearly 50 years, in excess of the true amount. The Hellenistic Jew, Demetrius (Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21, § 141), reckons 573 years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (B.C. 722) to the time of Ptolemy IV (B.C. 222), i.e. 500 years; he thus overestimates the true period by 73 years. (* As Behrmann, however, has pointed out, this mistake is not quite certain; for in the figures of Demetrius, as quoted by Clement, there is some confusion: he reckons, viz., from the Captivity of Israel to that of Judah 128 years, 8 months, and from that of Judah to Ptol. IV 338 years, 3 months,  both together thus equaling 466 years, 11 months; and yet for the whole period from the Captivity of Israel to Ptol. IV. he assigns 573 years, 9 months! –Kōnig (Expos. Times, 1899, p. 256 f.) explains a curious (early mediaeval) example of the opposite error (327 years from Uzziah to Alexander, and the Persian period contracted to 52 years).*) There seems in fact, as Schūrer has remarked, to have been a traditional error in the ancient chronology of the period here in question: it was over-estimated, —by Demetrius to approximately the same extent as by the author of Daniel. There is thus nothing astonishing in the fact ‘that an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his calculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to an ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone have enabled him to calculate with exact precision’ (Farrar, Daniel, p. 291).

                What may be termed a modification of this interpretation has been adopted by Hilgenfeld*, also by Behrmann, the most recent commentator on Daniel. According to this view, the terminus a quo is B.C. 606 or . (* Die Jūdische Apokalyptik (1857), p. 29 f.*) 605, the date of Jer. 25, the promise contained in vv. 11 f. being the ‘word” of v. 24 here; the 7 weeks (= 49 years) end with B.C. 558; the 62 weeks (434 years), reckoned, not as following the 7 weeks, but as beginning from the same point that they do, end correctly with 171, the year in which Onias was murdered; and the last week ends with 164, the year of Antiochus’s death. The 7 weeks are thus included in the 62 weeks, and the entire number of weeks, reckoned consecutively, is not 70, but 63; it is, however, urged that the stress lies not upon the length of the period concerned in itself, but upon the events embraced in it, in so far as these depend upon a Divine decree; and so the sum of the years remains 70, even though the years do not follow consecutively. No doubt, it is not expressly stated either that the 7+62 + 1 weeks of vv. 25-27 make up the 70 weeks of v. 24, or that the 62 weeks of v. 25 begin at the close of the 7 weeks mentioned in the same verse; nevertheless, it may be doubted whether an explanation which assumes the contrary is altogether natural. It might further be objected to this interpretation, (1) that a promise for the rebuilding of Jerusalem is not contained in Jer. 25:11 f., except, at most, implicitly; and (2) that for the first 7 “weeks’ of the 62 (B.C. 606–558) no attempt whatever was made to “rebuild’ Jerusalem.          

                Van Lennep seeks to solve the difficulty by combining the historical with the symbolical interpretation: 60 weeks of years would have corresponded more exactly with the period from B.C. 588 to 164, but it would not have had the symbolical completeness of 70 x 7 (Gen. 4:24; Matth. 18:22): the 7 x 7 years at the beginning, and the 7 years at the end, though both agree substantially with the actual periods (B.C. 588–538, and B.C. 171-164), are also primarily symbolical; 7 x 7 years is a jubilee-period (Lev. 25:8 &c.), at the end of which Israel returns to Palestine, as the slave returns to his home; and the 7 years of trial are analogous to the 7 years of famine (Gen. 41:30; 2nd Sam. 24:13; 2nd Ki. 8:1), or the seven ‘times’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, or the seven troubles of Job 5:19: the 62 intermediate weeks of years have thus no independent significance of their own, but are simply the residue which remains after the subtraction of 7 + 1 from 70.

                Specimens of other interpretations:—               
(1) Wieseler (1846): terminus a quo, 4th year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 25), B.C. 606*: 62 weeks thence end B.C. 172′; the last week is 172– 165* (vv. 26–27). (*Different authorities vary by a year or so in the dates assigned by them to the same events.*) The ‘7 weeks’ extend from 172 to the coming of Christ (the “anointed one, the prince’), and represent a jubilee-period (Is. 61:1,2), to be understood in a spiritual sense, and not limited to 50 literal years.
          (2) Delitzsch (1878): terminus a quo, Jehoiakim’s fourth year, B.C. 605 (Jer. 25): 62 weeks thence end with 171 (the deposition and murder of Onias, v. 26); one week thence carries us to the death of Antiochus in 164 (v. 27). The ‘7 weeks’ follow the 62 + 1: the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of v. 25 is the Messiah; as, however, the Advent of Christ did not take place 7 weeks (= 49 years) after B.C. 164, Delitzsch owns the “riddle’ of the 7 weeks to be insoluble.            The ‘70 weeks,’ however, are “quadratic sabbath-periods,” each consisting of 7 x 7 = 49 years; there are thus 49 x 70 = 3430 years from B.C. 605 to the Advent of Christ (the first and second advents being not distinguished). This result, it is added, is recommended by the fact that, as there were 3595 years from the Creation to Jehoiakim’s fourth year, the entire duration of the world would be not appreciably in excess of 7000 years.
       (3) Kranichfeld (1868)’: terminus a quo, c. 592 (Jer. 29) or 588 (destruction of Jerusalem). (* Das Buch Daniel erklārt, 1868.*) The 7 weeks end in 539 (the year of Daniel’s vision). The “anointed one, the prince’ is Cyrus. The 62 weeks begin in 539, and end with the death of Christ (the ‘anointed one’ of v. 26). Certainly, in point of fact the 62 weeks end with B.C. 105, vv. 26b, 27 referring to the time of Maccabees: there is thus a lacuna of 135 years (from B.C. 105 to A.D. 30), which Daniel, in accordance with the laws of ‘perspective’ prophecy, did not see.
     (4) Von Orelli (1882): terminus a quo, B.C. 588: end of 7 weeks, B. c. 536; end of 62 weeks, A. D. 29 (the death of Christ, to whom the “anointed one’ in both v. 25 and v. 26 refers); 434 years from 536 is indeed only c. B.C. 100, but the ‘weeks’ are typical weeks, and are not to be taken as mere mathematical quantities. (* O.T. Prophecy, Engl. tr. (1885), p. 434 f.) The ‘redactor’ of the Book of Daniel (who lived in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes) identified the last “week’ with his own time; and it seems to be Orelli’s opinion that he modified the terms of vv. 26,27 so as to introduce into them allusions to the events of B.C. 171–164.
     (5) Nāgelsbach (1858): terminus a quo, B.C. 536; end of 7 weeks, the dedication of the walls of Nehemiah (Neh. 12), B.C. 434–2; end of 62 weeks thence, the birth of Christ; the last week, from birth of Christ to destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. (shbu`), ‘week,” upon this theory may denote any ‘heptad,’ not one of 7 years only, but also one of any multiple of 7; in the first 7 weeks, it is of about 14 years; in the last week, of about 70 years.
      (6) Kliefoth (1868), and Keil (1869): terminus a quo, the edict of Cyrus, B.C. 537; the weeks are to be understood symbolically, not of chronologically definite periods of time. The seven weeks extend from 537 to the advent of Christ; the 62 weeks from Christ to the appearance of Antichrist; during this time Jerusalem (in a spiritual sense, i.e. the Church) is built; the last week is the period of the great apostasy, ending with the second Coming of Christ. The words, “an anointed one shall be cut off,” refer to the ruin of Christ’s kingdom upon earth in the days of Antichrist (the ‘prince that shall come’); v. 27 (the 70th week) relates throughout to the high-handed dealings of Antichrist; v. 24 to his final overthrow.
     (7) Julius Africanus, the chronographer (c. 200 A.D.), ap. Jerome, l.c.: terminus a quo, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (B.C. 445); end of 70 weeks (reckoned as 490 lunar years of 354 days = (nearly) 475 solar years), death of Christ. This view has been revived recently, in a slightly modified form, by Dr Robert Anderson, according to whom the ‘year’ of Daniel was the ancient luni-solar year of 360 days; reckoning, then, 483 years (= 69 ‘weeks’), of 360 days each, from 1st Nisan B.C. 445, the date of the edict of Artaxerxes, Dr Anderson arrives at the 10th of Nisan, in the 18th year of Tiberius Caesar, the day on which our Lord made His public entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37 ff.). (* The Coming Prince, ed. 5 (1895), p.123 ff.*) Upon this theory, however, even supposing the objections against B.C. 445 as the terminus a quo (see above) to be waived, the 70th week remains unexplained; for the 7 years following the Crucifixion are marked by no events tallying with the description given in v. 27. }}

21. Wilson.

Studies in the Book of Daniel. A Discussion of the Historical Questions (1st Series) by Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D., D.D.  WM. H. Green Professor of Semitic Languages & Old Testament Criticism. Princeton Theological Seminary. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. New York. 1917.

                Introduction: this volume is concerned especially with the objections made to the historical statements contained in the book of Daniel, and treats incidentally of chronological, geographical, and philosophical questions. In a second volume, it is my intention to discuss the objections made against the book on the ground of philological assumptions based on the nature of the Hebrew and Aramaic in which it is written. In a third volume [this was not to be, in volume 2, some selections are given after these from vol. 1, & in vol.2 Wilson covers his intent for both volumes 2 & 3], I shall discuss Daniel’s relation to the canon of the Old Testament as determining the date of the book, and in connection with this the silence of Ecclesiasticus with reference to Daniel, the alleged absence of an observable influence of Daniel upon post-captivity literature, and the whole matter of apocalyptic literature, especially in its relation to predictive prophecy.

                The method pursued is to give first of all a discussion  of some of the principles involved in the objections considered in the pages following; then, to state the objections with the assumptions on which they are based; next, to give the reasons why these assumptions are  adjudged to be false; and, lastly, to sum up in a few words the conclusions to be derived from the discussion.  As to the details of my method, it will be observed  that I have sought in the case of every objection to confront it with documentary evidence designed to show that the assumptions underlying the objection are contrary to fact. When no direct evidence is procurable either in favor of or against an objection, I  have endeavored to show by analogy, or the production of similar instances, that the events or statements recorded in Daniel are possible; and that the objections to these events, or statements, cannot be proved by mere assertion unsupported by testimony……. survey of Chapters 1-18……

                Hoping that this volume may confirm the faith of any  wavering ones in the historicity of a book which was so highly prized and so often quoted by our Lord and his apostles, and that it may show particularly to men who have a due regard for the laws of evidence, how flimsy are the grounds on which some would reject the testimony and impugn the veracity of the writer of Daniel, I send it forth upon its mission in the world. If it shall have served no other purpose, it has at least accomplished this: —it has convinced the writer that the methods pursued by many so-called higher critics are illogical, irrational, and unscientific. They are illogical because they beg the question at issue. They are irrational because they assume that historic facts are self-evident, and that they can set limits to the possible.  They are unscientific because they base their conclusions on incomplete inductions and on a practical claim of omniscience.

                Before closing my introduction, a few words ought to be said about the sources from which I have derived my evidence. Generally, it will be observed that I have appealed to the standard editions of texts in the original languages in which they are written. When there exist good translations as in the case of some of the classical historians, I have made free use of these translations, always, however, after comparison with the original texts. In the case of others, I have secured as good versions as possible, my son, Philip Howard Wilson,  A.B. (died June 27, 1913), honor man in classics of the class of 1911 at Princeton University, being responsible for many of the translations from the classical writers whose works have not yet been rendered into English.

                In the case of Assyrian and Babylonian documents, I  have made use, where possible, of the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (denoted by K.B.), translating from the  German version, revised in the light of the transliterated  Assyrio-Babylonian text. In doubtful and important connections I have consulted the original texts, so far  as they are published. This method has been pursued, also, with all other original documents; that is, I have used the best version available, but always in comparison with the original texts.

                My hearty thanks are due to the Rev. Prof. Jesse L. Cotton, D.D., of LouisviUe, to the Rev. Oswald T. Allis, Ph.D., of Princeton, and to the Rev. J.B. Willson, M.A., B.D., for the invaluable assistance which they have given me in the preparation of this volume.
R.D.W.  Princeton, N. J.,  April, 1917.

                Contents: Introduction:
I. Argument from Silence.
II. Was Daniel Historical Character? 
III. Jehoiakim’s Third Year & Argument from Silence.
IV. Nebuchadnezzar’s Expedition Against Jerusalem.
V. Use of the Word “King”.
VI. Belshazzar.
VII. Darius the Mede.
VIII. Medes & Conquest of Babylon.
IX. Darius the Mede & Kings of Persia.
—Excursus on Words for Land and People.
X. Darius the Mede not  Confusion with Darius Hystaspis.
XI. Darius the Mede not Reflection of Darius Hystaspis.
XII. Darius the Mede not a Reflection (Continued).
XIII. Other Alleged Confusions of Kings.
XIV. Susa.
XV. Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.
XVI. Were  Edicts of Kings Possible?
XVII. Chaldeans.
—Excursus on the Chaldeans.

XVIII. Daniel & Wise Men.

                Chapter I:  Argument from Silence.

                I shall begin the consideration of the historicity of  Daniel and of the book of Daniel with a discussion of  the argument from silence, not merely because of its intrinsic importance, but because of its bearing upon many of the objections made against the existence of Daniel himself and against the authenticity and genuineness of the book which bears his name. Before considering these objections, it may be well to state explicitly what is meant in this connection by an argument from silence. When the argument from silence is invoked against a statement of a record of any kind, it is implied that the statement is probably not true because there is no evidence to be gathered from other sources of information in support or confirmation of it. It is a purely negative argument.  For example, our Lord is said to have accompanied his  parents to a feast at Jerusalem in his twelfth year and  to have been present at several feasts in the same place  during the years of his ministry. Nothing is said in the  gospel records about his attendance at the feasts during the period intervening between his twelfth year and the  beginning of his Judean ministry. It would be an argument from silence to maintain that Jesus was never at a feast at Jerusalem during this long period of his life,  inasmuch as no mention of his having been there is to be found either in the gospels, or in any other credible document. But the argument is clearly inconclusive and unsatisfactory because it may be used as well to show the probability that he was there at many, or all, of the  feasts of the intervening years, — that it was his habit to attend the feasts. Certainly, the fact that his presence  at a feast in his twelfth year is mentioned in but one of  the gospels does not render that statement improbable. Nor does the fact that his attendance at certain other  feasts during the years of his ministry is stated in but one of the four” gospels render such an attendance  improbable. The commands laid upon the Israelites to  go up three times a year to the feasts, the rigid observance of these commands by other Israelites of that  period, and the well-known obedience of our Lord to the injunctions of the law, would make it probable that he observed the feasts. The fact that he is  said to have been present at several of them would  imply that he probably was present at more. But  the mere failure of more than one of the sources, or  even of all of them put together, to mention his attendance at a given feast during the whole period from his twelfth year onward, cannot be regarded as proof of  his absence from it.

                The failure, therefore, of any given authority to mention an event recorded in another, or the fact that a given event is recorded in only one authority, while  others pass it by in silence, does not prove that the event did not occur. Most events of antiquity of which  we have any knowledge are mentioned in but one contemporary source of information. For most of the history of Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, and  Xerxes, we are absolutely dependent for our information upon Herodotus, often at best a second-hand and  unreliable source. For Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes II, we have the  fragments of Ctesias, the partial accounts of Xenophon,  and allusions and short references in Thucydides and a few other writers. For the history of Assyria and  Babylonia, and for that of Syria, Phenida, and Egypt before 500 B.C., we have no historian, strictly so-called,  either native or foreign, who was contemporaneous with the events which transpired. For the history of the  Hittites and for that of Elam, Lydia, Media, and Persia, we have no native historians, of any age. whether contemporaneous or not. For the history of all of these countries from 500 B.C. to 300 B.C., we are limited as to contemporaneous historians to the Greeks, especially to Herodotus, Ctesias, Thucydides, and Xenophon.  About 300 B.C., a native Egyptian, Manetho by name, wrote in Greek what purported to be a history of Egypt from the earliest times, which, he asserted, he had derived from the records of the Egyptians. About the same time, also in Greek, Berosus wrote a history of the Babylonians; Menander, a history of Tyre; and Nicolaus, a history of Damascus. Unfortunately, fragments only of these historians have been preserved to us, mostly excerpts found in Josephus and Eusebius.

                But while, strictly speaking, we have no histories from any of the nations who came into contact with the ancient Israelites, we have from some of them a large number of documents affording us for certain periods the sources, or materials, from which to construct a more or less continuous history, and to obtain for certain epochs and individuals a more or less satisfactory knowledge of their civilization and especially of their political conditions and relations. The relative and even the absolute chronology of the times in which the Israelites flourished is becoming clearer and more definite. The geographical terminology and limitations are becoming known. The laws, manners, customs, science, art, and religion are becoming revealed. Some kings of Assyria, such as the Tiglath-Pilesers, the Shalmanesers, Ashumasirpal, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal have left us annals which supply the place of histories and cause these kings to stand out before us as real characters. Hammurabi, Merodach-Baladan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabunaid, kings of Babylon, have left us inscriptions from which we can in a measure construct their biographies. The inscriptions of Nabtmaid, Cyrus, and Darius Hystaspis enable us, also, to supplement what the Greek historians and the biblical writers have to say about the early days of Persia; while the Egyptian and Phenidan records, though not as satisfactory, give us at least a chronological background and check for much of the history. The records of the Hittites, Lydians, and Elamites, also, are being resurrected in part from the graves of oblivion, and even the Arabian deserts are yielding up their long-buried secrets…….

                XIV. Lastly, it must be remembered, that, when all has been said, we have discovered but a very limited proportion of the ancient documents which once existed.  This is true as to both public and private documents. For example, of the kings of Persia, we have no public documents of Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius II, Xerxes II, Sogdianus, Arses, and Darius III, and only one each of Artaxerxes I and III, two, possibly, of Cyrus, and two of Artaxerxes II, six of Xerxes I, and about a dozen all told of Darius Hystaspis. Of private documents from the time of the Persian kings we have few after the time of Artaxerxes II, and the ones we have are nearly all from Babylonia. There are at most two in Babylonian from the time of Artaxerxes II, who  reigned from 404 to 359 B.C.  (* Tablet 86 of the Morgan collection, part I, is from the fifth month of the 41st year of Artaxerxes. Since Artaxerxes I reigned less than 41 years and Artaxerxes II about 46 years, this tablet must be from the reign of the latter. Some of the astronomical tablets mention Artaxerxes II and one at least Artaxerxes III. See Kugler: Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, i, 70-82. *)

                The places also where the records of Babylon and Persia have been found are comparatively few in number compared with the numerous places where they must have existed; and in these places, but a very few of the whole number that once existed have come down to us. Thus, there were doubtless many banking firms, like the Murashu and the Egibi houses at Babylon and many storehouses for contracts; but most of the contracts known have come from a few localities. Aramaic papyri were probably composed in a score of other Jewish colonies, but unfortunately only the one great find of Elephantine has thus far been made. The letters to Amenophis III and IV found at Tel-el-Amarna were most likely not the only ones ever sent by the vassals of the Egyptian kings to their sovereign lords. The reports to Assyrian kings thus far discovered are doubtless but a small part of those which must have been sent to Nineveh during the 500 years from Tiglath-Pileser I to Ashurbanipal.

                Conclusion.
               In concluding these general remarks upon the so-called argument from silence, and having in view our almost absolute lack of first-class evidence bearing upon the historicity of the statements made in the Old Testament in general and of Daniel in particular, we refuse to accept as true the indiscriminate charges and multitudinous specifications entirely unsupported by evidence which are often made against the truthfulness of the Old Testament writings. A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. A book, or document, is supposed to be true until it as proven false. And as to particular objections made against the historicity of a person or event mentioned in the book of Daniel on the ground that other authorities fail to notice them, would it not be well for us to possess our souls in patience, until such charges are supported by some direct evidence bearing upon the  case? Why not give Daniel the benefit of the doubt, if doubt there be?………[As to proof & veracity, a thing is not proven till it has not been disproven; a thing is true after it is shown to be not false. Only when we test & examine anything do we get proof & truth; therefore ‘test or prove all things’. Hence the Bible, & Daniel stands solid.]

                Chapter 18: …..Conclusion:
               In the above discussion we have shown that the six assumptions mentioned on page 370 are all false and that the objection to the historicity of the book of Daniel on the ground that a strict Jew cannot have been made chief of the heathen sages of Babylon, nor initiated into their class, is unsupported by the evidence drawn from the Jews themselves, as well as from the monuments, as to what the character of the wise men really was. We have shown, further, that the objection, if  valid, would militate as much against the ideas of the pious Jews in the second century B.C., as against those  held by them in the sixth century B.C.; inasmuch as the literary conception of such a character and the reception of a work based on such a conception would be as much against their ideas as the historical existence of such a man would be. Moreover, we have shown that the confused notions about Daniel in his relations to the wise men of Babylon, as well as about these wise men, are true not so much of the author of Daniel as of those who criticize the statements of the book in reference to them. And finally, we have shown that there is no reason for believing that Daniel may not have been and done all that the book of Daniel says that he was and did. without any infringement of the law or the prophets, or contravention of the religious ideas of the Jews at any time of their history.

Studies in the Book of Daniel. Discussions, Historical Questions.v2.(2nd Series). Robert Dick Wilson, PhD., D.D. LL.D. GPP. KP. 1938.

                Chapter VIII. Prophecies of Daniel Fourth Kingdom:  (Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One, pp. 128-238 for the fuller account.)

                It is assumed by the critics that the fourth kingdom of Daniel  is the Greek instead of the Roman empire. (* Prince, Commentary on Daniel, p. 71.*) This involves the further assumption that not merely 11:20-45 but also 2:31-34, 40-43, 7:9, 19-27, 8:9-14, 23-26 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes.

                The assumption that Alexander and his successors, especially the kingdom of the Seleucids, represent the fourth kingdom of Daniel, depends on the further assumption that the second kingdom was Median, an assumption that has no foundation in the Book of Daniel. (* For a full discussion of the assumption that the second kingdom was Median the reader is referred to the writer’s Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One, pp. 128-238.*)   To be sure Darius is called a Mede (6:1), and is said to have received the kingdom of Belshazzar; and the two horns of the ram spoken of in 8:20 are said to denote the kings of Media and Persia. But since Belshazzar was not king of Media but of Babylon and probably of Accad and Chaldea, it is to be presumed that Darius the Mede received the kingship over that comparatively small part of the empire of Cyrus that had been ruled over by Belshazzar the Chaldean. There is absolutely no foundation for the assertion of the critics that Daniel makes Darius the Mede to have ruled over Babylon before the accession of Cyrus. (* So Bevan, Commentary on Daniel, p. 20.*) He is said in 6:1 to have “received” (kabbel) the kingdom and from whom could he have received it except from Cyrus?  (* The verb kabbel means “receive,” not “take by force.” Brockelmann in his Syriac Dictionary renders it by accepit, that is annehmen, not einnehmen. In the Targum of Onkelos, it always has the sense of “receive,” the sense of “taking by force” being expressed by kevash and ‘chad. *)

                In 9:1, it is said that Darius was made king (homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans. Who could have made him king but Cyrus? Hitzig, indeed, says that this does not mean merely that he was made king by God, but that he must by human action have been made king of Babylon and that this action was taken by the army led by Cyrus. (* Commentary on Daniel, p. 145.*) It seems convenient for Bevan and Prince to ignore these two passages in their discussions of Darius the Mede, an admirable way for a special pleader to escape the necessary conclusion to be derived from indisputable evidence against his side of the case! (* Bevan assumes that kabbel means “take possession,” (Comm., p. 109), but he does not attempt to prove it.*)  They confuse the issue by making long dissertations on irrelevant matters connected with the Median kingdom of Deioces and his successors down to Astyages whom Cyrus overthrew. For example, Prince affirms, that “Babylon was captured by Cyrus the Persian, who, sometime previously, had obtained possession of Media and its king Astyages.” (* Commentary on Daniel, p. 44.*) He then discusses the theory formerly advanced by some that Darius the Mede was “identical with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, mentioned in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.” (*id. pp. 45, 46.*) He then compares “the data of Xenophon regarding the last Median kings with those of Herodotus on the same subject,” and notices in passing that “neither Berosus nor any other ancient author knows of a Median ruler after the fall of Babylon.” (*id. p. 47.*) He next states that the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder make no mention “of any ruler of Media between Astyages and Cyrus nor of any king of Babylon intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus.” (*id. p. 48.*) He then continues to discourse at length on the Cyaxares of Xenophon, the Darius of Eusebius, and the coin darik, and gives a resume of the history of Media from Deioces to Cyaxares and finally gives his views as to the probable origin of the conception of Darius the Mede as given in Daniel. (*id. pp. 48-55.*) He concludes by saying that Darius the Mede “appears therefore to have been a product of a mixture of traditions” of the “destruction of Nineveh by the Medes” and of the “capture of Babylon by Darius Hystaspis,” (*id. p. 55.*) and thinks that “it seems apparent that the interpolation of Darius the Mede must be regarded as the most glaring inaccuracy in the Book of Daniel.” (*id. p. 56.*)

                Second Kingdom Not Median

                We readily give Professor Prince the credit of having produced the most scholarly and up to date presentation of the case of the critics versus Daniel that has so far been published. We think that most of his statements as to facts are undeniable, that Cyrus did conquer Babylon, that Xenophon and Herodotus differ as he says, that Berosus and the other ancient authors know nothing of a Median ruler after the fall of Babylon, that the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder make no mention of a Median king of Babylon, that there is doubt as to who the Cyaxares of Xenophon was and as to the Darius of Eusebius; but he will pardon us for the inability to perceive that his views and conclusions are justified by the facts and the evidence that he has produced. Our reasons for differing from his conclusions are the following:

                1. All authorities are agreed that Cyrus took Babylon. Herodotus and Xenophon say so expressly. Isaiah implies it. The Cyrus Cylinder confirms it, but adds that his general Gubaru took it for him and that Cyrus himself did not enter the city till four months later. Gubaru, according to the Cylinder, was made “governor” (in Aramaic malka “king”) of the city by Cyrus, a position which he seems to have held for at least twelve years. (* See tablet published by Pinches in The Expository Times for 1915.*)

                2. Whether there was a Cyaxares the son of Astyages and what his relationship to Cyrus may have been, are interesting questions; but the Book of Daniel says nothing bearing directly on either question. (* Since the Ku of the Greek Kuaxares corresponds to Eva in the Persian cuneiform of the Behistun inscription, it might be possible that the Hebrew and Aramaic Ahasuerus represents the axares of Cyaxares. In this case, Darius the Mede would be the son of Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, the son of Cyaxares; or he might be descended from the father of Astyages. In the Behistun Inscription the Median claimants to the throne call themselves the sons of Cyaxares. If Darius the Mede were the son of Cyaxares the son of Astyages, he could be called “of the seed of Media,” that is, of the royal family of Media, without his father or himself having really been king of Media.*)

                3. Since Daniel does not say that a Median king independent of Cyrus ruled over Babylon after the Chaldean empire was destroyed, the silence of Berosus and other ancient authors on this subject agrees with the silence of Daniel. The statement that Darius was a Mede no more proves that he was king of Media than does the statement that Napoleon was a Corsican prove that he was king of Corsica. Besides he may have been a king of Media and still have been subordinate to Cyrus king of Persia. Murat was a Frenchman who was made king of Naples and was subordinate to a Corsican Italian who had become emperor of the French. (* Again Darius the Mede may have been the son of Cyaxares, predecessor of Astyages, king of Media. Since he was sixty-two years old when he was made king of Babylon (by Cyrus?), he would have been born in 600 B.C. If Sayce is right in supposing that Astyages was a Scythian who conquered Media, Darius the Mede may have been the heir of Cyaxares. The defection of the Medes under Harpagus during the battle between Astyages and Cyrus would be accounted for if we could be certain that Astyages was a Scythian conqueror of the Medes. The Medes in this case were simply going over to their kinsmen the Persians and throwing off the yoke of the foreign despot who had subdued them.*)

                4. Prince points out that the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder make no mention of a ruler of Media between Astyages and Cyrus. In this they agree with Daniel.

                5. The Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder are said to make no mention of any king of Babylon intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus. To this statement we take exception because of the ambiguity of both terms of the phrase “king of Babylon,” and because of the use of the word “intervening.” As has been shown elsewhere, the Aramaic word for king may denote the son of a king, the ruler of a city, of a province, or of an empire. (* Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One, pp. 90-94.*) Babylon, also, may mean the city of Babylon, or the lower region of the Euphrates-Tigris valley, or the whole Babylonian empire. Now, it is true that the records of Nabonidus and Cyrus do not mention a king of the empire as intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus; but the records of Nabonidus and Cyrus do speak of many kings as reigning in subordination to them. Thus, in the Abu-Habba Cylinder (I, 45), Nabonidus refers to the kings, princes, and governors which the gods had made subject to him, and in I, 27, speaks of Astyages and the kings who helped him ; and Cyrus in his Cylinder Inscription says that all the kings from the upper to the lower sea came to Babylon and kissed his feet. In the Chronicle, also, the kings of the sea-land (i.e. Phenicia) who were subject to Nabonidus are mentioned. (* Reverse 3.*) In the Abu-Habba Cylinder, (I, 29), Cyrus king of the land of Anzan is called the “little servant of Astyages.” In the Chronicle (lines 15-17), Cyrus king of Persia is said to havecrossed the Tigris below Arbela and to have killed a king who must have been a sub-king to Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Neriglissar in the Cambridge Cylinder (I, 14) calls himself the son of Belshumishkun king of Babylon. This Belshumishkun must have been king of the city of Babylon at some time when Nabopolassar or Nebuchadnezzar was king of the empire; for the Chaldean empire began in 626 B.C., and the reign of Neriglissar began in 559 B.C. (* Of course if he were sixty-seven or over when he began to reign, his father may have been king of Babylon before Nabopolassar. In this case he must have been sub-king to Shamashshumukin or to Ashurbanipal king of Assyria ; for the latter was overlord of Babylon till his death in 626 B.C.*)  It is probable that a son of Nabonidus of the same name and title as his father was king of Harran while his father and overlord was still reigning as king of the empire of Babylon. (* See the Eshki-Harran Inscription edited by Pognon.*) Belshazzar is treated as king when his name is used in an oath along with that of his father. Besides, his father invokes the gods to bless him just as he invokes them to bless himself. Antiochus in like manner joins his son Seleucus with him and expressly calls his son king. (* Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III, u, 139.*)  The “son of the king” who commanded Nabonidus’ armies in Accad was probably Belshazzar and in the 10th year of Nabonidus this son seems to have been made governor (Aramaic, malka “king”) of Erech. (*Id., 133.*) He would be the natural successor in the kingship over Babylon as soon as his father was made prisoner by Cyrus at Sippar. Gubaru the governor (pihu) of the land of Gutium took Babylon for Cyrus and was then made governor (pihu) of the city of Babylon, a position which he seems to have been occupying as late as the 4th year of Cambyses. (* cf . Footnote 14 supra.*) Finally Cyrus and Cambyses were both kings of Babylon at once. (* See, Studies in the Book of Daniel, Vol. 1. I32f.*)

                The above evidence proves that Nabonidus, Astyages, and Cyrus were all kings of kings, and that in the two accredited instances of Belshumishkun and Cambyses these sub-kings were called on the Babylonian monuments and in the Babylonian language king (sliarru) of Babylon. Gubaru, also, although he is not called sharru is called shaknu of Babylon and this would in Aramaic be equivalent to malka “king” of Babylon. “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” The necessity for supposing that, if Daniel is true, there must have been a king intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus does not exist. Like many other objections to the statements of the Bible, it is not merely unsupported by the evidence we possess, but is absolutely contrary to it. 6. Who the Cyaxares of Xenophon may have been, or whether he existed at all, is a question of importance for students of Xenophon, or historians of Media or Cyrus; but we agree with Professor Prince that there is not sufficient evidence to justify us in supposing that he was the same as Darius the Mede of Daniel. The same may be said of the Darius of Eusebius.

                7. As to the word darik, it is now generally agreed that it has  probably no connection with the name Darius, since it occurs in a contract tablet from the reign of Nabonidus. (* Strassmaier : Inschriftcn von Nabonidus, 1013, 26.*)

                The conclusion, then, to be derived from this long discussion of Darius and the Medes is that Darius the Mede is one of the hundreds of sub-kings who reigned over parts of the great empires of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians, whose name has been rescued from oblivion because of his connection with the prophet Daniel. Who he was and what he was we may never definitely determine. Most probably, he was either the same as Gubaru to whom Cyrus entrusted the government of Babylon immediately after its capture, or a greater sub-king who ruled over Media as well as Assyria and Babylonia and Chaldea, or a subordinate of Gubaru who we know was governor of Gutium before he was given the government of Babylon. But, whoever he was and whatever the extent of his government, there is no intimation in Daniel, or elsewhere, that he ever ruled over an independent kingdom, or that he ever was king of the Medes, or that his kingdom intervened between that of Nabonidus and Cyrus. Consequently, that the second empire of Daniel was that of the Medes is a figment of the critics’ imagination. With no evidence in support of its existence, it should be dropped from all serious discussion of the meaning of the predictions of Daniel.             Having thus ruled out the supposititious Median empire, the four kingdoms of Daniel’s visions will be the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman, as has been held by most of the ablest Christians interpreters from the earliest times to the present. (* It seems, also, to have been the view of our Lord ; for he speaks of “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” as being about to be fulfilled in its true import in the time future to his own (Matt. xxiv, 15). No new evidence has appeared since the old commentaries were written that could cause us to change the traditional interpretation. On the contrary, the new evidence is preponderatingly in favour not merely of the historicity of Daniel, but of the old view of the meaning of his predictions.*)

                Darkness & Light in Daniel’s Predictions.

                It is assumed by the critics, (1) that the part of Daniel which treats of the Ptolemies and Seleucids down to the year of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is substantially correct, and (2) that all before and after this is enveloped in darkness. (* Bevan, Comm. p. 162; Cornill, Introduction, p. 384.*)

                 1. With the first statement, all conservative scholars will agree. The part of Daniel concerned with Antiochus Epiphanes is correct as far as we can judge, but it is frequently enveloped in the same kind of darkness that is supposed to characterize the rest of the book. In their commentaries, the radical critics admit this “darkness.” In their attempts at interpretation of the passages referred to Epiphanes, they indulge in such words as “probable,” “incorrect,” author’s “ignorance of facts,” and obscurity “owing to our ignorance regarding the history of Israel at this period.” (* See Prince, Commentary, pp. 171-188.*) They disagree among themselves and resort to many violent changes of the text in order to make it suit their conception of what it ought to be. The most damning evidence of their inability to make the account of Antiochus Epiphanes harmonize with their view of the date of Daniel occurs in 11:40-45. DeWette-Schrader put the time of writing Daniel at between 167 and 164. (* Einleitung, p. 507.*) Driver at some- time about 168 B.C.; 30 and Cornill asserts that it must have been written between the end of December 165 and June 164, thus probably in January 164. (* L.O.T., p. 497.*) (*id., p. 390.*) But the commentators of the radical school say that the campaign against Egypt spoken of in verses 40-43 never occurred. (* Prince, p. 186 ; Bevan, p. 198.*) Yet we are expected to believe that the people of Israel were such a lot of innocents ( ?) and ignoramuses as to accept shortly after it was written this book as a genuine and authentic work of a great prophet living 400 years before ! It was, says Cornill, “the work of a pious Jew, loyal to the Law, of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was animated with the desire to encourage and support his persecuted and suffering comrades.” (* Introduction, p. 388.*)   Bevan asserts that “everything combines to show that the Book of Daniel is, from beginning to end, an exhortation addressed to the pious Israelites in the days of the great religious struggle under Antiochus Epiphanes.” (* Comm. p. 23.*) Prince makes it a “consolation to God’s people in their dire distress at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. (* Comm. p. 24. *)  Bevan asserts that it was “read aloud in public.” (* Comm. p. 25. *) All are agreed that it was known in the Maccabean times, for the author of First Maccabees cites from it. (*1st Mac. 2:59,60.*)

                And yet, we are asked to believe, that those men who had lived through the whole reign of Epiphanes and must have known all about his various campaigns accepted a work as historical and its predictions as having been fulfilled, when it speaks of a whirlwind conquest of Egypt which never took place at all! Why, it is fifty-three (53) years since the American war of secession, and there are tens of thousands of us now living who were boys in 1865 and thousands of veterans of the blue and of the grey who would laugh to scorn a historian who attempted to palm off on us a third Bull Run, or to add to the campaign of Antietam and Gettysburg a third great invasion of the Northern States under the command of General Lee! But if the historian camouflaged himself as a prophet of the Lord and sought to encourage us in these troublous times by stating that in his third campaign, Lee had captured Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, but had suddenly turned back across the Potomac because of rumours which he had heard from the west and from the south, we would peremptorily reject his whole series of stories and visions as a tissue of lies and would refuse to be comforted by all his exhortations and consolations. We would inevitably conclude that a book claiming to have been written four hundred years ago and narrating the marvellous interventions of God in behalf of his people in the days of old and predicting the persecutions and triumphs of the nation in our own times for our encouragement and support was an impudent and baseless forgery, provided that we saw clearly that the author was incontrovertibly wrong in his alleged prognostications with regard to the events which were transpiring before our very eyes.

                But, one can hear the supermen of Germany and their English and American scholars cry out in amazement, “You must not suppose that the Jews of Maccabean times were men of intelligence like us of to-day –Our people have die Kultur, la civilisation, the university professor, to guard them from the acceptance of such forgeries; but the Jews of Maccabean times were ignorant peasants, knowing nothing of criticism and sources.” In such an opinion there is some measure of truth. The average man of to-day has doubtless more both of learning and scientific knowledge than the average man then possessed. But this is not a matter of education but of memory and common sense, and in these two particulars there is no evidence to show that the men of to-day are superior to what they were two thousand years ago. At that time, when there were fewer books, the memories of men were most highly cultivated. Besides, there never was a man not an idiot who did not remember the great events of his own lifetime.

                Further, Daniel was not received by the common man alone, but by the leaders of the nation, by men like the Maccabees who had fought the armies of this same Antiochus Epiphanes and with zealous care had watched all his wicked machinations against their people from the beginning of his tyrannical conduct unto the end of his career. This was a time also when the Greek learning was spread all over the countries that had been conquered by Alexander. Most of the Old Testament books had already been translated into Greek by Jewish scholars who were competent for their task. It was the age when Jewish writers of ability like Aristobulus, and Jason of Cyrene, and the Ben Siras, and the writers of First and perhaps of Second Maccabees, and Wisdom and Judith and parts of Enoch flourished. The Jews of Egypt, Cyrene, Syria, Cyprus, and other parts of the Diaspora had adopted Greek as their language. A Hellenizing party had arisen even in Palestine itself which was ready to accept the innovations imposed by the Syrian king and prided itself on its Greek citizenship and customs. Alexandria and Antioch with their teeming Jewish populations were already the rivals of Athens and the centres of Greek learning. The critics of Alexandria were discussing the text of Homer and the works of Plato and Aristotle, and some at least of their Jewish scholars would be acquainted with their methods. Polybius, that great historian of Rome, was writing his unsurpassed discussion of how history should be written and condemning in unsparing terms the false statements of Timaeus, Calisthenes and the others of their kind. In order to prevent interpolations, the works of AEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides had been collected at Athens in a standard edition which later was secured through fraud by Ptolemy Philadelphus for his library at Alexandria. As to the sacred writings of the Jews, they were most certainly looked upon with the deepest veneration long before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is attested, not merely by the fact that most of them at least had been translated into Greek before this time, but also by the fact that the astute tyrant saw the necessity of destroying the books if he would destroy the religion based upon them, and by the further fact that the Jews preferred death to the giving up of their sacred writings.

                Now, the radical critics, without any direct evidence to support them, profess to believe that, into the midst of these sacred writings for which men readily died, a forged document of unknown authorship and (according to the critics) full of easily detected errors and of doctrines unrecognized in the Law and the other books of the Prophets was quietly admitted as a genuine and authentic writing of a prophet hitherto unknown to history. They would have us believe that this fictitious volume became immediately the model of a vast amount of similar literature and they admit that in the New Testament its influence is apparent almost everywhere and that “no writing of the Old Testament had so great a share in the development of Christianity.” (* Bevan, Comm., p.15, quoting Westcott.*) They admit, also, that in early times its canonicity and truthfulness were never seriously disputed by Jews or Christians. Truly, the credulity of these critics is pitiable in its eccentricities! They cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of His people for His own glory and  their salvation; but they can believe that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Plato’s philosophy, and Aristotle’s logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and fictitious document, untrue to the well-remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author writes. Such a psychological improbability, devoid of any direct evidence in its support, let the critic believe if he can. Your unsophisticated servant prefers his belief in predictive prophecy to any such quixotic and scholastic attempts to belittle and besmirch a book simply because we cannot understand the why and the how of all the extraordinary deeds and doctrines that are recorded there.

                2. As to the second part of the assumption of the critics, to wit, that all the records of Daniel before the time of the Seleucids and after June 164 B.C., is “enveloped in darkness,” the whole of the first volume of Studies in the Book of Daniel is intended to show that this is not true of the historical part which treats of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. As to the predictions which touch matters subsequent to June 164 B.C., the visions and interpretations of Daniel were no more veiled in darkness to those who lived in the sixth century B.C., than were those of Jacob, Moses, Balaam, Nathan, David, Isaiah, and Zechariah to those of their time, or than the predictions of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John to the men of the first century A.D. The prophets, we are told on the highest authority, foretold many things which they themselves did not fully understand, let alone their hearers, but which they “desired to look into.” (*1st Peter 1:10,11.*) To the question of the disciples as to when the things of which Jesus spoke should be, the Lord replied: No man knoweth these things but the Father. (*Mat. xxiv, 3, 36.*)  The predictions of Daniel in regard to the resurrection, the judgment, the world kingdoms, and the Messiah, are no more obscure or difficult of interpretation than are some of those in the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Book of the Revelation of St. John. Of course, those who do not believe in God, nor in a revelation from God to man, nor in any superhuman prediction of future events, will reject alike the predictions of Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John. But for those who call themselves Christians to deny the resurrection, the judgment, the second coming, and other predicted events, is absurd enough to make all the logicians in Hades laugh and all the angels weep. To reject a book from the sacred writings because it contains such statements with regard to the future, is to reject that in the book which most of all makes it sacred. For the distinguishing characteristic of sacred as contrasted with profane writings is this very fact, that they do contain, or are related to, such predictions. The most precious promises of the gospel from the protoevangelium to the last verses of the Book of the Revelation of St. John all refer to that blessed future which now we see through a glass darkly, but where we are assured sorrow and sin and death shall be no more. To the true Christian those things to come are the brightest things in all the universe, the anchor of the soul sure and steadfast; but the ‘god’ of this world has blinded the eyes of the children of disobedience, lest seeing with their eyes they should believe and be converted. Woe to the so-called Christian who under the pretence of a science falsely so-called denies the reality of revelation. Like Esau, he has sold his birthright of the hope of eternal glory for a mess of pottage, the beggarly elements of worldly wisdom and pride. (* For a thorough discussion of this subject, see Pusey’s Lectures on Daniel, pp. 60-233.*)

                Importance of Antiochus Epiphanes.

                The time has now arrived to grapple with the most insidious and treacherous attack that has been made upon the Book of Daniel. It is insidious because it claims to be philosophical and scientific.  It is treacherous in so far as it is made by professing Christians.  A philosopher who believes that God wound up the universe, like a clock, and then let it run its course without any interference, must refuse to accept the Book of Daniel as true. So, also, must one who thinks that nothing contrary to the ordinary course of human or natural events can be proved by testimony. A scientist (or shall we say sciolist?) who thinks he knows that the laws of nature are binding on their Creator and that a modern chemist or psychologist or animal trainer can manipulate the elements, or the minds of men, or of lions, better than the Almighty, will not hesitate to reject Daniel because of the extraordinary events recorded there as having been wrought by God. But a Christian who necessarily accepts the principles of theism, and who consequently believes in God’s intervention in the affairs of men, and in predictive prophecy as well as miracle, cannot refuse to accept the Book of Daniel as historical and reliable, as authentic, genuine, and veracious, simply because of the character of its predictions. Now, in works already published (* Especially in Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One (1916).) and elsewhere in this volume we have endeavoured to show, that the objections against Daniel based upon the alleged inaccuracy of its statements about the age of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus are unfounded, that the argument from silence as illustrated in Ecclesiasticus and other cases is fallacious, that the argument from Daniel’s place in the present Hebrew Bible has no basis to rest on, and that the origin and influence of its ideas and its background including its language are in harmony with its claims to have been written in the sixth century B.C. in a Babylonian environment. (*See above, Introduction p. 51)  There remains but one important obstacle standing in the way of the Christian who desires to follow Christ and the apostles in their apparent acceptance of the Book of Daniel as being what it purports to be. It is the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes looms so high in the mind of the prophet. It is difficult to account for the prominence given to this “contemptible” monarch in the midst of a narrative that opens with an account of Nebuchadnezzar the king of great Babylon that he had built, that thinks Cyrus the founder of the Persian empire to be worthy of the merest reference, and that alludes to Alexander the Great in the most cursory fashion. Why should Epiphanes be selected from all the successors of Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, Perdiccas, Eumenes, Antigonus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the rest? Why should he be given forty verses, or more, of a book which barely squints at the Persian kings, and never gives but a glimmering intimation that the Roman fleets and legions were to become in his time the masters of the world? Why should a vision predicting with such accuracy and detail the campaigns of the kings of the North and the South never allude to that unequalled family of heroes who were to begin at Modin the liberation of God’s people and scatter like the leaves of Vallombrosa the numerous and frequent hosts of deadly enemies who were to desolate the homes and attempt to suppress the religion of that Jehovah in whose name the prophet spoke? Why above all was his detailed vision to cease with the renovation of the temple and fade off into dim outlines when it passed beyond that time into the more distant vistas but the more glorious hopes of the Messianic kingdom? Why especially should he describe the true course of events in Epiphanes’ expedition against Egypt till the year 169 and then picture another campaign which according to the critics never occurred at all?

                These and similar questions have vexed the righteous souls of many who would like to believe in the real Daniel and who have no prejudices against the possibility of the kind of predictive prophecy alleged to be found in the book. They can accept the first six chapters which record the striking occurrences in the lives of Daniel and his companions. They can accept the principle of the possibility and the fact of divine revelation of future events. But they hesitate at accepting the whole, at least, of Daniel, because they see no good and sufficient reason why he should have narrated with such length and clearness the history of the Seleucids up to the death of Epiphanes and have given so much emphasis to the deeds of this tyrant while barely mentioning such superlatively and relatively important events as the resurrection, the judgment, and the kingdom of the Messiah.

                Now, in order to remove this hesitation, it may seem to some sufficient to affirm our belief that these predictions might have been made by God through Daniel, even though we could perceive no good reason for them. We think, however, that we can perceive a good and sufficient reason for them, one at least that justifies them in our estimation, and we shall proceed to state it, in order that if possible we may make the ways of God appear just to the men of little faith.           

                It appears to us, then, that the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the most important events in the history of the church. It can be rivalled only by the call of Abraham, the giving of the Law, the Captivity, and the Incarnation. Among all the crises to which the people of God have been subjected, it can be compared only with the dispersion in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The return of the exiles had been definitely foretold by Jeremiah, and Jeremiah’s prediction was known and pondered by Daniel. (* See Dan. 9:2.*) He was not needed, nor was it given to him, to supplement the work of his great predecessor. But he performed a greater and more lasting service for the church. He showed clearly that all the tyrants of the earth were under the control of the God of heaven, that the kingdoms of this world were foreordained by Him and should at last be superseded by the Kingdom of the Messiah and his saints, and he encouraged the people not merely of his own time but of all time to be steadfast in the midst of fiery trials and deadly perils of all kinds in view of the certainty that God could and would eventually circumvent or crush the tyrants and deliver the innocent for time and for eternity.

                Now, the deadliest peril that the church has ever confronted was the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress it utterly. For reasons of state, and perhaps also of religion, he determined to enforce conformity of worship throughout his dominions. His plan of operations was the most astute that has ever been devised. He ordered the cessation of circumcision, the sign of the covenant between the people and their God and that which held them together as a race. He stopped the services in the temple and instituted in their stead the worship of Jupiter. He set up idol altars in every city and demanded that every Jew should sacrifice according to the heathen ritual which he had introduced. He commanded that the holy writings should be destroyed so that the laws and customs and institutions might be gradually but surely forgotten and eliminated. And for all who refused to accept these severe and stringent regulations and requirements he pronounced the penalty of death; whereas he crowned with honours and emoluments all who apostatized and renounced the God of their fathers. The result of his well calculated machinations was almost complete enough to equal the most sanguine expectations. Most of the Jewish people seem to have cast away without any apparent qualm the hereditary claims of race and country and religion, and to have grasped with eagerness the proffered hand of the subtle enemy of their faith. The blood-thirsty tyrant executed his threats of death upon all who opposed his will. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered. Whole families were extirpated for the guilt of one of their number. The chosen people were on the point of being annihilated and the promises and the hopes of the covenant of being annulled forever.

                There never was, before or since, such a period of desperation and despondency in the history of the church. Pharaoh’s aim had been to destroy the race, but the promise to Abraham had been fulfilled through Moses and Joshua. Nebuchadnezzar had carried the people captive and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple; but the sacred books had been preserved, apostasy was rare, and through God’s servants, the kings of Persia, the people and the temple were at length restored to their former worship, as it had been foretold by the prophets. But, now, under Epiphanes, was attempted what had never been proposed by Babylonian conqueror or Persian friends, the entire destruction of people and religion at one fell blow. Prophecy had ceased. The tribes of Israel were scattered over the earth, some foreign cities like Alexandria and Antioch having more Jewish inhabitants than Jerusalem. The Holy Land was largely in possession of the Gentiles. The Jews themselves had become indifferent to the Law. The High Priests were murdering each other and one of them when deposed at Jerusalem built a rival temple in Egypt. The whole polity of the Jews was disintegrated, all their fortresses and cities were in the hands of the enemy, they had no army and no leaders, and all seemed lost.

                Then it was that one man stood up and defied the haughty king. His name was Mattathias. He lived at a village named Modin. The heathen had constructed an altar. The priest was ready to sacrifice the victim when Mattathias slew him and made a fiery appeal to his fellow citizens to take arms against the tyrant. To hearten them, he called to mind the great deeds of their fathers and the faith that had inspired them. In the climax of his speech he referred to the fiery furnace and to Daniel in the den of lions. This recalled to them that their God could and would save those who put their trust in Him. They rallied round Mattathias and his five noble sons, the most valiant and able of them all. The pious sprang to arms and after many a hard fought fight the Syrians were overcome, and the kingdom of the Jews was reestablished under the Asmonean rulers. Had the attempt of Antiochus succeeded, the preparation for the coming of the Messiah could not have been completed. A people waiting for his appearing would not have been existent. A Diaspora eager to receive and disseminate the gospel would not have been ready. In short, the continuity of the church would have been destroyed, the records of the Old Testament might have disappeared as utterly as the archives of Tyre and the memoirs of Hannibal, the New Testament could not have been written, the life of Jesus would have been entirely different, the method of the early propagation of the gospel must have been altered and the whole plan of salvation changed.

                But, it will be said, how did the time when these alleged predictions of Daniel were written affect all this? Only in this respect, that it affords sufficient reason for their having been made so many years before. Just as the deliverance of the three children from the fiery furnace and of Daniel from the lions’ den on account of their faith in Israel’s God gave Mattathias a fitting climax in his speech inciting the people to steadfastness in their trials, so the knowledge that their evil condition had been foretold nearly four hundred (400) years before would strengthen the hearers’ confidence that the rest of the prediction would be fulfilled in the overthrow of the oppressor and in the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God. The stupendous crisis justified the prediction; the prediction justified the expectation of deliverance. Because the hearers of Mattathias knew about the three children and Daniel, they were incited by Mattathias’ speech to emulate their conduct and to imitate their faith. Because the learned leaders of the Jews believed that the visions were really those of Daniel, they accepted the book as true and received it as canonical. Had the history been fictitious, Mattathias would not have cited from it and the people would not have been roused by it. Had the visions not been considered genuine, the educated church of that day would not have acknowledged the book as holy and its teachings as divine. Had the book not been deemed authentic, it would have been condemned as a forgery and would have failed in that purpose of consolation and encouragement to which all critics ascribe the reason of its existence. Because both people and rulers and literati esteemed the book to be authentic, genuine, and veracious, they placed it among those holy writing for whose preservation they willingly gave up their lives.

                No other satisfactory explanation of the canonization and influence of Daniel has ever been given. The theories that the Jews received into their canon all of their national literature, or all that was written in their own language, or all that was religious in character, all break down in view of the Book of Ecclesiasticus alone; for it was written in Hebrew and is exceedingly religious and nationalistic. It is impossible also to see why First Maccabees and Tobit and the first and third sections of Enoch should have been rejected on the ground of not possessing these qualifications. Moreover, Jubilees, Judith, and the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs are religious and nationalistic in an eminent degree. We are shut up, therefore, to the conclusion that the sharp-witted and intensely conscientious Jews of the second century B.C., who determined the limits of the canon, investigated thoroughly the origin, purpose, and contents, of the books which they accepted as authoritative as a rule of faith and practice, and that Daniel, if a forgery, could not have escaped detection and rejection when subjected to their intelligent and searching scrutiny.

                It is utterly irrelevant to assert that there were many “pious frauds” that were put forth during the second century B.C. and later, and that consequently Daniel must have been a fraud. There are three inadmissible assumptions in this proposition.

                1. It is assumed that the proof that one document is a forgery, or fraud, or fiction, shows that another is of the same character. You might as well assume that all coins are counterfeit because some are. You might as well assume that Polybius was a liar as he asserts that Ephorus and Timaeus were; that Cicero’s and Pliny’s letters were not authentic, because the epistles of Phalaris have been demonstrated by Bentley to have been written 500 years after Phalaris was dead; that all the tragedies of Euripides were falsely ascribed to him, because some are acknowledged to have been written by other and unknown authors; that the four canonical gospels were identical in origin with the gospel of Peter and those of the Infancy; that the lives of Augustine and Jerome were of the same character as those of St. Anthony and St. Christopher; that the decrees of Constantine, Theodosius, and Charlemagne in favour of the papacy were forged because the decretals of Isodore are false; that all parts of Ashurbanipal’s Annals are unreliable because some parts certainly are; that Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War are spurious because his Commentaries on the Civil War may be. In short the argument is absurd. For counterfeits involve the existence of the genuine; forgeries presuppose similar documents that are authentic; fictions are but the shadows of very similitude. The Jewish religious authorities accepted the Book of Daniel because they believed it to be authentic, genuine, and true. They rejected Tobit, Judith, Enoch, Jubilees, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings, because in their judgment they were lacking in one or more of these features.

                It may be attempted to escape this judgment by affirming that the Jews who accepted Daniel as canonical were deceived, or befooled, so that they decided wrongly with reference to this particular book. But this affirmation cannot be established as true. For the Jews who made the decision were living and present at the very time when the critics allege that Daniel was written and when the events described in the eleventh chapter, upon which the allegation is based, were enacted. Many of them had taken part in the glorious conflict for freedom and religion, and could no more be deceived as to what had happened than could the common soldiers of the Grand Army of the Republic who participated in the campaigns of Meade or Grant be deceived about the results of Gettysburg and Appomattox. As to the customs, they certainly would recognize anachronisms, incongruities, and inconsistencies better than we can do to-day after two thousand years have passed. As to the languages also, it is passing strange, if they contain so many marks of Hebrew and Aramaic of Maccabean times as the critics claim, that the Hebrew purists did not recognize the anachronisms; and, on the other hand, if the book were designed for a stimulus to the common people, how does it come to contain so many uncommon words and so many difficult constructions as to have rendered it largely “unintelligible” (to use Bevan’s word) to the Hebrews who, shortly after it was written (if we accept the critics’ date), translated it into Greek. It must have been hard to fool a people as to what was good Hebrew in the age that produced the Ben Siras, for the grandfather certainly knew how to write good Hebrew, unadulterated with foreign words and clear in its rhetoric and grammar; and the grandson knew both Hebrew and Greek well enough to make a magnificent version of his grandfather’s work. As to the Aramaic portions of the book, if they were, as Bevan suggests to be probable, a version of the original Hebrew by the author himself, the decision as to the date of the original would be made regardless of the peculiarities of the Aramaic version. If, however, the Aramaic was the original, it seems hard to account for the use, in a work designed to comfort the people, of so many words that must have been unintelligible to them; for there is no proof in favour of, and the analogies are all against, the probability of the presence of so many Babylonian and Persian words in an Aramaic composition of the second century B.C. (* See the writer’s article on “Babylon and Israel” in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review for April 1903, pp. 239 f.*) To say that the author, like another Chatterton, had dived into the records of the past and drawn from them a number of antique expressions in order to give credence to his forgery and to deceive his readers, breaks down because of three considerations: (1) a scholar with learning enough to investigate such ancient documents in order to give an antique colouring to his writings would certainly have used the antique spelling and pronouns, whose absence from Daniel is the strongest objective argument against its early date; (2) he would have used the eastern forms of the verb, if, as the critics affirm, those eastern forms were different from those of Palestine; and (3) he could hardly have known so much of the character of the ancient documents without having more knowledge of the times in which they were written than the critics ascribe to him.

                3. There remains, then, only the hypothesis that the writer of the book and those who accepted it as true were united in an endeavour to impose upon the common people. The chief objection to this hypothesis is that there is not a single item of evidence in its favour. It is absurd to suppose that men who were willingly giving up their lives for the preservation of their holy writings from destruction would have been participants in a fraud to perpetuate the Book of Daniel as one of their holy writings. But since such general charges of fraud without specifications and proofs are beneath the notice of a sober, scientific, historian, we leave the consideration of the charge of fraud until such time as the critics advance a specific charge with alleged proofs in its behalf. The investigation and arraignment of unexpressed motives and plausible possibilities are hereby relegated to the speculative philosopher and the examiner of psychological phenomena; the undeniable fact is that history knows nothing of the alleged composition and publication and canonization of the Book of Daniel in the Maccabean age. When it first emerged into historic view, it was already stamped with the same authority as the other books of the Old Testament. Its authenticity, genuineness, and veracity have never been denied except by those who have disbelieved in miracle and predictive prophecy and by some weak-kneed Jews and Christians of these later decades who have thought that they were scientific when they were merely blind followers of the blind. Scientific? This word implies knowledge. And where did they get their knowledge? Let the critics produce it. Where are their facts in evidence? The great jury of Christendom demand that they be produced. History and philology and archaeology have been searched for centuries and they have failed to present a single fact of direct evidence in support of the critics’ positions. The time is past when a German professor can pound his desk and overawe his submissive students with the shout, “Meine Herren, es ist unmōglich,” or “Es ist ganz selbstverstāndlich.”

                We Christians demand some facts to prove that the Book of Daniel is false before we will admit the charge from any man. We still believe that Christ and the Apostles and the Maccabean and Rabbinical Jews knew more about the origin and veracity and authority of Daniel than the critics do or can know. The vociferous and continuous cry of “all scholars agree” has weight only with those who are ignorant of what these scholars really know. As a fact, they know very little about Daniel, or any other Old Testament book, except what the book testifies as to itself. Against this firsthand and direct testimony they put forth a host of conjectures and opinions and ask the world to accept them as the testimony of science and scholarship. They set up their golden calves of what they call history and criticism and cry out: These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. They make a golden image of their own reason and imagination and command that all men shall bow down and do homage, in pain of being cast into the fiery furnace of their professional contempt and branded as bigots and ignoramuses. But the church of Christ will never bow down to this image, and God will deliver it from all evil and in the fiery furnace of the world’s criticism there will always be one like unto the Son of God to save it from all its foes. In the case of Daniel, Daniel is with us and Christ is with us. Caveat criticus!

                22. Seder Olam Rabba.    Brief Explanation of Daniel Chapter 9.  Jewish Rabbinical Views: Daniel 9:24-27.

                {{ I. Seder Olam Rabba. “The Succession of Ages the Greater.” An Ancient Hebrew Chronicle. Translated at the Expense of the Chronological Institute of London. Revised & Edited, with Explanatory Notes, etc. by John Williams, F.S.A.  Honorary Secretary of the Institute. London. 1861. gs [Great World Order (Chronology); Universal (Timeline) History of Ages (Generations); Major Biblical Chronology.]

                Chapter XXVIII: Daniel. 1st Temple & Jerusalem Destruction. Babylonian Exile & 70 Years Captivity. Darius & Cyrus Decrees. Remnant Return & Rebuild Jerusalem & Temple.

                “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” (Dan. 2:1). It does not appear how it can be said “in the second year.” But the Scripture reckons the years from the destruction of the Temple, as also the months from the same event.  In like manner it is written, “And it came to pass, in the seven-and-thirtieth (37th) year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in the twelfth (12th) month, in the five-and-twentieth (25th) day of the month, that Evil-merodach,” &c. (“lifted up the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and brought him out of prison”) (Jer. 52:31). In another place of Scripture it is said (speaking of the same event), “In the 27th day of the month.” (2nd Kings 25:27). What therefore is signified by the twenty-fifth (25th) and the twenty-seventh (27th)? Because on the twenty-fifth (25th) day of the month Nebuchadnezzar, his adversary, died, and was buried; and on the twenty-sixth (26th) day Evil-merodach had his body torn out of the sepulchre  and dragged about, by which act his decrees were abolished, that it might be fulfilled, as is written of him, “But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch,” &c. (Isa. 14:19). (* According to Aburbanel this was because he feared Nebuchadnezzar might possibly return to life, and again take upon himself the administration of affairs, as, after having been “driven from men and eating grass as oxen,” (Dan. 4:33), he had done before.)  But on the 27th day “he lifted up the head of Jehoiachin.” (Jer. 52:31).

                At the same time Zedekiah died, concerning whom this lamentation was made, Alas! King Zedekiah is dead, who has drunk the dregs of all former ages, that this Scripture might be fulfilled, “But thou shalt die in peace,” &c. (Jer. 34:5.) From this we may understand that those with whom all things are prosperous should fear a reverse; and, on the other hand, however deep they may be sunk in adversity, they should not despair of a good and prosperous change. Whence, I ask, have we this? It may be gathered from (the history of) Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

                Nebuchadnezzar reigned 45 years; Evil-merodach, his son, 23; Belshazzar, the son of the last-named, three (3) years.

                “In the first (1st) year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream,” &c. (Dan. 7:1.) “In the third (3rd) year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.” (Dan. 8:1.) “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand (1000) of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand (1000). Belshazzar commanded to bring the vessels,” &c., “that they might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the house of God,” &c. “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold,” &c. “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand (and wrote over against the candlestick ” &c. “Then the king’s countenance was changed,” &c. (Dan. 5:1-6.)

                Thus was this Scripture fulfilled, “And he cried, A lion, my Lord,” &c. “The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, (Watchman, what of the night?)” &c. “The watchman said, The morning cometh (and also the night),” &c. (Isa. 21:8-12.) Who is intended by this watchman? God, holy and blessed, as we read, “Behold, He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” &c.  “The Lord shall preserve  thee from all evil,” &c. (Ps. 121:4.) And thus with the entire psalm. Wherefore was this watchfulness? Lest nation should rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, lest even a thread should be taken away. But the kingdom whose time of ruin is to happen by day, shall fall in the daytime, and that whose danger threatens by night shall fall and perish in the night, as the prophet declares, “And Koph shall have distresses daily,” &c.; “at Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened,” &c. (Ezek. 30:16-18.)

                This is that which is declared, “In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain; and Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about threescore and two (62) years old.” (Dan. 5:30,31.) What, I ask, does this signify, about threescore and two (62) years old? It signifies, that Darius was raised up as an enemy to Nebuchadnezzar at the very time when he seized on the Temple, in the days of Jeconiah. In the same manner, on the day that Jehu was anointed in Ramoth Gilead, Hazael, his enemy, was also anointed. (2nd Kings 8; 9.)

                Thus are fulfilled the 70 years from the time when Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, and 70 less one from the time when he subdued Jehoiakim. But Darius remained yet one year in Babylonia, according to this, “In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.” (Dan. 9:1.)     Here, in the original, the following note occurs, relating to the 70 years:—

                But we may wonder how it can be affirmed that seventy years were fulfilled from the time when Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, when there were really not more than 69 years; for when you reckon 37 years from the captivity of Jehoiakim, which occurred in the eighth year of his reign, to Evil-merodach, and reckon backward the years of Nebuchadnezzar, seven only remain; and Nebuchadnezzar appears from this to have reigned only 44 years, even when imperfect or incomplete years are included. (* The mode of reckoning appears to be this: Jehoiakim reigns: 7 years.  Years of captivity: 37.  Making together years of Nebuchadnezzar: 44.   Evil-merodach reigns: 23.  Belshazzar reigns: 2 = 69 yrs total).

                The text goes on with —Neither do you find in the Scriptures any other year than this ascribed to the Mede.‘ (* i.e. that mentioned, Dan.  9:1, as above.)  A second note follows

                It also appears wonderful to me that, when in this book (the Seder Olam), chap. 29, it is stated that Cyrus the Mede held the kingdom for three years, not, however, complete years, it should be here said that ‘No other year can be found in the Scriptures, ascribed to the Mede, than this.’ How, then, can we say, in Megilla, fol. 11, 2, that the years of Darius and Cyrus were five, when we can find only four? It may be answered that the third year of Belshazzar, which preceded Darius the Mede, had not been completed, and that this year is to be considered as the first of Darius. Therefore, in the preceding section, as this third year had been attributed to Belshazzar, according to that which is written, “In the third (3rd) year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me” (Dan. 8:1), the author was unwilling to assign it to Darius; and of his second year, which is the fourth of Darius (it should be, “of Belshazzar”), which, however, was after his death, the Scripture says, “In the first (1st) year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus.” (Dan. 9:1.) It appears, however, he had then reigned two years, so that the Talmudical writers in the tract Megilla assign five years to Darius and Cyrus, although no other year is attributed by the Scriptures to the Mede besides this only, which, in reality, was the second year of Darius. It, therefore, appears that Darius remained in Babylonia one year, in which he completed the second year of his reign, and which indeed is the first properly ascribed to him. This much is to be noted.

                The text goes on with:   Thus Jeremiah says (51:46), “And lest your heart faint, and ye fear for the rumour that shall be heard in the land,” that is, for the rumor respecting Belshazzar, “A rumour shall both come one year,” that is to say, of Darius. “And after that in another year shall come a rumour,” of that which is predicted (Isa. 13:19), “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,” &c. “shall be,” &c. “And there shall be violence in the land,” that is, in Jerusalem. “And a conqueror,” Cyrus, king of Persia.

                “Also I in the first year of Darius, the Mede, even I stood to confirm and strengthen, and now I will show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia.” Dan. 11:1,2.) That is, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius, who rebuilt the Temple. But what is signified when it is said, “And the fourth shall be far richer?” That is to say, the fourth from Darius the Mede.

                And Daniel continued even unto the first  (1st) year of king Cyrus. (Dan. 1:21.) At what time were these things said? “At the beginning of this supplication the commandment came forth,” &c. “Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon thy people,” &c. “Know, therefore, and understand that, from the going forth of the commandment,” &c., “shall be seven (7) weeks, and afterwards sixty-two (62)weeks?” (Dan. 9:23, 27.) The seven weeks are those which they passed in exile and went up.  (* This mode of expression relates to the return from captivity.)

 The sixty-two (62) are those in which they remained in the land of Israel after their return. But one week is that in which they were partly in the land and partly out of the land. And after these sixty-two (62) weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, &c. “And he shall confirm the covenant with many (for one week.)” (9:27.)

                Rabbi Jose teaches us that the 70 weeks are to be reckoned from the destruction of the first Temple to that of the later one by the Romans. That is to say, 70 years during which it remained broken down and destroyed, and 420 during which it stood when rebuilt. But what do you mean by 70 weeks, when 70 years of the destruction had been already accomplished? It may be truly said that that decree had been ordained 70 years before (although now first revealed to Daniel.) In the same manner we read, “His days shall be 120 years.” (Gen. 6:3.) As, however, it is afterwards said, “In the 600th year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the 17th day of the month,” &c., “the fountains of the great deep were broken up,” &c. (Gen. 7:11), it may, therefore, be considered as implying that that sentence was to be understood as having been decreed 120 years before that relation. Of the same kind also is this, “And within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people.” (Isa. 7:8.) But the year in which these things were asserted was the fourth (4th) year of Ahaz. It may be said, therefore, that this sentence was decreed by the Lord, not at the time when this was written, but in the days of Amos, “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1), as is written, “For this Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die b the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land” (Amos 7:11), and that it was a second time revealed to Isaiah.

                Chapter  XXIX: Ezra & Esther.

                “Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia (that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled), the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus,” &c. “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia,” &c. “Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin,” &c. (Ezra 1:1-5.) “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore (42,360), besides their servants,” &c. (2:64,65.) Altogether, I say, there were 42,360, but taking them separately, only 30,360 are to be found; where, then, are the 12,000? They consisted of those truly who went up from the other tribes, and set up the altar upon his bases, &c. They gave money also unto the masons, &c. (3:3-7.)

                Cyrus held the kingdom for three (3) years, not, however, complete years.

                And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, &c. Then ceased the work of the house of the Lord. (4:6, 24.) In the third (3rd) year of his reign he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants, &c. Esth. 1:3.) For four (4) whole years Esther was kept in Shusan, in the royal city. Afterwards Esther was taken unto king Ahasuerus into his palace, in the 10th month (which is the month Tebeth), in the 7th year of his reign (2:16.) For five (5) whole years Haman had conceived in his mind the destruction of Mordecai. “In the first (1st) month, that is the month Nisan, in the twelfth (12th) year of king Ahasuerus, he commanded them to cast lots,” &c. “On the 13th of the month Nisan, Haman sent letters to destroy, to kill, and cause to perish all Jews,” &c. (3:7, 13.) On the 15th of Nisan (1st mnth), Esther came into the presence of the king, &c. On the 16th of that (1st) month they hanged Haman on the gallows. (5; 7.) On the 23rd of the third (3rd) month, which is called Sivan, Mordecai wrote letters that he might revoke the letters of Haman. The 13th of the month Adar (the day on which (the Jews were destined to be destroyed), the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, &c.; and in Shushan the palace, the Jews slew five hundred (500) men, and they hung the ten (10) sons of Haman, because they had written an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. On that day, the number of those that were slain in Shushan, the palace, was brought before the king. (8:9; 9:1, 5, 11.) At that time, in the following year, that of which we read happened; “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail (and Mordecai the Jew), wrote (with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim.)” (9:29.)

                The 70 years of which Jeremiah prophesied (Jer.29:10), “After 70 years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you,” are reckoned from the destruction of Jerusalem. For 52 years after the destruction of Jerusalem the Israelites passed their lives in the kingdom of Chaldea, then they were visited and went up. (* See note p. 66.) We have also three years of Cyrus, 14 of Ahasuerus, and two of Darius [19 yrs total], in whose second (2nd) year the Temple was built. Hence Zachariah speaks thus, “Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?” (Zech. 1:12); this was on the 24th day of the 11th month, in the second year of Darius (7).

                For four consecutive years the Temple was building, as Ezra witnesses, “And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth (6th) year of the reign of Darius the king.” (Ezra 6:15.)

                At the same time in the following year, Ezra went up from Babylon with another company of exiles, according to that which is said, “This Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given,” &c. “And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites,” &c., “in the seventh (7th) year of Artaxerxes the king. And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh (7th) year of the king. For upon the first day of the month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem,” &c. “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord,” &c. (Ezra 7:6-10.) “And he came and separated Israel from strange wives.” (10:17.)

                Chapter  XXX: Nehemiah to End of Second Temple. Jerusalem’s Wall Repaired.

                “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the 20th year, as I was in Shushan the palace,” &c. (Neh. 1:1.) Nehemiah remained 12 years in the land of Israel; be repaired the wall, and restored to the Israelites their city and their possessions. As he testifies, “But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem, for in the two and thirtieth (32nd) year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king,” &c. (13:6.) That is, from the 20th year unto the 32d —twelve (12) years. (v. 14.) Behold, Ezra says, “And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered,” &c. “according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” (Ezra, 6:14.) But no kings of Persia can be found in the Scriptures excepting two, Cyrus and Darius, and two (kings) of the Medes, Darius and Ahasuerus. I say, therefore, that Cyrus as well as Darius (in this passage of Ezra), may have been the Artaxerxes (named by him), seeing that the whole kingdom, or rather all the kings were named Artaxerxes.

                The sum of all the years of the kings of Media and Persia amounts to 250 years (in the place of 250 we ought to write 52 [2 + 50 = 52] years). (* This appears to be a correction of the original text.)

                “So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities,” &c., “And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street,” &c. A little after, “And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity, made booths and sat under the booths, for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day had not the children of Israel done so, and there was very great gladness,” &c. (Neh. 7:73; 8:2, 17.) But does it not appear that it could not be said that the same had not been done since the days of Joshua? But truly, he compares the entrance of the Israelites into their land in the days of Ezra with their entrance into it in the days of Joshua. Thus, as in the days of Joshua, they were bound to pay tithes, to observe the years of remission, and the Jubilees, and also the walled cities were sanctified, so at their entrance in the time of Ezra they were bound by the laws to pay tithes, to observe the years of remission, and the Jubilees, and they also sanctified their  walled cities, and there was great gladness before the Lord, as is eloquently written, “And there was very great gladness.” (8:17)

                Thus, in comparing the Scriptures, we find it spoken, “And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed (by inheritance), and thou shalt also possess it (by inheritance),” &c. (Deut. 30:5.) Here “thy possession” (in the time of Ezra) is compared with “ the possession of thy fathers” (in the time of Joshua). As thy fathers possessed this land by hereditary right, with the setting forth of all these things, so shall you possess it, with the renewal of all these things. If you say that Moses may have spoken of the third time of the acquisition of the inheritance, this place of Scripture will teach you the contrary, inasmuch as it says, “Which thy fathers possessed by inheritance, and thou also shalt possess it by inheritance.” This implies a first and second possession of the inheritance, but not a third.

                Moreover, “the rough he-goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” (Dan. 8:31.) “And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion,” &c.; “and when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven.” (11:3,4.) This is Alexander of Macedon, who reigned 12 years.

                So far the prophets have prophesied by the Holy Spirit. From this time forth, as is written, “Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise (and apply thine heart unto my knowledge), for it is a pleasant thing, if thou keep them within thee,” &c., “that thy trust may be in the Lord.” And it is added, “Have I not written to thee excellent things,” &c., “that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth?” &c. (Prov. 22:17-21.) How is it we also read, “Ask thy father, and he will show thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee?” (Deut. 32:7.) What persons does he (Moses) mean by the word “elders?” Do not suppose he means those insignificant and common people who are to be met within the highways and public places, for he adds, “And they will tell thee.” He, therefore, denotes persons distinguished for their wisdom and knowledge.

                Rabbi Jose asserts that the Persian empire flourished thirty and four (34) years after the building of the Temple. The empire of the Greeks lasted 180 years, the rule of the Asmoneans (the Maccabees) 103 years, and the kingdom of the Herods also 103 years. Now, take out these numbers, and compute from the destruction of the Temple (by the Romans). To the captivity also is ascribed the era of contracts, being reckoned from the beginning of the kingdom of the Greeks.

                These are the eight kings of the Greeks: “Alexander of Macedon, Phirton, Selimon, Seleucus, Santarok, Antioch, Antiochus, Gaskalus. (* Most of these names are so much corrupted that it is almost hopeless to attempt to set them right. Phirton, however, may be Philip Aridaeus; Selimon, Ptolemy; Santarok, Cassander; Antioch, Antigonus; and Gaskalus, Lysimachus.) From the war of Asur Pul to the war of Vespasian (are) 80 years, during which the Temple was standing. (* Qu. what war was this?)  From the war of Vespasian to the war of Titus 24 years (it should be 4 years); from the war of Titus to the war of Ben Cosiba, 16 years; the war of Ben Cosiba lasted two years and a half; and thus 22 years were completed after the destruction of the Temple.

                Rabbi Jose says, Reward was granted in the day of deserving, and punishment in the day of sinning; for instance, when the Temple was first destroyed, that day was the eve of the Sabbath, and also was at the end of the seventh year (that of remission). It was also the watch and week of Jehojarib, and the ninth day of the month Ab (July). In like manner, thus it was, when t e second Temple was destroyed. On both these occasions the Levites stood on their platforms, and sang the chant. But what was the chant they sang? This: “And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness,” &c. (Ps. 94:23.) In the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, the city was demolished, in the first destruction; and, on the 17th of the same month, in the second. “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, forever. And let all the people say, Amen. Hallelujah.” “Blessed be God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things; and blessed be his glorious name forever,” &c. (Ps. 72:18,19.)

                “And he changeth the times and the seasons, he removes kings,” &c. (Dan. 2:21,22.) Times, that is the time of Sodom. The word seasons denotes the time of Jerusalem, that it may be restored shortly; to which wish let all reply, Amen. “He removes kings,” that is, king Jehoiakim. “And setteth up kings,” i.e. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. “He giveth wisdom unto the wise,” to Moses our master, the father of wisdom and knowled e. “And knowledge to them that know understanding,” to Joshua the son of Nun of whom we read, “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom.” (Deut. 34:9.) Another interpretation, “ He giveth wisdom unto the wise,” to Joseph the just son of Jacob, of whom it was said, “There is none so discreet and wise as thou art.” (Gen. 41:39.) “And knowledge to them that know understanding,” to Daniel and his companions, of whom it is written, “Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” (Dan. 2:19.) “He revealeth the deep and secret things,” these are to be understood of the wheels of Ezekiel. “He knoweth what is in the darkness.” Understand by this the punishment which is inflicted upon the wicked in hell. “And the light dwelleth with him,” and by this the reward given to the just in a future state. Yet another exposition, “He giveth wisdom to the wise,” To Joshua, the son of Nun, of whom you find it written, “And Joshua, the son of Nun, was full of the spirit of wisdom.” (Deut. 34:9.) “And knowledge to them that seek understanding,” to Jeremiah, of whom this is written, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee,” &c. (Jer. 50:5.)

                If, however, you say that God knows things foretold only when they happen, you may learn the contrary from this passage, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” (Gen. 5:1) By this the Scriptures teach that the Holy and Blessed God showed to the first man all succeeding ages, and their leaders and governors, their prophets in all ages, their holy men in’ all ages, their wise men in all ages, their pastors in all ages, their judges in all ages, their prophets in all ages.  (* Generations.)  The just of each generation, the number of their names, the computation of their days,‘|the calculation of their hours, and the whole of their steps, (* The length of their lives.) (* Their actions.) as it is written, “For now thou numberest my steps, dost thou not watch over my sin?” (Job 14:17.) and elsewhere, “And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord God, but thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come,” &c. (2 Sam. vii. 19.) Again, “Thine eyes did see my substance,” &c. “And in thy book all my members are written,” &c. “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God,” “If I should count them they are more in number than the sand; when I wake I am still with thee.” (Ps. 139:16, 18.) (sliqʼ  lh thniʼ  dsedrd)  (Thus endeth the teaching of the Seder Olam Rabba.) }}

\

                II. Daniel 9: True Biblical Interpretation. Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz. jewsforjudaism.org

                {{ A Brief Explanation of Daniel Chapter 9:

                The book of Daniel is filled with Messianic illusions and calculations that even left Daniel pondering their meanings. Additionally, a large proportion of the book is written in Aramaic rather than the traditional Hebrew adding to the complexity of these biblical texts. Is there something about the Jewish Messiah?

                The ninth chapter has been of particular interest to both Jews and Christians. The message of a merciful God communicated in verse 18, “for not because of our righteousness do we pour out supplications before You, but because of Your great compassion.” has been a foundation of a Jews personal and spiritual relationship with God. Christians, on the other hand, tend to focus on verses 24 -26. The following is the Christian translation of those verses:

                24) Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

                25) Know therefore and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (62); it will be built again with plaza and moat but in troubled times.                26) Then after sixty-two (62) weeks the Messiah will be cut off but not for himself and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

                Many Christians assert that these passages are a prophecy that predicts the exact dates that the Messiah will come and also die. They believe that Jesus fulfilled these predictions. Before examining these verses it is important to point out that: 1) Based on the Hebrew original and context, Jews have very valid reasons for rejecting the Christian interpretation and 2) the New Testament authors never quote these passages and calculations as a proof-text.

                To understand this chapter, we must begin with an explanation of the term “weeks.”               
Daniel chapter 9 uses the Hebrew word (shb‘im = 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.
a) We see a similar use in the verse, “You shall count (shb’ shbthth hshnim) seven Shabbaths of years, seven years seven times… forty-nine (49) years.” Leviticus 25:8 b) A Shabbath is a period of seven days and shares the same Hebrew root for the word (shby‘h = Shavuah) that means “week”. c) Normally the plural of week would be (shb‘yth = Shavuot) in Daniel it uses the masculine “im” ending for (shb‘im = Shavuim) similar to (years = shnim). This indicates that (shb‘im = Shavuim) is referring to a multiple of seven years. d) Both Jews and Christian agree that this is referring to a multiple of years.

                Therefore in Daniel chapter 9, each week is a period of seven years.

                Christian polemicists interpret these passages in the following way. These passages are being spoken by Daniel after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the evil Babylonian empire. At some point after the destruction, there will be a “decree” issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Starting from the issuing of that decree, 7 and 62 weeks totaling 69 weeks of years (483 years), will pass and then the Messiah will come and in that same seven year period “week” he will be cut off, but not for himself, but for the sins of mankind. Then the city and sanctuary will be destroyed. Christian assert that their calculation proves that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy to the exact day.

                After the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, any Jews that survived the Babylonian slaughter were exiled from their land. Daniel, for example, lived in Babylon. Eventually, the Babylonians were conquered by the Persian Empire. Christians claim that the decree mentioned in Daniel 9:25 was issued by the Persian King Artaxerxes in the year 444 BCE, based on Nehemiah 2:1-8. These passages speak about the king giving Nehemiah “letters” (’igruth = Iggrot) for safe passage and permission to rebuild the Temple.

                The building of Jerusalem was started and halted several times, and there are three additional decrees mentioned earlier in the Bible.

1) Ezra 1:1-4, King Cyrus issues a proclamation (qol = Kol) and writings  (mkthb = Michtav) granting the Jews permission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

2) Ezra 6:12-13, King Darius issues a decree (t‘am = Taam) granting permission to rebuild the Temple.

3) Ezra 7:11-16, Artaxerxes, issues a decree (t‘am = Taam) granting permission to rebuild the Temple. (Artaxerxex is a Persian title of royalty and can refer to different leaders. This is similar to the way Pharaoh is the title of rulers of Egypt)

                We will see latter that it is significant that in these verses there are four different words used to describe these proclamations, and none of them match the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9 which is (debar = Devar) that means “word.”

                With four different proclamations, there is no historical justification to choose the one mentioned in Nehemiah 2 and there is no reliable source stating that it occurred exactly in 444 BCE. It seems that Christians 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. Whatever their reason for choosing Nehemiah’s reference and attributing it as having occurred in 444 BCE it is still seven years off from the year 32 CE when Jesus supposedly died.

                This seven-year discrepancy is resolved by Christian theologians who redefined the definition of a “year.” They claim that prophecies like Daniel’s are to be understood in “Prophetic years” that have 360 days rather than 365 ¼ days. The argument that Daniel might be speaking to Babylonians who may have had a 360 year is unsubstantiated and refuted by the fact that this particular passage is spoken in Hebrew to Jews who had a different calendar than Babylonians who spoke Aramaic.

                Prophetic Year vs Solar Year.

                One Christian attempt to prove this concept of Prophetic years is from the New Testament: “They will tread underfoot the holy city for 42 months, and they will prophesy for 1260 days.” Revelations 11:2-3

                By dividing 1260 (days) by 42 (months) you get 30 days per month, they claim that each month is 30 days and a Prophetic Biblical year would therefore be being 360 days (30 x 12 = 360). An additional proof-text utilizes the events surrounding the flood. The following verses are quoted to show how biblical months were periods of 30 days, “the water prevailed upon the earth 150 days” Gen 7:24 and the flood started on, “the 17th day of the second month” Gen 7:11, and ended on, “the 17th day of the seventh month.” Gen 8:4.

                They argue that by taking this exact five month period and dividing it into the 150 days, you will see that there must be five months of 30 days each and therefore a year would be 360 days. The Christian argument continues that the difference between a solar year of 365 ¼ days and the so-called prophetic year of 360 days is what caused the seven-year discrepancy in their interpretation of Daniel 9, and the resolution of the problem is accomplished by converting the time period from “biblical” years to solar years.

                They argue that that by multiplying 360 days by 483 years (69 weeks of years) you get 173,880 prophetic days. To convert this to solar years, you divide the 173,880 days by 365 1/4 (days), and you will get 476 years. 444 BCE plus 476 years will give you the year 32 CE, which they claim is the year that Jesus not only made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Messiah’s arrival) but was also crucified (cut off ).

                Before explaining why this line of reasoning is absolutely false and a simply an act of desperation to resolve their 7 year miscalculation, we must explore the correct meaning of Daniel 9 and the concept of a Jewish calendar year.

                Translating Daniel Correctly.

It is essential to a correct understanding of Daniel 9, to point out that it is incorrect to read this passage as if it were speaking about the Messiah. This may appear [not] obvious to Christians since their translations has the word “Messiah” mentioned twice in this chapter; however this is the result of a blatant and intentional mistranslation of the Hebrew word (mshich = Moshiach).

                This word literally means “anointed” and is an adjective as in the 1 Samuel 10:1-2 where the word clearly means an act of consecration. It is not a personal pronoun that refers to a particular individual called “The Messiah.” The word (mshich = Moshiach) is used throughout Jewish Scriptures no less than 100 times and refers to a variety of individuals and objects. For example: Priests: Leviticus 4:3. Kings: 1 Kings 1:39. Prophets: Isaiah 61:1. Temple Alter: Exodus 40:9-11. Matzot = Unleavened Bread: Numbers 6:15. Cyrus = a non-Jewish Persian King: Isaiah 45:1

                Even in Christian translations, the word Moshiach is translated 99% of the time as “anointed.” The only exception is twice in Daniel 9 verses 25 and 26. This inconsistency is even more blatant since Christian translators translate the word (mshich = Moshiach) as “anointed” one verse earlier when it is used in Daniel 9:24. In this instance, it is referring to anointing the innermost chamber of the Holy Temple known as the “Holy of Holies,” (qdshim qdsh = Kodesh Kedoshim). It is incorrect to translate this, as some missionaries do, to mean the “most holy one” in an attempt to have this refer to the Messiah rather than a place.

                Therefore, in Daniel, the passages should be correctly translated as: Daniel 9:24 “Until an anointed prince” and not as “Until Messiah the prince.” Daniel 9:25 “an anointed one will be cut off” and not as “the Messiah will be cut off.”

                Additionally, in verse 25 there is no definite article (Hey = h) before the word (mshich = Moshiach), and it is incorrect to translate this as “the Messiah” or “the anointed one” as if it were speaking about one exclusive individual. When translating correctly as an “anointed individual,” the passages could be referring any one of a number of different individuals or objects that were anointed and not necessarily “the Messiah.”

                A careful examination of Daniel 9 will lead to a clear understand of exactly to whom and what this chapter is referring. An additional mistake made by Christians is the translation of 7 and 62 weeks as one undivided unity of 69 weeks. The Christian version makes it sound as if the arrival and “cutting off” of the “Messiah” will take place sixty-nine (69) weeks (483 years) after a decree to restore Jerusalem. They add the 7 and 62 weeks together and have one person (the Messiah) and two events occurring towards the end of the 69th week.

                Actually, according to the Hebrew the 7 and 62 weeks are two separate and distinct periods. One event happens after seven weeks and another event after an additional 62 weeks. Simply put, if you wanted to say 69 in Hebrew you would say “sixty and nine.” You would not say “seven and sixty two.”

                Furthermore, in Daniel it is written “7 weeks and 62 weeks” rather than “7 and 62 weeks.” The use of the word “weeks” after each number also shows that they are separate events. The use of the definite article (h = Hey) that means “the” in verse 26, “and after the 62 weeks shall an anointed one be cut off,” is sometimes deleted in Christian translations, but it’s presence in the Hebrew original clearly indicates that the 62 weeks is to be treated as separate period of time from the original 7 weeks.

                The correct translation should be: “until an anointed prince shall be 7 weeks (49 years),” “then for 62 weeks (434 years) it (Jerusalem) will be built again but in troubled times.” “Then after (those) the 62 weeks an anointed one shall be cut off.” Daniel 9:24-25

                Two separate events and anointed ones, 62 weeks (434 years) apart.

                Christians also incorrectly translated the Hebrew (V’ayn Lo = lo w’ain), at the end of Daniel 9:26. They translate it that he will be cut off “but not for himself,” as if it refers to someone being cut off not for himself but cut off for us and indicating a form of vicarious attainment. However the Hebrew original means “and he will be no more” literally “and no more of him” and indicates the finality of his demise. Interestingly the Hebrew word (kares = krth) translated as “cut off” biblically refers to someone who has sinned so grievously that they are put to death [or cast out, excommunicated; see all the occurences] by heavenly decree as a divine punishment for their own transgressions.

                An awareness of these eight mistranslations is essential to understanding the ninth chapter of Daniel. To recap:

1.  (qdshim qdsh) mean “holy of holies” not the “most holy one”.

2.  (dbr = Devar) that means “word” not decree.

3.  (mshich =  Moshiach) means “anointed” not “Messiah” verse 23.

4.  (mshich =  Moshiach) means “anointed” not “Messiah” verse 24.5

5.  “seven weeks and sixty-two (69) ” means two events one at 7 weeks and the other 62 weeks later not one event after a cumulative 69 weeks.

6. (Hey = h) mean “the”.

7. (V’ayn Lo = lo w’ain) mean “will be no more” not “not for himself”.

8. (kares = krth) means death [& severance] to a transgressor that cuts off their relationship to God.

                Jewish Calendar Years

                In addition to these these eight mistranslations Christians, as mentioned above, manipulate their calculation of the 69 weeks in Daniel 9 in an attempt to have them coincide with the arrival and death of Jesus in Jerusalem.

                Christians based their understand with a belief that the starting point of the prophesy begins in 444 BCE with the decree issued by King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-16). Sixty–nine (69) weeks (483 years) would bring you to 39 CE. This is 7 years off the commonly accepted date of 32 CE being the year Jesus was put to death. As mentioned above they attempt to resolve this issue by transforming “prophetic years” into solar years. The problem is that according to Jewish tradition and scriptures there is no such thing as a prophetic year of 360 days.

                Jewish scripture clearly teaches that the Jewish calendar is both Solar and Lunar. As early as Genesis 1:14, that deals with the creation of the sun and the moon, we are told that “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years” Both luminaries are used to determine our calendar.

                A solar year is 365 1/4 days, and a lunar year is 11 days shorter, 354 days long. Unlike the Gentile’s year where the length of the months is set by convention rather than a relationship to the lunar calendar, a Biblical Jewish calendar must coincide with both the sun (for seasons) and the moon. When God, commanded the people of Israel to sanctify the months he established the month that the Exodus took place as the first of the months. Exodus 12:1. God also commanded to observe Passover in the springtime as is says, “Observe the month of springtime [Abib] and perform the Passover for God, for in the month on springtime [Abib] God took you out of Egypt.” Deut. 16:1.

                In other words, a biblical calendar must coincide the months with the seasons creating a Solar-Lunar calendar.

                There is an eleven day difference between a solar and lunar year. If Jewish holidays were established solely by a lunar year the holidays would move further and further away from their original seasons. This happens all the time with the Muslim Lunar calendar with Ramadan falling in a variety of seasons. A biblical Solar/Lunar calendar corrects this by adding a 13 month leap year approximately every 4 years. Some years have 12 months and the leap year has 13. The fabricated “prophetic year” of 360 days could not exist because it would not allow Jewish holidays to coincide with both months and seasons.

                Understanding Daniel:

                Now we can return to the beginning of Daniel 9 and establish the correct starting point for Daniel’s prophesy. The Christian major error in establishing the starting point of Daniel prophesy is caused by their mistranslation of the verse, “know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:25

                Since their translation asserts that the starting point of this prophesy is from the issuing of a certain decree to rebuild Jerusalem, they incorrectly assume that it is the decree of King Artaxerxes. However, as mentioned above, there were a number of different decrees made concerning returning and rebuilding Jerusalem.

                In Daniel 9:25, the original Hebrew used the word (dbr = Devar) which is significantly different from a human decree. The word (dbr = Devar) refers to a prophetic word. In the beginning of Daniel 9 verse 2, this word is used when Daniel says that he wants to understand “the word of the Lord to the Prophet Jeremiah.”

                As mentioned above, in all of the passages that mention some form of decree or proclamation concerning Jerusalem, none of them use the Hebrew word (dbr = Devar).

                The correct translation of Daniel should be: “Know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel 9:25

                Therefore the correct starting point of Daniel’s prophesy must be associated with the issuing of a prophetic word and not a human decree. The word (dbr = Devar) is used in the beginning of Daniel chapter 9. A careful reading of the beginning of this chapter clarifies the correct meaning of the reference to the “word to restore and to build Jerusalem” mentioned in Daniel 9:25. [Compare Deut. 10:4 “ten commandments” = (‘asereth ha-debarim = the 10 words (from debar))]

                Chapter 9 begins as follows: “I Daniel considered (or contemplated) in the books the number of the years which the word (dbr = Devar) of G-d came to Jeremiah the Prophet that would accomplish to the destruction of Jerusalem” Daniel 9:2

                Here Daniel uses the word (dbr = Devar) when pondering the numbers of years that Jeremiah had spoken about. Jeremiah had twice prophesied concerning a 70 year period.

                Once Jeremiah said: “and these [this] nation shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years and it shall come to pass when seventy years are accomplished that I will punish the King of Babylon and that nation … and make it everlasting desolation” Jeremiah 25: 11-12

                This prophesy states that Babylon would dominate Israel for a total of 70 years.

                Jeremiah also says: “After 70 years are accomplished to Babylon I will take heed of you and perform My good word towards you in causing you to return to this place.” Jeremiah 29:l0

                This prophesy states, that after the 70 years, in addition to the end of Babylonian domination, the Jews would also return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile. There are two Jeremiah prophesies concerning: 1) subjugation, and 2) return to Jerusalem.

                Jeremiah’s 70 years start from the initial subjugation of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. This took place 18 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as demonstrated by the following passages. We know that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. As it says:

                “In the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan the chief executioner was in service of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem… and destroyed the Temple of God” Jeremiah 52:12-13

                The 19th year means that 18 full years had already been completed. Nebuchadnezzar started to subjugate Jerusalem in his first year of his rule; this can be derived from the following verses.

                “in King Yehoyakim’s third year (three completed years) Nebuchadnezzar came to besiege Jerusalem” Daniel 1:1

                “in the fourth year (three completed years) of Yehoyakim which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar” Jeremiah 25:1

                These verses demonstrate that Nebuchadnezzar started to besiege Jerusalem in his first year and the destruction of Jerusalem took place in his 19th year. Therefore, 18 complete years had passed from the beginning of the siege until the destruction of Jerusalem. During these 18 years Jerusalem was laid siege and completely surrounded. Scriptures also indicate that the 70 years of Jeremiah were completed with the advent of Cyrus the King of the Persian Empire. As it says:

                “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled.” Ezra 1:1-3

                “Those who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, where they became slaves to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign. This was the fulfillment of the word of God to Jeremiah, until the land would be appeased of its Sabbatical years, all the years of its desolation it rested, to the completion of 70 years. In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, upon the expiration of God’s prophesy spoken by Jeremiah. God aroused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia and he issues a proclamation… to build God a Temple in Jerusalem.” 2nd Chronicles 36:20-23. In addition to the Babylonian rule ended in fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:11-12, Cyrus also gave permission, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10, to the Jews to return to Jerusalem, as it says:         “Whoever is among you all his people, let his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord G-d of Israel.” Ezra 1:4

                It is important to remember that from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 18 years before the fall of Jerusalem, until the fall of the Babylonian Empire, when Cyrus came into power, 70 years had elapsed. By subtracting the 18 years subjugation before the destruction of the first Temple from the total of 70 years we are left with 52 years. This proves that King Cyrus arose to power and fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophesy 52 years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

                This plays an essential role in understanding Daniel 9. Daniel yearned not only for the Babylonian Empire to cease 70 years after the subjugation of Jerusalem; he yearned to see the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple. When Daniel begins speaking in chapter 9 it is in the first year of Darius the Median. This Darius is mentioned earlier in Daniel 6:1 and called the Mede so that he would not be confused with Darius son of Ahasuerus the Persian, who was born later during the days of Haman and Esther.

                Daniel was confused because although he now witnessed that, with the advent of Darius the 70 years to the Babylonian subjugation were over in fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:11-12, Daniel had not yet seen the fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10 that promised that after the 70 years the Jewish exiles would return and rebuild Jerusalem. He did not foresee that very shortly Cyrus world rule and fulfill this promise.

                Daniel thought that perhaps, due to the sins of Israel the date had been delayed. This is why Daniel confesses for the sins of the people in verse 4-20 and says:               “Now I was still speaking and praying and confessing my sins and the sins of my people Israel and casting my supplications before the Lord My God about the holy mountain (the Sanctuary as seen in Isaiah 56:7) of my God.” Daniel 9:20

                This explains why at the beginning of chapter 9 Daniel contemplated the number of years to the destruction of Jerusalem and not to the subjugation, as it says, “I Daniel contemplated the calculations, the number of years about that which the word of God came to the prophet Jeremiah, to complete the 70 years to the destruction (lchrboth = L’Charvot) of Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:2

                Daniel saw that the subjugation was over, but he not only wanted to see the return to Jerusalem he wanted to know when the destruction would end with the building of the second Temple. In fact, after one year of rule by Darius, King Cyrus took power and fulfilled Jeremiah 29 and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. But Daniel’s desire to understand the years of Jeremiah to the destruction of Jerusalem, result in the revelation of a new and additional understanding of Jeremiah:

                There are now three different prophesies concerning 70 years. 1) 70 years of subjugation (Jeremiah 25). 2) 70 years till they return to the Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29). 3) 70 years of the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9).

                Whereas the calculations of the first two begin with the subjugation of Jerusalem 18 years before its destruction, Daniel’s new insight into the 70 years of total destruction must be calculated from a different starting point, the date that Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, starting from the destruction of the first Temple until the completion of the building of second Temple was exactly 70 years.

                As a result of Daniel’s praying, confessing and contemplating about the years to the destruction of Jerusalem, the angel Gabriel (verse 21), revealed to him and expanded prophesy of 70 weeks (490 years).

                The starting point of this prophesy “that from the going of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel 9:25, also begins from the Destruction of the First Temple.

                The use of the Hebrew word (dbr = Devar) in both Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:2 also establishes that they share the same beginning point, the destruction of Jerusalem.

                Starting from the destruction of Jerusalem we can now see the meaning of Daniel 9:24-26. From the Prophetic word (dbr = Devar) that refers to the destruction of the first Temple until an anointed Prince (the Hebrew (ngid = nagid) is correctly translated as Leader), will be seven weeks (49 years). As demonstrated earlier, from the destruction of Jerusalem until Cyrus was 52 years, this is within the 7th week (49 years and before the 8th weeks 56 years).

                Cyrus not only initiated the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1:1-3, Ezra 5:13, Ezra 6:3 and Isaiah 44:28), he is also called and identified as God’s anointed, as it says, “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus” Isaiah 45:1

                Remember there are two anointed subjects, one after seven weeks and another after an additional 62 weeks. The first “anointed” individual identified as a prince/leader in Daniel 9:25 is King Cyrus, who came seven weeks of years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Then from Cyrus’ Decree to rebuild Jerusalem, “it will be built again” for an additional 62 weeks (434 years). But “in troubled times,” Daniel 9:25, meaning under the foreign domination of the subsequent Persian, Greek and Roman rule. The Greek is mentioned in Daniel 11:2 and Roman alluded to in Daniel 1:30 where the word (kthim = Kittim) refers to the Roman capital of Constantinople). Then in the 69th week (483 years) after the destruction of the first Temple and one week (7 years) before the destruction of the second Temple, an anointed one is cut off.

                The fact that there is no definite article indicates that this can refer to several different anointed subjects. King Agrippa the last King of Israel (Kings are considered anointed as it says in 1st Chronicles 11:3) who was killed during this time. It also refers to the last High Priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were considered anointed and were cut off during the final week before the destruction of the second Temple.

The people of the prince will come and destroy the city and the Sanctuary” Daniel 9:26, refers to the Roman legions of Vespasian and Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem. Additionally, the sacrificial system (that was anointed) ceased during this last week before the completion of the total 70 weeks of 490 years, as it says, “during half of week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offerings” Daniel 9:27

                Historically during the years before the destruction of the second Temple the Romans set up idolatry in the Temple fulfilling the final verse in Daniel 9 that says, “upon wings of abomination shall come one who make desolate until the decreed destruction is poured out desolator” Daniel 9:27

                The Romans, who are often symbolized by the Eagle Wings resting on their standards, would desecrate the Temple with idolatry; destroy the Temple that would remain desolate until the Roman exile is finished with the advent of the true Messianic age of complete peace, tranquility and knowledge of God. Today’s exile is considered an extension of the Roman exile that has lasted more than 2,000 years.

                In Daniel 9 the original 70 years are from the destruction of the first Temple until the building of the second. If they had returned whole-heartedly, there would have been no need for the second Temple to be destroyed, and the events listed verse 24 would have been fulfilled.

                “Seventy weeks (490 years) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity (atone for their past transgressions), and to bring in everlasting righteousness (Temple service that brings righteousness), and to seal up the vision and prophecy (fulfill the promises of the prophets and end the prophetic era) and, and to anoint the Holy of Holies (the Temple)” Daniel 9:24.  The angel Gabriel reveals to Daniel this additional understanding of the 70 years extending them from 70 years to 70 weeks of years stretching the time span to 490 years that span from the destruction of the first Temple to the Destruction of the second Temple. This prophesy also included a description of events that would unfold if the Jewish people did not repent properly.

                These are the 70 years for the first exile (52 years until Cyrus and 18 additional years to dedicate the second Temple) and 420 years of the second Temple.

                Although there appears to be a discrepancy in chronology between the Jewish and secular Gregorian calendars of 166 years (with the secular dates earlier) it is clear that Jewish record keeping is more reliable and consistent concerning these events. Babylonian calendars changed arbitrarily with every new Babylonian king and limited archeological discoveries often reflect their arbitrary chronology. (According to secular chronology 586 BCE is the year incorrectly associated with the destruction of the first Temple the Jewish Holy of Holies.)

                This is how Daniel 9:24-26 should be correctly translated and understood:

24) Seventy weeks (490 years) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25) Know therefore and discern that from the issuing of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (starting from its destruction) until an anointed Prince (Cyrus) will be seven weeks (49 years) and then for sixty-two weeks (434 years) it will be built again with plaza and moat but in troubled times. (Persian, Greek and Roman domination). 26) Then after the sixty-two weeks (483 years from the destruction of the first Temple) an anointed one (sacrifices, last Jewish priest and king) will be cut off and will be no more, and the people of the prince (Romans) who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (in the 70th week 490 years from the destruction of the first Temple).

                This is a brief explanation of Daniel chapter 9. Any attempt to apply this chapter to Jesus is erroneous and wrought with mistranslations and misinterpretations.

                Related Content: For a clear explanation of the Jewish Messiah, check out this article….}}

                III.  Jewish Rabbinical Views: Daniel 9:24-27: (See Mesorah’s ArtScrollTanach Series, Daniel, Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm, etc.)

                {{ 9:24. 70 yrs = 70 weeks of yrs or 70×7 or 70 7s = 490 yrs. (Seder Olam, Ibn Ezra, ) based on Lev. 25:8; 23:15; Gen. 30:27; 7 wks of yrs = 7 wks of wks (shabathoth = wks not yrs as in 7 yr sabbatical cycles for Jubilee; Onkelos & Yonasan; Ramban). 490 yrs: Destruction of 1st Temple Anno Creation Mundi (A.C.M.) 3338 (shalach numeric = 338). Restoration of Temple 70 yrs later in 2nd yr of Darius the Persian, Hag. 1:1-8, in 3408. Temple lasted 420, some say, add 70 yrs Captivity = 490 yrs. to 2nd Temple A.C.M. 3828. Darius Decree before the 1st Temple’s Destruction about 51 yrs before Daniel’s Vision. Daniel’s 70 yrs = Jeremiah’s 70 yrs, wks of yrs for sabbatical yrs (shemitoth), Lev. 26:34;  2nd Chron. 36:21 of the Exile; see Mishnah & Talmud, Yoma; 490 yrs for complete redemption; etc. Others say 70 exile + 420 yrs redemption  is error: 490 yrs from Daniel’s Prayer to 2nd Temple’s Destruction (70 A.D.), increasing 51 yrs total. Terminate or atone or make-amend for transgression by exile & judgment to end or seal for sins to issue eternal righteousness by prophetic promised King Messiah, to anoint the Holy of Holies of the Ark of Covenant in the 3rd Temple. Others say 70 Weeks applies only to exile & redemption between 2 Temples, to coming of King Messiah according to prophetic visions of Scripture, to anoint the 2nd Temple which had never been anointe & without Shechinah.

                9:25. Daniel’s Prayer answered by the Word: went & sent to return & rebuild Jerusalem for 7 wks or 49 yrs (Rashi & others). Others, restoration & rebuilding of Jerusalem would be about 49 yrs after the 490 yrs; correcting Daniel’s thinking that 2300 yrs would transpire before Jerusalem’s rebuilding. Temple’s Destruction to Cyrus’ Advent was 51 yrs. So from the Lord’s Word to Jeremiah to return & rebuild Jerusalem = 7 wks or 49 yrs; to anointing (mashiach) the Prince (Nagid), that is, Cyrus, in Is.45:1, 13. Others, to anoint the returning exiled HighPriest Yehoshua benYehotzadak, or Zerubabel benShealtiel, seed of King Yechaniah (Yehoyachin) of Judah; till the Prince is anointed & Jerusalem rebuilt after 70 yrs. Resolved, 70 yrs from Jerusalem’s 1st conquest to Cyrus 1st yr; but 70 yrs from Jerusalem’s desolation to completion of redemption; that is, 18 yrs from Jerusalem’s 1st conquest to Temple’s destruction, after 51 yrs had passed. Messiah (mashiach) is used here for greatness, not anointed (Onkelos & others). Daniel’s word from the Angel revealed that the 70th yr of Captivity was only 52nd yr from Jerusalem’s conquest, 18 yrs till Temple’s destruction. Others, the Anointed Prince is Nechemiah benChalchaliah, Governor of Judah in 20th yr of Artachshast, Neh.2:1; 12:26. From Darius the Mede to 2nd yr of Darius the Persian, & rebuilding of Temple, is 19 yrs, Darius the Persian reigned 10 yrs more, add 20 yrs for Artachshast’s rule, totals 49 yrs, or 7 wks of yrs; from Cyrus’ Edict to Nechemiah. 62 wks = 434 yrs + 4 = 438+ yrs uncounted from before Anointed Prince reigned. Thus: 70 wks = 7 wks before Anointed Prince reigned; 62 wks from enthronement; & 1 wk of ½ wk before & ½ wk after enthronement.

                9:26. Anointed (Mashiach) cut off or terminated; anointed priesthood to cease, or anointed one as King Agrippa II of seed of Herod the Great; or a ruler high priest at time of Jerusalem & 2nd Temple’s destruction in 70 A.D. People of coming prince refers to Roman legions of Emperor Vespasian & his son General Titus who destroyed the Temple without Titus direct command says the Sages or Elders of Israel; the Roman destroyers will be terminated by King Messiah’s coming; or Jerusalem comes to a sudden end as a flood; or by war of King Messiah in War of Gog & Magog to the ruin of Jerusalem.

                9:27. Roman Destroyer establishes or strengthened Covenant or Treaty with Great Ones of the people, that is, Elders or Rabbis (larabbim), instead of ‘many’ or people. Rashi & Rambam & many others say that Romans broke covenant, voided treaty, violated pact made with Jewish Leaders in 3½ years or half-week before they abolished the sacrifices & priesthood, according to unsupported sources. Yosippon or Josephus in Chapter 79 is amended by some to say that 3½ yrs before Temple’s destruction the sacrifices & priesthood ended. Talmud tradition reports during the final days of siege the Jews lowered from Jerusalem’s walls 2 baskets of gold in exchange for two lambs hoisted up, then at last the Romans substituted pigs for lambs, thus ending the sacrifices by desecrating the holy things & priesthood. But this whole matter is very problematic, confused, & unsupported by facts & sources. The destruction spread to Temple’s wings & Jerusalem’s walls & defenses; & continued up to 52 yrs later in the revolt of Bar-Kochba, when Romans erected for worship Hadrian’s Idol Temple on the cite of Sanctuary to desecrate the Holy Place & spread abominations everywhere; till the decreed extermination or culmination upon the abominations of idolatry & desolation. Conclusion: Some, Ibn Ezra & others, this last week is additional to 70 Weeks, it is an exception unaccounted due to its nature;  it is for judgment & destruction but also for restoration & rebuilding. 2nd Temple’s period increases by 1 wk or 7 yrs; 471 yrs from Temple’s rebuilding in Darius the Persian’s 2nd yr; 51 extra yrs than tradition of the Sages allow. Seleucid calendar system adopted in 4th century B.C., lasting 1,000 yrs, differed at times by 100 yrs from Julian-Gregorian calendar, and here in Daniel 9, some 50 yrs off. }}

23. Larkin.

Dispensational Truth. God’s Plan & Purposes for the Ages. Clarence Larkin. 40th. CL. PA. 1920.  Rightly Dividing Word. Clarence Larkin. CL. Pa. 1921. 1850-1924   Website: larkinbooks.com

American Baptist Pastor, Bible Teacher, and Writer.

                ( “Clarence Larkin  was born October 28, 1850, in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. He was converted to Christ at the age of 19 and then felt called to the Gospel ministry, but the doors of opportunity for study and ministry did not open immediately. He then got a job in a bank.   When he was 21 years old, he left the bank and went to college, graduating as a mechanical engineer. He continued as a professional draftsman for a while, then he became a teacher of the blind. This last endeavor cultivated his descriptive faculties, something God would later use in him to produce a monumental work on dispensational theology. Later, failing health compelled him to give up his teaching career. After a prolonged rest, he became a manufacturer. But he was not happy.        Larkin felt that God wanted him in the Gospel ministry. When he was converted he had become a member of the Episcopal Church, but in 1882, at the age of 32, he became a Baptist and was ordained as a Baptist minister two years later. He went directly from business into the ministry.              His first charge was at Kennett Square, Pennsylvania; his second pastorate was at Fox Chase, Pennsylvania, where he remained for 20 years. He was not a pre-millennialist at the time of his ordination, but his study of the Scriptures, with the help of some books that fell into his hands, led him to adopt the pre-millennialist position. He began to make large wall charts, which he titled, “Prophetic Truth,” for use in the pulpit. These led to his being invited to teach, in connection with his pastoral work, in two Bible institutes. During this time he published a number of prophetical charts, which were widely circulated.         When World War I broke out in 1914, he was called on for addresses on The War and Prophecy. Then God laid it on his heart to prepare a work on Dispensational Truth (or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages), containing a number of charts with descriptive matter. He spent three years of his life designing and drawing the charts and preparing the text. The favorable reception it has had since it was first published in 1918 seems to indicate that the world was waiting for such a book.     Because it had a large and wide circulation in this and other lands, the first edition was soon exhausted. It was followed by a second edition, and then, realizing that the book was of permanent value, Larkin revised it and expanded it, printing it in its present form. Larkin followed this masterpiece with other books: Rightly Dividing the Word, The Book of Daniel, Spirit World, Second Coming of Christ, and A Medicine Chest for Christian Practitioners, a handbook on evangelism.       Larkin, a kind and gentle man, deplored the tendency of writers to say uncharitable things about each other, so he earnestly sought to avoid criticisms and to satisfy himself with simply presenting his understanding of the Scriptures. Though he did not intend to publish his own works, the Lord led in that direction. During the last five years of his life, the demand for Larkin’s books made it necessary for him to give up the pastorate and devote his full time to writing. He went to be with the Lord on January 24, 1924.”)

{{ “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” [Rom. 11:25]

                Dispensational Truth: Chapter  X . Gentiles:

                The Scriptures speak of three classes of people on the earth, the Jews, the Gentile, and the Church. The Church is made up of both Jew and Gentile. Outside of the Church all who are not Jews are Gentiles. Up to the call of Abraham all the people of the earth were Gentiles. Abraham was the first Hebrew. His grandson Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel (Gen. 32:24-26), had twelve sons. They became the heads of twelve tribes, known as the “Twelve Tribes of Israel.” After the death of King Solomon these “Tribes” were divided. Ten of them became known as Israel, and two (Judah and Benjamin) as Judah. In B.C. 721 Israel was carried captive to Assyria, and in B. C, 606 Judah was carried captive to Babylon. When Judah, after seventy years, returned from captivity, a fair representation of the whole Twelve Tribes returned with them. From that time they have been known as the Jews. The Jews were God’s chosen people, but when they fell into idolatry and were carried into captivity, they were supplanted by the Gentiles.

                The nations of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon were anxious to conquer and supplant Israel (The Jews), but God held them in an unseen leash until the iniquity of Israel was full, and then He permitted the world power to pass into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. Jer. 27:5-7. This happened in B.C. 606 and marked the beginning of the “Times Of The Gentiles.” spoken of by Christ in Luke 21:24, and which is a period that in the mind of God has certain chronological limits. It is not to be confounded with the “Fulness of the Gentiles” spoken of by Paul in Rom. 11:25. The “Fulness of the Gentiles” refers to the Gentiles that are “gathered out” to make up the Church, and “blindness in part” will continue among the Jews until the “Fulness’ (the whole number of the elect) of the Gentiles be come in, then the Church is “caught out, ” and the Jews restored to their own land. The “Fulness of the Gentiles” began at Pentecost, and ends at least seven years before the “Times of the Gentiles” end.

         The “Times of the Gentiles” are fully outlined in the Book of Daniel.

         The Book of Daniel (see chart) contains one “Dream” by Nebuchadnezzar, and four

          “Visions” by Daniel all relating to the “Times of the Gentiles.”

                1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.

                In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign he had a dream, but when he awoke it had gone from him. He demanded of his magicians and astrologers that they should not only reproduce the dream, but that they should interpret it. This they were unable to do and their destruction was ordered, but was stayed by Daniel’s petition for a little time. Then Daniel and his companions betook themselves to prayer, and in a night vision the “Dream” and its meaning was made known to Daniel. The interpretation is certainly one that human ingenuity could not have hit upon. The wise men and flatterers of the Chaldean court would never have dared to announce the End of Gentile Supremacy. The “Colossus” (Image) symbolized the “World Kingdoms” in their Unity and Historical Succession. Gentile dominion is represented by a huge “Metallic” Man. ‘The degeneration of the “World Kingdoms” is seen in the diminishing value of the metals used. Silver is worthless than gold, brass than silver, iron than brass, and clay than iron. The weight of the image also declines, the specific gravity of gold is 19. 5, of silver 10. 47, of brass 8, of cast-iron 5, and of clay 1. 93. The “Colossus” is Top-Heavy.

                The four metals of which the “Colossus” was composed represent Four Worldwide Empires, which were to arise in succession. Dan. 2:37-39. Four great Empires, and only four, are to succeed each other in the government of the world, from Nebuchadnezzar to the “Second Coming” of Christ-the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman. These Kingdoms are not only made known as to number, but their names, in the order of their succession, are given. The First Kingdom “Babylon” is indicated by Daniel while interpreting the vision to Nebuchadnezzar. “THOU art this Head of Gold.” Dan. 2:38. The Second-the “MedoPersian, ” he points out in his account of Belshazzar’s Feast, by the emphatic words-“In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the Kingdom.” Dan. 5:30, Dan. 5:31. The Third-the “Grecian, ” is mentioned in Dan. 8:20-21, “the ram which thou sawest having two horns are The kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the King of Grecia.” The Fourth-the “Roman” is referred to in Dan. 9:26, as-“the People of the Prince that should destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the Sanctuary”; and we know that it was the Romans under Titus, that destroyed Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

                We have seen that the deterioration of the “Colossus” is shown in the character of the metals composing it. This was prophetic of the character of the governments as they were to succeed one another. The power of Nebuchadnezzar was Absolute, of him Daniel said –“All people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared him; whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.” Dan. 5:19. The second Kingdom was inferior to the first. It was a Monarchy dependent upon the support of a Hereditary Aristocracy. The king could by no means do as he willed. This is seen in the case of Darius, who desired to save Daniel from the “Lions’ Den, ” and could not, Dan. 6:12-14; and in the case of Ahasuerus who could only save the Jews from slaughter by a counter-decree. Est. 8:3-5. The metal of the third Kingdom was brass, and the government of Alexander the Great was a Monarchy supported by a Military Aristocracy, that was as weak as the ambitions of its leaders. The iron power of the fourth Kingdom shows a still further depreciation. The Caesars were nominally elected by the people; they were merely called First Magistrates of the State or Generals; and for a long time they wore no diadem, but only the laurel crown of a successful commander. They had also a Senate which was supposed to counsel and control them. The people were neither allowed to legislate for them, nor to interfere with them, and if a Senator became too independent he was banished. Thus the Empire remained metallic and coherent. Iron is more perishable, more easily corroded or rusted than brass, or silver, or gold; but in the form of ‘Steel’ it is harder than any of them, and cuts through every other metal. Such has been Rome with her iron rule. But the “Colossus” grows weaker and weaker until the feet and toes become a mixture of Iron and Clay. In other words the government degenerates from an Absolute Monarchy to an Autocratic Democracy, a form of government in which the people largely have the say. In short the “Colossus” shows that Gentile dominion passes gradually from the Head, the organ which ought to direct the members, to the Feet, which are only made to carry the body whither the head directs. We see then that the first of these Kingdoms was a Unit, the second Dual, the third became Quadruple (Dan. 7:6, Dan. 8:8), and the fourth, in its final form, becomes Ten-Toed.

                The “Colossus” comes to an end by being smitten on the Feet by a “Stone Cut Out of a Mountain.” The “Stone” does not fill the earth by degrees, and thus crowd the “Colossus” out, it at One Blow ‘Demolishes It’. The action of the “Stone” is ‘Judgment’, not grace. It therefore cannot mean Christianity, for it is a “process” whereas the action of the “Stone” is ‘Sudden’ and ‘Calamitous’. Again the Time of the destruction is not until after the formation of the toes, and we know that the “Two Limbs” of the “Colossus” did not appear until A.D. 364, and the “Ten Toes” have not yet developed. The Time when the “Stone” falls on the “Colossus” is distinctly stated in the interpretation as “in the days of those kings,” that is, in the days of the kings represented by the “Ten Toes.” The “Stone” which smites the “Colossus” must be interpreted as Christ who is called a “Stone” in Scripture. “Whosoever shall fall on this stone (Christ) shall be broken (softened by repentance), but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Matt. 21:44. This is exactly what the prophet foretells of the smiting of the “Colossus.” “Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the Stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” Dan. 2:35. As the four Kingdoms typified by the “Colossus” are literal Kingdoms, it follows that the “Stone Kingdom” must be a literal Kingdom, for it takes the place of the Kingdoms that are destroyed, and conquers the whole earth. The “Stone Kingdom” then is the “Millennial Kingdom of Christ” and the “Colossus,” or the “Times of the Gentiles” typified by it, cannot come to an end until the “revelation of Christ” at His Second Coming.

                2. Vision of  “Four Beasts.”

                This was a vision of Daniel’s 48 years after Nebuchadnezzar had his dream, and occurred in the first year of Belshazzar, B.C. 555. In vision Daniel stood on the shore of the “Great Sea” (the Mediterranean), from which region the four Kingdoms arose. Out of the sea four “Great Beasts” came up in succession. We have no difficulty in identifying these “Four Beasts” with the “Four Kingdoms” represented by the “Colossus.” “The first was like a Lion and had Eagle’s Wings, ” and as the Prophet watched it, he saw it “lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon its feet as a Man, and a Man’s Heart was given to it. Dan. 7:4. We have only to visit the British Museum, London, and examine the colossal stone lions with the “wings of an eagle” and the “head of a man, ” disinterred from the ruins of Babylon and Assyria by Sir Henry Layard between the years 1840 and 1850 A. D., to see that the “First Beast” of Daniel’s vision represented the First World Kingdom-Babylon, and its King Nebuchadnezzar.

                The peculiarity of the “First Beast” was that it had “Eagle’s Wings.” This combination of the lion, the “King of Beasts, ” and the eagle, the “King of Birds,” corresponded to the Royalty of the “Head of Gold” of the Colossus, and typified the “Eagle-like” swiftness of the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. The “Plucking of the Wings” doubtless referred to the “Beastly Insanity” of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:20-22), and the “lifting up,” and causing to stand upon its feet “as a man” to his restoration to sanity.

                The Second Beast was “like to a Bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had Three Ribs in the mouth of it, between the teeth of it; and they said thus unto it, Arise, Devour Much Flesh.” Dan. 7:5. The bear is the strongest beast after the lion and is distinguished for its voracity, but it has none of the agility and majesty of the lion, is awkward in its movements, and effects its purpose with comparative slowness, and by brute force and sheer strength. These were the characteristics of the Medo-Persian Empire. It was ponderous in its movements. It did not gain its victories by bravery or skill, but overwhelmed its enemies by hurling vast masses of troops upon them. Xerxes’ expedition against Greece was undertaken with 2, 500, 000 fighting men, who with the camp followers made up an army of 5, 000, 000. Other Persian generals had armies running up into the 100, 000’s of men. It is easy to be seen that the movements of such enormous bodies of men would “devour much flesh,” not only in the destruction of their enemies, but thousands would die of disease and exposure and the countries through which they passed would become famine stricken by the loss of food seized to feed such armies. The side of the Bear which raised up to attack typified Persia, in which lay the greatest military strength, and corresponded to the right shoulder and arm of the “Colossus.” The “Three-Ribs” stood for the three Kingdoms of Lydia, Babylon and Egypt, which formed a “Triple Alliance” to check the Medo-Persian power, but were all destroyed by it.

                The Third Beast was “like a Leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the Beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.” Dan. 7:6. The leopard is the most agile and graceful of creatures; but its speed is here still further assisted by “wings.” Slight in its frame, but strong, swift and fierce, its characteristics render it a fitting symbol of the rapid conquests of the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who, followed by small but well-equipped and splendidly brave armies, moved with great celerity and in about 10 years overthrew the unwieldy forces of Persia, and subdued the whole civilized world. The “four wings of a Fowl” indicate, that, as a “fowl” does not fly high, the armies of Alexander were fitted mainly for lowland fighting. There is an incongruity between the number of “wings” and the number of “heads” of the Leopard. “Four heads” call for “four pair of wings.” Why only “four” wings we do not know, unless they denote the four quarters of the earth into which Alexander sought to extend his Kingdom. The “Four Heads” of the Leopard represent the “Four Kingdoms” into which the Empire of Alexander was divided by his generals, namely Egypt, Syria, Thrace and Macedonia. From B.C. 323 to B.C. 30 there was no world-wide Kingdom, there being this break or parenthesis between the Medo-Persian and Roman Empires, showing that while there was to be “four” and “only four” world-wide Empires it did not necessarily follow that there should be no break between them. The Third Beast, the Leopard, corresponds to the abdomen and hips of the Colossus.

                The Fourth Beast was unlike any beast that Daniel had ever seen or heard about, it was “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, and it had great ‘Iron Teeth’. It devoured and brake in pieces, and tamped the residue (the other Beasts) with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the Beasts that were before it and it had “Ten Horns.” The fact that the Fourth Beast had “Iron Teeth, ” and that there ere “Ten Horns” on its head, the “iron” corresponding to the “Iron Limbs” and the “ten horns” to the “Ten Toes” of the Colossus, would cause Daniel to see that the Fourth Beast represented the Fourth World Kingdom. But as Daniel “considered” the “Ten Horns, ” he was amazed to see another Horn, a “Little” one, come up among them, and before whom there were “three” of the “First Horns” plucked up by the roots, that is destroyed; and as he examined the “Little Horn” more closely he noticed that it had Eyes like the eyes of a Man, and the Mouth of a Man speaking great things. Dan. 7:7, Dan. 7:8. This mystified and troubled Daniel. He had seen nothing corresponding to it on the “Ten Toes” of the Colossus. It must mean some new and additional revelation that God did not see fit to impart to the Gentile King Nebuchadnezzar, and that was reserved for Daniel and his people (the Jews), for we must not forget that Daniel’s own visions, in the last six chapters of the Book, have to do with God’s dealings with the Jewish People in the “Latter Days.” Dan. 10:14.

                Before Daniel could ask for an explanation of the meaning of the “Little Horn, ” he had another vision, a vision of a Judgment. Dan. 7: 9-11. Daniel’s vision of the destruction of the Beast (vs. 11) locates this judgment as just before the Millennium. Daniel at the same time saw the “Son of Man” (Christ) receive His Kingdom (the Stone Kingdom). Vs. 13, 14. These visions added to Daniel’s perplexity, and he was “grieved in his spirit,” and the visions of his head “troubled him” (vs. 15), so he approached one of the “Heavenly Messengers” that stood by and asked him the meaning. He was told that the “Four Beasts” stood for Four Kings, or Kingdoms (vs. 23), that should arise out of the earth. Then Daniel wanted to know the “truth” about the “Fourth Beast, ” which was so diverse from the other three. The “Little Horn” of the Fourth Beast was what troubled him the most because it was to make war against the “Saints of the Most High,” and they were Daniel’s own people, the God-fearing Jews of the “End Time,” who were to pass through the “Great Tribulation” and to be prevailed against, until the time came that the people (the Jews) of the “Saints of the Most High” should possess the Kingdom. In explanation Daniel was told that the “Ten Horns” on the Fourth Beast represented “Ten Kings” that shall arise, and that the “Little Horn” was a king that should rise among them and subdue three of them, and that he would be a “person” of remarkable intelligence and great oratorical powers, having a mouth speaking great things (vs. 8, 20). That he would be audacious, arrogant, imperious and persecuting and change “times and laws,” and that the “Saints of the Most High” would be given into his hands for a “Time, and Times, and the Dividing of Time,” or 33 ½ [? = 3 ½] years. For a further description of the “Little Horn” see the Chapter on “The Antichrist.”

                In this vision of the Four Beasts we see “Degeneration” just as we saw it in the metals of the Colossus. The descent is from the Lion, the “King of Beasts,” to a nondescript monster that defies description. The reason why these Four Kingdoms are represented first as a “Golden Headed Metallic Image,” and then as a succession of “Wild Beasts,” is to show the difference between man’s view and God’s view of the World Kingdoms. Man sees in them the concentration of wealth, majesty and power; God sees them as a succession of rapacious wild beasts devouring one another.

                3. Vision of “Ram” & “He-Goat.”

                The explanation as to the meaning of the “Little Horn” perplexed Daniel, and he voiced it “My ‘cogitations’ much troubled me, and my countenance the matter in ‘my heart.”‘ Dan. 7:28. To comfort His servant God, two years later, transported Daniel in vision to Shushan the capital of Persia, and as he stood on the bank of Ulai, he saw a Ram which had “Two Horns, ” one higher than the other, and the higher came. He saw the Ram push “Westward” and “Northward” and “Southward” and nothing could stand before it, and it did according to its will. Dan. 8:4. While Daniel was “considering” what the vision of the Ram meant, he saw a He-Goat come from the West unmolested, and he noticed it had a “Notable Horn” between its eyes, and when it reached the Ram it was moved with “choler” or anger against it, and smote it with “fury,” and broke its “Two Horns,” and knocked it down and stamped upon it. Then the He-Goat waxed great, but when it became strong its “Great Horn” was broken off, and “Four Notable Horns” came up in its place, and out of one of them sprang a “Little Horn” which waxed exceeding great toward the “South” and toward the “East,” and toward the “Pleasant Land” (Palestine). Dan. 8:5-7.

                When Daniel sought for the meaning of the vision he heard a voice say “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.” Then Gabriel said to Daniel: The vision belongs to the ‘Time of the End,’ and is to make thee know what shall come to pass in the “Last End of the Indignation.” Dan. 8:15-17. Gabriel then informed Daniel that the “Ram” stood for the Medo-Persian Kingdom, with its two Kings, Darius and his nephew Cyrus; that the He-Goat stood for the Grecian Kingdom, the “Great Horn” between its eyes for its first King (Alexander the Great), and that the “Four Horns” that took the place of the “Great Horn” stood for Four Kingdoms into which the Grecian Kingdom should be divided. This explanation cleared up things considerably for Daniel. It revealed to him that the “Two Horns” of the Ram, one higher than the other, and the “Two Shoulders” of the Bear, one higher than the other, of his vision of the “Four Wild Beasts;” and the “Two Arms” of the Colossus of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, must stand for the same thing, and that the double Kingdom of Medo-Persia. He also saw that the “Four Horns” that came up in the place of the “Great Horn” corresponded to the “Four Heads” of the Third Wild Beast (the Leopard) and that therefore the He-Goat and the Third Wild Beast and the “Abdomen and Hips” of the Colossus stood for the Grecian Kingdom, and its fourfold division among the generals of Alexander the Great.

                We have already anticipated this in our explanation of the “Colossus” and of the “Four Wild Beasts,” but we must not forget that Daniel’s information was progressive, and that each new vision threw light on his previous visions. For instance, the Ram’s pushing “Westward” and “Northward” and “Southward, ” identifies it with the Bear crunching “Three Ribs” in its mouth which we saw was prophetic of the subjugation of Lydia to the “West, ” Babylon to the “North,” and Egypt to the “South.” If the He-Goat had not been pointed out as the “King of Grecia” it would not be difficult for us to identify him, for the “Goat” was the national emblem of Macedonia, and is found on the coins of that country, the ancient capital of which was called “Aegae” or the “Goat City.”

                The same may be said as to the identification of the Ram with the Medo-Persian Kingdom. Persian coins have been found which display a “Ram’s Head” on one side, and a “Ram” incumbent on the other. We also read of a Persian kin riding in front of his army wearing a golden figure of a “Ram’s Head” set with gems, instead of a diadem. In the Zena- vesta, Ized Behram, the guardian spirit of Persia, appears as a “Ram, ” with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns.

The fury and violence of the He-Goat well depicts the vigor of Alexander the Great’s attacks which carried everything before them. Rushing from the West, Alexander, in three great battles, made himself master of the world. But the “Great Horn” was suddenly broken off, for Alexander, with plans inconceivably vast, succumbed to marsh fever and intemperance at Babylon, in the thirty-third year of his life, and, in fulfillment of the prophecy “Four Horns” sprang up in the place of the “Great Horn.” These “Four Horns” stood for the four Generals of Alexander’s army who divided his Kingdom among themselves. Cassander took possession of Macedonia. Lysimachus seized upon Thrace, Western Bithynia, Lower Phrygia, Mysia and Lydia. Seleucus took the remainder of Asia Minor and the East, including Syria and Assyria. Ptolemy took possession of Egypt. These Four Kingdoms were in time all absorbed into the

                Fourth World Kingdom, the Roman Empire. The last to lose its identity being Egypt, which succumbed in B.C. 30. Soon after the appearance of these “Four Horns” on the head of the He-Goat Daniel saw a “Little Horn” come up on one of them. Gabriel explained the significance of this “Little Horn” to Daniel. He told him that it stood for a King of “Fierce Countenance” who should stand up in the “Latter Time” of the Kingdom, and who should stand up against the “Prince of Princes” (Christ). Dan. 8:23-25. The description of this “Little Horn” so clearly corresponds with the description of the “Little Horn” that rose among the “Ten Horns” on the head of the Fourth Wild Beast that it was not difficult for Daniel to see that they described and stood for the same Person -‘The  Antichrist’. The revelation so overcame Daniel that he “fainted” and was sick certain days. Dan. 8:27.

                4. Vision of the “Kings of North & South.”

              While Daniel foresaw that the Kingdom of Alexander the Great would be divided into Four Kingdoms and that out of one of them would come the “Antichrist,” he was not told at that time which one it would be, but 20 years later, in B.C. 533, he had another vision in which he saw two kings warring against each other. One was called the “King of the North,” the other the “King of the South.” This chapter (Dan. 11:1-3) is one of the most wonderfully minute as to prophetic details of any chapter in the Bible. It corresponds exactly with the profane history of the kings of Egypt and Syria for over 350 years. From verse 5 to verse 31 we have an account of what is called the “wars” of the “Kings of the North” (Syria) and of the “Kings of the South” (Egypt). These end with the close of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 164. Verses 32-34 cover the whole period from, B.C. 164 down to the “Time of the End.” At verse 36 “The Wilful King” (Antichrist) appears, and from that verse down to the end of the Book, we have an account of what is to befall Daniel’s People in the “Latter Days.” This vision of the “King of the North” (Syria), and of the “King of the South” (Egypt), in which the “King of the North” prevailed, revealed to Daniel that Antichrist would arise in the “Syrian” division of Alexander’s Kingdom, for the description of the “King of the North” corresponded with the description of the “Little Horn” that came up on one of the “Four Horns” of the He-Goat, and also with the “Little Horn” that came up among the “Ten Horns” on the head of the Fourth Beast. Thus to Daniel was revealed the whole course of the “Times of the Gentiles.”

                5. Vision of “Seventy (70) Weeks”.

                In chapter nine Daniel had a Vision of “Seventy (70) Weeks” that were determined on his “People” (the Jews) and the Holy City (Jerusalem) to finish “their transgressions,” and make an “end of their sins,” and bring in “everlasting righteousness.” Dan. 9:24. This Vision of the “Seventy (70) Weeks” is the most important revelation in many respects made in the Scriptures. It set the date of the First Coming of Christ, and gives the length of the reign of Antichrist. The date of the “Vision” is important. The first verse of the chapter locates it in the “First Year” of Darius the Median, or the same year as the “Fall of Babylon, ” B.C. 538. Daniel had been studying the Prophecy of Jeremiah, and learned from it that the 70 years of “Captivity” of his people were drawing to a close, for the “Captivity” began in B.C. 606, and 68 years had elapsed since then. Jer. 25:11. This discovery thrilled Daniel and he set his face toward God and poured out his soul in one of the most wonderful prayers recorded in the Scriptures. Verses 3-5. It is a model of confession, supplication and intercession. His prayer was interrupted by the appearance of the angel Gabriel, who had been sent at its commencement to give him “understanding in the matter.” Vs. 20-22.     Daniel was concerned about the end of the “seventy (70) years” of the “Captivity,” and doubtless Gabriel relieved his mind as to that, but Gabriel had something more important to reveal to Daniel and that was the period of “Seventy (70) Weeks.” The purpose of Gabriel’s visit was to show Daniel that while his people would be restored to their own land at the end of the “Seventy (70) Years,” that did not mean the restoration of their National Life, but was only the commencement of a longer period, which the angel called the “Seventy (70) Weeks,” that must elapse before they should again be in control of their own land. This period was “determined” upon Daniel’s people, and upon the Holy City. This is very important. It discloses the fact that the “Seventy Weeks” have nothing to do with the Gentiles or the Church. It also discloses another fact that the “Seventy Weeks,” or 490 years, only cover the period when the Jews are, by God’s permission, dwelling as a people in their own land. It does not cover the present period of their Dispersion.

                Seventy (70) Weeks.

                The expression “Seventy Weeks” should read “Seventy Sevens (70 7s).” Whether those “sevens” are days, weeks or years is to be determined by the context. The “Period” of the “Seventy (70) Weeks” is divided into three periods of “Seven (7) Weeks, ” “Threescore and Two (62) Weeks” and “One Week,” and it was to be 7+62 = 69 weeks from the going forth of the “commandment” to Restore and Build Jerusalem Unto “Messiah the Prince.” The date of the “commandment” is given in Neh. 2:1 as the month “Nisan” in the twentieth (20th) year of Artaxerxes the king, which was the 14th day of March, B.C. 445. The day when Jesus rode in Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem as “Messiah the Prince,” was Palm Sunday, April 2, A.D. 30. Luke 19:37-39. But the time between March 14, B.C. 445, and April 2, A. D. 30, is more than 69 literal “weeks.” It is . 445+30 = 475 years. What explanation can we give for this? It is clear to every careful student of the Word of God that there is a “Time Element” in the Scriptures. We come across such divisions of time as “hours; ” “days;” “weeks;” “months; ” “years; ” “times; ” “time and the dividing of time.” To be intelligible and avoid confusion they must all be interpreted on the same scale. What is that scale? It is given in Num. 14:34. “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days –Each Day for a Year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years.” See also Eze. 4:6.

                The “Lord’s Scale” then is –“A Day Stands for a Year.”

                Let us apply this scale to the “Seventy (70) Weeks.” We found that the time between the “commandment” to restore and build Jerusalem, and “Messiah the Prince, ” was to be 69 weeks, or 69 X 7 = 483 days, or if a “day” stands for a year, 483 years. But we found that from B.C. 445 to A. D. 30 was 475 years, a difference of 8 years. How can we account for the difference? We must not forget that there are years of different lengths. The Lunar year has 354 days. The Calendar year has 360 days. The Solar year has 365 days. The Julian, or Astronomical year, has 365 1/4 days, and it is necessary to add one day every 4 years to the calendar. Now which of these years shall we use in our calculation? We find the “Key” in the Word of God. In Gen. 7:11-13; Gen. 8:3, Gen. 8:4, in the account of the Flood, we find that the 5 months from the 17th day of the 2nd month, until the 17th day of the 7th month, are reckoned as 150 days, or 30 days to a month, or 360 days to a year. So we see that we are to use in “Prophetical Chronology” a “Calendar” year of 360 days. According to ordinary chronology, the 475 years from B.C. 445 to A. D. 30 are 64 “Solar” years of 365 days each. Now counting the years from B.C. 445 to A..D. 30, inclusively, we have 476 solar years. Multiplying these 476 years by 365 (the number of days in a Solar year), we have 173, 740 days, to which add 119 days for leap years, and we have 173, 859 days. Add to these 20 days inclusive from March 14 to April 2, and we have 173, 879 days. Divide 173, 879 by 360 (the number of days in a “Prophetical Year”), and we have 483 years all to one day, the exact number of days (483) in 69 weeks, each day standing for a year. Could there be anything more conclusive to prove that Daniel’s 69 weeks ran out on April 2, A. D. 30, the day that Jesus rode in triumph into the City of Jerusalem.

                We must carefully notice that nothing is mentioned as occurring between the “Seven (7) Weeks” and the “Threescore and Two (62) Weeks,” is and that Daniel was to understand that the latter followed the former without a break. The words that follow, “the street shall be built, and the wall, even in troublous times,” doubtless refers to the “first period” or 49 years, occupied by Ezra and Nehemiah in the work of restoring and rebuilding the City of Jerusalem. We see from this that if the “students of Prophecy” of Christ’s day had been on the alert, and had understood Daniel’s prophecy of the “Seventy (70) Weeks, ” they would have been looking for Him, and would have known to a certainty whether He was the Messiah or not. While there was no break between the “Seven (7) Weeks” and the “Threescore and Two (62) Weeks,” there is a break between the “Sixty-ninth” (69th) and “Seventieth (70th) Week,” in which several things were to happen.

                First we read that “Messiah Was to Be Cut Off, But Not for Himself.” This refers to Christ’s rejection and crucifixion. He died for others. Then we read that the people of the “Prince That Shall Come’ shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary. Note that it does not say that the “Prince” will destroy the City and Sanctuary, but the People of the Prince. The people who destroyed the City of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70 were the Romans, therefore the “Prince (Antichrist) must be a Roman Citizen. This does not mean that he cannot be a Syrian Jew, for Syria will then be a part of the revived Roman Empire, and Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen as well as Jew. We are then told that the desolation of the land of Palestine shall continue until the “End of the War” (probably Armageddon). As this “desolation” still continues we see that the “Gap” between the “Sixty ninth” (69th) and “Seventieth Week” (70th) takes in the whole of this ‘Present Dispensation’. The next verse (vs. 27) introduces the “Seventieth (70th) Week.” “And He (the “Prince” –Antichrist) shall confirm the Covenant with many for One Week (the Seventieth (70th) Week); and in the Midst (middle) of the Week He (the Antichrist), shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” etc. For a description of the “Seventieth (70th) Week” see the chapter on “The Tribulation.”

                Times of Gentiles.

                In Luke 21:24 Jesus says that Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the “Times of the Gentiles” be fulfilled. We have seen that the “Times of the Gentiles” began in B. C 606; is there any way of telling when they will end? There are those who claim that Jesus meant by the word “Times,” “Prophetical Times,” and that a Prophetical “Time” is a year of 360 days, each day standing for a year, thus making a “Time” equal to 360 years. They also claim that Moses in the Book of Leviticus (Lev. 26:18-20, Lev. 26:24-26), foretold, and four times repeated it, that if the Children of Israel disobeyed God, He would punish them “Seven Times” for their sins and that Jesus referred to these “Seven Times” when He spoke of the “Times” of the Gentiles. Therefore if a “Time” is 360 years, “Seven Times” would be 7 X 360 = 2520 years; and as the “Times of the Gentiles” began in B.C. 606, they should end in A. D. 1914.

                Can this claim be substantiated? In the Book of Revelation the last “half” of the “Seventieth (70th) Week” of Daniel is described by three statements of time. First by 42 months (Rev. 11:2; Rev. 13:5); second by 1260 days (Rev. 11:3; Rev. 12:6); third by “Time, and Times, and Half a time” (Rev. 12:14); this last corresponding with Daniel’s “Time and times and the dividing of time.” Dan. 7:25; Dan. 12:7. Now as all these statements of time apply to the same period it is clear that the things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other; and as a “thousand, two hundred and threescore days” equal 1260 days, and 1260 days equal 42 months of 30 days each, and 42 months equal 3 1/2 years, then “Time, Times and Half a Time” (or the dividing of time), must equal 3 1/2 years. That is, a “Time” must equal one year; and “Times,” two years; and a “Half a Time,” half a year. So we see that in “Prophetical Chronology” a “Time” is equal to a year of 360 days, and not a year of 360 years. There is therefore no scriptural authority for calling a “Time” 360 ordinary years. If a “Time” was 360 ordinary years, then the “times, and times, and half a time” of Rev. 12:14 would be equal to 360+720+180 or 1260 years, making the “Last Week” of Daniel’s “Seventy (70) Weeks” 2520 years long; the absurdity of which is seen when we remember that the last week of the “Seventy (70) Weeks” must be on the same scale as the “Weeks” of the 69 Week Period, which we proved from history were only 7 years long. If the claim that the “Times of the Gentiles” is 2520 years long is correct, then we must not forget that those years are years of 360 days each. Now 2520 years of 360 days each, make 907, 200 days. But exactly 2523 Julian or “Astronomical Years” of 365 1/4 days each, or 921, 516 days, have elapsed since B.C. 606 up to the present time (A.D. 1917), a difference of 14, 316 days. If we reduce these 2523 years of 365 1/4 days to years of 360 days, then we must divide 921, 516 by 360, which gives us 2559, 3/4 years, which is 39 3/4 years more than 2520 years, so that the 2520 years of the “Times of the Gentiles” ran out 393/4 years ago, or in A. D. 1877.

                As further proof that the “Seven Times” of Leviticus are not Prophetic “Times,” we have the fact (shown on the chart on “Prophetical Chronology”), that the Children of Israel have been punished, or given over to “Servitude” and “Captivity” exactly Seven times. Their present “Dispersion” is neither a “servitude” or “Captivity, ” and does not count. If the “Seven Times” of Leviticus are Prophetic “Times” and a “Time” is one year, then “Seven Times” would be seven years, the length of the “Last Week” of Daniel’s “Seventy (70) Weeks,” and would make the statement of Leviticus a Prophetic reference to the length of the “Tribulation Period” through which the Jews must go as a punishment for their sins. The 1000 years of Rev. 20:2-4 are ordinary years, just as the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity were. The context will show whether ordinary or prophetical years are meant. It is this confusion in interpreting “Prophetical Chronology” that has led to the “time setting” that has brought discredit upon the whole system of Premillennial Truth. The “Times of the Gentiles” will end with the end of Daniel’s “Seventieth (70th) Week.” When that will begin and end no one knows, for the Scriptures teach that it is not for us to know the “Times and Seasons.” }}

                24. 1st Maccabees.

The Apocrypha of the Old Testament  With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory  By Edwin Cone Bissell · 1890

                {{ 1st Maccabees: Content: The narrative covers a period of forty (40) years from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 B .C. to the death of Simon in 135 B .C., and gives therefore a complete picture of the struggle. The book may be conveniently divided into five sections. ( 1) The cause of the revolt (chap. 1). The writer gives a vivid description of the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes, in conjunction with the Hellenizing party in Judזa, to abolish the Jewish religion and establish paganism in its stead . A Greek gymnasium was erected in Jerusalem; the Temple was desecrated, and became the scene of idolatrous sacrifices; a terrible inquisition was instituted, and all Jews who refused to abandon their faith were put to death. (2 ) The outbreak of the revolt (chap. 2). The standard of revolt was raised at Modin by Mattathias and his five sons, who gathered together a force and resisted the demands of Antiochus (167 B.C.). Just before his death, which occurred in the following year, Mattathias charged his sons “to be zealous for the law and give their lives for the covenant.” ( 3 ) The struggle under the leadership of Judas (chaps. 3:1-9:22). Judas is the hero of the book, and the writer dwells at length on his valorous deeds during the five years (166-161 ) of his captaincy . In his first campaign he won three signal victories, the first over Apollonius, the second over Seron, the third over a large army specially sent from Antioch to avenge the previous defeats under the command of Nicanor and Gorgias (chaps. 3, 4). In the following year he was again successful against a still larger Syrian army under Lysias, and this triumph enabled him to obtain possession of the Temple at Jerusalem , which he purified and re-dedicated to the worship of Jehovah (chaps. 5 and 6). The victories of Judas, and the difficulties which arose in Syria after the death of Antiochus, compelled Lysias to abandon the policy of destroying the Jewish religion, and grant the Jews religious liberty. Judas, however, was not content with this concession . The remainder of his life was devoted to the attempt to secure political independence as well (chaps. 7-9). (4 ) The leadership of Jonathan ( chaps. 9:23-12:53 ), which lasted from 161 B.C. to 143. After a fruitless guerilla warfare, in which Jonathan won some victories, a change of fortune took place through a civil strife in Syria. Jonathan was made High Priest in 153, and by diplomatic alliances succeeded in maintaining his position for ten years. (5 ) The leadership of Simon ( chaps. 13, 16) from 143-135 B.C. Partly by success in war, partly by diplomacy, Simon consolidated his position and secured complete independence for the Jews. His rule was characterized by many administrative reforms. In 135 B.C. he was treacherously murdered by his son in -law , Ptolemy, who hoped to secure the position.}}

Maccabees 1st. (Douay-Rheims Version. Chapter Summary altered from Hilderbrandt’s Quick & Dirty Summary.) (Text from Alexander to Antiochus.)

                {{ Chapter 1: Philip to Alexander: introduces Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiochus IV: 175-163 BC) son of Antiochus the Great (III: 222-187 BC) kings of Syria. Epiphanes: major persecutor of the Jews whom the Maccabees will oppose.

                1Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: 2He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: 3And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him. 4And he gathered a power, and a very strong army: and his heart was exalted and lifted up. 5And he subdued countries of nations, and princes: and they became tributaries to him. 6And after these things, he fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should die. 7And he called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth: and he divided his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. 8And Alexander reigned twelve years, and he died. 9And his servants made themselves kings everyone in his place: 10And they all put crowns upon themselves after his death, and their sons after them many years, and evils were multiplied in the earth. 11And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome: and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. 12In those days there went out of Israel wicked men, and they persuaded many, saying: Let us go, and make a covenant with the heathens that are round about us: for since we departed from them, many evils have befallen us. 13And the word seemed good in their eyes. 14And some of the people determined to do this, and went to the king: and he gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathens. 15And they built a place of exercise in Jerusalem, according to the laws of the nations: 16And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. 17And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. 18And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: 19And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. 20And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt. 21And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. 22And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. 23And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. 24And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. 25And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly. 26And there was great mourning in Israel, and in every place where they were. 27And the princes, and the ancients mourned, and the virgins and the young men were made feeble, and the beauty of the women was changed. 28Every bridegroom took up lamentation: and the bride that set in the marriage bed, mourned: 29And the land was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion. 30And after two full years the king sent the chief collector of his tributes to the cities of Juda, and he came to Jerusalem with a great multitude. 31And he spoke to them peaceable words in deceit: and they believed him. 32And he fell upon the city suddenly, and struck it with a great slaughter, and destroyed many people in Israel. 33And he took the spoils of the city, and burnt it with fire, and threw down the houses thereof, and the walls thereof round about: 34And they took the women captive, and the children, and the cattle they possessed. 35And they built the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with strong towers, and made it a fortress for them: 36And they placed there a sinful nation, wicked men, and they fortified themselves therein: and they stored up armour, and victuals, and gathered together the spoils of Jerusalem; 37And laid them up there: and they became a great snare. 38And this was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil devil in Israel. 39And they shed innocent blood round about the sanctuary, and defiled the holy place. 40And the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled away by reason of them, and the city was made the habitation to strangers, and she became a stranger to her own seed, and her children forsook her. 41Her sanctuary was desolate like a wilderness, her festival days were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honours were brought to nothing. 42Her dishonour was increased according to her glory, and her excellency was turned into mourning. 43And king Antiochus wrote to all his kingdom, that all the people should be one: and every one should leave his own law. 44And all nations consented according to the word of king Antiochus. 45And many of Israel consented to his service, and they sacrificed to idols, and profaned the sabbath. 46And the king sent letters by the hands of messengers to Jerusalem, and to all the cities of Juda: that they should follow the law of the nations of the earth, 47And should forbid holocausts and sacrifices, and atonements to be made in the temple of God. 48And should prohibit the sabbath, and the festival days, to be celebrated. 49And he commanded the holy places to be profaned, and the holy people of Israel. 50And he commanded altars to be built, and temples, and idols, and swine’s flesh to be immolated, and unclean beasts. 51And that they should leave their children uncircumcised, and let their souls be defiled with all uncleannesses, and abominations, to the end that they should forget the law, and should change all the justifications of God. 52And that whosoever would not do according to the word of king Antiochus should be put to death. 53According to all these words he wrote to his whole kingdom, and he appointed rulers over the people that should force them to do these things. 54And they commanded the cities of Juda to sacrifice. 55Then many of the people were gathered to them that had forsaken the law of the Lord: and they committed evils in the land: 56And they drove away the people of Israel into lurking holes, and into the secret places of fugitives. 57On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about: 58And they burnt incense, and sacrificed at the doors of the houses, and in the streets. 59And they cut in pieces, and burnt with fire the books of the law of God: 60And every one with whom the books of the testament of the Lord were found, and whosoever observed the law of the Lord, they put to death, according to the edict of the king. 61Thus by their power did they deal with the people of Israel, that were found in the cities month after month. 62And on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God. 63Now the women that circumcised their children, were slain according to the commandment of king Antiochus. 64And they hanged the children about their necks in all their houses: and those that had circumcised them, they put to death. 65And many of the people of Israel determined with themselves, that they would not eat unclean things: and they chose rather to die than to be defiled with unclean meats. 66And they would not break the holy law of God, and they were put to death: 67And there was very great wrath upon the people.

                Chapter 2: Mattathias (priest of Modein, father of the Maccabees 5 brothers: Johanan, Judas (main warrior), Simon, Eleazar, Jonathan) reacts killing the legate and the Jews commissions his sons and but then Mattathias dies.

                1In those days arose Mathathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and he abode in the mountain of Modin. 2And he had five sons: John who was surnamed Gaddis: 3And Simon, who was surnamed Thasi: 4And Judas, who was called Machabeus: 5And Eleazar, who was surnamed Abaron: and Jonathan, who was surnamed Apphus. 6These saw the evils that were done in the people of Juda, and in Jerusalem. 7And Mathathias said: Woe is me, wherefore was I born to see the ruin of my people, and the ruin of the holy city, and to dwell there, when it is given into the hands of the enemies? 8The holy places are come into the hands of strangers: her temple is become as a man without honour. 9The vessels of her glory are carried away captive: her old men are murdered in the streets, and her young men are fallen by the sword of the enemies. 10What nation hath not inherited her kingdom, and gotten of her spoils? 11All her ornaments are taken away. She that was free is made a slave. 12And behold our sanctuary, and our beauty, and our glory is laid waste, and the Gentiles have defiled them. 13To what end then should we live any longer? 14And Mathathias and his sons rent their garments, and they covered themselves with haircloth, and made great lamentation. 15And they that were sent from king Antiochus came thither, to compel them that were fled into the city of Modin, to sacrifice, and to burn incense, and to depart from the law of God. 16And many of the people of Israel consented, and came to them: but Mathathias and his sons stood firm. 17And they that were sent from Antiochus, answering, said to Mathathias: Thou art a ruler, and an honourable, and great man in this city, and adorned with sons, and brethren. 18Therefore come thou first, and obey the king’s commandment, as all nations have done, and the men of Juda, and they that remain in Jerusalem: and thou, and thy sons, shall be in the number of the king’s friends, and enriched with gold, and silver, and many presents. 19Then Mathathias answered, and said with a loud voice: Although all nations obey king Antiochus, so as to depart every man from the service of the law of his fathers, and consent to his commandments: 20I and my sons, and my brethren will obey the law of our fathers. 21God be merciful unto us: it is not profitable for us to forsake the law, and the justices of God: 22We will not hearken to the words of king Antiochus, neither will we sacrifice, and transgress the commandments of our law, to go another way. 23Now as he left off speaking these words, there came a certain Jew in the sight of all to sacrifice to the idols upon the altar in the city of Modin, according to the king’s commandment. 24And Mathathias saw and was grieved, and his reins trembled, and his wrath was kindled according to the judgment of the law, and running upon him he slew him upon the altar: 25Moreover the man whom king Antiochus had sent, who compelled them to sacrifice, he slew at the same time, and pulled down the altar. 26And shewed zeal for the law, as Phinees did by Zamri the son of Salomi. 27And Mathathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying: Every one that hath zeal for the law, and maintaineth the testament, let him follow me. 28So he, and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that they had in the city. 29Then many that sought after judgment, and justice, went down into the desert: 30And they abode there, they and their children, and their wives, and their cattle: because afflictions increased upon them. 31And it was told to the king’s men, and to the army that was in Jerusalem in the city of David, that certain men who had broken the king’s commandment, were gone away into the secret places in the wilderness, and that many were gone after them. 32And forthwith they went out towards them, and made war against them on the sabbath day, 33And they said to them: Do you still resist? come forth, and do according to the edict of king Antiochus, and you shall live. 34And they said: We will not come forth, neither will we obey the king’s edict, to profane the sabbath day. 35And they made haste to give them battle. 36But they answered them not, neither did they cast a stone at them, nor stopped up the secret places, 37Saying: Let us all die in our innocency: and heaven and earth shall be witnesses for us, that you put us to death wrongfully. 38So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. 39And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. 40And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth. 41And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places. 42Then was assembled to them the congregation of the Assideans, the stoutest of Israel, every one that had a good will for the law. 43And all they that fled from the evils, joined themselves to them, and were a support to them. 44And they gathered an army, and slew the sinners in their wrath, and the wicked men in their indignation: and the rest fled to the nations for safety. 45And Mathathias and his friends went round about, and they threw down the altars: 46And they circumcised all the children whom they found in the confines of Israel that were uncircumcised: and they did valiantly. 47And they pursued after the children of pride, and the work prospered in their hands: 48And they recovered the law out of the hands of the nations, and out of the hands of the kings: and they yielded not the horn to the sinner. 49Now the days drew near that Mathathias should die, and he said to his sons: Now hath pride and chastisement gotten strength, and the time of destruction, and the wrath of indignation: 50Now therefore, O my sons, be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers. 51And call to remembrance the works of the fathers, which they have done in their generations: and you shall receive great glory, and an everlasting name. 52Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was reputed to him unto justice? 53Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and he was made lord of Egypt. 54Phinees our father, by being fervent in the zeal of God, received the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. 55Jesus, whilst he fulfilled the word, was made ruler in Israel. 56Caleb, for bearing witness before the congregation, received an inheritance. 57David by his mercy obtained the throne of an everlasting kingdom. 58Elias, while he was full of zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven. 59Ananias and Azarias and Misael by believing, were delivered out of the flame. 60Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions. 61And thus consider through all generations: that none that trust in him fail in strength. 62And fear not the words of a sinful man, for his glory is dung, and worms: 63To day he is lifted up, and tomorrow he shall not be found, because he is returned into his earth; and his thought is come to nothing. 64You therefore, my sons, take courage, and behave manfully in the law: for by it you shall be glorious. 65And behold, I know that your brother Simon is a man of counsel: give ear to him always, and he shall be a father to you. 66And Judas Machabeus who is valiant and strong from his youth up, let him be the leader of your army, and he shall manage the war of the people. 67And you shall take to you all that observe the law: and revenge ye the wrong of your people. 68Render to the Gentiles their reward, and take heed to the precepts of the law. 69And he blessed them, and was joined to his fathers. 70And he died in the hundred and forty-sixth year: and he was buried by his sons in the sepulchres of his fathers in Modin, and all Israel mourned for him with great mourning.

                Chapter 3: Judas called Maccabeus (Hammer); Antiochus hears of Judas gets angry sends out Lysias with the elephants to fight Judas. Lysias captures and desecrates Jerusalem

                1Then his son Judas, called Machabeus, rose up in his stead. 2And all his brethren helped him, and all they that had joined themselves to his father, and they fought with cheerfulness the battle of Israel. 3And he got his people great honour, and put on a breastplate as a giant, and girt his warlike armour about him in battles, and protected the camp with his sword. 4In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey. 5And he pursued the wicked and sought them out, and them that troubled his people he burnt with fire: 6And his enemies were driven away for fear of him, and all the workers of iniquity were troubled: and salvation prospered in his hand. 7And he grieved many kings, and made Jacob glad with his works, and his memory is blessed forever. 8And he went through the cities of Juda, and destroyed the wicked out of them, and turned away wrath from Israel. 9And he was renowned even to the utmost part of the earth, and he gathered them that were perishing. 10And Apollonius gathered together the Gentiles, and a numerous and great army from Samaria, to make war against Israel. 11And Judas understood it, and went forth to meet him: and he overthrew him, and killed him: and many fell down slain, the rest fled away. 12And he took their spoils, and Judas took the sword of Apollonius, and fought with it all his lifetime. 13And Seron captain of the army of Syria heard that Judas had assembled a company of the faithful, and a congregation with him, 14And he said: I will get me a name, and will be glorified in the kingdom, and will overthrow Judas, and those that are with him, that have despised the edict of the king. 15And he made himself ready: and the host of the wicked went up with him, strong succours, to be revenged of the children of Israel. 16And they approached even as far as Bethoron: and Judas went forth to meet him, with a small company. 17But when they saw the army coming to meet them, they said to Judas: How shall we, being few, be able to fight against so great a multitude and so strong, and we are ready to faint with fasting today? 18And Judas said: It is an easy matter for many to be shut up in the hands of a few: and there is no difference in the sight of the God of heaven to deliver with a great multitude, or with a small company: 19For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army, but strength cometh from heaven. 20They come against us with an insolent multitude, and with pride, to destroy us, and our wives, and our children, and to take our spoils. 21But we will fight for our lives and our laws: 22And the Lord himself will overthrow them before our face: but as for you, fear them not. 23And as soon as he had made an end of speaking, he rushed suddenly upon them: and Seron and his host were overthrown before him: 24And he pursued him by the descent of Bethoron even to the plain, and there fell of them eight hundred men, and the rest fled into the land of the Philistines. 25And the fear of Judas and of his brethren, and the dread of them fell upon all the nations round about them. 26And his fame came to the king, and all nations told of the battles of Judas. 27Now when king Antiochus heard these words, he was angry in his mind: and he sent and gathered the forces of all his kingdom, an exceeding strong army. 28And he opened his treasury, and gave out pay to the army for a year: and he commanded them, that they should be ready for all things. 29And he perceived that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes of the country were small because of the dissension, and the evil that he had brought upon the land, that he might take away the laws of old times: 30And he feared that he should not have as formerly enough, for charges and gifts, which he had given before with a liberal hand: for he had abounded more than the kings that had been before him. 31And he was greatly perplexed in mind, and purposed to go into Persia, and to take tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. 32And he left Lysias, a nobleman of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the kingdom, from the river Euphrates even to the river of Egypt: 33And to bring up his son Antiochus, till he came again. 34And he delivered to him half the army, and the elephants: and he gave him charge concerning all that he would have done, and concerning the inhabitants of Judea, and Jerusalem: 35And that he should send an army against them, to destroy and root out the strength of Israel, and the remnant of Jerusalem, and to take away the memory of them from that place: 36And that he should settle strangers to dwell in all their coasts, and divide their land by lot. 37So the king took the half of the army that remained, and went forth from Antioch the chief city of his kingdom, in the hundred and forty-seventh year: and he passed over the river Euphrates, and went through the higher countries. 38Then Lysias chose Ptolemee the son of Dorymenus, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, mighty men of the king’s friends. 39And he sent with them forty thousand men, and seven thousand horsemen: to go into the land of Juda, and to destroy it according to the king’s orders. 40So they went forth with all their power, and came, and pitched near Emmaus in the plain country. 41And the merchants of the countries heard the fame of them: and they took silver and gold in abundance, and servants: and they came into the camp, to buy the children of Israel for slaves: and there were joined to them the forces of Syria, and of the land of the strangers. 42And Judas and his brethren saw that evils were multiplied, and that the armies approached to their borders: and they knew the orders the king had given to destroy the people and utterly abolish them. 43And they said every man to his neighbour: Let us raise up the low condition of our people, and let us fight for our people, and our sanctuary. 44And the assembly was gathered that they might be ready for battle: and that they might pray, and ask mercy and compassion. 45Now Jerusalem was not inhabited, but was like a desert: there was none of her children that went in or out: and the sanctuary was trodden down: and the children of strangers were in the castle, there was the habitation of the Gentiles: and joy was taken away from Jacob, and the pipe and harp ceased there. 46And they assembled together, and came to Maspha over against Jerusalem: for in Maspha was a place of prayer heretofore in Israel. 47And they fasted that day, and put on haircloth, and put ashes upon their heads: and they rent their garments: 48And they laid open the books of the law, in which the Gentiles searched for the likeness of their idols: 49And they brought the priestly ornaments, and the firstfruits and tithes, and stirred up the Nazarites that had fulfilled their days: 50And they cried with a loud voice toward heaven, saying: What shall we do with these, and whither shall we carry them? 51For thy holies are trodden down, and are profaned, and thy priests are in mourning, and are brought low. 52And behold the nations are come together against us to destroy us: thou knowest what they intend against us. 53How shall we be able to stand before their face, unless thou, O God, help us? 54Then they sounded with trumpets, and cried out with a loud voice. 55And after this Judas appointed captains over the people, over thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens. 56And he said to them that were building houses, or had betrothed wives, or were planting vineyards, or were fearful, that they should return every man to his house, according to the law. 57So they removed the camp, and pitched on the south side of Emmaus. 58And Judas said: Gird yourselves, and be valiant men, and be ready against the morning, that you may fight with these nations that are assembled against us to destroy us and our sanctuary. 59For it is better for us to die in battle, than to see the evils of our nation, and of the holies: 60Nevertheless as it shall be the will of God in heaven so be it done.

                Chapter 4: Judas defeats Gorgias (one of Antiochus’ warriors) and wins battles and captures temple and re-consecrates it.

                1Then Gorgias took five thousand men, and a thousand of the best horsemen: and they removed out of the camp by night. 2That they might come upon the camp of the Jews, and strike them suddenly: and the men that were of the castle were their guides. 3And Judas heard of it, and rose up, he and the valiant men, to attack the king’s forces that were in Emmaus. 4For as yet the army was dispersed from the camp. 5And Gorgias came by night into the camp of Judas, and found no man, and he sought them in the mountains: for he said: These men flee from us. 6And when it was day, Judas shewed himself in the plain with three thousand men only, who neither had armour nor swords. 7And they saw the camp of the Gentiles that it was strong, and the men in breastplates, and the horsemen round about them, and these were trained up to war. 8And Judas said to the men that were with him: Fear ye not their multitude, neither be ye afraid of their assault. 9Remember in what manner our fathers were saved in the Red Sea, when Pharao pursued them with a great army. 10And now let us cry to heaven: and the Lord will have mercy on us, and will remember the covenant of our fathers, and will destroy this army before our face this day: 11And all nations shall know that there is one that redeemeth and delivereth Israel. 12And the strangers lifted up their eyes, and saw them coming against them. 13And they went out of the camp to battle, and they that were with Judas sounded the trumpet. 14And they joined battle: and the Gentiles were routed, and fled into the plain. 15But all the hindmost of them fell by the sword, and they pursued them as far as Gezeron, and even to the plains of Idumea, and of Azotus, and of Jamnia: and there fell of them to the number of three thousand men. 16And Judas returned again with his army that followed him, 17And he said to the people: Be not greedy of the spoils: for there is war before us: 18And Gorgias and his army are near us in the mountain: but stand ye now against our enemies, and overthrow them, and you shall take the spoils afterwards with safety. 19And as Judas was speaking these words, behold part of them appeared looking forth from the mountain. 20And Gorgias saw that his men were put to flight, ad that they had set fire to the camp: for the smoke that was seen declared what was done. 21And when they had seen this, they were seized with great fear, seeing at the same time Judas and his army in the plain ready to fight. 22So they all fled away into the land of the strangers. 23And Judas returned to take the spoils of the camp, and they got much gold, and silver, and blue silk, and purple of the sea, and great riches. 24And returning home they sung a hymn, and blessed God in heaven, because he is good, because his mercy endureth forever. 25So Israel had a great deliverance that day. 26And such of the strangers as escaped, went and told Lysias all that had happened. 27And when he heard these things, he was amazed and discouraged: because things had not succeeded in Israel according to his mind, and as the king had commanded. 28So the year following Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen, that he might subdue them. 29And they came into Judea, and pitched their tents in Bethoron, and Judas met them with ten thousand men. 30And they saw that the army was strong, and he prayed, and said: Blessed art thou, O Saviour of Israel, who didst break the violence of the mighty by the hand of thy servant David, and didst deliver up the camp of the strangers into the hands of Jonathan the son of Saul and of his armourbearer. 31Shut up this army in the hands of thy people Israel, and let them be confounded in their host and their horsemen. 32Strike them with fear, and cause the boldness of their strength to languish, and let them quake at their own destruction. 33Cast them down with the sword of them that love thee: and let all that know thy name, praise thee with hymns. 34And they joined battle: and there fell of the army of Lysias five thousand men. 35And when Lysias saw that his men were put to flight, and how bold the Jews were, and that they were ready either to live, or to die manfully, he went to Antioch, and chose soldiers, that they might come again into Judea with greater numbers. 36Then Judas, and his brethren said: Behold our enemies are discomfited: let us go up now to cleanse the holy places and to repair them. 37And all the army assembled together, and they went up into mount Sion. 38And they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burnt, and shrubs growing up in the courts as in a forest, or on the mountains, and the chambers joining to the temple thrown down. 39And they rent their garments, and made great lamentation, and put ashes on their heads: 40And they fell face down to the ground on their faces, and they sounded with the trumpets of alarm, and they cried towards heaven. 41Then Judas appointed men to fight against them that were in the castle, till they had cleansed the holy places. 42And he chose priests without blemish, whose will was set upon the law of God: 43And they cleansed the holy places, and took away the stones that had been defiled into an unclean place. 44And he considered about the altar of holocausts that had been profaned, what he should do with it. 45And a good counsel came into their minds, to pull it down: lest it should be a reproach to them, because the Gentiles had defiled it; so they threw it down. 46And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. 47Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former: 48And they built up the holy places, and the things that were within the temple: and they sanctified the temple, and the courts. 49And they made new holy vessels, and brought in the candlestick, and the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. 50And they put incense upon the altar, and lighted up the lamps that were upon the candlestick, and they gave light in the temple. 51And they set the loaves upon the table, and hung up the veils, and finished all the works that they had begun to make. 52And they arose before the morning on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month (which is the month of Casleu) in the hundred and forty-eighth year. 53And they offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of holocausts which they had made. 54According to the time, and according to the day wherein the heathens had defiled it, in the same was it dedicated anew with canticles, and harps, and lutes, and cymbals. 55And all the people fell upon their faces, and adored, and blessed up to heaven, him that had prospered them. 56And they kept the dedication of the altar eight days, and they offered holocausts with joy, and sacrifices of salvation, and of praise. 57And they adorned the front of the temple with crowns of gold, and escutcheons, and they renewed the gates, and the chambers, and hanged doors upon them. 58And there was exceeding great joy among the people, and the reproach of the Gentiles was turned away. 59And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness. 60They built up also at that time mount Sion, with high walls, and strong towers round about, lest the Gentiles should at any time come, and tread it down as they did before. 61And he placed a garrison there to keep it, and he fortified it to secure Bethsura, that the people might have a defence against Idumea.

                Chapter 5: Judas sends his brother Simon to Galilee while he, Judas and Jonathan went over to Gilead in Jordan. Couple of Jews (Joseph and Azariah tried their own plans contrary to Judas’ wish and failed.

                1Now it came to pass, when the nations round about heard that the altar and the sanctuary were built up as before, that they were exceeding angry. 2And they thought to destroy the generation of Jacob that were among them, and they began to kill some of the people, and to persecute them. 3Then Judas fought against the children of Esau in Idumea, and them that were in Acrabathane: because they beset the Israelites around about, and he made a great slaughter of them. 4And he remembered the malice of the children of Bean: who were a snare and a stumblingblock to the people, by lying in wait for them in the way. 5And they were shut up by him in towers, and he set upon them, and devoted them to utter destruction, and burnt their towers with fire, and all that were in them. 6Then he passed over to the children of Ammon, where he found a mighty power, and much people, and Timotheus was their captain: 7And he fought many battles with them, and they were discomfited in their sight, and he smote them: 8And he took the city of Gazer and her towns, and returned into Judea. 9And the Gentiles that were in Galaad, assembled themselves together against the Israelites that were in their quarters to destroy them: and they fled into the fortress of Datheman. 10And they sent letters to Judas and his brethren, saying, The heathens that are round about are gathered together against us, to destroy us: 11And they are preparing to come, and to take the fortress into which we are fled: and Timotheus is the captain of their host. 12Now therefore come, and deliver us out of their hands, for many of us are slain. 13And all our brethren that were in the places of Tubin, are killed: and they have carried away their wives, and their children, captives, and taken their spoils, and they have slain there almost a thousand men. 14And while they were yet reading these letters, behold there came other messengers out Galilee with their garments rent, who related according to these words: 15Saying, that they of Ptolemais, and of Tyre, and of Sidon, were assembled against them, and all Galilee is filled with strangers, in order to consume us. 16Now when Judas and all the people heard these words, a great assembly met together to consider what they should do for their brethren that were in trouble, and were assaulted by them. 17And Judas said to Simon his brother: Choose thee men, and go, and deliver they brethren in Galilee: and I, and my brother Jonathan will go into the country of Galaad. 18And he left Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias captains of the people with the remnant of the army in Judea to keep it: 19And he commanded them, saying: Take ye the charge of this people: but make no war against the heathens, till we return. 20Now three thousand men were alloted to Simon, to go into Gallilee: and eight thousand to Judas to go into the land of Galaad. 21And Simon went into Galilee, and fought many battles with the heathens: and the heathens were discomfited before his face, and he pursued them even to the gate of Ptolemais. 22And there fell of the heathens almost three thousand men, and he took the spoils of them, 23And he took with him those that were in Galilee and in Arbatis with their wives, and children, and all that they had, and he brought them into Judea with great joy. 24And Judas Machabeus, and Jonathan his brother passed over the Jordan, and went three days’ journey through the desert. 25And the Nabutheans met them, and received them in a peaceable manner, and told them all that happened to their brethren in the land of Galaad, 26And that many of them were shut up in Barasa, and in Bosor, and in Alima, and in Casphor, and in Mageth, and in Carnaim: all these strong and great cities. 27Yea, and that they were kept shut up in the rest of the cities of Galaad, and that they had appointed to bring their army on the morrow near to these cities, and to take them and to destroy them all in one day. 28Then Judas and his army suddenly turned their march into the desert, to Bosor, and took the city: and he slew every male by the edge of the sword, and took all their spoils, and burnt it with fire. 29And they removed from thence by night, and went till they came to the fortress. 30And it came to pass that early in the morning, when they lifted up their eyes, behold there were people without number, carrying ladders and engines to take the fortress, and assault them. 31And Judas saw that the fight was begun, and the cry of the battle went up to heaven like a trumpet, and a great cry out of the city: 32And he said to his host: Fight ye today for your brethren. 33And he came with three companies behind them, and they sounded their trumpets, and cried out in prayer. 34And the host of Timotheus understood that it was Machabeus, and they fled away before his face: and they made a great slaughter of them: and there fell of them in that day almost eight thousand men. 35And Judas turned aside to Maspha, and assaulted, and took it, and he slew every male thereof, and took the spoils thereof, and burnt it with fire. 36From thence he marched, and took Casbon, and Mageth, and Bosor, and the rest of the cities of Galaad. 37But after this Timotheus gathered another army, and camped over against Raphon beyond the torrent. 38And Judas sent men to view the army: and they brought him word, saying: All the nations, that are round about us, are assembled unto him an army exceeding great: 39And they have hired the Arabians to help them, and they have pitched their tents beyond the torrent, ready to come to fight against thee. And Judas went to meet them. 40And Timotheus said to the captains of his army: When Judas and his army come near the torrent of water, if he pass over unto us first, we shall not be able to withstand him: for he will certainly prevail over us. 41But if he be afraid to pass over, and camp on the other side of the river, we will pass over to them and shall prevail against him. 42Now when Judas came near the torrent of water, he set the scribes of the people by the torrent, and commanded them, saying: Suffer no man to stay behind: but let all come to the battle. 43And he passed over to them first, and all the people after him, and all the heathens were discomfited before them, and they threw away their weapons, and fled to the temple that was in Carnaim. 44And he took that city, and the temple he burnt with fire, with all things that were therein: and Carnaim was subdued, and could not stand against the face of Judas. 45And Judas gathered together all the Israelites that were in the land of Galaad, from the least even to the greatest, and their wives, and children, and an army exceeding great, to come into the land of Juda. 46And they came as far as Ephron: now this was a great city situate in the way, strongly fortified, and there was no means to turn from it on the right hand or on the left, but the way was through the midst of it. 47And they that were in the city, shut themselves in, and stopped up the gates with stones: and Judas sent to them with peaceable words, 48Saying: Let us pass through your land, to go into our country: and no man shall hurt you: we will only pass through on foot. But they would not open to them. 49Then Judas commanded proclamation to be made in the camp, that they should make an assault every man in the place where he was. 50And the men of the army drew near, and he assaulted that city all the day, and all the night, and the city was delivered into his hands: 51And they slew every male with the edge of the sword, and he razed the city, and took the spoils thereof, and passed through all the city over them that were slain. 52Then they passed over the Jordan to the great plain that is over against Bethsan. 53And Judas gathered together the hindmost, and he exhorted the people all the way through, till they came into the land of Juda. 54And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain, till they had returned in peace. 55Now in the days that Judas and Jonathan were in the land of Galaad, and Simon his brother in Galilee before Ptolemais, 56Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias captain of the soldiers, heard of the good success, and the battles that were fought. 57And he said: Let us also get us a name, and let us go fight against the Gentiles that are round about us. 58And he gave charge to them that were in his army, and they went towards Jamnia. 59And Gorgias and his men went out of the city, to give them battle. 60And Joseph and Azarias were put to flight, and were pursued unto the borders of Judea: and there fell, on that day, of the people of Israel about two thousand men, and there was a great overthrow of the people: 61Because they did not hearken to Judas, and his brethren, thinking that they should do manfully. 62But they were not of the seed of those men by whom salvation was brought to Israel. 63And the men of Juda were magnified exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and of all the nations where their name was heard. 64And people assembled to them with joyful acclamations. 65Then Judas and his brethren went forth and attacked the children of Esau, in the land toward the south, and he took Chebron, and her towns: and he burnt the walls thereof and the towers all round it. 66And he removed his camp to go into the land of the aliens, and he went through Samaria. 67In that day some priests fell in battle, while desiring to do manfully they went out unadvisedly to fight. 68And Judas turned to Azotus into the land of the strangers, and he threw down their altars, and he burnt the statues of their gods with fire: and he took the spoils of the cities, and returned into the land of Juda.

                Chapter 6: Anitochus defeated in Babylon pulls back and dies, Lysias left in Palestine, Eleazar Mac. dies killing the elephant from underneath and they lose Bethzur pulling back to Jerusalem, Lysias lies offering peace and then smokes Jerusalem and returns to Syria because Antiochus had died and Phillip had returned from Babylon to rear young Antiochus.

                1Now king Antiochus was going through the higher countries, and he heard that the city of Elymais in Persia was greatly renowned, and abounding in silver and gold. 2And that there was in it a temple, exceeding rich: and coverings of gold, and breastplates, and shields which king Alexander, son of Philip the Macedonian that reigned first in Greece, had left there. 3Lo, he came, and sought to take the city and to pillage it: But he was not able, because the design was known to them that were in the city. 4And they rose up against him in battle, and he fled away from thence, and departed with great sadness, and returned towards Babylonia. 5And whilst he was in Persia, there came one that told him, how the armies that were in the land of Juda were put to flight: 6And that Lysias went with a very great power, and was put to flight before the face of the Jews, and that thy were grown strong by the armour, and power, and store of spoils, which they had gotten out of the camps which they had destroyed: 7And that they had thrown down the abomination which he had set up upon the altar in Jerusalem, and that they had compassed about the sanctuary with high walls as before, and Bethsura also his city. 8And it came to pass when the king heard these words, that he was struck with fear, and exceedingly moved: and he laid himself down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because it had not fallen out to him as he imagined. 9And he remained there many days: for great grief came more and more and more upon him, and he made account that he should die. 10And he called for all his friends, and said to them: Sleep is gone from my eyes, and I am fallen away, and my heart is cast down for anxiety. 11And I said in my heart: Into how much tribulation am I come, and into what floods of sorrow, wherein now I am: I that was pleasant and beloved in my power! 12But now I remember the evils that I have done in Jerusalem, from whence also I took away all the spoils of gold, and of silver that were in it, and I sent to destroy the inhabitants of Juda without cause. 13I know therefore that for this cause these evils have found me: and behold I perish with great grief in a strange land. 14Then he called Philip, one of his friends, and he made him regent over all his kingdom. 15And he gave him the crown, and his robe, and his ring, that he should go to Antiochus his son, and should bring him up for the kingdom. 16So king Antiochus died there in the year one hundred and forty-nine. 17And Lysias understood that the king was dead, and he set up Antiochus his son to reign, whom he brought up young: and he called his name Eupator. 18Now they that were in the castle, had shut up the Israelites round about the holy places: and they were continually seeking their hurt, and to strengthen the Gentiles. 19And Judas purposed to destroy them: and he called together all the people, to besiege them. 20And they came together, and besieged them in the year one hundred and fifty, and they made battering slings and engines. 21And some of the besieged got out: and some wicked men of Israel joined themselves unto them. 22And they went to the king, and said: How long dost thou delay to execute the judgment, and to revenge our brethren? 23We determined to serve thy father and to do according to his orders, and obey his edicts: 24And for this they of our nation are alienated from us, and have slain as many of us as they could find, and have spoiled our inheritances. 25Neither have they put forth their hand against us only, but also against all our borders. 26And behold they have approached this day to the castle of Jerusalem to take it, and they have fortified the stronghold of Bethsura: 27And unless thou speedily prevent them, they will do greater things than these, and thou shalt not be able to subdue them. 28Now when the king heard this, he was angry: and he called together all his friends, and the captains of his army, and them that were over the horsemen. 29There came also to him from other realms, and from the islands of the sea hired troops. 30And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle. 31And they went through Idumea, and approached to Bethsura, and fought many days, and they made engines: but they sallied forth and burnt them with fire, and fought manfully. 32And Judas departed from the castle, and removed the camp to Bethzacharam, over against the king’s camp. 33And the king rose before it was light, and made his troops march on fiercely towards the way of Bethzacharam: and the armies made themselves ready for the battle, and they sounded the trumpets: 34And they shewed the elephants the blood of grapes, and mulberries to provoke them to fight. 35And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast. 36These before the time wheresoever the beast was, the were there: and withersoever it went, they went, and they departed not from it. 37And upon the beast, there were strong wooden towers, which covered every one of them: and engines upon them: and upon every one thirty-two valiant men, who fought from above; and an Indian to rule the beast. 38And the rest of the horsemen he placed on this side and on that side at the two wings, with trumpets to stir up the army, and to hasten them forward that stood thick together in the legions thereof. 39Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold, and of brass, the mountains glittered therewith, and they shone like lamps of fire. 40And part of the king’s army was distinguished by the high mountains, and the other part by the low places: and they marched on warily and orderly. 41And all the inhabitants of the land were moved at the noise of their multitude, and the marching of the company, and the rattling of the armour, for the army was exceeding great and strong. 42And Judas and his army drew near for battle: and there fell of the king’s army six hundred men. 43And Eleazar the son of Saura saw one of the beasts harnessed with the king’s harness: and it was higher than the other beasts: and it seemed to him that the king was on it: 44And he exposed himself to deliver his people and to get himself an everlasting name. 45And he ran up to it boldly in the midst of the legion, killing on the right hand, and on the left, and they fell by him on this side and that side. 46And he went between the feet of the elephant, and put himself under it: and slew it, and it fell to the ground upon him, and he died there. 47Then they seeing the strength of the king and the fierceness of his army, turned away from them. 48But the king’s army went up against them to Jerusalem: and the king’s army pitched their tents against Judea and mount Sion. 49And he made peace with them that were in Bethsura: and they came forth out of the city, because they had no victuals, being shut up there, for it was the year of rest to the land. 50And the king took Bethsura: and he placed there a garrison to keep it. 51And he turned his army against the sanctuary for many days: and he set up there battering slings, and engines and instruments to cast fire, and engines to cast stones and javelins, and pieces to shoot arrows, and slings. 52And they also made engines against their engines, and they fought for many days. 53But there were no victuals in the city because it was the seventh year: and such as had stayed in Judea of them that came from among the nations, had eaten the residue of all that which had been stored up. 54And there remained in the holy places but a few, for the famine had prevailed over them: and they were dispersed every man to his own place. 55Now Lysias heard that Philip, whom king Antiochus while he lived had appointed to bring up his son Antiochus, and to reign, to be king, 56Was returned from Persia, and Media, with the army that went with him, and that he sought to take upon him the affairs of the kingdom: 57Wherefore he made haste to go, and say to the king and to the captains of the army: We decay daily, and our provision of victuals is small, and the place that we lay siege to is strong, and it lieth upon us to take order for the affairs of the kingdom. 58Now therefore let us come to an agreement with these men, and make peace with them and with all their nation. 59And let us covenant with them, that they may live according to their own laws as before. For because of our despising their laws, they have been provoked, and have done all these things. 60And the proposal was acceptable in the sight of the king, and of the princes: and he sent to them to make peace: and they accepted of it. 61And the king and the princes swore to them: and they came out of the stronghold. 62Then the king entered into mount Sion, and saw the strength of the place: and he quickly broke the oath that he had taken, and gave commandment to throw down the wall round about. 63And he departed in haste, and returned to Antioch, where he found Philip master of the city: and he fought against him, and took the city.

                Ch. 7: Alcimus made high priest, speaks softly but once in power kills Jews, Maccabees revolt again, Nicanor sent to fight this time, demands Jews give up Judas, Judas rallies and defeats Nicanor at Beth-horon

                Ch. 8: Hear of Romans and make a treaty with them (Judas and Rome)

                Ch. 10: King Demetrius (Syria) and Alexander (from Egypt) court Jonathan with gifts and tax relief vying for the Syrian throne which was in chaos (Alexander wins).

                Chapter 11: Demetrius comes back because of Ptolemy coming up into Syria, they court and abuse Jonathan Mac. and Jonathan is once again at war with Demetrius. Simon Mac. left in the country.

                Ch. 12: Jonathan tries to make deals with Rome. Defeats Demetrius. Then goes against Tyrpho who tricks him, and he sends his troops home (after building a bigger wall around Jerusalem) and captured him

                Ch. 13 Simon Mac. and Typhro go at it, Finally Simon prevails after making deal with King Demetrius (Syria).

                Ch. 15: Antiochus son of Demetrius grants Simon freedom and no taxes etc. Antiochus fights Tyrpho at Dor. Simon Mac. now high priest.

                Ch. 16 Simon Mac. killed by Ptolemy (Egypt). So all the Mac. Brothers are now dead and Simon’s descendants, the Hasmoneans take over down to the time of Herod the Great in ca. 40 BC. }}

25. Josephus.

The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus Translated By William Whiston 1737 This work is in the Public Domain. Copy Freely.   UltimateBibleReferenceLibrary.com

Wars of Jews or History of Destruction of Jerusalem: Preface to the War of the Jews’

Book I: Taking of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the Death of Herod the Great. Interval of 167 Years.

Book II: Death of Herod till Vespasian was sent by Nero to Subdue the Jews.

Book III: Vespasian’s coming to Subdue the Jews to the Taking of Gamala

Book IV: Siege of Gamala to the Coming of Titus to besiege Jerusalem

Book V: Coming of Titus to besiege Jerusalem to the Great Extremity to which

the Jews were reduced

Book VI: Great Extremity to which the Jews were reduced to the taking of

Jerusalem by Titus

Book VII: Taking of Jerusalem by Titus to the Sedition of the Jews at Cyrene

Book I: Taking of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the Death of Herod the Great. Interval of 167 Years.

                Chapter 1. Jerusalem City Taken, Temple Pillaged, by Antiochus Epiphanes. Actions of Maccabees: Matthias & Judas. Death of Judas.

                1. AT the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city, who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.

                2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine’s flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves.

                3. Accordingly Matthias, the son of Asamoneus, one of the priests who lived in a village called Modin, armed himself, together with his own family, which had five sons of his in it, and slew Bacchides with daggers; and thereupon, out of the fear of the many garrisons [of the enemy], he fled to the mountains; and so many of the people followed him, that he was encouraged to come down from the mountains, and to give battle to Antiochus’s generals, when he beat them, and drove them out of Judea. So he came to the government by this his success, and became the prince of his own people by their own free consent, and then died, leaving the government to Judas, his eldest son.

                4. Now Judas, supposing that Antiochus would not lie still, gathered an army out of his own countrymen, and was the first that made a league of friendship with the Romans, and drove Epiphanes out of the country when he had made a second expedition into it, and this by giving him a great defeat there; and when he was warmed by this great success, he made an assault upon the garrison that was in the city, for it had not been cut off hitherto; so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel. He then got the temple under his power, and cleansed the whole place, and walled it round about, and made new vessels for sacred ministrations, and brought them into the temple, because the former vessels had been profaned. He also built another altar, and began to offer the sacrifices; and when the city had already received its sacred constitution again, Antiochus died; whose son Antiochus succeeded him in the kingdom, and in his hatred to the Jews also.

                5. So this Antiochus got together fifty thousand (50,000) footmen, and five thousand (5,000) horsemen, and fourscore (80) elephants, and marched through Judea into the mountainous parts. He then took Bethsura, which was a small city; but at a place called Bethzacharis, where the passage was narrow, Judas met him with his army. However, before the forces joined battle, Judas’s brother Eleazar, seeing the very highest of the elephants adorned with a large tower, and with military trappings of gold to guard him, and supposing that Antiochus himself was upon him, he ran a great way before his own army, and cutting his way through the enemy’s troops, he got up to the elephant; yet could he not reach him who seemed to be the king, by reason of his being so high; but still he ran his weapon into the belly of the beast, and brought him down upon himself, and was crushed to death, having done no more than attempted great things, and showed that he preferred glory before life. Now he that governed the elephant was but a private man; and had he proved to be Antiochus, Eleazar had performed nothing more by this bold stroke than that it might appear he chose to die, when he had the bare hope of thereby doing a glorious action; nay, this disappointment proved an omen to his brother [Judas] how the entire battle would end. It is true that the Jews fought it out bravely for a long time, but the king’s forces, being superior in number, and having fortune on their side, obtained the victory. And when a great many of his men were slain, Judas took the rest with him, and fled to the toparchy of Gophna. So Antiochus went to Jerusalem, and staid there but a few days, for he wanted provisions, and so he went his way. He left indeed a garrison behind him, such as he thought sufficient to keep the place, but drew the rest of his army off, to take their winter-quarters in Syria.

                6. Now, after the king was departed, Judas was not idle; for as many of his own nation came to him, so did he gather those that had escaped out of the battle together, and gave battle again to Antiochus’s generals at a village called Adasa; and being too hard for his enemies in the battle, and killing a great number of them, he was at last himself slain also. Nor was it many days afterward that his brother John had a plot laid against him by Antiochus’s party, and was slain by them.

Chapter 2.  Judas’ Successors: Jonathan & Simon, & John Hyrcanus.   

                1. When Jonathan, who was Judas’s brother, succeeded him, he behaved himself with great circumspection in other respects, with relation to his own people; and he corroborated his authority by preserving his friendship with the Romans. He also made a league with Antiochus the son. Yet was not all this sufficient for his security; for the tyrant Trypho, who was guardian to Antiochus’s son, laid a plot against him; and besides that, endeavored to take off his friends, and caught Jonathan by a wile, as he was going to Ptolemais to Antiochus, with a few persons in his company, and put him in bonds, and then made an expedition against the Jews; but when he was afterward driven away by Simon, who was Jonathan’s brother, and was enraged at his defeat, he put Jonathan to death.

                2. However, Simon managed the public affairs after a courageous manner, and took Gazara, and Joppa, and Jamnia, which were cities in his neighborhood. He also got the garrison under, and demolished the citadel. He was afterward an auxiliary to Antiochus, against Trypho, whom he besieged in Dora, before he went on his expedition against the Medes; yet could not he make the king ashamed of his ambition, though he had assisted him in killing Trypho; for it was not long ere Antiochus sent Cendebeus his general with an army to lay waste Judea, and to subdue Simon; yet he, though he was now in years, conducted the war as if he were a much younger man. He also sent his sons with a band of strong men against Antiochus, while he took part of the army himself with him, and fell upon him from another quarter. He also laid a great many men in ambush in many places of the mountains, and was superior in all his attacks upon them; and when he had been conqueror after so glorious a manner, he was made high priest, and also freed the Jews from the dominion of the Macedonians, after one hundred and seventy (170) years of the empire [of Seleucus].

                3. This Simon also had a plot laid against him, and was slain at a feast by his son-in-law Ptolemy, who put his wife and two sons into prison, and sent some persons to kill John, who was also called Hyrcanus. (* This holding a council in the temple of Apollo, in the emperor’s palace at Rome, by Augustus, and even the building of this temple magnificently by himself in that palace, are exactly agreeable to Augustus, in his elder years, as Aldrich and from Suttonius and Propertius. *) But when the young man was informed of their coming beforehand, he made haste to get to the city, as having a very great confidence in the people there, both on account of the memory of the glorious actions of his father, and of the hatred they could not but bear to the injustice of Ptolemy. Ptolemy also made an attempt to get into the city by another gate; but was repelled by the people, who had just then admitted of Hyrcanus; so he retired presently to one of the fortresses that were about Jericho, which was called Dagon. Now when Hyrcanus had received the high priesthood, which his father had held before, and had offered sacrifice to God, he made great haste to attack Ptolemy, that he might afford relief to his mother and brethren.

                4. So he laid siege to the fortress, and was superior to Ptolemy in other respects, but was overcome by him as to the just affection [he had for his relations]; for when Ptolemy was distressed, he brought forth his mother, and his brethren, and set them upon the wall, and beat them with rods in every body’s sight, and threatened, that unless he would go away immediately, he would throw them down headlong; at which sight Hyrcanus’s commiseration and concern were too hard for his anger. But his mother was not dismayed, neither at the stripes she received, nor at the death with which she was threatened; but stretched out her hands, and prayed her son not to be moved with the injuries that she suffered to spare the wretch; since it was to her better to die by the means of Ptolemy, than to live ever so long, provided he might be punished for the injuries he done to their family. Now John’s case was this: When he considered the courage of his mother, and heard her entreaty, he set about his attacks; but when he saw her beaten, and torn to pieces with the stripes, he grew feeble, and was entirely overcome by his affections. And as the siege was delayed by this means, the year of rest came on, upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day. On this year, therefore, Ptolemy was freed from being besieged, and slew the brethren of John, with their mother, and fled to Zeno, who was also called Cotylas, who was tyrant of Philadelphia.

                5. And now Antiochus was so angry at what he had suffered from Simon, that he made an expedition into Judea, and sat down before Jerusalem and besieged Hyrcanus; but Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David, who was the richest of all kings, and took thence about three thousand (3,000) talents in money, and induced Antiochus, by the promise of three thousand (3,000)  talents, to raise the siege. Moreover, he was the first of the Jews that had money enough, and began to hire foreign auxiliaries also.

                6. However, at another time, when Antiochus was gone upon an expedition against the Medes, and so gave Hyrcanus an opportunity of being revenged upon him, he immediately made an attack upon the cities of Syria, as thinking, what proved to be the case with them, that he should find them empty of god troops. So he took Medaba and Samea, with the towns in their neighborhood, as also Shechem, and Gerizzim; and besides these, [he subdued] the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt round about that temple which was built in imitation of the temple at Jerusalem; he also took a great many other cities of Idumea, with Adoreon and Marissa.

                7. He also proceeded as far as Samaria, where is now the city Sebaste, which was built by Herod the king, and encompassed it all round with a wall, and set his sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus, over the siege; who pushed it on so hard, that a famine so far prevailed within the city, that they were forced to eat what never was esteemed food. They also invited Antiochus, who was called Cyzicenus, to come to their assistance; whereupon he got ready, and complied with their invitation, but was beaten by Aristobulus and Antigonus; and indeed he was pursued as far as Scythopolis by these brethren, and fled away from them. So they returned back to Samaria, and shut the multitude again within the wall; and when they had taken the city, they demolished it, and made slaves of its inhabitants. And as they had still great success in their undertakings, they did not suffer their zeal to cool, but marched with an army as far as Scythopolis, and made an incursion upon it, and laid waste all the country that lay within Mount Carmel.

                8. But then these successes of John and of his sons made them be envied, and occasioned a sedition in the country; and many there were who got together, and would not be at rest till they brake out into open war, in which war they were beaten. So John lived the rest of his life very happily, and administered the government after a most extraordinary manner, and this for thirtythree (33) entire years together. He died, leaving five sons behind him. He was certainly a very happy man, and afforded no occasion to have any complaint made of fortune on his account. He it was who alone had three of the most desirable things in the world, –the government of his nation, and the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. For the Deity conversed with him, and he was not ignorant of anything that was to come afterward; insomuch that he foresaw and foretold that his two eldest sons would not continue masters of the government; and it will highly deserve our narration to describe their catastrophe, and how far inferior these men were to their father in felicity.

Chapter 3. Aristobulus: 1st to be Crowned with Diadem on his Head. Murders his Mother & Brother. He Dies after 1 Year Reign.

                1. For after the death of their father, the elder of them, Aristobulus, changed the government into a kingdom, and was the first that put a diadem upon his head, four hundred seventy and one (471) years and three (3) months after our people came down into this country, when they were set free from the Babylonian slavery. Now, of his brethren, he appeared to have an affection for Antigonus, who was next to him, and made him his equal; but for the rest, he bound them, and put them in prison. He also put his mother in bonds, for her contesting the government with him; for John had left her to be the governess of public affairs. He also proceeded to that degree of barbarity as to cause her to be pined to death in prison.    (* Hear Dean Aldrich’s note on this place: “The law or Custom of the Jews (says he) requires seven days’ mourning for the dead, Antiq. B. XVII. ch. 8. sect. 4; whence the author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, ch. 22:12, assigns seven days as the proper time of mourning for the dead, and, ch. 38:17, enjoins men to mourn for the dead, that they may not be evil spoken of; for, as Josephus says presently, if any one omits this mourning [funeral feast], he is not esteemed a holy person. How it is certain that such a seven days’ mourning has been customary from times of the greatest antiquity, Genesis 1:10. Funeral feasts are also mentioned as of considerable antiquity, Ezekiel 24:17; Jeremiah 16:7; Prey. 31:6; Deuteronomy 26:14; Josephus, Of the War B. III. ch. 9. sect. 5. *)

                2. But vengeance circumvented him in the affair of his brother Antigonus, whom he loved, and whom he made his partner in the kingdom; for he slew him by the means of the calumnies which ill men about the palace contrived against him. At first, indeed, Aristobulus would not believe their reports, partly out of the affection he had for his brother, and partly because he thought that a great part of these tales were owing to the envy of their relaters: however, as Antigonus came once in a splendid manner from the army to that festival, wherein our ancient custom is to make tabernacles for God, it happened, in those days, that Aristobulus was sick, and that, at the conclusion of the feast, Antigonus came up to it, with his armed men about him; and this when he was adorned in the finest manner possible; and that, in a great measure, to pray to God on the behalf of his brother. Now at this very time it was that these ill men came to the king, and told him in what a pompous manner the armed men came, and with what insolence Antigonus marched, and that such his insolence was too great for a private person, and that accordingly he was come with a great band of men to kill him; for that he could not endure this bare enjoyment of royal honor, when it was in his power to take the kingdom himself.

                3. Now Aristobulus, by degrees, and unwillingly, gave credit to these accusations; and accordingly he took care not to discover his suspicion openly, though he provided to be secure against any accidents; so he placed the guards of his body in a certain dark subterranean passage; for he lay sick in a place called formerly the Citadel, though afterwards its name was changed to Antonia; and he gave orders that if Antigonus came unarmed, they should let him alone; but if he came to him in his armor, they should kill him. He also sent some to let him know beforehand that he should come unarmed. But, upon this occasion, the queen very cunningly contrived the matter with those that plotted his ruin, for she persuaded those that were sent to conceal the king’s message; but to tell Antigonus how his brother had heard he had got a very the suit of armor made with fine martial ornaments, in Galilee; and because his present sickness hindered him from coming and seeing all that finery, he very much desired to see him now in his armor; because, said he, in a little time thou art going away from me.

                4. As soon as Antigonus heard this, the good temper of his brother not allowing him to suspect any harm from him, he came along with his armor on, to show it to his brother; but when he was going along that dark passage which was called Strato’s Tower, he was slain by the body guards, and became an eminent instance how calumny destroys all good-will and natural affection, and how none of our good affections are strong enough to resist envy perpetually.

                5. And truly anyone would be surprised at Judas upon this occasion. He was of the sect of the Essens, and had never failed or deceived men in his predictions before. Now this man saw Antigonus as he was passing along by the temple, and cried out to his acquaintance, (they were not a few who attended upon him as his scholars,) “O strange!” said he, “it is good for me to die now, since truth is dead before me, and somewhat that I have foretold hath proved false; for this Antigonus is this day alive, who ought to have died this day; and the place where he ought to be slain, according to that fatal decree, was Strato’s Tower, which is at the distance of six hundred furlongs from this place; and yet four hours of this day are over already; which point of time renders the prediction impossible to be fill filled.” And when the old man had said this, he was dejected in his mind, and so continued. But in a little time news came that Antigonus was slain in a subterraneous place, which was itself also called Strato’s Tower, by the same name with that Cesarea which lay by the sea-side; and this ambiguity it was which caused the prophet’s disorder.

                6. Hereupon Aristobulus repented of the great crime he had been guilty of, and this gave occasion to the increase of his distemper. He also grew worse and worse, and his soul was constantly disturbed at the thoughts of what he had done, till his very bowels being torn to pieces by the intolerable grief he was under, he threw up a great quantity of blood. And as one of those servants that attended him carried out that blood, he, by some supernatural providence, slipped and fell down in the very place where Antigonus had been slain; and so he spilt some of the murderer’s blood upon the spots of the blood of him that had been murdered, which still appeared. Hereupon a lamentable cry arose among the spectators, as if the servant had spilled the blood on purpose in that place; and as the king heard that cry, he inquired what was the cause of it; and while nobody durst tell him, he pressed them so much the more to let him know what was the matter; so at length, when he had threatened them, and forced them to speak out, they told; whereupon he burst into tears, and groaned, and said, “So I perceive I am not like to escape the all-seeing eye of God, as to the great crimes I have committed; but the vengeance of the blood of my kinsman pursues me hastily. O thou most impudent body! how long wilt thou retain a soul that ought to die on account of that punishment it ought to suffer for a mother and a brother slain! How long shall I myself spend my blood drop by drop? let them take it all at once; and let their ghosts no longer be disappointed by a few parcels of my bowels offered to them.” As soon as he had said these words, he presently died, when he had reigned no longer than a year.

Chapter 4. Alexander Janneus: Actions. Reigned 27 Years.

                1. AND now the king’s wife loosed the king’s brethren, and made Alexander king, who appeared both elder in age, and more moderate in his temper than the rest; who, when he came to the government, slew one of his brethren, as affecting to govern himself; but had the other of them in great esteem, as loving a quiet life, without meddling with public affairs.

                2. Now it happened that there was a battle between him and Ptolemy, who was called Lathyrus, who had taken the city Asochis. He indeed slew a great many of his enemies, but the victory rather inclined to Ptolemy. But when this Ptolemy was pursued by his mother Cleopatra, and retired into Egypt, Alexander besieged Gadara, and took it; as also he did Amathus, which was the strongest of all the fortresses that were about Jordan, and therein were the most precious of all the possessions of Theodorus, the son of Zeno. Whereupon Theodopus marched against him, and took what belonged to himself as well as the king’s baggage, and slew ten thousand of the Jews. However, Alexander recovered this blow, and turned his force towards the maritime parts, and took Raphia and Gaza, with Anthedon also, which was afterwards called Agrippias by king Herod.

                3. But when he had made slaves of the citizens of all these cities, the nation of the Jews made an insurrection against him at a festival; for at those feasts seditions are generally begun; and it looked as if he should not be able to escape the plot they had laid for him, had not his foreign auxiliaries, the Pisidians and Cilicians, assisted him; for as to the Syrians, he never admitted them among his mercenary troops, on account of their innate enmity against the Jewish nation. And when he had slain more than six thousand (6,000) of the rebels, he made an incursion into Arabia; and when he had taken that country, together with the Gileadires and Moabites, he enjoined them to pay him tribute, and returned to Areathus; and as Theodorus was surprised at his great success, he took the fortress, and demolished it.

                4. However, when he fought with Obodas, king of the Arabians, who had laid an ambush for him near Golan, and a plot against him, he lost his entire army, which was crowded together in a deep valley, and broken to pieces by the multitude of camels. And when he had made his escape to Jerusalem, he provoked the multitude, which hated him before, to make an insurrection against him, and this on account of the greatness of the calamity that he was under. However, he was then too hard for them; and, in the several battles that were fought on both sides, he slew not fewer than fifty thousand (50,000) of the Jews in the interval of six (6) years. Yet had he no reason to rejoice in these victories, since he did but consume his own kingdom; till at length he left off fighting, and endeavored to come to a composition with them, by talking with his subjects. But this mutability and irregularity of his conduct made them hate him still more. And when he asked them why they so hated him, and what he should do in order to appease them, they said, by killing himself; for that it would be then all they could do to be reconciled to him, who had done such tragical things to them, even when he was dead. At the same time they invited Demetrius, who was called Eucerus, to assist them; and as he readily complied with their requests, in hopes of great advantages, and came with his army, the Jews joined with those their auxiliaries about Shechem.

                5. Yet did Alexander meet both these forces with one thousand (1,000) horsemen, and eight thousand (8,000) mercenaries that were on foot. He had also with him that part of the Jews which favored him, to the number of ten thousand (10,000); while the adverse party had three thousand (3,000) horsemen, and fourteen thousand (14,000) footmen. Now, before they joined battle, the kings made proclamation, and endeavored to draw off each other’s soldiers, and make them revolt; while Demetrius hoped to induce Alexander’s mercenaries to leave him, and Alexander hoped to induce the Jews that were with Demetrius to leave him. But since neither the Jews would leave off their rage, nor the Greeks prove unfaithful, they came to an engagement, and to a close fight with their weapons. In which battle Demetrius was the conqueror, although Alexander’s mercenaries showed the greatest exploits, both in soul and body. Yet did the upshot of this battle prove different from what was expected, as to both of them; for neither did those that invited Demetrius to come to them continue firm to him, though he was conqueror; and six thousand (6,000) Jews, out of pity to the change of Alexander’s condition, when he was fled to the mountains, came over to him. Yet could not Demetrius bear this turn of affairs; but supposing that Alexander was already become a match for him again, and that all the nation would [at length] run to him, he left the country, and went his way.

                6. However, the rest of the [Jewish] multitude did not lay aside their quarrels with him, when the [foreign] auxiliaries were gone; but they had a perpetual war with Alexander, until he had slain the greatest part of them, and driven the rest into the city Berneselis; and when he had demolished that city, he carried the captives to Jerusalem. Nay, his rage was grown so extravagant, that his barbarity proceeded to the degree of impiety; for when he had ordered eight hundred (800) to be hung upon crosses in the midst of the city, he had the throats of their wives and children cut before their eyes; and these executions he saw as he was drinking and lying down with his concubines. Upon which so deep a surprise seized on the people, that eight thousand (8,000) of his opposers fled away the very next night, out of all Judea, whose flight was only terminated by Alexander’s death; so at last, though not till late, and with great difficulty, he, by such actions, procured quiet to his kingdom, and left off fighting any more.

                7. Yet did that Antiochus, who was also called Dionysius, become an origin of troubles again. This man was the brother of Demetrius, and the last of the race of the Seleucids.  (* Here we have a strong confirmation that it was Xerxes, and not Artaxerxes, under whom the main part of the Jews returned out of the Babylonian captivity, i.e. in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. The same thing is in the Antiquities, B. XI. ch.6 *) Alexander was afraid of him, when he was marching against the Arabians; so he cut a deep trench between Antipatris, which was near the mountains, and the shores of Joppa; he also erected a high wall before the trench, and built wooden towers, in order to hinder any sudden approaches. But still he was not able to exclude Antiochus, for he burnt the towers, and filled up the trenches, and marched on with his army. And as he looked upon taking his revenge on Alexander, for endeavoring to stop him, as a thing of less consequence, he marched directly against the Arabians, whose king retired into such parts of the country as were fittest for engaging the enemy, and then on the sudden made his horse turn back, which were in number ten thousand, and fell upon Antiochus’s army while they were in disorder, and a terrible battle ensued. Antiochus’s troops, so long as he was alive, fought it out, although a mighty slaughter was made among them by the Arabians; but when he fell, for he was in the forefront, in the utmost danger, in rallying his troops, they all gave ground, and the greatest part of his army were destroyed, either in the action or the flight; and for the rest, who fled to the village of Cana, it happened that they were all consumed by want of necessaries, a few only excepted.

                8. About this time it was that the people of Damascus, out of their hatred to Ptolemy, the son of Menhens, invited Aretas [to take the government], and made him king of Celesyria. This man also made an expedition against Judea, and beat Alexander in battle; but afterwards retired by mutual agreement. But Alexander, when he had taken Pella, marched to Gerasa again, out of the covetous desire he had of Theodorus’s possessions; and when he had built a triple wall about the garrison, he took the place by force. He also demolished Golan, and Seleucia, and what was called the Valley of Antiochus; besides which, he took the strong fortress of Gamala, and stripped Demetrius, who was governor therein, of what he had, on account of the many crimes laid to his charge, and then returned into Judea, after he had been three whole years in this expedition. And now he was kindly received of the nation, because of the good success he had. So when he was at rest from war, he fell into a distemper; for he was afflicted with a quartan-ague, and supposed that, by exercising himself again in martial affairs, he should get rid of this distemper; but by making such expeditions at unseasonable times, and forcing his body to undergo greater hardships than it was able to bear, he brought himself to his end. He died, therefore, in the midst of his troubles, after he had reigned seven and twenty (27)  years.

About mjmselim

Male, 68 in Oct., born in Jamaica, USA since 1961, citizen in 2002; cobbler for 40 plus years, retired, Christian since 1969; married to same wife since 1979; 6 daughters and 2 sons, with 8 grandkids. Slowly adapting to the digital world of computers and internet; hobby in digital editing.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s