Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 8:9-14
9 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them. 11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” 14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”
__________________________
This continues with Daniel’s vision. Keep in mind as we read it that the consensus interpretation is that this vision regards the conquest of the Medo-Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. The two horned ram is the Medo-Persians and the great horn on the goat represents Alexander. As the last set of verses ended, the great horn was broken and four other horns took its place. This is what happened with Alexander. He died and his Empire was divided amongst his four generals.
So with this in mind, we’ll jump into the Commentaries discussing the verses. We’ll look first at The Pulpit Commentaries and verse 9:
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east. and toward the pleasant land. The Greek versions here differ considerably from the Massoretic text. The LXX. is as follows: “And out of one there sprang a strong horn, and it prevailed and smote toward the south, toward the south-west (ἐπὶ νότον), and toward the east, and toward the north.” In this case, ἐπὶ νότον is clearly a doublet—an alternative rendering that has got into the text from the margin. Ἐπὶ βοῤῥὰν results from reading tzephonah (צְפוֹנָה) instead of tzebee (צֶבִי). Theodotion renders, “From one of them went forth a strong horn, and was magnified exceedingly to the south and to the power”—reading צָבָא (tzaba),“host,” for tzebee. It is to be observed that both translate mitztze‛eerothas “strong” (ἰσχυρός)instead of “little.” The reason of this is that they have taken מְ as equivalent to ex, therefore equivalent to a negative. The Peshitta agrees with the Authorized in reading mitztze‛erothas “little,” but leaves out the difficult final word rendered “the pleasant land” in our Authorized Version. Jerome translates mitztze’eeroth by modicum,and tzebee by fortitudinem—acombination of Theodotion and the Massoretic; he must have had tzaba in his text instead of tzebee,—this may have been due to the fact that tzaba occurs in the next verse. The reference is sufficiently obvious to Antiochus. The description is accurate; he sprang from one of the four horns or dynasties that succeeded the great conqueror. He carried his arms to the east, but mainly to the south against Egypt. The great difficulties are in the two Hebrew words mitztze‛eerothand tzebee. As to the first word, the fact that the two Greek versions have read it are conclusive against the suggestion of Gratz and Hitzig, supported by Bevan, that we should omit מִן. (min). Jephet-ibn-Ali takes min as denoting the origin of the horn, “from a little one.” The further suggestion of Gratz, that we should adopt the reading of the LXX; is rightly combatted by Professor Bevan. The readings alike of the LXX. and Theodotion could have sprung from the Massoretic reading, whereas neither of these could so readily be the original reading. It was necessary that Israel should be prominent in this part of the prophecy; it all leads up to the persecution the Jews endured at the hands of Epiphanes. It is necessary, then, to hold that this word, whatever reading we adopt, and whatever immediate meaning we assign to it, must refer to Palestine. Ewald renders it “ornament;” Bevan, “glory.”
The commentary here points us to another historical figure – Antiochus Epiphanes. For a refresher on who this is, we’ll cite wiki:
The son of KingAntiochus III the Great, Antiochus IV accession to the throne was controversial, as he was seen as a usurper by some. After the death of his brother Seleucus IV Philopator in 175 BC, the “true” heir should have been Seleucus’s son Demetrius I. However, Demetrius I was very young and a hostage in Rome at the time, and Antiochus seized the opportunity to declare himself king instead, successfully rallying enough of the Greek ruling class in Antioch to support his claim. This helped set a destabilizing trend in the Seleucid Empire in subsequent generations, as an increasing number of claimants tried to usurp the throne. After his own death, power struggles between competing lines of the ruling dynasty heavily contributed to the collapse of the empire. Antiochus’s often eccentric behavior and capricious actions led some of his contemporaries to call him Epimanes (“The Mad”).
Persecution of the Jews and the Maccabean revolt
Silver coin of king Antiochus IV. Reverse shows seated Zeus holding Nike and scepter. Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ, Basileōs Antiochou Nikēphorou Theou Epiphanous, “of victorious god manifest king Antiochus.”
The Seleucids, like the Ptolemies before them, held a suzerainty over Judea: they respected Jewish culture and protected Jewish institutions. This policy was drastically reversed by Antiochus IV, seemingly after what was either a dispute over leadership of the Temple in Jerusalem and the office of High Priest, or possibly a revolt whose nature was lost to time after being crushed.
Local revolts against the Seleucid Empire were not unusual, but most were not successful. The revolt that Antiochus IV ultimately triggered in Judea was unusually well chronicled and preserved, however. According to the book of 2 Maccabees, the crisis had its origins in the years leading up to the Sixth Syrian War. In 171 BC, Antiochus had deposed the High Priest Jason and replaced him with Menelaus, who had offered Antiochus a large bribe to secure the office. In 168 BC, when Antiochus was campaigning in Egypt, a rumor spread in Judea that he had been killed. Jason gathered a force of 1,000 soldiers and made a surprise attack on the city of Jerusalem. Menelaus was forced to flee Jerusalem during the ensuing riot. Jason’s intention may have been to retake his former office by force and present his reassumption of power as fait accompli to the regency that would take power in the wake of the king’s death, assuming that they would allow him to stay in power rather than invite further conflict during a delicate political moment. But Antiochus was still alive, and returned from Egypt enraged by the reverse he had suffered at the hands of the Romans and by the Jews’ rejection of his chosen candidate for High Priest; he attacked Jerusalem and restored Menelaus, then executed many Jews.
According to 1 Maccabees, after restoring Menelaus, Antiochus IV issued decrees aimed at helping the most enthusiastically pro-Greek faction of Hellenized Jews against the traditionalists. He outlawed Jewish religious rites and traditions and the Temple in Jerusalem was forcibly changed to a syncretic Greek-Jewish cult that included worship of Zeus. The Greek historian Diodorus wrote that Antiochus “sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine’s flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine’s flesh.”
These decrees were a departure from typical Seleucid practice, which did not attempt to suppress local religions in their empire, though they may be similar to other instances in the Hellenistic era when local polities were punished for revolt against their imperial suzerain by having their autonomy and local laws repealed and local shrines removed from their control. The city of Jerusalem was sacked a second time in the disorder. Antiochus established a military Greek citadel called the Acra in Jerusalem to serve as a stronghold for Hellenized Jews and a Greek military garrison. This happened from 168–167 BC.
Such steps triggered a revolt against his rule, known as the Maccabean Revolt. Scholars of Second Temple Judaism therefore sometimes refer to Antiochus’ reign as the ‘Antiochene crises’ for the Jews. Traditionally, as expressed in the First and Second Books of the Maccabees, the Maccabean Revolt was painted as a national resistance to a foreign political and cultural oppression. In modern times, however, scholars have argued that Antiochus IV was more intervening in a civil war between the traditionalist Jews in the country and the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.
Scholars think the revolt also led to the writing of the Book of Daniel, where a villain called the “King of the North” is generally considered to be a reference to Antiochus IV. The portrayal of Antiochus there attacking the holy city of Jerusalem but eventually meeting his end would influence later Christian depictions of the Antichrist.
According to 1 Maccabees, after restoring Menelaus, Antiochus IV issued decrees aimed at helping the most enthusiastically pro-Greek faction of Hellenized Jews against the traditionalists. He outlawed Jewish religious rites and traditions and the Temple in Jerusalem was forcibly changed to a syncretic Greek-Jewish cult that included worship of Zeus. The Greek historian Diodorus wrote that Antiochus “sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine’s flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine’s flesh.”
These decrees were a departure from typical Seleucid practice, which did not attempt to suppress local religions in their empire, though they may be similar to other instances in the Hellenistic era when local polities were punished for revolt against their imperial suzerain by having their autonomy and local laws repealed and local shrines removed from their control. The city of Jerusalem was sacked a second time in the disorder. Antiochus established a military Greek citadel called the Acra in Jerusalem to serve as a stronghold for Hellenized Jews and a Greek military garrison. This happened from 168–167 BC.
Such steps triggered a revolt against his rule, known as the Maccabean Revolt. Scholars of Second Temple Judaism therefore sometimes refer to Antiochus’ reign as the ‘Antiochene crises’ for the Jews. Traditionally, as expressed in the First and Second Books of the Maccabees, the Maccabean Revolt was painted as a national resistance to a foreign political and cultural oppression. In modern times, however, scholars have argued that Antiochus IV was more intervening in a civil war between the traditionalist Jews in the country and the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.
Scholars think the revolt also led to the writing of the Book of Daniel, where a villain called the “King of the North” is generally considered to be a reference to Antiochus IV. The portrayal of Antiochus there attacking the holy city of Jerusalem but eventually meeting his end would influence later Christian depictions of the Antichrist.
Antiochus IV is remembered as a major villain and persecutor in the Jewish traditions associated with Hanukkah, including the Books of the Maccabees and the “Scroll of Antiochus“. Rabbinical sources refer to him as הרשע harasha (“the wicked”). The Jewish Encyclopedia concluded that “[s]ince Jewish and heathen sources agree in their characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct”, summarizing this portrayal as one of a cruel and vainglorious ruler who tried to force on all the peoples of his realm a Hellenic culture, “the true essence of which he can scarcely be said to have appreciated”. Josephus writing in Antiquities of the Jews describes Antiochus IV desecrating the Second Jewish Temple and renaming it “The Temple of Jupiter Hellenius.” Antiochus IV is also described by Josephus as executing anyone performing Jewish practices or in possession of Jewish texts in addition to circumcised males.
The wiki article presents us with a lot of information.
The historical events are (most important to our purposes with this study) sometimes credited with the creation of The Book of Daniel. The argument here is for a later dating of Daniel. We’ve discussed that argument a lot in previous posts, but suffice it to say there is a lot of evidence both for and especially against this argument.
The historical events inarguably led to the writing of 1 and 2 Maccabees – writings which are still sacred to Catholics and Orthodox, but not canonical for Jews or Protestants.
These events are commemorated today in a festival widely known as Hannukah, but sometimes called “The Feast of Dedication.” What might be relevant to Christians is that Jesus participated in this festival. (Recorded in the Gospel of John 10.)
Also relevant to Christians: Despite the argument that Daniel has a later date and refers to events which have already transpired, prior to the time of Jesus, it is worth noting that Jesus appears not to have agreed.
Matthew 24: 15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains
Alternatively, an early Christian might have interpreted the text from Daniel as referring to an event that happened then, but also to an event that would happen in the future. This would be a Typology-based textual reading. Typology is basically reading the text through the lens of foreshadowing. Christians were well-accustomed to this type of interpretation of Hebrew Scripture.
Old Testament texts which were viewed as Types of Christ are enormous in number, but a few include:
Adam: “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”
Isaac’s impossible birth was a Type of Christ’s birth.
Abraham’s sacrifice (almost) of Isaac, wherein the boy was replaced with a ram, is viewed as a foreshadowing of what happened with Jesus.
Melchizedek (Hebrews 7)
Joseph’s life is viewed Typologically (in a bunch of respects – but maybe most notably in that he saved those who came to him for help)
Passover during the 10 Plagues of Egypt – the blood of the lamb saved the people from death
The Bronze Snake – While wandering with Moses in the desert, and after the people were attacked by snaked, everyone who looked at the bronze snake, lifted up, was healed (a Type of Christ on the cross)
Jonah – in the belly of the big fish for 3 days. Viewed as a Type / foreshadowing of Christ’s death and resurrection.
So accepting that Christians interpret texts in this way, we might argue that Daniel 8 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the burning of the 2nd Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, AND some future event yet to come. Or might have only referred to the burning of the Temple in 70 AD – future to Jesus at the time of the Gospels but no longer future to us as the reader and interpreter of the text.
Anyway, continuing on with Daniel, looking net to Ellicott’s Bible Commentary and its notes for verses 10 and 11:
(10) The host of heaven.—Probably meaning the stars, as Jeremiah 33:22, but in a metaphorical sense indicating the people of Israel. (Comp. Exodus 7:4; Numbers 24:17.) The actions of Antiochus, predicted here, are related 1Ma. 1:24; 1Ma. 1:30; 1Ma. 1:37; 1Ma. 2:38; 2Ma. 9:10.
The daily—i.e., everything permanent in the worship of God, such as sacrifices, &c. (See Note on Leviticus 6:13.) On this conduct of Antiochus see 1Ma. 1:39; 1Ma. 1:45, &c., 1Ma. 3:45.
Place of his sanctuary—i.e., the Temple. (Comp. 1 Kings 8:13.)
The language here could be interpreted as describing the events from Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but the nature of the metaphor also sounds larger in scope than this event.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. This is said by Bevan to be the most difficult verse in this whole book. There is a difference here between the Q’ri and the K’thib. The latter reads הרים, the hiphil of רום, while the former reads הרם, the hophal of the same verb At first sight the difficulty is not lessened by consideration of the versions. The Septuagint as it at present stands is utterly unintelligible, “Until the leader of the host shall save the captivity, and by him everlasting mountains were broken down, and their place and sacrifice taken away, and he placed it in the very ground, and he prospered [reading with Syriac] and was, and the holy place shall be laid waste.” This confusion is due to confluence of readings, and is not difficult to disentangle with the help of the Massoretic text. Up to the last two words the Septuagint is a translation of a text differing from the Massoretic simply by intelligible variations and repetitions not uncommon in the Septuagint. The first clause of the LXX. originally was probably, “Till the prince shall deliver the captivity,” reading שְׁבִי (shebee)instead of צַבָא (tzaba)—a scribe, finding צבא in his Hebrew, then added the translation of it to the margin of his Greek copy, from which it got into the text. The original of the LXX. had also יַחִּיּל (yatztzeel)instead of הִגְדִיל ‛hig‘deel)—a confusion easily made in the elder script, in which יand הwere like. We learn from the Talmud that גwas liable to be mistaken by scribes for .צ Moreover, “captivity” would naturally suggest נצל, “to deliver.“The second clause is, “By him the everlasting mountains were broken down.” Here hayreem has been read with the K’thib, and vocalized as if it were hareem,and tameed,“continual,” translated as equivalent to עולם (‛olam),“everlasting.” The next clause reveals the other meaning of tameed,“sacrifice,” which probably had been written on the margin, and then dropped into the text. The latter part of the Septuagint verse appears to be confused with the latter part of the following verse according to the Massoretes. Theodotion is even less intelligible than the Septuagint, “Until the leader of the host shall save the captivity, and through him the sacrifice was broken down, and he prospered, and the holy place shall be made desolate.” It is to be noticed that the first clause here agrees with the LXX. It is possible that “and he prospered” is a doublet, הִצְלִיַח being read for חֻשְׁלַד in some copy. The Peshitta differs from beth the Greek versions, “Until it arrive to the chiefs of the host, and by it was set up in perpetuity, and preparing he strengthened the sanctuary,” and while it is difficult to understand the origin of the variation in the first clause, it is clear that in the second clause the translator must have read hishleem for hooshlak. The one thing that seems clear is that the reading of the K’thib is to be preferred. We should read hayreem,not hooram. Only the first of these could be read “mountains.” If we translate the words as they stand, we shall certainly be removed out of the region of all the commentators. It is assumed that “the little horn” is the subject of this sentence; but “horn” is feminine in Hebrew, and the verbs here are in the masculine; this is against it being the nominative. The “prince of the host,” then, must be the nominative of the verbs and subject of the sentence. The rendering of the first clause ought to be, then, “Until the prince of the host magnify himself (1 Samuel 12:24), and by himself he shall offer the daily sacrifice. And he shall cast down the foundation of his holy place,” reading hishlayk instead of hooshlak. We should feel strongly in. clined to transfer the first “and” to hayreem,and, changing the punctuation, read, “Until the prince of the host shall make himself greater than he”—viz, the tyrant represented by “the little horn”—”and shall offer the daily sacrifice.” If we might read hishleem with the Peshitta instead of hooshlak,we get a satisfactory meaning to the last clause, in which case we should render, “He shall complete the place of his sanctuary.” We would understand by “complete,” “to perfectly purify.” Taking the Massoretic text thus with little modification, we have a description of the successes of Judas Maccabseus, who was prince of the host, and as such became stronger than Epiphanes, and then cleansed the temple, and offered the continual daily sacrifice. We give, as a curiosity, the note of Saadiah Gaon: “The King of Ishmael was more powerful than the kings of Rome who had Jerusalem, and he took Jerusalem from them by force.”
The note here gives an argument for “the Prince of Host” as Judas Maccabseus. You’ll note then that Ellicott reads that title as belonging to God. A Typological reading allows us to say it means both. Of course, that is not satisfactory to everyone, which is why prophetic texts are endlessly debated.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. The renderings of the LXX. and Theodotion are closely related, and both differ from the Massoretic text. The first is, “And the sins were upon the sacrifice, and righteousness was fallen to the earth, and he (or, it) did, and prospered.” Theodotion renders, “And sin was placed (given) upon the sacrifice, and righteousness is fallen to the earth, and he (it) did and prospered.” The Peshitta is nearer the Massoretic text, but better in accordance with the Authorized Version, “A host was given against the perpetuity, in transgression the holy place was thrown to the ground, and he did and prospered.” From the fact that צָבָא (tzaba)isomitted from the two Greek versions, we venture to omit it also; it has probably been inserted from the verse above. Both versions also omit the preposition before” transgression;” we omit it also. We would thus render, “And transgression was upon the sacrifice, and,” reading תַּשְׁלַךְ, “truth was cast to the ground, and it did and prospered.” After Judas Maccabaeus had cleansed the temple and offered sacrifices, sin mingled with it. We know that the stricter Hasidim,objected to the foreign alliances into which the Maccabees were inclined to enter; the battle of Beth-zecharias was largely lost by the abstention of the stricter party. After that, Lysias, representing really the same movement as Epiphanes, advanced to the capture of Bethshur. Thus it might be said of the little horn, that “it did and prospered.” Were it not that there is no authority for it in the versions, we should read תַּשֵׁלִם instead of תַּשְׁלַךְ. In that ease we should render, “And transgression was upon the sacrifice”—regarding this sacrifice as the atonement for the transgression (Leviticus 16:21)—”and truth shall make peace in the land, and do and prosper.”
Without looking forward and speculating, we look back and see this in the Maccabean Revolt. Christians might – and do – argue that this also occurred (again) when the Romans destroyed the 2nd Temple, though this time with more long-term finality.
Finishing the section, we’ll look at the commentary notes in Ellicott:
(13) One saint—i.e., an angel, who, however, has not been mentioned before. This part of the vision recalls Daniel 7:16. It is implied that the angels were conversing upon the subject of this awful revelation concerning the future of God’s people. Only a portion of what they said is here recorded.
The vision.—The inquiry means, “How long shall be the duration of the object of this vision, so far as it has to do with the great apostasy?”
Transgression of desolation.—Comp. Daniel 9:27. Probably these words mean the same as the “abomination that maketh desolate” (Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; see 1Ma. 1:59).
(14) Unto two thousand and three hundred days.—It is clear from the language that the period here spoken of terminates with the cleansing of the sanctuary, and that it begins with the transgression that led to the awful events that occurred in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Judas Maccabeus took Jerusalem in the year B.C. 165, and kept the Feast of Dedication the same year, Antiochus being at the time in Armenia. The period apparently commences with the events mentioned in 2Ma. 4:32-39, which occurred about B.C. 171. The dates, however, not being recorded precisely, it is impossible to reckon with certainty whence the starting-point is to be dated. The phrase “evening morning” (see margin) is used to indicate a complete night and day, and 2,300 complete days of twenty-four hours make a period of six years 140 days. It has been observed that this period falls short of seven years (a week of years) by about two-thirds of a year. If, then, seven years is the number of years symbolical of Divine chastisements, the prophecy implies that the people shall not suffer persecution according to their full deserts, but “for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” (See Note on Daniel 7:25.)
Be cleansed.—Literally, be placed in its proper state.
This is all pretty dense and confusing. Here are a few videos discussing the meaning of the “2300 days.” (There are a lot more than just these.)
The good news is that the verses which follow provide Daniel’s interpretation of verses 1 through 14. After we read through that, we will kind of recap and provide an overview of what this all likely means.
