Leelee

Is the fourth beast Greece or Rome?

Another question I have is about 11:36-45. When I first read it I thought wow, this is a false prophecy. But then I read arguments stating that this passage cannot be referring to Daniel because contrary to what is stated about the king in vs. 37, Antiochus did show regard for the gods of his ancestors and for women. What do others here think about the prophecies of this passage? Is it about Antiochus IV, and therefore, a false prophecy or is it about some future king?

makerowner

oh noes, not again! There's been thousands of posts on this subject over the past couple months. Basically, fundies say that the fourth beast is Rome, because it sort of fits better with their end-times doctrines. Real scholars pretty much unanimously think that the fourth beast is Greece, because of the references to Maccabean-era history.
For 11:36-45, IIRC vv. 43-45 are considered to have been "genuine" prophecy, ie. written before the event (unlike the rest of the book), which is why they got it wrong about Antiochus' death. (And also why fundies say that this part refers to the future Antichrist rather than Antiochus).

-Jay-

Leelee -

I suggest you start with the threads mentioned in the Prophecy sticky at the top of the main BC&H page.

Daniel is a well-worn shoe around here, and there is a lot of good commentary on it.

regards,

NinJay

spin

I gather that you accept that the king of the north is the Seleucid king, while the king of the south is the Ptolemy king. You can follow their struggles down through history to the time of Antiochus IV, who closely matches the Seleucid king from 11:21 onward, including his two campaigns in Egypt, the last of which was interrupted by the Romans (specified in the LXX). This is followed by a change of focus onto the king of the north (Antiochus)'s well-known deeds against Jerusalem 11:30b-35. All this should hopefully be clear and not up for argument.

11:36 begins by talking about "the king" (H:MLK), which grammatically suggests that this figure has already been established in the discourse. Compare this with 11:3 which talks of "a mighty king" (MLK GBWR), ie not one already mentioned in the discourse. (The king of the north is clarified as MLK H:CPWN, the epithet "of the north" making the figure definite.)

We should therefore already know who is being talked about when the text says "the king" without further qualification. This should indicate the last already mentioned king, ie Antiochus IV. The text in no way suggests that we have left the ambit of the king of the north and the king of the south in 11:36. The natural reading should be persuasive, especially when the text resumes with the king of the south and king of the north material, where the geographical context is delimited through references to the beautiful land (ie Jerusalem), Edom, Moab and Ammon.

Antiochus's full name was Antiochus Theos Epiphanes, "Antiochus, the god revealed", which I gather is meant in 11:37 when it says he "will exalt himself above them all" (ie above all the gods). He probably identified himself with Zeus Olympios, the god he imported from Greece, the foreign god mentioned in 11:39. When he polluted the Jerusalem temple he dedicated it to Zeus Olympios (2 Macc 6:2), requiring sacrifices every month on his birthday.

It's very hard to separate the king of 11:36 from either Antiochus IV or what came before it in the text.


spin

John Kesler

Here is Daniel 11:36-37 from the new JPS Tanakh:

What you need to keep in mind is that the important factor isn't what Antiochus actually did, but rather, what the author of Daniel thought that he did. Antiochus' actions led "Daniel" to conclude that Antiochus had a lack of regard for other Greek gods, Yahweh (the "God of gods"), and Tammuz ("the one dear to women"; see Ezekiel 8:14). As spin noted, there is no textual justification for assuming that a king other than Antiochus is in view. It is our job to see things as "Daniel" saw them, not to assume a priori that everything "predicted" has a basis in fact.

mg01

Anyone know of a more recent online Jewish translation than the 1917 JPS at Mechon Mamre?