Antiochus didn't die in Palestine, he died in Parthia. And he never carried out a third campaign against Egypt. On the other hand, he did die the same year the Hebrew author expected (164 BC). Interestingly, he died in the fall of that year as cuneiform evidence indicates. 2 Maccabees however implies that he died in the spring. And that was the expectation in Daniel, which dated the demise of Antiochus 3 1/2 years after the attack on Jerusalem (fall of 168 BC) according to ch. 9, and sometime prior to the festival of Pentacost (May-June) according to ch. 12.
Evidence regarding Daniel 11 & Antiochus IV
by Bobcat 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
John Kesler
Leolaia: Also 1 Maccabees 1:54 (late second century BC) refers to the pagan altar installed in the Temple as the "abomination of desolation", using the same language found in Daniel. Bear in mind that the author expected the king to die in a different way than what really happened...
Why didn't the author of 1 Maccabees also claim that Antiochus IV died in Palestine, unless he didn't view Daniel 11:45b as dependent on 11:45a regarding the place of death? Instead, the author states in 6:1-16 that Antiochus died in Persia. Also, do I understand correctly that you think the pagan altar was erected in 168 B.C.? I thought 1 Macc. 1:54 dates it to 167? Thanks for your insights.
-
Leolaia
I don't think the author was basing his account on Daniel; he was writing an account mostly of happenings in Judea. The story of the death of Antiochus is clearly fictional (reminiscent of the repentance of Manasseh), and while the author may have known some details (such as where he died) he may not have known others (such as the time of year). There is a definite uncertainty about the timing of Antiochus' death when you compare the two accounts 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. The latter (the more unreliable account) had moved many events preceding Antiochus' death to the period after his death, moving the date of the death to a point several months earlier in time. Probably the author was just confused and the similarity in timing with Daniel is just a coincidence. Or possibly there was influence from ch. 11-12 of Daniel. It is interesting that the legendary account of Antiochus' death has the king at that moment intending to return to Judea and massacre the whole population of Jerusalem.
As for the discrepency between 167 and 168 BC, that is a longstanding problem in Seleucid chronology. The Maccabean histories use the S. E. calendar and it is uncertain whether dates are reckoned from Nisan 332 BC, Tishri 332 BC, or Nisan 331 BC. Earlier on, I preferred the 167 date for the installation of the abomination of desolation, but now after further reading (specifically, Lester Grabbe's 1991 JBL article) I am convinced that 168 is the better date.
-
Leolaia
Here is another cut and paste from an older post of mine. This concerns how the Hebrew apocalypse of Daniel seems to construe the death of Antiochus and the resurrection occuring in the spring:
The date of I/24 in Daniel 10:4 has special meaning in the schematic calendar that is consistent with the time periods of Daniel. It ends a period of fasting lasting "twenty-one days" (v. 13), or "three weeks" (v. 2). Since he fasted a whole three weeks, receiving his angelic visit on I/24 (a Friday), he must have started his fast on I/3 upon receiving his original vision -- the day of man's creation in the schematic calendar (a Friday, with the sun being created on I/1, the fourth day of creation, a Wednesday). This is an appropriate day to have received the vision foreseeing the resurrection of the dead (12:1-3; the dead are brought to life from the "dust of the earth" just as Adam was brought to life from the dust of the earth in Genesis). What is especially interesting is that unlike the lunar calendar, the sabbatical schematic calendar obligatorily started the year directly upon the (schematic) spring equinox. If we count from the equinox (between XII/30 and I/1), I/24 is exactly 3 1/2 weeks later (from evening XII/31 to morning/day of I/24). Since Daniel elsewhere shows interest in periods of 3 1/2 "times" (7:25, 9:27, 12:14) and in weeks (ch. 9), this may have been part of the author's plan. The counting of weeks from the equinox to I/24 is also meaningful since the second week ends with Passover, the third week starts with the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the third week ends with the last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Moreover, I/24 is the day before the sabbath in the sabbatical calendar, and the angel concludes his explanation of the vision by telling Daniel that after going his way he will rest until the resurrection. The reference is to the prophet's own death, but there may be a sabbatical overtone in this reference to rest. Finally, I/26 is the day of the waving of the Omer (cf. Leviticus 23) in the schematic calendar, which starts the counting of weeks to the Festival of Weeks (Shavu'ot) on III/15. With only the sabbath separating him from the counting of weeks to Shavu'ot, the timing is quite appropriate for the author's counting of weeks to the end of the 3 1/2 "times" in ch. 9 and the counting of 3 1/2 "times" in 12:6-7 "before all these things are fulfilled".
The periods of 1,290 days and 1,335 days also may point to the feast of Shavu'ot in the sabbatical calendar. These exceed the period of 3 1/2 years by 30 days and 30 + 45 days respectively (a month, another month, and an added half-month according to the schematic 360-day sabbatical calendar), and since the 3 1/2 years correspond to the final half-week in ch. 9, these periods of 30 and 45 days transpire after the conclusion of the "seventy weeks" (which conclude with the death of Antiochus, as does ch. 11). The moment that divides the two periods of 3 1/2 years in the apocalyptic survey in ch. 9 is the abolishing of sacrifice and offering after "the people of a ruler who shall come destroy the city and sanctuary", followed later by the installation of the appalling abomination in the Temple (9:26-27). This corresponds to the events concerning Antiochus related in 11:31, which follows the "ships of Kittim" (= Rome) frustrating Antiochus' campaign against Egypt. We know from historical sources that the Roman legate Laenas sailed to Egypt in late June 168 BC and he forced Antiochus to leave Egypt on 30 July 168 BC. Antiochus and his mysarch Apollonius then turned their attention to Judea and they plundered and razed Jerusalem sometime around September 168 BC, allowing them to "forbid burnt offerings, sacrifice, and oblations in the temple and profane the sabbaths and festival days" (1 Maccabees 1:20-53), and then on 15 Chislev (17 December 168 BC) they set up the appalling abomination on the altar and then sacrificed on it on 25 Chislev (i.e. 27 December 168 BC) (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54-59), around the time of the winter solstice. This shows that September 168 BC, around the time of the fall equinox of 168 BC, marked the point separating the 3 1/2 years that started with the death of the "anointed one" (high priest Onias III, assassinated in 171 BC, cf. also Daniel 11:22) from the 3 1/2 years that span between the forbidding of sacrifice and oblations to the death of the desolator, i.e. Antiochus. That last event would be placed around the spring equinox of 164 BC, after the restoration and purification of the Temple in December 165 BC (exactly 3 years after it was defiled by the appalling abomination, cf. 1 Maccabees 4:52-55, cf. Josephus, Antiquities 12.320, Jewish War 1.32, who regarded this as fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel). Then the extra 30 days would extend beyond the completion of the seventy weeks of years to cover the first month of the year with the observance of Passover and the Festival of Unfermented Bread. Then the extra 45 days to complete the 1,335 days would lead up to III/15, the festival of Shavu'ot. This is the exact same date that Moses received his revelation of the covenant according to Jubilees, and in Judaism this day was kept sacred for covenant renewing. This is especially appropros, since Daniel was especially interested in the covenant -- both the false covenant that Antiochus imposed on the people (9:27, 11:32, cf. 1 Maccabees 1:11) and the holy covenant that those being resurrected had kept under the pain of death (11:22, 33-35, cf. 1 Maccabees 1:63). The "blessing" experienced at the end of the 1,335 days has its natural referent in 12:2-3 (cf. v. 13). It is also worth noting that this only works with the schematic calendar, as in the lunar calendar Shavu'ot is a moveable feast that can fall anywhere between 4 Sivan to 11 Sivan -- never the 15th of the month.
-
John Kesler
John Kesler: Why didn't the author of 1 Maccabees also claim that Antiochus IV died in Palestine, unless he didn't view Daniel 11:45b as dependent on 11:45a regarding the place of death? Instead, the author states in 6:1-16 that Antiochus died in Persia. Also, do I understand correctly that you think the pagan altar was erected in 168 B.C.? I thought 1 Macc. 1:54 dates it to 167? Thanks for your insights.
Leolaia: I don't think the author was basing his account on Daniel; he was writing an account mostly of happenings in Judea. The story of the death of Antiochus is clearly fictional (reminiscent of the repentance of Manasseh), and while the author may have known some details (such as where he died) he may not have known others (such as the time of year). There is a definite uncertainty about the timing of Antiochus' death when you compare the two accounts 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. The latter (the more unreliable account) had moved many events preceding Antiochus' death to the period after his death, moving the date of the death to a point several months earlier in time. Probably the author was just confused and the similarity in timing with Daniel is just a coincidence. Or possibly there was influence from ch. 11-12 of Daniel. It is interesting that the legendary account of Antiochus' death has the king at that moment intending to return to Judea and massacre the whole population of Jerusalem.
Thanks for this. Since you doubt that the author of 1 Maccabees used Daniel as a source regarding the death of Antiochus, do you think that the use of "desolating sacrilege" (so NRSV), so similar to the wording of Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, is also independent of Daniel? If not, since the death of Antiochus is, as you say, "clearly fictional" as reported in 1 Maccabees, why not say that Antiochus died in Palestine to bring the account in line with Daniel? Is there anything grammatically in the Hebrew that requires that Palestine be understood as the place of Antiochus's death in Daniel 11:45b just because that's where 45a says that's where he "pitch[ed] his palatial tents" (NRSV)? I know that most mainstream commentators say that Palestine is predicted in Daniel 11 as the place of Antiochus's death, but I don't see that the text requires that. What am I missing?
-
Leolaia
Since you doubt that the author of 1 Maccabees used Daniel as a source regarding the death of Antiochus, do you think that the use of "desolating sacrilege" (so NRSV), so similar to the wording of Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, is also independent of Daniel?
Well, 1 Maccabees was definitely familiar with Daniel, alluding to the stories in ch. 3 and 6. So the reference to the "abomination of desolation" in ch. 1 could also be an allusion. Or it could have had a Sitz im Leben in actual Jewish usage at the time of the events. There is no way to know for certain which possibility it is.
If not, since the death of Antiochus is, as you say, "clearly fictional" as reported in 1 Maccabees, why not say that Antiochus died in Palestine to bring the account in line with Daniel?
I think the account in 1 Maccabees is more historical than the one in 2 Maccabees, and the author was writing more or less straight history. I don't think such an author would have been inclined to alter an apparently well-known historical fact as the location of Antiochus' death, especially putting it in Palestine itself where Jews would have known full well that Antiochus never went to the Holy Land after the Temple was restored. And as mentioned above, I don't think the author of 2 Maccabees would have gone that far as well. The timing of Antiochus' death, on the other hand, was a much murkier fact, and there is confusion between the two histories on when it happened in the sequence of events.
Is there anything grammatically in the Hebrew that requires that Palestine be understood as the place of Antiochus's death in Daniel 11:45b just because that's where 45a says that's where he "pitch[ed] his palatial tents" (NRSV)? I know that most mainstream commentators say that Palestine is predicted in Daniel 11 as the place of Antiochus's death, but I don't see that the text requires that. What am I missing?
I think its very strongly implied. While in Egypt (v. 43), he hears reports from the northeast that greatly alarm him and he sets forth there in a great rage (v. 44). He pitches his tents in Palestine at the holy mountain (v. 45a). Then he dies (v. 45b). There is no siege or attack mentioned, he just dies. The reader expects a repeat of the second Egyptian campaign mentioned a few verses earlier: Antiochus withdraws from Egypt in a great rage (v. 30), he besieges Jerusalem (v. 31a), and the Temple is defiled (v. 31b). But he dies before this could happen again.
-
Bobcat
First off, this has been a very informative thread for me. I Thank all of you for your input.
Leolaia:
Just borrowing from the end of the last couple of posts. Here is an opinion question, just asking for your thoughts, based on the goodly amount of info you possess.
John Kesler said:
I know that most mainstream commentators say that Palestine is predicted in Daniel 11 as the place of Antiochus's death, but I don't see that the text requires that. What am I missing?
And your reply, in part was:
I think its very strongly implied.
So my question is, Just suppose that the end of Daniel 11 was intentionally vague. Your reply indicated expectations of details that don't seem to fit. But just going by what is actually said, without pressing expected details, could the account in 11:43-45 be true? Would the order of events be true if you simply took, 'he will come all the way to his end with no one to help him,' as meaning, 'he would die after this.' (regardless of the location)?
Thanks again for all yours (and others) input. There is alot more info on this thread than I ever expected.
-
Larsinger58
I'm going to make a post about the "little horn."
BUT, PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE note that the four beasts of Daniel 12, out of the 4th comes the "little horn" are CONCURRENT world powers. They are commonly thought to represent successive world powers, but they are not. They exist all at the same time and at the time of the time of the end.
Now here are some clues.
1. When a successive world power is expressed, it shows interaction between the new world power and the old. For instance, when Greece takes over Medo-Persia, it is illustrated by a he-goat killing off the ram. Thus one replaces the other. You don't see that with the 4 beasts of Daniel. They all exist at the same time. One does not replace the other.
2. The 4th beast mention dies before the other three. Now if this was successive, when the 4th beast was killed then all the beasts would have died since the previous beasts make up the new world power. Right? Instead what do we find? If these are concurrent world powers, all existing at the same time, then when one falls or gets killed, the others are left remaining. That is EXACTLY what we see here. When the 4th beast is killed, which is not like the others, and thus not political, then the others give up their sovereignty. That means they were fully active world powers before when the 4th beast was still alive. So who are these four beasts?
1. The Lion is Japan.
2. The Bear is Russia and allies.
3. The Leopard with all the power is the US and allies (NATO?)
4. The 4th beast, not like the others, is not political but still influences the world. That beast is, therefore, Babylon the Great, the "illuminati" controlled organizations that control the world through international banking and money.
THE LITTLE HORN: The little horn is thus part of Babylon the Great. It is very influential. It has many eyes. Eyes represent intelligence and surveillance. Thus the "little horn" is really the CIA and other spy agencies set up by the Illuminati. That is, the CIA was created by the occult secret society of "Skull and Bones" which controls it, thus the bible represents the little horn as being part of Babylon the Great.
REGARDING WHEN DANIEL WAS WRITTEN: If, in fact, Daniel was written by Daniel, then it was written during his lifetime. Daniel lived from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II down into the reign of Cyrus. That is when it was written. The confusion comes from the fact that the Jews assisted Xerxes in faking his death and claiming he was his own son, Artaxerxes. thuis they suppressed their historical books of Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah, which didn't resurface until well after the Persian Period was over and done with. The Jews did write a substitute "Esdras" thta leaves out the history of Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes, which exposes the revisions that were made. \
So while the context of language might belong to a later period, it doesn't mean the original wasn't written by Daniel himself during the Persian Period. The language style of a later copy does not preempt the book is internally dated during the NB and Persian Periods!
It's amazing! No wonder few people belive the Bible! It's because they get so many of the historical details incorrect! Or they don't check the details and allow themselves to think world powers that exist together at the same time, are successive, when they are not.
The "little horn" with all the eyes is the CIA/MI6 essentially, born out of the occult Babylon the Great, that is, out of secret society cults like Skull and Bones. It has a lot of influence and does much damage in the world.
-
Bobcat
Leo:
I withdraw my question. It turns out it was a bit premature.
Lars:
I'm going to look over your post. We may not agree on everything but the subject you discuss interests me very much.
Take Care
-
Vidqun
Bobcat, a few observations for what they are worth. Modern scholars study the book of Daniel in fragmentary form. I personally view the book as a unit and study it as such.
Daniel 11&12 covers a period from the time of Darius the Mede (Dan. 11:1) to the resurrection (Dan. 12:2). Few modern scholars would acknowledge the fact. In sharp contrast to the book of the Maccabees, Daniel makes no direct mention of Hellenistic Reform, and the angel delivering the final vision, actually dooms a Jewish uprising (cf. Dan. 11:14).
Those are some of the reasons why quite a few conservative scholars view Dan. 11:40-45 as referring to the time of the Antichrist. In addition, Jesus Christ would reject the Maccabean interpretation of "the disgusting thing causing desolation." As a first fulfillment, he applied it to the Romans, not the Seleucid kings (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luk. 21:20, 21).