Revisiting Daniel

[CGMedley]

This week Adventist Review columnist Clifford Goldstein offers a fresh perspective on Daniel 2. I'm sure you'll enjoy this piece.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1529&page=18

[BobRyan]

Clifford argues for the historicity of the book of Daniel in the actual days of the Babylonian empire. Certainly that is key to the SDA understanding of prophecy and the fact that the Bible IS a trustworthy document when it comes to events and history.

Contrast that approach to the bible with evolutionism that argues the Bible is NOT a trustworthy document when it comes to history and events and you have the result -- the EU which has now gone to a post-Christian society and full-blown "belief" in Darwinism above 90%.

in Christ,

Bob

[Michaelangelo]

For me the biggest problem in Clifford Goldstein's article is the fact that he doesn't really look at the evidence that casts doubt on Daniel being written as early as he accepts. Some of the greatest difficulties I see are the confusion the writer of Daniel shows when mixing together the Median and Persian Empires and then when he misidentifies Persian Emperor Darius the Great as Darius the Mede. And while the writer's prophecies seem to show some knowledge of the history of the region up to about 170-160 BC, his future prophecies are wide of the mark, especially those in Daniel 11:40-45. It's also surely significant that while the writer has no trouble identifying the Babylonian, 'Median-Persian' and Greek Empires, he never names the Roman Empire at all. In fact, he mentions Babylon 17 times, Persia six times, Egypt four times and Greece three times, while Rome is never named at all. He also fails to mention at all any of the future empires that controlled the area - Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mameluk, Ottoman and British. When Clifford Goldstein identifies the fourth empire as that of Rome, he avoids addressing at all the very strong possibility that the writer of Daniel was in fact talking about the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

[John317]

The issue of Antiochus Epiphanes has been addressed numerous times. Of course, like all Bible topics, it needs to be reviewed thoroughly every few days.

There is good reason to believe that Daniel did not mention Rome by name for the same reason that the book of Revelation does not name Rome. Also the same reason Paul and Peter do not name Rome in any negative way.

However, the gospel of Luke leaves no doubt about the identity of the fourth empire. The description of Rome in the book of Daniel is plain but evidently not plain enough to convince everyone.

[Michaelangelo]

Then maybe you could enlighten me rather than dismissing my doubts simply with assertions?

[phkrause]

I got my review today and enjoyed all the articles. But I have to say that I enjoyed the article by Fredrick A. Russell on pg 17 the must.

pk

[John317]

...It's also surely significant that while the writer has no trouble identifying the Babylonian, 'Median-Persian' and Greek Empires, he never names the Roman Empire at all. In fact, he mentions Babylon 17 times, Persia six times, Egypt four times and Greece three times, while Rome is never named at all....

Why is this "surely significant," and of what significance does it have for you, that Daniel does not identify Rome by name?

[John317]

....He also fails to mention at all any of the future empires that controlled the area - Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mameluk, Ottoman and British. ...

Why, do you believe, is this the case?

Does it seem to you that, if Daniel kept his eye on the ball, he would have mentioned some or all of these "future empires"?

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

...It's also surely significant that while the writer has no trouble identifying the Babylonian, 'Median-Persian' and Greek Empires, he never names the Roman Empire at all. In fact, he mentions Babylon 17 times, Persia six times, Egypt four times and Greece three times, while Rome is never named at all....

Why is this "surely significant," and of what significance does it have for you, that Daniel does not identify Rome by name?

What is significant to me is that the writer does take the trouble to identify by name the other three/four powers about which he is making prophecies, which were all important powers in the region from the 6th-early 2nd centuries BC, but for some reason fails to identify Rome by name at all, which in the relevant period (c. 170-160 BC) was not a power in the region - and was not to become one until after Carthage was defeated in 146 BC. Rome was not unknown in 170-160 BC, but it was still many years before it became the overwhelming power it was when the early Christian Church was forming.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

....He also fails to mention at all any of the future empires that controlled the area - Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mameluk, Ottoman and British. ...

Why, do you believe, is this the case?

Does it seem to you that, if Daniel kept his eye on the ball, he would have mentioned some or all of these "future empires"?

Because the writer of Daniel was not in fact a very good prophet. If he was, I would expect some reference to the future of Palestine and the Near East that did not simply reflect hopes based on the geopolitical realities of the region in 170-160 BC.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why is this "surely significant," and of what significance does it have for you, that Daniel does not identify Rome by name?

[/quote']

What is significant to me is that the writer does take the trouble to identify by name the other three/four powers about which he is making prophecies, which were all important powers in the region from the 6th-early 2nd centuries BC, but for some reason fails to identify Rome by name at all, which in the relevant period (c. 170-160 BC) was not a power in the region - and was not to become one until after Carthage was defeated in 146 BC. Rome was not unknown in 170-160 BC, but it was still many years before it became the overwhelming power it was when the early Christian Church was forming.

Does the book of Revelation also fail to mention Rome by name? Or do you believe that there are no symbolic references to Rome in that book? And if so, why would John have put the references to Rome in symbolic language?

My own belief is that prophecies put these things in symbolic language in order, among other reasons, to protect the manuscripts and to protect Christians. The Roman government often tried to destroy the NT and persecute Christians as it is, so if the the NT condemned the Roman government and Roman emperors as evil, the Romans would no doubt have been even more determined to stamp out Christianity and destroy the NT texts.

In any case, history shows without a doubt that following Greece was an empire exactly like the one described in the book of Daniel: one that became much bigger and stronger than Greece, and which did the very things that Rome did do. Luke 2: 1 leaves no question about the identity of the empire which was meant. It was this power which killed the Messiah.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why, do you believe, is this the case?

Does it seem to you that, if Daniel kept his eye on the ball, he would have mentioned some or all of these "future empires"? [/quote']

Because the writer of Daniel was not in fact a very good prophet. If he was, I would expect some reference to the future of Palestine and the Near East that did not simply reflect hopes based on the geopolitical realities of the region in 170-160 BC.

Why would we expect these references?

How did the prophet know that Rome would break up exactly like it did, a break up that didn't happen until about 600 years after you say the book was written?

Has the ancient Roman Empire ever been united since it broke up about 470 AD?

[John317]

... Some of the greatest difficulties I see are the confusion the writer of Daniel shows when mixing together the Median and Persian Empires

I'm not sure what specifically you believe Daniel got confused about, but here is some information from the wikipedia which sheds light on the reasons that Daniel "mixed" the two kingdoms together. There are no grounds in the book of Daniel for separating an individual Median kingdom.

Quote:

1) The Medes are credited with the foundation of the first Iranian empire, the largest of its day until Cyrus the Great established a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire, by defeating his grandfather and overlord, Astyages, king of Media...

2) In 553 BC, Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, rebelled against his grandfather, the Mede King Astyages, son of Cyaxares; he finally won a decisive victory in 550 BC resulting in Astyages' capture by his own dissatisfied nobles, who promptly turned him over to the triumphant Cyrus. Thus were the Medes subjected to their close kin, the Persians. In the new empire they retained a prominent position; in honor and war, they stood next to the Persians; their court ceremony was adopted by the new sovereigns, who in the summer months resided in Ecbatana; and many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals. Interestingly, at the beginning the Greek historians referred to the Achaemenid Empire as a Median empire....

3) .....the Persian element gradually became dominant....

Are you in fundamental agreement with the following:

Quote:

BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDO-PERSIA

They were under the domination of Assyria until the 7th century BC.

In 614 BC, the Medes captured Asshur, the capitol city of Assyria.

In 612 BC, the Medes joined the Chaldeans and captured Nineveh, resulting in the downfall of the Assyrian Empire (prophesied by the prophet Nahum approximately 100 years beforehand). NOTE: Nineveh’s revival, recorded by the prophet Jonah, was about 862 BC.

In the following years, there was much intermarriage and alliances with Babylon.

In 549 BC, the Persians conquered the Medes to form Medo-Persia.

The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC. This was prophesied by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah:

Isa.13:17ff. – about 713 BC, approximately 175 years beforehand.

Jer.51:11,28 – c. 595 BC, approximately 56 years beforehand.

The Medo-Persian empire covered the entire Middle East and surrounding areas, and they ruled up until the rise of Alexander the Great in 331 BC.

Daniel 2:39a refers to Medo-Persia. The image’s breast and arms of silver represent Medo-Persia, one arm is Media, the other arm is Persia.

Daniel 7:5 refers to Media-Persia. The bear raising itself up on one side refers to Persia being greater than Media.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- and then when he misidentifies Persian Emperor Darius the Great as Darius the Mede...

What is the proof or strong evidence that Daniel misidentified him?

It is entirely possible, even likely, that "Darius" is the throne name of someone who was known by a different, personal name before being appointed to the rulership of Babylon. Didn't this happen in the ancient Near East? Tiglath-pileaser III assumed a throne name as did also Shalmaneser V.

My understanding is that the identity of Darius the Mede is still a matter of some dispute. Some of the candidates include two Persian kings, two Median kings, and two Persian governors. But so far they are only candidates, far from certain.

[BobRyan]

For me the biggest problem in Clifford Goldstein's article is the fact that he doesn't really look at the evidence that casts doubt on Daniel being written as early as he accepts. Some of the greatest difficulties I see are the confusion the writer of Daniel shows when mixing together the Median and Persian Empires and then when he misidentifies Persian Emperor Darius the Great as Darius the Mede.

[Michaelangelo]

I'd like to thank John and Bob for taking the time to reply thoughtfully to my posts. John, Bob, I'll do my best to respond to your comments, but my time is limited and it might take me some time to get round to doing this. I'll try and answer in the order you made your points.

Does the book of Revelation also fail to mention Rome by name? Or do you believe that there are no symbolic references to Rome in that book? And if so, why would John have put the references to Rome in symbolic language?

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

....the writer of Daniel was not in fact a very good prophet. If he was, I would expect some reference to the future of Palestine and the Near East that did not simply reflect hopes based on the geopolitical realities of the region in 170-160 BC.

Why would we expect these references?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Does the book of Revelation also fail to mention Rome by name? Or do you believe that there are no symbolic references to Rome in that book? And if so, why would John have put the references to Rome in symbolic language?

This seems to be a non sequitur to me. Daniel is an OT book, while Revelation is a NT book...

Do you believe that the book of Revelation contains references to Rome in symbolic language?

[John317]

...Daniel specifically names the other empires he makes symbolic references to and prophecies about. Why is he coy about naming Rome?

Have you studied the Daniel & Revelation Committee Series published by the Biblical Research Institute, specifically (for our purposes) volume 2, Symposium On Daniel?

The fact that a prophet does not do what you and I might wish he had done, such as giving a name to a certain power, is no valid evidence that he is not a prophet or that his language does not not point to a particular power. All it means is that for whatever reason the prophet did not give a name to the power. Some people may take it to mean that the prophet is a fake, and that is their choice if they want to see it that way.

Both John and Daniel refer to various earthly powers as "beasts," or animals. We're often not given names of nations. Does that mean to you that they are not legitimate descriptions of real powers within history?

Your use of "coy" implies a conclusion that the prophet must give a name to the fourth kingdom, but that conclusion is invalid. You may wish he had given a name to the fourth kingdom, but it is not valid to jump to the conclusion that it is evidence of fakery or fraud if he does not do as you expect or think he should do. What would be evidence of a false prophet is if he said there would be a fifth world power that would take the place of the Roman Empire, uniting all of that same part of the world. Of course that has never happened.

Any good history book will confirm the sequence: typical would be, "The Chaldeans and New Babylonia," "The Great Persian Empire," "The Greek Civilization," and "The Foundations of the Roman Empire."

There are four empires in the statue series, not five or six. The Roman Empire did not capitulate to a fifth monolithic empire. It deteriorated over a very long period and was taken over piecemeal by whatever tribal coalition was ambitious enough to grab a portion. These things are matters of historical record, and they perfectly dovetail with the prophecy as given in Daniel 2.

[John317]

Quote:

My own belief is that prophecies put these things in symbolic language in order, among other reasons, to protect the manuscripts and to protect Christians. The Roman government often tried to destroy the NT and persecute Christians as it is, so if the the NT condemned the Roman government and Roman emperors as evil, the Romans would no doubt have been even more determined to stamp out Christianity and destroy the NT texts.

Why would Daniel have to use symbolic language to protect manuscripts and to protect Christians? Why would he not have to do the same thing to protect manuscripts from the Greeks or Persians?

I believe that God knew what a great persecuting power Rome would be under the Caesars such as Nero and Diocletian. The prophecies themselves point this out. As it is, without the book of Daniel naming Rome as an evil empire, a number of the Roman Emperors attempted to destroy the Bible and kill as many Christians and Jews as possible. Imagine the consequences of having their Book describe and name Rome as an empire ruled by the devil.

Greece, the third kingdom, is described as "very great." The Fourth kingdom that would follow Greece was described as "exceeding great." Sounds like a good description of Rome. Rome, the kingdom following Greece, was certainly greater than Greece, just Daniel said it would be.

All the history book regarding Rome observe what a cruel empire Rome was. Daniel 2: 40; 7: 7 are perfect descriptions of the Roman Empire.

It makes sense that this is one of the major reasons both John and Daniel were inspire to put their prophecies in symbolic language-- so that evil people would not be able to understand what they were saying. See Daniel 12: 10.

Do you believe in predictive prophecy?

Do you believe in a God who knows the end from the beginning and that this God inspired the prophets to write the Bible?

I say yes to both these questions.

If interested in studying Daniel 2 further, please see:

http://www.biblepath.org/10/DANIEL%202%20-%20the%20Statue.htm

[John317]

...Unless you are suggesting that Daniel was rewritten in the 1st Century by the same person who wrote Revelation..... unless I understand you again to be suggesting that Daniel was rewritten after Rome became the ruling power in the Mediterranean....

No, not suggesting that at all.

[John317]

... The oldest manuscripts of Daniel date to the late 2nd Century BC, so if the intention was to help preserve manuscripts from the 6th Century BC, this clearly failed.

Our oldest manuscripts of Daniel date from about the same period as our most ancient manuscripts of Isaiah as well as of most of the other Bible books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It's reasonable to conclude that the book of Daniel was composed long before it was included among the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts.

I've not suggested that omitting the name of the Roman Empire helped preserve the Hebrew manuscripts from the 6th century BC. That would certainly not have helped since Rome was not an influence on the Jews at that time.

What omitting the name of the Roman Empire may be expected to have done was keep the Roman authorities from persecuting Christians and Jews more than they already did and also keep them from destroying more Jewish and Christians Scriptures.

[John317]

... And if Rome can be so clearly understood to have been unmistakably identified by Daniel, how could the failure to specifically name Rome be in any way considered protective? Were Romans less capable of understanding symbolic language than anyone else? ...

Naming it clearly is obviously different than putting its identity in symbolic language that would require study in order to understand it.

For instance, I doubt any Roman officials studied the book of Revelation to discover what John's prophecies were all about. However, if he had named Rome, they would obviously have understood it in a moment.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the Roman government or Romans per se understood the book of Daniel.

Do you know of any evidence that the Romans either studied it or knew anything of what it says?

However, there is evidence that both Christians and Jews were aware that the fourth kingdom referred to Rome. Josephus identified Rome as the fourth world kingdom in Daniel 2. (See Ant. X 208-10)

You've probably read of, or heard of, Josephus' record of Alexander's the Great's understanding of the book of Daniel.

What do you think of the following?--

Quote:

Josephus records that Alexander then accompanied the priest into Jerusalem and the temple, where he "offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests."

Alexander's visit was capped by a briefing from the book of Daniel, written several centuries earlier, which foretold the rise and conquests of Alexander. "And when the book of Daniel was shewed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended; and as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present . . ." (ibid.)

Many scholars regard Josephus as a reputable historian on the same footing as other ancient authorities such as Tacitus. Why, then, is this remarkable record of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem so casually dismissed as a fabrication?

Many simply cannot accept that the book of Daniel, which foretold Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire several centuries before the Macedonian king was born, could have been divinely inspired. So rather than accept Daniel's book as a work inspired by God through the Jewish prophet in Babylon during the sixth century B.C., they argue that it must have been written long after Alexander lived and died.

Believing it impossible for such a tale to be true, they have to dismiss not only Daniel's book but this remarkable account by a studious and respected ancient historian. After all, they reason, Alexander could not have been shown a book that had not been written!

Obviously Josephus, writing in the first century, believed the story to be true and included it in his history. It's amazing how modern scholars pick and choose what they deem as "accurate" from ancient texts. Anything they disagree with, they simply dismiss as inaccurate and untrue. Yet this account of Alexander's visit to the Jerusalem temple remains an amazing vignette that confirms the inspired prophecies of God recorded in the book of Daniel.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- In any case, history shows without a doubt that following Greece was an empire exactly like the one described in the book of Daniel: one that became much bigger and stronger than Greece, and which did the very things that Rome did do. Luke 2: 1 leaves no question about the identity of the empire which was meant. It was this power which killed the Messiah.

By Greece I assume you to mean the Empire of Alexander, who more correctly was Macedonian rather than Greek.

Yes, you are technically correct.

How do the history books refer to it? It is quite true that Alexander himself was of Macedon, but he is known in history as a Greek king and his kingdom consisted of the ancient Greeks and is known in history as the Greek Empire.

Quote:

Alexander the Great (Greek:, Mégas Aléxandros; July 20, 356 BC – June 10 or June 11, 323 BC), also known as Alexander III of Macedon was an ancient Greek king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

Quote:

Although he had been satrap (governor) of Macedonia since 317 BC, following the death of Alexander the Great and the division of his Greek Empire, Cassander only proclaimed himself king of Macedonia in 305 BC after Antigonus (of Phrygia) has assumed the same title the year previously, forcing all the other surviving generals to copy him.

I think we can both agree with the accuracy of the following historical facts:--

Quote:

The Hellenistic period lasts from 323 BC to the annexation of the Greece by the Roman Republic in 146 BC. Although the establishment of Roman rule did not break the continuity of Hellenistic society and culture, which remained essentially unchanged until the advent of Christianity, it did mark the end of Greek political independence.

During the Hellenistic period the importance of "Greece proper" (that is, the territory of modern Greece) within the Greek-speaking world declined sharply. The great centers of Hellenistic culture were Alexandria and Antioch, capitals of Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria respectively. See Hellenistic civilization for the history of Greek culture outside of Greece in this period.

The conquests of Alexander had a number of consequences for the Greek city-states. It greatly widened the horizons of the Greeks, and led to a steady emigration, particularly of the young and ambitious, to the new Greek empires in the east. Many Greeks migrated to Alexandria, Antioch and the many other new Hellenistic cities founded in Alexander's wake, as far away as what are now Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Indo-Greek Kingdom survived until the end of the 1st century BC.

After the death of Alexander his empire was, after quite some conflict, divided amongst his generals, resulting in the Ptolemaic Kingdom (based upon Egypt), the Seleucid Empire (based on the Levant, Mesopotamia and Persia, and the Antigonid dynasty based in Macedon. In the intervening period, the poleis of Greece were able to wrest back some of their freedom, although still nominally subject to the Macedonian Kingdom. The city states formed themselves into two leagues; the Achaean League (including Thebes, Corinth and Argos) and the Aetolian League (including Sparta and Athens). For much of the period until the Roman conquest, these leagues were usually at war with each other, and/or allied to different sides in the conflicts between the Diadochi (the successor states to Alexander's empire).

The Antigonid Kingdom became involved in a war with the Roman Republic in the late 3rd century. Although the First Macedonian War was inconclusive, the Romans, in typical fashion continued to make war on Macedon until it was completely absorbed into the Roman Republic (by 149 BC). In the east the unwieldy Seleucid Empire gradually disintegrated, although a rump survived until 64 BC, whilst the Ptolemaic Kingdom continued in Egypt until 30 BC, when it too was conquered by the Romans. The Aetolian league grew wary of Roman involvement in Greece, and sided with the Seleucids in the Roman-Syrian War; when the Romans were victorious, the league was effectively absorbed into the Republic. Although the Achaean league outlasted both the Aetolian league and Macedon, it was also soon defeated and absorbed by the Romans in 146 BC, bringing an end to the independence of all of Greece.

[John317]

... If it is indeed correct to attribute the writing of Daniel to c. 167 BC during the persecutions of Israel by Antiochus IV then the actions and achievements of Antiochus IV Epiphanes at that time may well have led the writer to foreshadow greater things for the Seleucids than they realized.

I don't believe the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that the book of Daniel was written at that time.

Antiochus Epiphanes doesn't come close to fulfilling the prophecy. His power was never greater than the Greek Empire, yet the book of Daniel says the fourth power would be "exceeding great" in comparison with that of the "very great" power of Greece. In comparison with Greece and the Roman Empire, Antiochus Epiphanes was insignficant. A representative of Rome came and forced Antiochus Epiphanes with withdraw. This alone is reason enough to conclude that Antiochus Eiphanes did not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel. But there is also the fact that no event connected with Antiochus fulfills the time period of Daniel 8: 14.

[John317]

How far it is possible to argue that Rome was 'exactly like' the fourth kingdom of Daniel is a subject for debate.

Yes, we should examine this point closely and see what other power could be said to have fulfilled it, or if Rome itself fulfilled it.

Quote:

I would be grateful if you could elaborate your reference to Luke 2:1 as I do not altogether follow it. Thanks.

Luke 2: 1 and 3: 1 show without a doubt that the Roman Empire was the kingdom that followed the Greek Empire. It was a Roman Emperor who gave the order for "all the world to be enrolled" (RSV), and it was an official of the Roman Empire who had the babies destroyed in a search to kill Christ. Later, Jesus Christ would eventually be executed under the order of Pilate, a governor appointed by Caesar. It is specifically named but in a historical context and not in a way that is condemning it as an evil empire which is fighting against God. It's simply stating that it was by the authority of the Roman Empire that a certain order was given and during the time of a particular caesar when John the Baptist began to preach.

The statement is not inflammatory in the least. However, it would would be considered inflammatory if it actually named Rome as the antichrist power.

My point is that Luke's book gives additional, strong evidence that the fourth Empire was Rome.