Daniel 11 questions

Jess Muñoz · is under review Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 8

Hi all,
I have several questions regarding the "correct" interpretation of Daniel 11. First of all I think it should be mentioned that there is one interpreter that I know of who makes Rome appear even earlier in the chapter than Uriah Smith, who made it appear in verse. That interpreter is Hiraeth, author of "Where the Carcase Is" which can be found at http://www.geocities.com/biblicalsecrets2002/contents.htm who introduces Pompey in Daniel 11:10, says that the mount that is cast up in verse 15 is the Fortress of Antonia, that the raiser of taxes in v. 20 is Diocletian, and so on and so forth. I should also point out that most Protestant commentators (Isaac Newton especially) introduce Rome when the "ships of Kittim" appear. They translate v. 31 as "arms shall rise (Rome) apart from him (Antiochus IV)." So far as I know, U. Smith was the first to make verse 22 Messianic, but the Mormons and CT Russell have followed in his footsteps. Hiraeth says it is "Michael the prince of your people" who is shattered under Diocletian.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject:

It's easy to make Daniel 11 predict anything you like, if you have been taught to ignore context and the meaning of words.

The correct interpretation of Daniel 11 is given here.

Jess Muñoz · is under review Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 8

Eugene,
I have read your comments on Daniel. I agree that much of the prophecies can be seen a conditional (Jer. 18:7-10) and that both the Historicist and Greek Preterist views have many errors. However, I might point out that in the July 2004 Catholic Biblical Commentary there was an intriguing article by Paul Niskanen in which he explains the fictional elements about Antiochus (given that he sees Daniel through the Greek Preterist view) at the end of the chapter as being borrowed or based on details about the Persian King Cambyses from the Histories of Herdotus. The details in Daniel about the king of the north not "regarding the god of his fathers nor any god" doesn't fit Antiochus who built a golden idol of Apollo according to Ammianus Marcellinus, but it does echo Cambyses. He had been in Egypt during the Apis calf festival, he first stabs the Egyptians' sacred calf and then had it thrown into a fire which the Zoroastrians considered to be a god, thus blaspheming both the Apis of the Egyptians as well as Ahura Mazda of the Persians, his own people. In Daniel 11:44 bad news from the east and north angers the king; so also did Cambyses hear about a revolt of the Magi in Persia and retreat. On his way back to Persia he stops at Mount Ecbatana of Syria (not Media) which may be a referance to Mount Carmel. Then Cambyses mounted his horse he stab himself in the same place where he had stabbed the Apis calf. Niskanen also notes that Cambyses had a prophetic dream where he saw his brother Smerdis enthroned with his head in the stars of heaven; similar to the stars cast down by the horn in Daniel 8. All of this must be taken into account when examining the end of Daniel 11; but some of the paralells are superficial. I would also like to mention that there is also the Roman Preterist view put forth by Philip Mauro, who makes all of those details refer to Herod the Great. For Mauro verse 44 is referring to the Magi troubling Herod about the birth of Christ. Another contradiction of interpretations to point out is that Ted Noel of "The Bible Only" identifies v. 25-30 as being about the Papacy of Rome (King of the North) as attacking the Arabs and Turks (King of the South) during the Crusades; while other Historicists think that it is talking about the Turks (King of the North) and the Saracens (King of the South) while still seeing the Papacy as the blasphemous king of v. 36! It all adds up to one very confused picture.

Eugene Shubert

Jess,

What are your questions regarding the "correct" interpretation of Daniel 11?

Instead of asking questions, you seem distracted and bewitched by the dark art of astrology and numerology, which searches to create parallels where there is no reason to believe that relevant parallels exist.

All the occult sciences are based on manufacturing faint connections and exaggerating their significance. How are the parallels you allude to any more remarkable than the widely-known parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy for instance?

Jess Muñoz · is under review Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 8

Eugene,
I apologize for not being more precise. When I first posted this topic I didn't quite finish what I was saying and I forgot to ask my specific question. My question is this: is Daniel 11:20-22 a Messianic prophecy or is it not? Jamieson, Fausett, and Brown say that the "prince of the covenant" is Ptolemy Philometor while others who see Antiochus in that verse say that it is Onias III. I remember reading in the Interpreter's Bible that the correct translation may be "confederate prince" instead of "covenant prince". If you could, then please show which is the correct translation. Of course, in Daniel 9 we also read about a flood after the Anointed One, the "mashiach nagid," has been cut off. However, those who claim that this absolutely has to be Christ (or else the prophecy isn't Christocentric) have ignored the fact that Mauro also thinks that the chapter has references to Jesus (His birth anyway) But I do agree that the "prince of the covenant" is somehow connected with the true God of heaven; the "princes of princes" "who was and is and is to come" but why not see it as simply a reference to Christ's ministry in the heavenly Sanctuary being forgotten during the Papal dynasty's rule over Christendom in Western Europe? Note that in v. 21 "they" do not give the vile person the honors of the kingdom (the Pater Patriae was not accepted by Tiberius, if he is referred to here) therfore, "they" as well as the prince of the covenant are swept away. Now if the Papacy is what this referred to, then "they" are the Waldenses and other early Protestants who did not accept Popery; "they" were therefore destroyed by the Inquisition, which tried to destroy the concept of Christ's atoning work in the sanctuary. The key to deciphering these symbols is finding where Rome & the Christians are first brought into view. Now, as for my mention of Cambyses in the Histories of Herodotus, I didn't say that I personally espoused that view, I simply suggested studying it. It satisfies Paul Niskanen only because he sees Antiochus IV in Daniel 11, and thus Herodotean elements are used as an excuse for the details that don't match Antiochus.

Eugene Shubert

Jess Muñoz · is under review Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 8

Eugene,
After taking some time to read Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Daniel I have become a bit more persuaded by your arguements. According to Keil the interpretation of Onias or Ptol. Philometor "is not warranted by the historical facts." But after reading Keil on Daniel 11 I should mention that he says that the precise interpretation of earlier verses as reffering to Ptolemy Philadelphus daughter Berenice is in error. What is your opinion in regard to the fulfillment of the earliest passages of the chapter?