{"id":15,"date":"2020-12-05T14:12:09","date_gmt":"2020-12-05T19:12:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=15"},"modified":"2021-05-22T21:52:49","modified_gmt":"2021-05-23T02:52:49","slug":"papado","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2020\/12\/05\/papado\/","title":{"rendered":"Papado"},"content":{"rendered":"\nA Closer Look: Daniel 8:14 Re-examined\n\n\n\n Author: Rick Lanser MDiv Category: The Daniel 9:24-27 Project Created: 12 July 2020\n\n\n\nDownload PDF version here: A Closer Look: Daniel 8:14 Re-examined\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhere We’ve Been\n\n\n\nWhen I undertook my examination of Daniel\u2019s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks covered in Daniel 9:24\u201327 almost two years ago, it soon became apparent that a comprehensive study required going outside of that text. Accordingly, one of my early articles in the series was \u201cUnderstanding the 2,300 \u2018Evenings and Mornings\u2019 of Daniel 8:14,\u201d posted at . In that article I wrote:\n\n\n\nWe could spend considerable time evaluating what various Bible commentators have had to say about the 2,300 \u201cevenings and mornings.\u201d One website () observed that, of an assortment of \u201cprominent scholars\u201d between the years AD 430\u20131781 that dealt with the meaning of the 2,300 \u201cevenings and mornings,\u201d 21 claimed the 2,300 days represented years; six said they denoted the number of days to reach the end of the world; three claimed the period was 2,300 literal days; and one opined that the time represented 1,150 24-hour days. Folks, this diversity of opinion\u2014which continues to our day\u2014does not exactly engender confidence that a solution can be easily found! Nor does it mean that I, who would boldly sally forth into theological territory the prudent avoid, can come up with a better alternative than those who have gone before me. Nevertheless, w[...x]<\/span>
hen I stumble upon a workable solution offered by others to a seemingly intractable exegetical problem, as I did in this case, it seems good to pass it along.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In what followed, after first laying out general background on Daniel 8:14, I focused on an article I had found while searching for insights on how to understand the 2,300 \u201cevenings and mornings\u201d of Daniel 8:14. That article, by Fred P. Miller at , proposed that we can get a precise solution to the 2,300 evening-mornings by using a 360-day year derived from the Greek historian Herodotus. I saw biblical support for that proposal in the 360-day year we get from reconciling Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 12:6, 12:14, and 13:5. That was good enough to get me excited about Miller\u2019s proposal. I concluded the article with these words: \u201cI commend this solution to you for understanding the 2,300 \u2018evenings and mornings\u2019 of Daniel 8:14.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second Thoughts on Using Herodotus’ Calendar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As my studies have progressed since then, I have had second thoughts about Miller\u2019s solution. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/em>, Herodotus lived c. 484\u2013420 BC. If the vision in Daniel 8 has to do with the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes\u2014as the vast majority of interpreters hold\u2014then we are dealing with Seleucid Era (SE) dates. The Seleucid Era began in the spring of 311 BC as the Jews reckoned it (the Greeks began their SE dates six months earlier, in the fall of 312 BC), over a century after Herodotus\u2019 death. The Jews used the SE calendar during the Maccabean period. We get the date for Antiochus\u2019 \u201cabomination of desolation\u201d from 1 Macc. 1:54, 59 (RSVA version):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

54<\/sup>Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege<\/strong> upon the altar of burnt offering\u2026 59<\/sup>And on the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar which was upon the altar of burnt offering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The year 145 SE corresponds with 167 BC. The \u201cabomination\u201d was not the sacrifice done on the twenty-fifth, but the pagan altar erected upon the Jewish altar ten days prior. Later, at 4:52\u201353, we read of the restoration of the altar and reinstitution of the regular burnt offering three years later in 148 SE\/164 BC:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

52<\/sup>Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Chislev<\/strong>, in the one hundred and forty-eighth year, 53<\/sup>they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt offering which they had built.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice the bolded words. In a previous article (), I pointed out that when the month-number of the Jewish year is presented before the month-name, it indicates that a first-month (Nisan)-based calendar was in primary use:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet at the same time we also have solid, Scripture-based evidence, corroborated by abundant historical records, that Babylonian names became associated with but did not entirely replace those month-numbers during the exile. This is seen in Esther 3:7: \u201cIn the first month, which is the month Nisan<\/em><\/strong>\u2026until the twelfth month, that is the month Adar<\/em><\/strong>\u201d; Esther 8:9, \u201cthe third month (that is, the month Sivan<\/em><\/strong>)\u2026\u201d; and Zechariah 1:7, \u201c\u2026the eleventh month, which is the month Shebat<\/em><\/strong>\u2026\u201d Note that the numbered form is given first and provides the essential identification of the month in the minds of the exiled Judeans, while the names Nisan, Sivan, Shebat and Adar are given as secondary identifiers influenced by the Babylonian captivity (cf. the list of month-names at ). From this evidence it follows that the religious (God-ordained) calendar took priority in Jewish minds over the Babylonian civil calendar, and is more accurately described as first month<\/em>-based rather than Nisan-based. It is rooted ultimately in what the LORD established long before the Babylonian captivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 1 Maccabees treats the month-name Chislev as a parenthetical explanation for \u201cninth month\u201d like those examples from Scripture, we can conclude that the Maccabean-era Jews applied the Greek year numbering to their ancient sacred calendar, so that instead of starting the years in the fall of 312 BC as the Greeks did, they began their SE year-count in the spring of 311 BC. This results in the following table, where each Seleucid Era (SE) year begins in the \u201cfirst month,\u201d Nisan (N). The BC equivalents are approximate, beginning about four months before the corresponding SE years. The Olympiad information ties in with what Josephus reported about these events in Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6 (Loeb edition 12.321). The gold color signifies that the temple was rededicated during a sabbatical year that began in the month of Tishri (T) in 164 BC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Metonic Cycle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bottom line is that we cannot tie Herodotus\u2019 360-day year length to the Maccabean era. That being the case, neither can we use the idea that extra months of 30 days (intercalary or \u201cleap\u201d months) were added to the calendar on a regular every-other-year pattern as Herodotus taught. In fact, in the fifth century BC, the Greek astronomer Meton devised a more accurate strategy for synchronizing lunar-based calendars with the solar-based agricultural seasons, and this was adopted by the Jews under Greek influence. The 19-year Metonic cycle had a standard year-length of 354 days. According to Wikipedia (), \u201cTraditionally, for the Babylonian and Hebrew lunisolar calendars, the years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 are the long (13-month) years of the Metonic cycle. This cycle forms the basis of the Greek and Hebrew calendars\u2026\u201d It appears, then, that only twice in 19 years were intercalary months added every other year by the Jews, whereas Herodotus indicates it was the regular pattern. And the fact that the month-name given in 1 Maccabees is Kislev rather than a Macedonian name shows a specifically Jewish approach was taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From these two considerations\u2014the length of the year and when intercalary months were added\u2014there is reason to question the strategy Miller used to reconcile 1,150 days of twice-daily sacrifices in Daniel 8 with the three years and ten days between the desecration of the temple (1:54) and its restoration (4:52). Its validity depends on a 360-day year and a regular pattern of alternating intercalary years. If instead we use the Metonic cycle with three years of 354 days, then presume two of them included extra intercalary months of 30 days, then add an extra ten days, we get a total of 1,132 days of two regular sacrifices per day, totaling 2,264 \u201cevening-mornings.\u201d This is 36 offerings, or 18 days, a bit short of the total required by the prophecy. And if only one of the three years was an intercalary year, we have to consider the possibility that only 1102 days, or 2204 \u201cevening-mornings,\u201d passed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is at this point that many give up trying to find a way to reconcile the prophecy of Daniel 8 with the history in 1 Maccabees. Of greater concern is that it appears, at least superficially, that Scripture cannot be reconciled with what history tells us. In what follows I want to push forward in search of a solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exegesis of Daniel 8<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the above deliberations about the calendar used during the Maccabean period only apply if the \u201crather small horn\u201d of Daniel 8:9 is identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in whose time Seleucid dating was in effect. Not everyone agrees. One person emailed me to say that this \u201chorn\u201d is to be identified with Rome, not Antiochus IV Epiphanes (or any other king of Greek derivation, for that matter). Learning this spurred me into buying a couple of books\u2014Daniel: The Vision of the End<\/em> by Jacques B. Doukhan, and God Cares: The Message of Daniel for You and Your Family<\/em> by C. Mervyn Maxwell\u2014so I could see for myself what this reasoning is based on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, we look at the pertinent verses of Daniel 8 as given in the NASB. Verses 8\u20139 include certain words rendered in Hebrew with their genders noted, since they will be important to evaluating the analysis of Doukhan and Maxwell, and others in italics are supplied by the context:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8<\/sup>Then the male [tsaphiyr<\/em>, masc noun] goat [\u2018ezim<\/em>, fem noun but masc in plural, as here] magnified himself <\/em>exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn [qeren<\/em>, fem noun] was broken; and in its place there came up [`alah<\/em>, verb] four conspicuous [chazuwth<\/em>, fem noun] horns <\/em>[supplied] toward the four winds [ruach<\/em>, fem noun] of heaven. 9<\/sup>Out of one [‘echath<\/em>, fem adj] of them [mehem<\/em>, Strong\u2019s #1992, hem<\/em> prefixed with min<\/em> (\u201cfrom\u201d), pl masc or fem pronoun] came forth [yatsa<\/em>‘, verb] a rather small<\/strong> [tsa`iyr<\/em>, fem adj] horn<\/strong> [qeren<\/em>, fem noun] which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land<\/em> [supplied]. 10<\/sup>It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. 11<\/sup>It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice<\/em> from Him<\/strong>, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. 12<\/sup>And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice<\/em>; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper. 13<\/sup>Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, \u201cHow long will the vision about the regular sacrifice<\/em> apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?\u201d 14<\/sup>He said to me, \u201cFor 2,300 evenings and mornings<\/strong>; then the holy place will be properly restored\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The angel Gabriel subsequently explains to Daniel the meaning of that vision in verses 16\u201326, but we will save that for our discussion of context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the \u201cRather Small Horn\u201d Rome?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some teach that the \u201crather small horn\u201d of Daniel 8:9, by equating it with the \u201clittle horn\u201d of Daniel 7:8, must represent Rome. To maintain this equivalence, they say that typical English translations of Daniel 8:8\u20139 are misleading. Such translations cause us to think the grammatical antecedent of \u201cthem\u201d (mehem<\/em>) in verse 9 is the word \u201chorns\u201d rather than \u201cwinds,\u201d thereby making the small horn of 8:9 a Greek. To keep their understanding that the \u201crather small horn\u201d must refer to Rome, they argue that the antecedent of \u201cthem\u201d must be \u201cwinds,\u201d a point made primarily through analyzing the gender of nouns used in the passage. As Maxwell puts it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readers of the English versions sometimes assume that when the Bible says that the little horn arose out of \u201cone of them<\/strong>,\u201d it means that it arose out of one of the four horns. What the Bible really means, however, is that the little horn arose out of one of the four winds; that is, that it arose out of one of the four directions of the compass. (We are dealing with an idiom.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can this be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nouns in Hebrew have grammatical gender. They are considered to be either masculine or feminine. Many other languages also employ grammatical gender. And it is a rule in all of them that pronouns must agree with their antecedent nouns in being similarly masculine, feminine, or neuter. Even in English we think of a ship as feminine and refer to one with the feminine pronouns \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cher.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Hebrew for Daniel 8:8, 9, \u201chorns\u201d is feminine, and \u201cwinds\u201d is either masculine or feminine. In the phrase \u201cout of one of them,\u201d the pronoun \u201cthem\u201d is masculine. This means that the antecedent noun for \u201cthem\u201d cannot be \u201chorns\u201d but must be \u201cwinds.\u201d Thus the little horn was to appear out of one of the four winds. It was to arise from one of the four directions of the compass (p. 158).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pronoun Antecedents and Noun Genders<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Close examination of the above statement, however, reveals it to be a mixture of truth and error. Contrary to Maxwell\u2019s claim that the pronoun mehem<\/em> is masculine, it is actually gender-independent. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament<\/em> (TWOT<\/em>), a standard reference work, observes at entry #504 that it is a \u201cthird person plural independent <\/strong>nominative pronoun.\u201d TWOT<\/em> also points out, at entry #480 dealing with the third person singular pronoun h\u00fb<\/em>\u2019, that it likewise is gender-independent and can take the meaning \u201che,\u201d \u201cshe,\u201d or \u201cit,\u201d depending on the context. We must conclude Maxwell is wrong to claim mehem<\/em> must be a masculine noun requiring a masculine antecedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are also problems with Maxwell\u2019s blanket statement that \u201cwinds\u201d can be either masculine or feminine. It is true that some grammars call it a \u201ccommon gender\u201d word that can take either a masculine or feminine verb, but we still have to let the specific context determine how ruach<\/em> should be regarded in each case. In the authoritative Koehler-Baumgartner-Richardson-Stamm Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT)<\/em> it states (p. 1197), \u201cGenerally \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 is fem.; only seldom is it masc., as in Ex 1013.19 Nu 1131 Is 5716 Jr 412 Ezk 2726 Ps 5112 7839 Jb 415 82 203 418 Qoh 16 319.\u201d The given instances are apparently the sum total of places where ruach<\/em> is masculine. No Daniel passages are included. Hence, we should conclude that Maxwell is mistaken in claiming that ruach<\/em> is a masculine noun as used in Daniel 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doukhan similarly tries to get around the apparent sense of the text\u2014that \u201cthem\u201d refers to one of the four Greek \u201chorns\u201d of 8:8\u2014by claiming that there is a \u201ccurious disagreement of genders in the Hebrew phrase \u2018one\u2019 (feminine) of them (masculine)\u201d (p. 28). The –ath<\/em> ending of the adjective \u201cone\u201d (‘echath<\/em>, \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea), which modifies \u201cthem,\u201d is feminine. Because Hebrew requires that adjectives must agree in gender with the noun they modify, it shows the independent pronoun \u201cthem\u201d is being treated as a feminine noun. We therefore expect the pronoun \u201cthem\u201d to be paired with a feminine antecedent. There is thus no disagreement of genders, and linking \u201cthem\u201d with the feminine noun for \u201chorns\u201d is quite grammatically valid. Maxwell and Doukhan thus cannot rule out \u201chorns\u201d as the antecedent of \u201cthem\u201d on the basis of gender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The above analysis of grammar-related issues made me realize how important it was to really understand what was going on in the Hebrew text of Daniel. I would like to impress on my readers that it is critical to give the Holy Spirit first dibs at explaining the Word to you, not a commentator! That includes me. By praying for insight and then wrestling directly with the text ourselves, we should at least get a general idea of what it says before we allow anyone else to tell us how to understand it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Word Study<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now we turn to look at some Hebrew terms in Daniel 8. Our objective is to determine whether it is legitimate to equate the \u201clittle horn\u201d of Daniel 7, which arises out of a beast representing the Roman Empire, with the \u201crather small horn\u201d of Daniel 8. To evaluate this concept, this phase of our study focuses mainly on the Hebrew terms chazown <\/em>(\u201cvision\u201d), mar’eh<\/em> (\u201cvision\u201d or \u201cappearance\u201d), <\/em>and ha-tamiyd<\/em> (\u201cthe regular\u201d), along with a few other words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I put together the following raw data, with emphasis added in places and a few notes of my own in parenthesis. For brevity only key verses are covered. The NASB is used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dan 8:1 <\/strong>In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king a vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>) appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously (in Daniel 7).

Dan 8:2<\/strong> I looked in the vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>), and while I was looking I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>) and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal.

Dan 8:5<\/strong> While I was observing, behold, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous (chazuwth<\/em>) horn (qeren<\/em>) <\/em>between his eyes.

Dan 8:8<\/strong> Then the male goat (the Grecian empire) magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn (Alexander the Great) was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous <\/strong>(chazuwth<\/em>) horns<\/em><\/strong> (in italics because it is supplied; it refers to four kingdoms led by Alexander\u2019s generals Lysimachus, Cassander, Seleucus and Ptolemy) toward the four winds of heaven. (Since \u201cconspicuous\u201d [chazuwth<\/em>] is paired with \u201chorn\u201d [qeren<\/em>]<\/em> in 8:5, the context expects us to likewise supply qeren <\/em>to go with chazuwth <\/em>here.)

Dan 8:9a<\/strong> Out of one of them<\/strong> (apparently one of the four \u201cconspicuous horns,\u201d which were the kingdoms arising from Alexander\u2019s four Greek generals) came forth a rather small horn<\/strong>\u2026 (Since it is a horn, and since the preceding four horns were derived from the one large horn representing Alexander, this \u201crather small horn\u201d was in turn derived from one of the four; horns logically give rise to other horns, making this \u201crather small horn\u201d a ruler of Greek extraction.)

Dan 8:9b<\/strong> \u2026which grew exceedingly great toward (rose powerfully against) the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land<\/em>.<\/em> (The \u201cBeautiful\u201d is Judea. This geographic description of the lands the \u201crather small horn\u201d rose powerfully against cannot be interpreted apart from 8.9a, which defines this king as arising from Grecian forebears.)

Dan 8:10<\/strong> It (the \u201crather small horn\u201d of 8:9) grew up to (rose against) the host of heaven and caused some of the host (the Jews) and some of the stars (Jewish religious leaders) to fall to the earth (be killed), and it trampled them down. (\u201cHost\u201d simply means a group and here refers to the Jews, because \u201cit\u201d in this context derives from Alexander. The metaphor thus must refer to human beings, not heavenly beings.)

Dan 8:11<\/strong> It (the \u201crather small horn\u201d) even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host (God); and it removed the regular <\/strong>(ha-tamiyd<\/em>) sacrifice<\/em> (\u201csacrifice\u201d is in italics because it is supplied by the context and the use of the article ha-<\/em>, not by a specific Hebrew term) from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down.

Dan 8:12<\/strong> And on account of transgression the host (the Jews) will be given over to the (\u201crather small\u201d) horn along with the regular <\/strong>(ha-tamiyd<\/em>) sacrifice<\/em> (supplied); and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper.

Dan 8:13<\/strong> Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, \u201cHow long will the vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>) about the regular <\/strong>(ha-tamiyd<\/em>) sacrifice<\/em> (supplied) apply, while (during the time) the transgression (caused by the \u201crather small horn\u201d king) causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place<\/strong> (qodesh<\/em>\u2014in context, of the Jerusalem temple) and the host (the Jews) to be trampled?\u201d

Dan 8:14<\/strong> He said to me, \u201cFor 2,300 evenings<\/strong> (`ereb<\/em> sing.) and mornings <\/strong>(boqer<\/em> sing.)<\/em>; then the holy place<\/strong> (qodesh<\/em>) will be properly restored.\u201d (Due to the singular nouns, \u201cevening-mornings\u201d is a more literal translation.)

Dan 8:15<\/strong> When I, Daniel, had seen the vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>), I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked<\/strong> (mar’eh<\/em>) like a man.

Dan 8:16<\/strong> And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, \u201cGabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision<\/strong> (mar’eh<\/em>).\u201d

Dan 8:17<\/strong> So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, \u201cSon of man, understand that the vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>) pertains to the time of the end.\u201d

Dan 8:26<\/strong> \u201cThe vision<\/strong> (mar’eh<\/em>) of the evenings<\/strong> (`ereb<\/em>) and mornings<\/strong> (boqer<\/em>) <\/em>(lit. \u201cthe evening-morning vision\u201d) which has been told is true; but keep the vision<\/strong> (chazown<\/em>) secret, for it<\/em> pertains to many days in the future<\/em>.\u201d

Dan 8:27<\/strong> Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. (Since Gabriel was commanded to give Daniel the intended understanding, we must assume he fulfilled that command. Daniel\u2019s feeling sick should be attributed to the emotional shock of learning about severe future persecution of the Jews and desecration of the temple.) Then I got up again<\/em> and carried on the king\u2019s business; but I was astounded at the vision<\/strong> (mar’eh<\/em>), and there was none to explain it<\/em>. (Apparently Daniel wanted further explanation not of what<\/em> would happen, which Gabriel adequately explained, but why<\/em> it would happen.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This word study allows us to broadly say that the entire chapter of Daniel 8 is devoted to a single, self-contained vision, which verses 1 and 2 call a chazown<\/em>. It should not be interpreted in terms of similar outside symbolism such as the horns of Daniel 7, but only within the limits of its own mar’eh<\/em>. Notice in particular verses 16 and 17; since both words are to be \u201cunderstood,\u201d they effectively tie mar’eh<\/em> and chazown<\/em> inextricably together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lexicons indicate that chazown<\/em> refers to the phenomenon <\/em>of a visionary experience, whereas mar’eh<\/em> focuses more on the particular content<\/em> of a vision, which must be defined within the individual context. According to Strong\u2019s Concordance, mar’eh<\/em> refers to \u201ca view (the act of seeing); also an appearance<\/strong> (the thing seen<\/strong>), whether (real) a shape (especially if handsome, comeliness\u2026), or (mental) a vision\u2026\u201d The emphasis of mar’eh<\/em>, therefore, is on appearance, and is not limited to the \u201cmental\u201d realm of a vision. As for chazown<\/em>, Strong\u2019s defines it as \u201ca sight (mentally), i.e. a dream, revelation, or oracle:\u2014vision<\/strong>.\u201d This definition reflects the meaning that we generally have in mind when we think of a prophetic vision, whereas mar’eh<\/em> carries the idea of such a vision\u2019s specific appearance or content. Since mar’eh<\/em> is necessarily tied to the immediate context each time the word is used, the mar’eh<\/em> of Daniel 8 stands on its own. Its \u201chorns\u201d should not be interpreted according to similar imagery in chapter 7 without clear contextual reasons for doing so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interpreting \u201cthe Regular\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another word demanding special attention is ha-tamiyd<\/em>, translated \u201cthe regular.\u201d A reader of my original article wrote to me:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since Dan. 8, 11, and 12 use tamiyd<\/em> without \u201csacrifice,\u201d we would tie in the other tamiyd<\/em> items as well, such as the showbread (Ex. 25:30) and the burning lamps of the 7-branched candlestick (27:20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My own exegetical examination of the term tamiyd<\/em> was partly motivated to see if it was really necessary to connect the showbread and candlestick with \u201cthe regular\u201d\u2014essentially, to discern if \u201cthe regular\u201d meant the entire setup of the holy place in the temple, including the furnishings, or it was restricted to the whole burnt offering that was replenished on the altar twice a day. What caught my attention was that in Daniel 8, 11 and 12, the reason the Hebrew term for \u201cburnt offering,\u201d `olah<\/em>,<\/em> was not included in those passages was because for the Jews it was redundant. In those particular instances, the article \u201cthe\u201d (Heb. \u05d4\u05b7, ha<\/em>-) is added to tamiyd<\/em>, making what is elsewhere an adverb meaning \u201ccontinual\u201d into a noun with a particular idiomatic meaning. That noun form of the word, ha-tamiyd<\/em> \u05d4\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b7, designates a particular thing that is continual: the never-ceasing whole burnt offering on the altar, dedicated entirely to God to honor Him, with nothing eaten by the priests. The word \u201csacrifice\u201d is added in English translations of those passages only because writing \u201cthe regular\u201d or \u201cthe continual\u201d would be confusing for us, though not for the original Jewish readers. Actually, it would have been better for the supplied word to have been \u201coffering,\u201d because the \u201cwhole burnt offering\u201d was purely for the honor and pleasure of God, not in expiation for any sins (see Ex 29:38\u201342). This ties in with what verse 8:11 says: the \u201crather small horn\u201d removed \u201cthe regular\u201d from Him<\/strong>. It was something for God\u2019s pleasure that got taken away, not an expiatory sacrifice for human sins. A standard reference work, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament<\/em>, has this to say (emphasis added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1157a<\/strong>     \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 (t\u0101m\u0131\u0302d<\/em>) continuity<\/em><\/strong>.
Most frequently this word is used in an adjectival genitive construction with \u02d3<\/sup>\u014dl\u00e2<\/em> for the continual whole burnt offering made to God every morning and evening (Ex 29:42; Num 28:6, 10, 15, 23; Ezr 3:5; Neh 10:34; cf. Ezk 46:15, every morning; and the continual min\u1e25\u00e2 <\/em>[sacrifice], Num 4:16; Neh 10:34; Lev 6:13. The word is used alone <\/strong>[not modifying another] to designate the daily burnt offering in Dan 8:11\u201313; 11:31; 12:11.<\/strong> Numbers 4:7 refers to the \u201cbread of continuity\u201d meaning the bread that was always there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, the Enhanced Brown, Driver and Briggs Lexicon<\/em> says (abridged from p. 556):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 Strongs8548<\/sup> TWOT1157a<\/sup> GK9458<\/sup> n.m. Dn 12:11 continuity;\u2014\u05ea\u05f3 always absolute;\u2014 1. <\/strong>earliest and oftenest as adverb, continually:<\/em> a. of going on without interruption = continuously<\/em>,<\/strong> Ho 12:7 Je 6:7 Na 3:19 Is 21:8; 49:16; 51:13, 52:5, 58:11; 60:11, 62:6, 65:3 Ob 16 Hb 1:17 Dt 11:12 1 K 10:8 = 2 Ch 9:7, 1 Ch 16:11, 37; \u2026 in ritual, Lv 24:8, cf.<\/em> Ex 25:30<\/strong> (shew-bread), Lv 24:2, 3, 4, cf.<\/em> Ex 27:20<\/strong> (of lamp), Ex 28:29, 30, 38. b.<\/strong> of regular repetition: meals 2 S 9:7, 10, 13; 2 K 25:29 = Je 52:33; journeys 2 K 4:9; cf.<\/em> Nu 9:16; Ps 71:3; of ritual: sacrifice, \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 Ex 29:38<\/strong>; cf.<\/em> 1 Ch 16:40; 23:31 2 Ch 24:14. 2.<\/strong> as substantive<\/strong> [functioning as a noun]: a.<\/strong> of uninterrupted continuity, \u05d0\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9 \u05ea\u05f3 Ez 39:14 men of continuity<\/em>, i.e. men continually employed for the purpose; … b.<\/strong> of regular repetition \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05bb\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea \u05de\u05f3 2 K 25:30, i.e. a regular allowance, = Je 52:34; especially of ritual: \u05e7\u05b0\u05d8\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea \u05ea\u05f3 Ex 30:8; most often \u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b7\u05ea \u05ea\u05f3 Ez 46:15 (every morning), Ex 29:42 (morning and evening, so) Nu 28:6 Ezr 3:5; \u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7 \u05d4\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05f3 Nu 28:10, 15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38 Ne 10:34. c.<\/strong> (late) \u05d4\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05f3 alone = daily<\/em> (morning and evening) burnt-offering<\/em> Dn 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31; 12:11<\/strong> (so Talmud, even in plural \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05df) (brackets and some emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we see that both standard exegetical tools teach the same significance of ha-tamiyd<\/em> in Daniel 8, 11 and 12: when it stands alone and does not function as a modifier, it refers to the daily burnt offering set out by the Levitical priests in the temple twice a day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Extending the 2,300 \u201cYears\u201d into the \u201cHeavenly\u201d Sanctuary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some teachers have tried to get around the difficulties in maintaining the Rome view of the \u201crather small horn\u201d by adopting an allegorical interpretation, in which \u201cthe regular\u201d is shifted from the temple in Jerusalem to the heavenly realm, where it is said to represent the continual priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. But this allegorical approach divorces the term ha-tamiyd<\/em> from its plain-sense use in Scripture, where the term refers to the ritual first prescribed in Exodus 29:38\u201342 (cf. also Numbers 28:2\u20136):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two one year old lambs each day [yom<\/em>], continuously [tamiyd<\/em>]. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning [boqer<\/em>] and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight [`ereb<\/em>]; and there shall be one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine for a drink offering with one lamb. The other lamb you shall offer at twilight [`ereb<\/em>], and shall offer with it the same grain offering and the same drink offering as in the morning [boqer<\/em>], for a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to the LORD. It shall be a continual [tamiyd<\/em>] burnt offering [`olah<\/em>] throughout your generations at the doorway of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus Scripture says that what is \u201ccontinual\u201d is a whole burnt offering upon the altar by the Levitical priests. We should resist the temptation to allegorize this passage by claiming it applies to activity taking place in a \u201cheavenly\u201d sanctuary. To allegorize is often to make an exception to plain-sense interpretation, and should only be resorted to if the text itself<\/strong>\u2014not a desired interpretation\u2014demands it<\/em>. Allegory is only necessary here for one who insists that the \u201crather small horn\u201d of Daniel 8:9 must<\/em> refer to the Roman Empire. But exegetical support to back up that assumption is lacking, calling an allegorical approach into question. If instead the 2,300 refers to the twice-daily tamiyd<\/em> offering in the earthly temple spanning only 1,150 days\u2014one day per \u201cevening-morning,\u201d where each Jewish day begins at sundown, as in Genesis 1\u2014there is no need to bring an allegorized \u201cheavenly\u201d sanctuary into the picture. From this I must conclude that ha-tamiyd<\/em> in Daniel 8 has everything to do with events leading up to the suspending of 2,300 whole burnt offerings, offered twice daily over a period of 1,150 days in the earthly temple, and nothing to do with anything happening in heaven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides, if the holy place (qodesh<\/em>) in Daniel 8:14 that is \u201crestored,\u201d \u201cput right,\u201d or even \u201cjustified\u201d after 2,300 \u201cyears\u201d is a heavenly one, then the context demands that it be the same qodesh<\/em> that was \u201ctrampled\u201d in 8:13. How could a \u201ctrampling\u201d take place by a mere human king of a qodesh<\/em> in heaven? If we admit that is impossible, it is equally impossible for 8:14 to refer to the heavenly sanctuary. The immediate context therefore demands that the qodesh<\/em> in 8:14 is that in the temple at Jerusalem, not an allegorically-supplied one in heaven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Earth-based Chazown<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another advantage of keeping the sanctuary tied to the earthly plane is because the chazown<\/em> in Daniel 8 is Earth-based. Gabriel says matter-of-factly that the vision deals with kings of Media, Persia and Greece (8:20\u201321), with no indication it includes any other nations or events in heaven. If we use other visions of Daniel as an interpretive guide, the statue in Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s vision in Daniel 2 clearly has the third kingdom of bronze referring to Greece, while the fourth \u201cstrong as iron\u201d world kingdom in 2:40 refers to the Roman Empire. Likewise, in 7:6 the third, four-headed leopard-beast in that vision corresponds to Greece, while the fourth beast of 7:7, \u201cdreadful and terrifying and extremely strong,\u201d having \u201clarge iron teeth\u201d and \u201cten horns,\u201d is clearly the Roman Empire. There is no doubt that the visions of chapters 2 and 7 include a reference to the Romans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then we come to chapter 8, where the goat clearly refers to the empire of Greece and the horns refer to four Grecian kingdoms arising from it. Verse 8:21 says the large horn represents the first individual king of the empire, and is without dissent Alexander the Great. In keeping with the horn imagery within the context, the remaining horns are all connected with the kingdom of Greece. Then what does it say in 8:9? \u201cOut of one of them<\/em>\u201d\u2014that is, out of a kingdom belonging to one of the four generals of Alexander\u2014\u201ccame forth a rather small horn.\u201d This is the point where, if the pattern seen in Daniel 2 and 7 held, we would expect a mention of the Roman Empire to come into the picture as an animal of some sort distinct from the goat, preferably with some mention of iron. But all we have is a \u201crather small horn\u201d\u2014and it was of Greek<\/em> extraction! If the \u201crather small horn\u201d is Rome, from which of the four Greek generals did the Roman Empire arise<\/em>? None. We cannot build the entire case for the \u201crather small horn\u201d being the Roman Empire only on the ambiguous second half of 8:9, \u201cwhich grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land,<\/em>\u201d<\/em> as some do. The first part of the verse is at least as important as the second. Those who wish to see Rome referenced in Daniel 8:9b must also present a solid exegetical case for how the Romans better fulfill 8:9a than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king whose campaigns in Egypt (south); Persia, Parthia and Armenia (east); and Palestine (the \u201cBeautiful Land\u201d), also fulfilled 8.9b. (The paper, \u201cThe Stability of the Seleucid Empire under Antiochus IV\u201d at , discusses all three of these campaigns by Antiochus.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bottom line is, we cannot interpret the second half of Daniel 8:9 without also doing careful exegesis of the first half of the verse. And by clearly indicating the \u201crather small horn\u201d arose from a Greek<\/em> kingdom, the first half does not support equating it with Italian<\/em> Rome. Its description as a \u201crather small horn\u201d also clashes with the \u201cpowerful as iron\u201d beast representations of Rome in the visions of Daniel 2 and 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Testimony of Josephus<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet another reason why we should reject Rome as being the \u201crather small horn\u201d in Daniel 8 comes from Josephus. In Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6 (Loeb 12.321\u201322) he wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the month Apelleus, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad; but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apelleus, on the hundred and forty-eighth year, and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship<\/strong> [for some time] (emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We see that Josephus assigned the \u201crelatively small horn\u201d of Daniel that disrupted the sanctuary to \u201cthe Macedonians.\u201d This obviously refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, and constitutes important historical testimony against the Rome interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contextual Clues from Daniel 7<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now let us see if the surrounding context supports interpreting Daniel 8:9 as 2,300 tamiyd<\/em> offerings. I asked this question of the text: \u201cCan a \u2018rather small horn\u2019 arise from \u2018winds\u2019 in Daniel 8:8?\u201d Or better, since both \u201cwinds\u201d and \u201chorns\u201d are used figuratively, which is more likely: that \u201cthem\u201d refers to preexisting kings, or to compass directions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since Daniel 7 is written in Aramaic, we cannot directly compare its words with chapter 8, which was written in Hebrew. Nevertheless, the descriptions used for the various \u201cbeasts\u201d in the vision of chapter 7 allow us to confidently match up their symbolic attributes with Babylon (the winged lion), the Medo-Persian empire (the bear), the Greeks (the four-headed leopard), and Rome (the ten-horned dreadful beast with iron teeth). I am unaware of any who disagree that the fourth beast represents Rome. Where disagreements come in is how to identify the kings or political entities represented by the ten horns and the \u201clittle horn\u201d which arises from the ten; but for our purposes it is enough to say that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is Rome and entities arising from its empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question before us is whether the context of Daniel 7 indicates that the \u201clittle horn\u201d there is the same as the \u201crather small horn\u201d in Daniel 8. Verses 7\u20138 tell us how the \u201clittle horn\u201d in Daniel 7 arose:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7<\/sup>After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8<\/sup>While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daniel 7 begins with ten horns on the head of a dreadful beast. They symbolically represent ten kings or kingdoms. After them a little horn comes up among the existing ten, displacing three that had already existed. Now compare this with what happens in Daniel 8:8\u20139a:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8<\/sup>Then the male goat magnified himself<\/em> exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns<\/em> toward the four winds of heaven. 9<\/sup>Out of one of them came forth a rather small horn\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again we begin with a number of pre-existing horns, four in this case. Again we have a little horn arising from a previous group of horns. Completely apart from our earlier word study, and just using the example of apocalyptic imagery of chapter 7 as a general guide, would we not expect that the pronoun \u201cthem\u201d in verse 8:8 refers to the four horns? This is not to say that the small horns in both cases must have identical symbolism\u2014the symbols must be contextually defined within each self-contained chazown<\/em> vision\u2014but only that in both cases, we see that new horns arise from others that pre-existed. In each vision a group of horns gives way to a single small horn of special significance. This contextual consideration, together with the fact that the four-wind distribution is tied to the four generals of Alexander, indicates that \u201cthem\u201d in Daniel 8:9 does not refer to the four \u201cwinds,\u201d as some have proposed, but to the four \u201chorns.\u201d The imagery requires the small horn to arise from a pre-existing horn, not a wind. The four winds are the four directions in which Alexander\u2019s four generals parceled up the Greek empire among themselves after his death. They have no direct connection with the single \u201crather small horn.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about Gabriel\u2019s Explanation of the Vision of Daniel 8?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than focusing almost exclusively on grammar-centered matters to understand Daniel 8:8\u201314, in my opinion we should be more interested in how the angel Gabriel explains the vision, since he was delegated with that task and had comprehensive knowledge of what it meant. In Maxwell\u2019s book there is hardly anything about what Gabriel says. On page 159 he writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But of course the Bible doesn\u2019t state<\/em> that the little horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes, and there are many ways in which he does not fit the prophecy at all. Horns represent kingdoms, and he was only an individual king\u2014a part of one of the four horns. He did not appear at the \u201clatter end\u201d<\/strong> of the Seleucid kingdom (Daniel 8:23) but approximately in the middle of the line of Seleucid kings\u2026 And he did not really \u201cprosper\u201d<\/strong> (verse 12) or grow \u201cexceedingly great\u201d<\/strong> (verse 9) (emphasis in original).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only thing in that statement directly connected with Gabriel\u2019s explanation of the vision is the reference to 8:23, so we will ignore the comments about 8:9 and 8:12. Here is the angel\u2019s information in Daniel 8, with crucial information bolded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16<\/sup>And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, \u201cGabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision.\u201d 17<\/sup>So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, \u201cSon of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.\u201d 18<\/sup>Now while he was talking with me, I sank into a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me and made me stand upright. 19<\/sup>He said, \u201cBehold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. 20<\/sup>The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21<\/sup>The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece<\/strong>, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king <\/strong>[Alexander the Great; this horn is equated with a specific king, not a kingdom]. 22<\/sup>The broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation<\/strong>, although not with his power [the kingdoms of Lysimachus, Cassander, Seleucus and Ptolemy]. 23<\/sup>In the latter period of their <\/strong>[those four kingdoms, not just their first kings] rule<\/strong>, when the transgressors have run their course, a king will arise <\/strong>[an individual, the \u201crather small horn\u201d], insolent and skilled in intrigue\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The information given in the vision must be interpreted in the light of what Gabriel says about it. He identifies the principle parties as the kingdom of Greece, its first king (Alexander), and four smaller kingdoms which arise out of Alexander\u2019s large one. In the \u201clatter period\u201d of these four kingdoms\u2014\u201clatter period\u201d is very subjective, but it requires all four kingdoms to still exist, so it was before<\/em> their assimilation into the Roman Empire\u2014an individual king would arise from one of those four Greek kingdoms. By comparing this explanation with the vision, it is clear that the \u201crather small horn\u201d must arise from a Grecian kingdom. I do not think there is any way to accept Gabriel\u2019s explanation and still claim that the \u201crather small horn\u201d could be a Roman, or that it arose from a \u201cwind\u201d rather than a \u201chorn.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It follows that the rationale for equating the \u201crather small horn\u201d with Rome in Daniel 8 is eliminated contextually as well as by grammar and word study considerations. There remains no objective reason to justify interpreting \u201cevening-morning\u201d in Daniel 8 allegorically, as anything other than \u201cthe regular\u201d offered up twice a day by the Levites in the temple. Instead of trying to find a way to fit 2,300 years into the eschatology derived from Daniel, it would be far more fruitful to seek a way to explain how 2,300 \u201cevening-mornings\u201d were fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reconciling Daniel\u2019s 2,300 Evening-Mornings with 1 Maccabees<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having accumulated what I think is sufficient evidence that the proper way to interpret the 2,300 \u201cevening-mornings\u201d of Daniel 8:14 is as 1,150 days of twice-daily whole burnt offerings, it is time to seek a different way of connecting it with the history recorded in 1 Maccabees than that offered by Fred Miller. In reviewing 1 Maccabees carefully, I belatedly realized I had overlooked something important: \u201cthe regular\u201d was interrupted sometime before the pagan altar was erected<\/strong>, so the 1,150 days should be counted from that earlier time. The burnt offerings were stopped by Antiochus prior<\/em> to the desecration of the temple. The vision of Daniel 8 encompasses the full amount of time the burnt offerings were interrupted, but the dates given in 1 Maccabees only cover the period between the desolation of the altar and its restoration. 1 Maccabees does not specify the date when offerings ceased before<\/em> the abomination was set up. This is why the number of missed sacrifices between the abomination and rededication is less than the 2,300 given in Daniel 8<\/strong>. Here is a condensation of 1 Maccabees 1, using the RSVA version found online at , with some significant information emphasized:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7<\/sup><\/strong>And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died. 8<\/sup><\/strong>Then his officers began to rule, each in his own place. 9<\/sup><\/strong>They all put on crowns after his death, and so did their sons after them for many years; and they caused many evils on the earth. 10<\/sup><\/strong>From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks\u2026

20<\/sup><\/strong>After subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned [to Israel] in the one hundred and forty-third year<\/strong>. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force. 21<\/sup><\/strong>He arrogantly entered the sanctuary and took the golden altar<\/strong>, the lampstand for the light, and all its utensils\u2026 24<\/sup><\/strong>Taking them all, he departed to his own land\u2026

29<\/sup><\/strong>Two years later<\/strong> [145 SE] the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute<\/strong>, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force\u2026 31<\/sup><\/strong>He plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls. 32<\/sup>And they took captive the women and children, and seized the cattle. 33<\/sup>Then they fortified the city of David with a great strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. 34<\/sup>And they stationed there a sinful people, lawless men. These strengthened their position; 35<\/sup>they stored up arms and food, and collecting the spoils of Jerusalem they stored them there, and became a great snare. 36<\/sup> It became an ambush against the sanctuary, an evil adversary of Israel continually. 37<\/sup><\/strong>On every side of the sanctuary they shed innocent blood; they even defiled the sanctuary<\/strong>. 38<\/sup><\/strong>Because of them the residents of Jerusalem fled; she became a dwelling of strangers; she became strange to her offspring, and her children forsook her. 39<\/sup><\/strong>Her sanctuary became desolate as a desert\u2026

41<\/sup><\/strong>Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, 42<\/sup><\/strong>and that each should give up his customs\u2026 44<\/sup><\/strong>And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land,<\/strong> 45<\/sup><\/strong>to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary<\/strong>, to profane sabbaths and feasts, 46<\/sup><\/strong>to defile the sanctuary and the priests, 47<\/sup><\/strong>to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, 48<\/sup><\/strong>and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, 49<\/sup><\/strong>so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances. 50<\/sup><\/strong>\u201cAnd whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.\u201d 51<\/sup><\/strong>In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. And he appointed inspectors<\/strong> over all the people and commanded the cities of Judah to offer sacrifice, city by city\u2026 54<\/sup><\/strong>Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering<\/strong>\u2026 59<\/sup><\/strong>And on the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar which was upon the altar of burnt offering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To summarize, this extended reading of 1 Maccabees indicates the following occurred:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) In 143 SE, Antiochus took away the golden altar in the temple. Technically this altar was only stolen, and in light of later verses we may assume that after Antiochus departed for his homeland, that altar was promptly replaced. This was most likely a simple altar of undressed stones (1 Macc. 4:47).

(2) Two years then passed, after which we learn that \u201ca chief collector of tribute\u201d arrived in Jerusalem with a large force in 145 SE. He wreaked havoc around the temple, posting troops in the city and defiling the sanctuary. This would necessarily have caused \u201cthe regular\u201d to cease, since offerings could never be given if the holy place was defiled by the entry of unclean Gentiles. The result was that \u201cher sanctuary became desolate\u201d at that time and the people forsook worshiping there. This<\/em> is when we should understand the ha-tamiyd<\/em> offerings were interrupted. However, the exact date this began, as far as I can tell, is nowhere given in the histories.

(3) Shortly after this official letters arrived, which decreed that burnt offerings were to cease and altars replaced by pagan altars on which unclean animals were to be sacrificed. \u201cInspectors\u201d were appointed to ensure compliance with Antiochus\u2019 diktat. The result was that they \u201cerected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering.\u201d \u201cThe regular\u201d ha-tamiyd<\/em>, however, had already been stopped earlier by \u201ca chief collector of tribute.\u201d So we have the cessation of \u201cthe regular\u201d sometime prior to the desecration of the altar, a desecration triggered by erecting a pagan altar on it, which was first used ten days after it was set up.

(4) Three 354-day years and one or two 30-day intercalary months after this, the Maccabees were victorious over the Seleucid forces and rebuilt the altar, rededicated it, and resumed \u201cthe regular\u201d once again. This fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 8:14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed earlier, the Jewish use of the Metonic cycle indicates that less than 2,300 \u201cevening-morning\u201d offerings were missed between the desolation and restoration of the altar\u2014perhaps 2,264 or 2,204. Either way, the remaining missed regular burnt offerings of the 2,300 fell between the desecrating of the sanctuary by \u201ca chief collector of tribute\u201d and the erection of the \u201cabomination of desolation\u201d on the altar by a later \u2018inspector.\u201d Precision may elude us in the historical data, yet all of the data of both history and Scripture still smoothly reconcile with each other. And that is what matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study has looked in rather great depth at two questions: the nature of the 2,300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14, and how to reconcile the passage with the historical record of 1 Maccabees. In contrast with Miller\u2019s proposal, the solution put forth here does not allow one to come to the precise answer Miller\u2019s solution seemed to promise. As a former draftsman and computer programmer, I have always valued precision. I have found, though, we have to be content with only as much precision as the actual evidence God has preserved for us allows. Exactness cannot be an end in itself. In this particular case, I think there is an overwhelming amount of historical, grammatical and contextual evidence which, when viewed with unbiased eyes, indicates that reading 2,300 years into the \u201cevening-mornings\u201d of Daniel 8:14 is not justified by the inspired text. It should thus play no role in seeking an accurate understanding of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24\u201327.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Download PDF version here: A Closer Look: Daniel 8:14 Re-examined<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Daniel 8<\/strong> vision is explained in the same chapter.<\/em> The fourth kingdom of Daniel 7<\/strong> was Rome, and the “little horn” was the Antichrist (his identification as Antiochus was denied by Jerome in a famous exchange with the pagan philosopher Porphyry).[31]<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/sup>Lucas 2005, p. 156,158.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REVIEW La profec\u00eda de los 1.260 d\u00edas se menciona siete veces en los libros de Daniel y Apocalipsis. Hay s\u00f3lo un per\u00edodo de 1.260 d\u00edas y no dos, como algunos suponen. Se menciona siete veces para dar a entender que es algo sumamente importante: en Daniel 7:25 y 12:7 y tambi\u00e9n en Apocalipsis 12:14, como tiempo, tiempos (es decir, dos tiempos – el plural m\u00e1s bajo), y la mitad de un tiempo; en Apocalipsis 11:2 y 13:5, como cuarenta y dos meses; en Apocalipsis 11:3 y Apocalipsis 12:6, como mil doscientos sesenta d\u00edas. En profec\u00eda b\u00edblica, un a\u00f1o consta de 360 d\u00edas, y si se multiplica 360 por tres y medio, el resultado es 1.260. Adem\u00e1s, en profec\u00edas b\u00edblicas de tiempo, un d\u00eda equivale a un a\u00f1o. (V\u00e9ase Ezequiel 4:6; N\u00fam.14:34.) Por lo tanto, la Biblia nos ha revelado la clave importante para descifrar la profec\u00eda de los 1.260 d\u00edas: que los 1.260 d\u00edas en realidad han de interpretarse como 1.260 a\u00f1os literales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

El instrumento usado por Satan\u00e1s para dar muerte a Cristo y a muchos del pueblo de Dios fue el Imperio Romano. Obr\u00f3 particularmente por medio del rey Herodes, vasallo de los romanos; Poncio Pilato, procurador romano de Judea; y el emperador romano Ner\u00f3n, y otros m\u00e1s. Despu\u00e9s de la ca\u00edda del Imperio Romano Occidental (476 d.C), persigui\u00f3 al verdadero pueblo de Dios bajo el disfraz de una organizaci\u00f3n pol\u00edtico-religiosa que ten\u00eda ra\u00edces en el antiguo imperio de los c\u00e9sares. Esta persecuci\u00f3n, que se extendi\u00f3 por un per\u00edodo de 1.260 a\u00f1os, est\u00e1 representada en Apocalipsis 12:6 como \u201cel desierto\u201d y en Mateo 24:21 como la \u201cgran tribulaci\u00f3n\u201d. Durante este tiempo perecieron como m\u00e1rtires millones de fieles del verdadero pueblo de Dios por negarse a seguir los dictados de la Iglesia Romana. La Biblia hab\u00eda profetizado con exactidud que el poder papal, representado como un \u201ccuerno peque\u00f1o\u201d en Daniel 7:8, 20, 21, y como una bestia \u201csemejante a un leopardo\u201d en Apocalipsis 13:2, har\u00eda \u201cguerra con los santos\u201d. S\u00f3lo una organizaci\u00f3n supuestamente religiosa ha sido responsable por m\u00e1s persecuciones y muertes de fieles creyentes cristianos que ninguna otra secta en la historia – \u00a1La Santa Iglesia Cat\u00f3lica Romana!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPaso a paso, el Imperio Romano (la serpiente) ciertamente le dio su poder, su trono y gran autoridad [Apocalipsis13:2] a la Iglesia Cat\u00f3lica\u2026La culminaci\u00f3n se produjo cuando en el a\u00f1o 538 los ej\u00e9rcitos del Imperio [la no ca\u00edda divisi\u00f3n Oriental] expulsaron de Roma a los arrianos ostrogodos\u2026Por lo tanto, en el a\u00f1o 538 los 1.260 a\u00f1os podr\u00edan comenzar.\u201d (Dios Revela el Futuro, t. 2, p. 328). \u201cEn el siglo sexto el papado concluy\u00f3 por afirmarse. El asiento de su poder qued\u00f3 definitivamente fijado en la ciudad imperial, cuyo obispo de Roma fue proclamado cabeza de toda la iglesia. El paganismo hab\u00eda dejado el lugar al papado. El drag\u00f3n dio a la bestia ‘su poder y su trono, y grande autoridad’ (Apocalipsis 13:2). Entonces empezaron a correr los 1.260 a\u00f1os de la opresi\u00f3n papal predicha en las profec\u00edas de Daniel y en el Apocalipsis. (Daniel 7:25; Apocalipsis 13:5-7.) Los cristianos se vieron obligados a optar entre sacrificar su integridad y aceptar el culto y las ceremonias papales, o pasar la vida encerrados en los calabozos o morir en el tormento, en la hoguera o bajo el hacha del verdugo. Entonces se cumplieron las palabras de Jes\u00fas: ‘Ser\u00e9is entregados aun de vuestros padres, y hermanos, y parientes, y amigos; y matar\u00e1n a algunos de vosotros. Y ser\u00e9is aborrecidos de todos por causa de mi nombre’. (S. Lucas 21:16, 17.) La persecuci\u00f3n se desencaden\u00f3 sobre los fieles con furia jam\u00e1s conocida hasta entonces, y el mundo vino a ser un vasto campo de batalla. Por centenares de a\u00f1os la iglesia de Cristo no hall\u00f3 m\u00e1s refugio que en la reclusi\u00f3n y en la obscuridad. As\u00ed lo dice el profeta: ‘Y la mujer huy\u00f3 al desierto, donde tiene lugar aparejado de Dios, para que all\u00ed la mantengan mil doscientos y sesenta d\u00edas.’ (Apocalipsis 12:6.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEl advenimiento de la iglesia romana al poder marc\u00f3 el principio de la Edad Media. A medida que crec\u00eda su poder, las tinieblas se hac\u00edan m\u00e1s densas. La fe pas\u00f3 de Cristo, el verdadero fundamento, al papa de Roma. En vez de confiar en el Hijo de Dios para obtener el perd\u00f3n de sus pecados y la salvaci\u00f3n eterna, el pueblo recurr\u00eda al papa, y a los sacerdotes y prelados a quienes \u00e9l invistiera autoridad. Se le ense\u00f1\u00f3 que el papa era su mediador terrenal y que nadie pod\u00eda acercarse a Dios sino por medio de \u00e9l, y andando el tiempo se le ense\u00f1\u00f3 tambi\u00e9n que para los fieles el papa ocupaba el lugar de Dios y que por lo tanto deb\u00edan obedecerle impl\u00edcitamente. Con s\u00f3lo desviarse de sus disposiciones se hac\u00edan acreedores a los m\u00e1s severos castigos que deb\u00edan imponerse a los cuerpos y almas de los transgresores. As\u00ed fueron los esp\u00edritus de los hombres desviados de Dios y dirigidos hacia hombres falibles y crueles; s\u00ed, aun m\u00e1s, hacia al mismo pr\u00edncipe de las tinieblas que ejerc\u00eda su poder por intermedio de ellos. El pecado se disfrazaba como manto de santidad. Cuando las Santas Escrituras se suprimen y el hombre llega a considerarse como ente supremo, \u00bfqu\u00e9 otra cosa puede esperarse sino fraude, enga\u00f1o y degradante iniquidad? Al ensalzarse las leyes y tradiciones humanas, se puso de manifiesto la corrupci\u00f3n que resulta siempre del menosprecio de la ley de Dios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cD\u00edas azarosos fueron aqu\u00e9llos para la iglesia de Cristo. Pocos, en verdad, eran los sostenedores de la fe. Aun cuando la verdad no qued\u00f3 sin testigos, a veces parec\u00eda que el error y la superstici\u00f3n concluir\u00edan por prevalecer completamente y que la verdadera religi\u00f3n iba a ser desarraigada de la tierra. El Evangelio se perd\u00eda de vista mientras que las formas de religi\u00f3n se multiplicaban, y la gente se ve\u00eda abrumada bajo el peso de exacciones rigurosas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo s\u00f3lo se le ense\u00f1aba a ver en el papa a su mediador, sino aun a confiar en sus propias obras para la expiaci\u00f3n del pecado. Largas peregrinaciones, obras de penitencia, la adoraci\u00f3n de reliquias, la construcci\u00f3n de templos, relicarios y altares, la donaci\u00f3n de grandes sumas a la iglesia, – todas estas cosas y muchas otras parecidas les eran impuestas a los fieles para aplacar la ira de Dios o para asegurarse su favor; \u00a1como si Dios, a semejanza de los hombres, se enojara por peque\u00f1eces, o pudiera ser apaciguado por regalos y penitencias!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPor m\u00e1s que los vicios prevalecieran, a\u00fan entre los jefes de la iglesia romana, la influencia de \u00e9sta parec\u00eda ir siempre en aumento. A fines del siglo VIII los partidarios del papa empezaron a sostener que en los primeros tiempos de la iglesia ten\u00edan los obispos de Roma el mismo poder espiritual que a la fecha se arrogaban. Para dar a su aserto visos de autoridad, hab\u00eda que valerse de algunos medios, que pronto fueron sugeridos por el padre de la mentira. Los monjes fraguaron viejos manuscritos. Se descubrieron decretos conciliares de los que nunca se hab\u00eda o\u00eddo hablar hasta entonces y que establec\u00edan la supremac\u00eda universal del papa desde los primeros tiempos. Y la iglesia que hab\u00eda rechazado la verdad, acept\u00f3 con avidez estas imposturas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLos pocos fieles que edificaban sobre el cimiento verdadero (1.Corintios 3:10, 11) estaban perplejos y trabados, pues los escombros de las falsas doctrinas entorpec\u00edan el trabajo. Como los constructores de los muros de Jerusal\u00e9n en tiempo de Nehem\u00edas, algunos estaban por exclamar: ‘Las fuerzas de los acarreadores se han enflaquecido, y el escombro es mucho, y no podemos edificar el muro’ (Nehem\u00edas 4:10). Debilitados por el constante esfuerzo que hac\u00edan contra la persecuci\u00f3n, el enga\u00f1o, la iniquidad y todos los dem\u00e1s obst\u00e1culos que Satan\u00e1s inventara para detener su avance, algunos de los que hab\u00edan sido fieles edificadores llegaron a desanimarse; y por amor a la paz y a la seguridad de sus propiedades y de sus vidas se apartaron del fundamento verdadero. Otros, sin dejarse desalentar por la oposici\u00f3n de sus enemigos, declararon sin temor: ‘No tem\u00e1is delante de ellos: acordaos del Se\u00f1or, grande y temible’ (vers. 14), y cada uno de los que trabajaban ten\u00eda la espada ce\u00f1ida a la cintura’ (Vers. 18). (V\u00e9ase Efesios 6:17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLas tinieblas parec\u00edan hacerse m\u00e1s densas. La adoraci\u00f3n de las im\u00e1genes se hizo m\u00e1s general. Se les encend\u00edan velas y se les ofrec\u00edan oraciones. Llegaron a prevalecer las costumbres m\u00e1s absurdas y supersticiosas. Los esp\u00edritus estaban tan completamente dominados por la superstici\u00f3n, que la raz\u00f3n misma parec\u00eda haber perdido su poder. Mientras que los sacerdotes y los obispos eran amantes de los placeres, sensuales y corrompidos, s\u00f3lo pod\u00eda esperarse del pueblo que acud\u00eda a ellos en busca de direcci\u00f3n, que siguiera sumido en la ignorancia y en los vicios\u201d (El Conflicto de los Siglos, pp. 58-61).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amigos m\u00edos, no es placentero lo que estoy a punto de decirles, pero me parece que ustedes tienen derecho a saber la verdad. Como joven cat\u00f3lico que asist\u00eda a la Escuela de la Anunciaci\u00f3n, no s\u00f3lo hab\u00eda yo encendido velas y elevado plegarias en favor de mis amigos y parientes fallecidos mientras me arrodillaba ante a las im\u00e1genes de \u201cSantos\u201d y de la \u201cVirgen Mar\u00eda\u201d en la catedral, sino que m\u00e1s tarde, como alumno adolescente en la Escuela Secundaria de Santa Mar\u00eda, hab\u00eda trabajado en la licorer\u00eda de mi padre que estaba al otro lado del pueblo. All\u00ed llegaban en traje de paisano los sacerdotes de estas escuelas para hojear las revistas pornogr\u00e1ficas y novelas que se vend\u00edan all\u00ed. Yo me escond\u00eda en el cuarto de atr\u00e1s porque tem\u00eda que me vieran. \u00a1Hoy d\u00eda lamento no haberme encarado con ellos por causa de lo que hac\u00edan!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cierta vez yo asist\u00eda en la celebraci\u00f3n de la Misa como monaguillo juntamente con mi hermano. Era la Misa de las seis, o Misa matutina, y el monse\u00f1or mismo estaba oficiando esa ma\u00f1ana. Cada vez que me tocaba echar vino en el c\u00e1liz del monse\u00f1or, yo notaba que \u00e9l le daba varios golpecitos con el codo al jarrillo del cual yo vert\u00eda el vino. Despu\u00e9s que lo hizo dos veces, mi hermano mayor, que ten\u00eda mucha m\u00e1s experiencia que yo, me susurr\u00f3 al o\u00eddo, \u201c\u00c9chaselo todo en su copa\u201d. Pens\u00e1ndolo bien ahora despu\u00e9s de tantos a\u00f1os, me doy cuenta de que aquel \u201csanto\u201d var\u00f3n era un alcoh\u00f3lico. Pero me falta relatar otro episodio que fue para m\u00ed el m\u00e1s ofensivo de todos. Fue la vez que asist\u00ed a la gran boda cat\u00f3lica de mi primo. Durante la recepci\u00f3n, recuerdo haber visto al sacerdote oficiante en el bar bebi\u00e9ndose un vaso de vino tras otro. Los invitados esperaban pacientemente que el sacerdote se uniera a ellos para la cena y pidiese la bendici\u00f3n sobre los alimentos. Finalmente, alguien tuvo el valor de susurrarle al o\u00eddo que los invitados estaban en espera de su compa\u00f1\u00eda y bendici\u00f3n. Ya ebrio, y tambale\u00e1ndose por el centro del sal\u00f3n, el buen \u201cpadre\u201d impacientemente hizo a la ligera la se\u00f1al de la cruz con la mano y le grit\u00f3 a la concurrencia: \u201c\u00bfQu\u00e9 esperan? \u00a1Ya la comida esta bendecida! \u00a1Empiecen a comer!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leer: <\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Closer Look: Daniel 8:14 Re-examined  Author: Rick Lanser MDiv Category: The Daniel 9:24-27 Project Created: 12 July 2020 Download PDF version here: A Closer Look: Daniel 8:14 Re-examined Where We’ve Been When I undertook my examination of Daniel\u2019s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks covered in Daniel 9:24\u201327 almost two years ago, it soon became apparent that a comprehensive study … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n\n

\n Sharing is caring<\/span><\/strong> \n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> +1<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Tweet<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n 10675 words 142 views<\/w>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2479,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15\/revisions\/2479"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}