How not to interpret the Book of Daniel. Part 3

John S. Evans and the statue in Dan 2

In one of his essays on the Book of Daniel (which can be found here), John S. Evans suggests, "that the prophecies of Daniel 2 were designed to be messianicly Christian with first century AD fulfillment". In order to reach this conclusion, he argues that the different parts of the statue correspond with the history of the Ancient Near East during the period running from 605 BCE to about 30 CE (cf. his essay "Getting Daniel Past the Second Century BC: Introduction", which is found here). Now, this may seem impressive (at least to the less informed reader), but in reality his theory does not hold up to scrutiny.

First, it should be noted that Evans' theory is without real support in the text. All Dan 2 provides us with is a sequence of five 'kingdoms'. Absolutely nothing indicates that the size of the different parts of the statue (which is not know to us anyway) corresponds to certain historical periods.

Second, as admitted by Evans himself, it's not that easy to assign all the different parts of the statue to known history:

Following the flow of history in the Book of Daniel, Evans suggests that the first part of the statue corresponds to the period from 605 BCE (when "King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came and laid siege to Jerusalem", Dan 1:1) to 539 BCE, when Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persian kingdom (cf. Dan 5:28; 6:1). This seems reasonable.

The second part, if understood as Medo-Persia, could be taken as corresponding to the period between 539 BCE to 333 BCE, when Alexander defeated Darius III (in the battle at Issus), or as Evans suggests, 532 BCE "the year in which Alexander the Great wrested control of Judea and the surrounding territory from the Persians".

The third part of the statue has to correspond to a period starting in 333/332 BCE. So far so good! But then the problems start:

Beginning with the bronze portion of the statue, the assignment of discrete dates becomes more difficult. While 332 BC is a suitable starting date for the beginning of the Hellenistic period, choosing the date for the displacement of the Greek bronze by the Roman iron is problematic. One could take a date as early as 192 BC, when the Romans defeated Antiochus III in a great battle at Magnesia in southwestern Asia Minor. But Rome did not incorporate Greece into what was then the Republic for several more decades. Specifically, it annexed Macedonia in 148 and mainland Greece in 146. Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt continued to be independent states for some time afterward. The Maccabean Revolt against the rule of Antiochus IV probably began in 166, and it was not until December 164 that the rebels succeeded in driving the Greco-Syrian forces out of Jerusalem. Warfare between the Maccabean (or Hasmonean) leaders of Judea and the rulers of Seleucid Syria continued until 142. The Romans did not formally incorporate Judea into the empire until 63 BC, when Pompey took Jerusalem; and they did not establish firm control over Judea until around 37 BC, when Herod the Great was formally installed as King of Judea.

In light of this historical background, I suggest that a reasonable time slot for the bronze portion of the statue; i.e. the belly and the thighs, is the period from 332 to 146 BC, a total of 184 years. For the solid iron portion running from just above the knees to the ankles, I suggest the period 146 to 37 BC, a total of 109 years. This leaves the period 37 BC to AD 30, a span of 66 years (no year zero), to correspond to the feet of mixed iron and clay.

Here, Evans has a problem both regarding the end of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the rise/fall of the Roman Empire:

(a) His date for the end of the third part (146 BCE) is arbitrary at best. Syria continued to be a kingdom until 64 BCE (when Philip II Philoromaeus died); Egypt became a Roman province in 30/29 BCE. (According to Evans' interpretation, Syria and Egypt were parts of the third kingdom!)

(b) Second, the Roman Empire did not fall in the first century CE! According to the vision in Dan 2, all parts of the statue (viz. all four empires) were destroyed (lit. 'pulverized' according to the Aramaic text: be'dayin daqu) at the same time. Thus, there is absolutely no way Evans can make the fourth kingdom (viz. the fourth part of the statue) exist after the arrival of the stone hewn from the mountain.

Ironically (for Evans' interpretation), the Roman Empire got more powerful after the first coming of Christ; reaching the zenith of its power during the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE).

Thus, in view of the evidence at hand, it seems clear that Evans' thesis is not persuasive at all. It rests on conjectural 'evidence' rather than sound observation of the text; it has little to recommend it to serious scholarly acceptance.

The ANE background: 4 Ezra indicates that the "Roman View" originated after 70 CE

The Jewish 'apocalypse' 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) is usually dated to the last decade of the first century CE. Interestingly, the text in 4 Ezra 12:11–12 seems to indicate that the interpretation of the 'fourth beast' in (Dan 7) as the Roman Empire was not Daniel's own view, but rather a later interpretation.

In addition, we should note the lack of any reference to an identification of Daniel's fourth kingdom with the Roman Empire in the DS sources and, especially, the lack of any evidence for this interpretation in the NT writings. Obvioulsy, such silence tend to speak volumes!

The intertextual evidence against the "Roman View"

We've seen that the internal evidence from the Book of Daniel is in conflict with an identification of the fourth 'kingdom' with the Roman Empire. Now, we'll consider the evidence from the rest of the Bible:

(a) Evidence from the so-called Old Testament
1–2 Maccabees demonstrate that the Jews in the 2nd. and 1st. century BCE identified the 'little horn' in the Book of Daniel with the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. Dan 11: 2–4, 21; Dan 8: 9 and 1 Macc 1:1–10).

(b) Evidence from the so-called New Testament
It's generally accepted that in the Book of Revelation (Rev), the Roman Empire is depicted as a beast rising from the sea (cf. 13:1–2). A close comparison between the fourth beast in Dan 7 and the beast 'from the sea' in Rev 13 will demonstrate, I think, that they cannot be one and the same entity:

First, in Rev 13:1b–2a, John has employed Daniel's description of all the 'beasts' (viz. empires) for the portray of the beast 'from the sea' (= the Roman Empire). Second, one should note that according to Daniel, the fourth 'beast' was different from the other three 'beasts'. John's "beast fromthe sea", however, has features from all of the four beasts (in Dan 7).

For more on this, see R. van der Water: "Reconsidering the Beast from the Sea (Rev 13.1)", NTS 46:2 (2000), pp. 245–561.

The internal evidence against the "Roman View"

If we let 'Scripture interpret Scripture', we should start by letting the Book of Daniel be understood in its own light. Now, when we make a comparison of the different parts of the Book of Daniel, we realise that they contain 'parallels'. And because we find similar language, symbols and metaphors across the various parts of Dan, we are able to see that they are referring to the same historical realities (kingdoms, kings, events) – they indicate the same flow of history: From the Neo-Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:37f.), through the Medo-Persian kingdom (cf. Dan 8:20, 11:2), via Alexander's Greek Empire (Dan 8:21; 11:3f.) to the 'rival diadochoi' Egypt and Syria (Dan 2:40-43, 11:5ff.) with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the "little horn" (Dan 8:9-12, cf. 23b-25, 11:21ff.).

Some 'Interpretative Clues'
(1) Dan 7 should be understood in the light of Dan 2.
(2) Dan 8 (especially v. 9) gives us the identity of the little horn in Dan 7.
(3) Dan 11:6, 17 refer (back) to Dan 2:43.
(4) Dan 9:23 may be referring (back) to Dan 8:27.
(5) Dan 11:31 = Dan 12:11 (cf. Dan 9:27).
(6) Dan 8:25b cf. Dan 11:45b.

The Sequence of 'kingdoms'
This leads us to the conclusion that the "little horn" mentioned in Dan 7:8, 24-26 is the same as the "little horn" mentioned in Dan 8. Antiochus IV committed great insult against YHWH and the Jewish people; that's why he/his kingdom is referred to in all of Daniel's prophecies.

The Book of Daniel ends with the promise that after the death of Antiochus IV and the downfall of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, a fifth kingdom – God's kingdom – will be established. Thus, according to Daniel we have the the following sequence of empires:

(1) Neo-Babylonia (cf. Dan 2:37);
(2) Medo-Persia (cf. Dan 5:28, 6:9, 13, 16, 8:20, 11:2);
(3) Alexander's Greece (Dan 8:21, 11:3-4a);
(4) Egypt and Syria (Dan 8:22; Dan 11:4b-5ff., Dan 2:41-43, 11:6, 17).
(5) God's kingdom (Dan 2:44f., 7:14, 22, 27)

The "little horn" in Dan 7 and 8 = the Syrian king Antiochus IV (cf. Dan 8:9, 25c; Dan 11:21ff., 45).

Reference to the Roman Empire?
I see but a few references to Rome in the Book of Daniel; cf. Dan 11:18 (the Roman consul Scipio) and Dan 11:30 (the "Kittim"). These are important as they indicate that neither the king of the north nor the king of the south may be identified with Roman 'kings'. (More on this later.)

How not to interpret the Book of Daniel. Part 2

According to John S. Evans, the four kingdoms of Daniel should be identified with: (1) Neo-Babylonia, (2) Medo-Persia, (3) Alexander's Greece and his successors, and (4) the Roman Empire. He identifies the "little horn" in Dan 7 with the Roman emperor Vespasian, whereas the "little horn" in Dan 8 is understood as the Syrian king Antiochus IV. (So much for being consistent!)

Evans' (or, indeed, any) attempt to identify the fourth kingdom in the Book of Daniel with the Roman Empire has to be rejected for the following reasons:

(a) It is in conflict with the internal (or intratextual) evidence of Daniel.
(b) It is in conflict with the rest of the Bible (viz. the intertextual evidence).
(c) It is in conflict with the ANE background.

In addition, there are some exegetical problems (at least from a Christian point of view). I'll deal with them after I have dealt with (a)–(c).

To be continued here.

How not to interpret the Book of Daniel

I have decided to launch a series on wrong interpretations of the Book of Daniel. As a point of departure, I will take a look at John S. Evans' books The Four Kingdoms of Daniel: A Defense of the "Roman" Sequence with AD 70 Fulfillment (Privately published through Xulon Press, 2004) and its 'sequel' The Prophecies of Daniel 2 (Privately published through Xulon Press, 2008). In addition, I will make comments on (some of) his on-line essays on the Book of Daniel; they can be found here.

As indicated by the subtitle of The Four Kingdoms of the Book of Daniel, the book is apologetic in nature. Evans seeks to defend the identification of the fourth kingdom in the Book of Daniel with the Roman Empire (especially against the historical-critical study of the Bible). Whereas there is nothing new about this identification – it still is advocated by most conservative scholars (and, one may add, by most fundamentalists) – Evans has put a somewhat original spin on this line of thinking. According to Evans, most parts of the Book of Daniel were fulfilled no later than 70 CE.

One may ask why it is so important for Evans to defend the so-called "Roman View". The answer seems to be that he actually believes that (only) such an identification can save the Book of Daniel from so-called 'liberal' or 'historical-critical' scholarship. According to the historical-critical interpretation of the Book of Daniel, the text contains several so-called vaticina ex eventu leading up to the time just before the death of the Syrian king Antiochus IV; whereas Dan 11:40–45 are normally taken as genuine, but failed, prophecies about Antiochus IV.

Now, if it can be proven that some of Daniel's prophecies are reaching longer than to the Syrian kingdom, Evan seems to believe that this may be taken as an argument against the (historical-critical) view that the Book of Daniel was written during the second century BCE as a reaction to the aggressive hellenization of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers.

Why is that? We do know that the Book of Daniel was written no later than during the second century BCE. So, if it can be proven – this seems to be the rationale behind Evans' thinking – that at least parts of the Book of Daniel were fulfilled long after its date of composition, there should be no reason why one should doubt that there once was a Jewish prophet in Babylon during the sixth century BCE. Thus, because Evans believes that the Book of Daniel contains genuine, divine prophecies written more than 500 years before the last prophecies were fulfilled, it seems important for him to demonstrate that the prophecies of Daniel – especially 'liberal' proof texts like Dan 11:40-45 – were fulfilled long after the death of Antiochus IV and the fall of Syria (usually taken as the terminus ante quem by the so-called 'liberal' or 'critical' school).

Whereas I think a strong case could be made for the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, no sound exegesis allows for an identification of the fourth kingdom with the Roman Empire. Basically, this identification lacks real support in the text. At first glance, Some of Evans' arguments may, perhaps, seem convincing – at least to the uninformed reader. I do, however, seriously doubt that any scholar will accept his interpretation. The reason for this is that it based on eisegesis rather than (sound) exegesis.

To be continued (in another posting)...