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.