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)...