Questions and Answers
On Daniel 8

How Is Chapter 8 Linked With Chapter 9
But isn't this chapter about Epiphanies?
But wasn't Daniel actually written in the Maccabean time around 165 B.C.


There are three important links that show the angel sent to interpret the vision was explaining the previous given vision.

One is the term "cutoff"
Second is the distinction between "mareh" and "Chazon"
Third the format which is followed in Daniel

The linguistic interpretation for Daniel 9:24 say the seventy weeks were "cut off", "chatak" or "severed from", and "marked off" and given to Israel. If a period of time is cut off and given to someone, it must be cut off from a larger time period. The logical explanation is that it is cut off from the 2300 day/years of the previous vision.

Why not cut it off from the 1260-day prophecy, or the 1290-day prophecy or the 1335-day prophecy? How do we know the 70-week prophecy is not cut out of the middle or the end of the 2300-year prophecy?

Why would we go to those time periods?
Both the 2300 years and the 490 years focus on Christ the Great Liberator. In Daniel 9 we see the time (490 years) pointing to Christ’s coming as Messiah to be the great sacrifice that puts to an end the sacrificial system. This period marks the end of the Jewish sanctuary as the focus for salvation and opens the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus ascends to minister as our High Priest with His own blood.

Daniel eight depicts the pre-cross empires as sacrificial animals, showing that this chapter is focusing on the sanctuary. During those pre-cross years while the Persians and Greeks were ruling, the earthly sanctuary with it’s sacrificial animals was in operation.

While the Greek power is ruling, a little horn begins to grow from smallness, but it is not attached to a sacrificial animal, because the sacrificial system is about to end. It is during the reign of Rome that THE GREAT SACRIFICE was made. Jesus died upon the cross. The Roman power decreed Christ's death, and then gave it’s seat and name and authority to the bishop of Rome --Papal Rome is NOT a new power-- in both Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 it is part of ROME. Now papal Rome reinstituted an earthly priesthppd and a bloodless sacrifice system. This is the great power that is against Christ the REAL sacrifice and real high Priest and heavenly sanctuary. It is not trampling on any earthly animal sacrificial system, it is attempting to usurp the role of Christ the Prince of Heaven!

The 490 years, 1260, 1290, 1335 years are ALL PART of the 2300 years.
The 2300 years point to a time at the end when Christ begins the judgment depicted in Daniel 7, the counterfeit systems are judged, and the true followers of Christ are vindicated. Once the judgment is complete the counterfeits are destroyed.

To understand Daniel, it should be noted that the sequence follows an “effect to cause” thought pattern. That means-- it is presented in reverse order.
Daniel 7 focuses on Christ’s closing work in the heavenly sanctuary and the final restoration.
Daniel 8 focuses on the main part of Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary,
and Daniel 9 focuses on Christ’s work in providing the sacrifice so the heavenly sanctuary could be opened.

Daniel 9 says the 490 day/years are determined for Jerusalem, the city of the sanctuary. At the end of those 490 years Christ consecrates the heavenly sanctuary "To anoint the most holy" or the "Sanctum Sanctorum". Not that which was on earth, made with hands, but the true tabernacle, which is in heaven.

It is therefore plain that the sanctuary of God embraced in the 2300 vision covers both the heavenly sanctuary and the earthly. Seventy weeks are determined, or cut off for the earthly sanctuary and at their termination the true tabernacle, is anointed as Christ, the true sacrifice and the superior Priest, begins it's ministration.

It is also pretty obvious that the restoration of the Jerusalem with it’s temple after the Babylonian captivity happened during the Persian rule and that the vision of Daniel 8 begins with the Persian rule. So it is pretty obvious that the 490 years mark the first part of the 2300 years, and not the middle or the end, for the 490 years are the years from the restoration after the Babylonian captivity to Christ the Messiah‘s first coming.

SDAs teach that in Dan. 8:26 (first part) the word "vision" (mar'eh) refers to some part of the prophecy in Daniel 8 which would not be explained to Daniel until eleven years later, while the "vision" (chazon) of the same verse (last part) has reference to another part of the one complete vision. This interpretation makes no sense whatsoever!

Let's clarify some things first.
The "VISION" "chazon" is speaking of the WHOLE VISION. That vision covers the entire period from the time of the Ram until that point in time when the cleansing of the sanctuary would begin.

This is an important point, for the question asked in verse 8:13 is HOW LONG THE VISION.

The word "vision" chazon) occurs three times in the introduction of this vision in Daniel 8 .

8.1-3 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel… And I saw in a vision; … in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram.

The word “vision” "chazon" occurs again in verse 13. It occurs three more times after verse 13.

"When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it" (v. 15)…Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.(v. 16)… he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end the vision. Gabriel then starts explaining the vision, starting with the ram. (v. 20)

The question asked in Daniel 8:13

"How long the vision "chazon" concerning the daily and the transgression of desolation...." refers to the entire vision (hazon). This means that the 2300 (days) or evening and mornings must start during the rule of the Persian (ram) and extend through the reign of the Grecian Empire (Goat), it extends through the four horn powers and on to the career of the little horn, until we come to the point IN THE TIME OF THE END.

Our critics maintain this refers ONLY to a small part of the vision, HOWEVER the question refers to the entire vision (chazon). So if anyone is trying to make two visions out of one, it is the critics who try to make the whole"vision" of the 2300 day/years refer to Epiphanes.

What is the truth? In chapter 9 we find that Daniel had been studying the writings of "Jeremiah the prophet" (Dan. 9:2). Daniel's focus was on Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the Jews' 70-year captivity. When Gabriel instructed Daniel to "consider the vision" (Dan. 9:23), Gabriel was referring to Jeremiah's vision. Gabriel was not referring to a vision that happened 11 years earlier, a vision that he had already explained, a vision that he had already told Daniel to seal up!

True Daniel had been studying the prophecies of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 25 says "The word of the Lord to Jeremiah" it says nothing about "a vision" it's a prophecy. His prediction is that Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon will come against this land, ...and against nations all around, and will utterly destroy them ... they would serve the king of Babylon for 0 years, then when seventy years are completed, God will punish the king of Babylon by sending the Medes. (Jer. 25:9,12; 51:11 Is. 13:17)

Now consider this, Daniel is an exile in Babylon during the captivity, Jerusalem is in ruins, the temple is in ruins. Eleven years earlier in the reign of the Babylonian king Belshazzar a vision had been given him declaring that the "sanctuary" would be cleansed in 2300 evening mornings. He has witnessed the fall of Babylon since then and the Medes and Persians taking control, and has obviously grasped the fact that this vision he was given covers a LONG, LONG time. He reads Jeremiah and wonders how this all fits together. He knows the seventy years are almost up. He is wondering if his vision meant that God was extending their exile and it would last another 2300 years. In dispair he is pleading with God to forgive Israel and restore them. To take away the repoach and cause His face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate.
Daniel is obviously connecting the "2300 days then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" with the the rebuilding of the sanctuary which was THEN, in Daniel's day, in ruins.

The angel was not able to explain the whole vision to Daniel the first time because "Daniel fainted", it was too much for Him to grasp.

Even now, as the angel comes again, Gabriel does NOT go into the endtime meaning, in truth that was "sealed up till the time of the end" but he simply explains that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" was not about the earthly sanctuary, for the earthly sanctuary would be rebuilt and would be in operation till the Messiah came and then it's services would be put to an end.
Epiphanies did not destroy the earthly sanctuary, nor did he end it's services, he only interrupted them for a short time. His assault was no greater than several such assaults on the temple before the captivity when kings like Manasseh closed the temple and killed the priests and true worshippers or put idols in the temple. And remember, when the Romans came they also sacrificed a pig in the temple and they DESTROYED it.

Now, notice the format in Daniel:

Notice the three previous visions. Daniel two, there is a dream, then comes an interpretation. Daniel 7, the prophet receives a vision, then comes an interpretation. Daniel 8, the prophet receives a vision, then comes an interpretation. In Daniel 9 the angel simply says, "Consider the vision." What vision?

Linguistics support the Adventist understanding that the angel is further explaining the vision of Daniel 8.. Two words are used for vision in these passages. (Mareh and Chazon) "Chazon" seems to mean a general, or whole symbolic vision. "Mareh" seems to mean a heavenly being is presenting something.

Interestingly Daniel 8:26 read "The vision (mareh) of the evenings and mornings that was given you is true, but seal up the vision (chazon) for it contains the distant future."

When we look at Daniel 8 we can quickly see the first part is given with symbols, but the part dealing with the cleansing of the sanctuary is related by heavenly beings. The angel has already explained most of the vision to Daniel in chapter 8, but concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary he only said it was true, he didn't explain anything.

At the end of chapter 8 we read that Daniel doesn't understand-- he is very perplexed and disturbed. He has obviously grasped the concept that the vision of Daniel 8 covers a very long period and he is very concerned. His mind, however, is on his "present day" situation. He's trying to fit this all together with his understanding of the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple, both of which lay in ruins at the time.

When Gabriel comes back, he says he has come to help Daniel understand the (MAREH) Dan. 9:23, thus pointing back to Daniel 8:26. That was the part of the vision not explained.
However, Gabriel only explains the portion involving the Jews--which is 490 years cut off from the 2300 days. This is what Daniel was most concerned about. How does Israel and the earthly sanctuary fit in with this vision.
This cut is obviously made from the beginning of the time prophecy. Daniel 8 begins with a ram representing Media Persia. The time cut off for the Jews starts with a degree issued by a Persian ruler. This degree would be issued in Daniel's near future, just a few years later, while the end of the vision (chazon) reached, according to Daniel 8:26 far into the distant future, unto the time of the end.

Now we come to the second point--
The question in Daniel 8:13 reads "HOW LONG WILL THE VISION (CHAZON) BE?" You posted a long article dealing with the importance of understanding the question before we can understand the answer. Linguistically— the question is asking how long is the entire vision? How long will the TAMID be assaulted. Please note that the word sacrifices is not in the original! How long will God allow the sanctuary and the Tamid to be trampled? The concern is definitely the continuous ministry of Christ and the forces against it. Yet please note the time frame covers the whole vision, from the time of Media Persia until God begins the final cleansing work.

This time period begins with Media Persia. Ever wonder why Babylon is not the first kingdom mentioned in the succession of nations as it was in the previous vision? It's because the degree to restore Jerusalem was given by a Persian monarch, Babylon is not part of this time period. The 2300 days refer to the entire vision from the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem due to the decree to restore and rebuild found in Daniel 9:25, till the cleansing of the sanctuary. Chapter 7 more fully deals with the actual investigative judgment involved in this cleansing and takes us to the end when judgment will be executed and the saints vindicated.

B. But, someone asks, doesn't it say how long concerning the regular sacrifices are restored?
Dan 8:13-14
Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, How long will the vision of the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?"
He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored."

I did deal with this already.
First of all this translation does not read as the original is written. "Regular sacrifice" is not in the original! The only word in the original is TAMID which means "continual". Translators have added the words sacrifice or burnt offerings etc. But this is not in the original. The original simply says the continuous — or Tamid.

"How long will the vision of the Tamid apply"

The word tamid is also used in Leviticus 24:2 as the continuous presentation of the showbread. In Exodus 28:29 tamid refers to high priest who continually wore the breastplate with the names of the children of Israel over his heart in his duties in the sanctuary.

The two words for vision in Daniel 8 have also already been explained. The word "vision" used in "How long the vision, the daily and the transgression of desolation?" refers to the entire vision.
Remember, when Daniel had this vision, there was no temple in Jerusalem! The war against God's continuous ministry for sinners was very evident at time also! Even when the temple was rebuilt, that is the earthly temple after the return of the captives, worldly influences obliterated it's true meaning so the Israelites did not even understand that the sacrifices in the earthly had no meaning in and of themselves, they all pointed to Jesus!

Tamid refers to the entire continuous ministry revealed in the sanctuary. It is Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary which is continuous, from the moment sin entered this world, till probation closes just before Christ comes, God has in place a system of mercy with justice whereby a sinner can find reconciliation with God. This system, the little horn tampered with and tried to substitute with its own counterfeit system. This was done even after the great revelation of Christ on the cross and the book of Hebrews was placed in the hands of believers. This was done even after the truth was revealed of Christ's continuous ministry in the heavenly sanctuary which He began after His crucifixion, using His own precious blood. This precious truth was almost completely lost sight of and sinful human beings stood up and claimed the prerogatives of Christ in this work.

Why do you think the sanctuary truth is almost unknown in religious cycles today. Because the so called universal church has, to it's utmost ability, reached into heaven and thrown it to the ground and trampled on it with it's own system of priests, confessionals, penances, mass an euchristic celebrations (the ultimate blasphemy against Christ) Catholic writings unashamedly claim "godhood" for their priests. The pope has even been called "Melchisedec".

C. But is the question not asking only about this particular part of the vision concerning the "little horn." not about the entire vision which starts with Medo-Persia?

I answer:
Notice the symbolism! A ram, a goat — these are both sacrificial animals. All dealing with sanctuary imagery— all fitting into the question — How long is the vision? The whole vision focuses on God's sanctuary. The first 490 years were determined for the earthly sanctuary which was ordained by God for the forgiveness of sins, then the heavenly sanctuary with Christ as it's high Priest was anointed (Dan. 9:24) but the horn (now no longer on a sacrificial animal) yet tries to take upon itself the sanctuary role and cast the heavenly sanctuary to the ground. How long will the continuous ministry of Christ be buried and trampled underfoot by false ideas and systems that take the eyes off of Christ and all that He will or has done, or is doing for sinners.

How long before people recognize the true ministry of Christ? How long will they neglect it "while transgression causes horror", and causes millions to be lost, because they cannot find the true sanctuary where sin is forgiven and sinners are cleansed from their sins and set free from the power of sin?

How long till God judges and vindicates His followers so sin can be put to an end forever?

D. But he is told this particular part of the vision concerns 2300 evenings and mornings (which, by the way, nowhere else translates into prophetic years. For example "the evening and the morning were the first day - literal "day" and that is how evenings and mornings are translated everywhere else in scripture - literal days, never as prophetic years).

I reply,
You are right that evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14 does translate into days. Many try to say evenings and mornings translates into sacrifices — they try with might and main to get sacrifices into this passage. However, sacrifices are not at all mentioned by Daniel in Daniel 8 — THEY ARE NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE in Daniel 8 or 11. The word was added by translators.

2300 days then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The day for a year is already established in Daniel 9. Most scholars agree that Daniel 9 is not speaking of 70 literal weeks, but of 490 years. This is the very key to understanding that Daniel's long range prophesies follow the day/year principle. The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are 490 years from the point of recognized nationhood once again being given to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity, until Messiah the Prince, was 490 years.
The 1260 days is also 1260 years. Daniel eight is a prophecy not a local historic story in the life of Daniel — therefore it is consistent to use the prophetic day/year principle.

The Creation week is not prophetic. The Creation week is an account of what God did each day of creation. The visions of Daniel are prophetic. The day/year principle is a key to understanding prophecy, it is not for narrating daily events.


E. Question asked: Just like the horn on the goat which was broken in Daniel 8, represents one king, Alexander, would not the little horn, the one with a fierce countenance, also represent one king? Namely Epiphanies?

Dan 8:21-24
Verse 20 "The ram which you saw, having the two horns--they are the kings of Media and Persia
Verse 21 "The shaggy goat {represents} the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king."
Greece, while united only had one ruler — Alexander the Great.

However, in the verse before we saw that the Ram had two horns, yet one of it's horns stands for all the kings of the Medes, while the other, the greater of the two, stands for all the kings of the Persians in the Media Persia Empire.

Verses 22 & 8 "As to the broken horn- (after Alexanders death) four notable ones arose in its place (kingdom divided among Alexander's four generals) represent four kingdoms which will arise from his kingdom, although not with his power.
Again these four "notable ones" represent more than the four men, they represent the
The Seleucids (who had a long line of kings)
The Ptolemaics (in ancient Egypt) who also had a long line of kings
The Cassanders (in the west-- Greece)
The Lysimachus (Syria and Asia Minor)
These "horns" fight against each other through many generations of kings.
The Seleucids vanquish Lysimachus rather early on, and take over his lands (leaving only three "horns") but Daniel 8 doesn't even mention that. The important focus is that new power-- Rome that comes and absorbs the whole "goat" into her domain and sets itself up to war against Christ.

Verse 23 "In the latter period of their rule, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king will arise,
(A king is often interchanged with kingdom in prophecy -- Daniel says to King Nebuchadnezzar -- you are the head of gold (Dan.2:38) Did the head of gold represent only king Nebuchadnezzar? No it represented the whole Babylonian kingdom)

Also note, that this HORN, does not come until the "the transgressors have reached their fullness". That is, it will come when the Grecian empire will have "filled it's cup of iniquity" and will be overthrown. (See Gen. 15:16)

"Of fierce countenance and skilled in intrigue."
A master of stratagem, skilled in international diplomacy, and manipulations.

Epiphanies may have been fierce, but he was hardly skilled in international diplomacy. His record shows the exact opposite on that score.

The first question arises with the phrase, "out of one of these came the little horn." Out of one of what? The four present kingdoms, or the four areas they were trying to control (south, east, north, west=winds) Many scholars suggest the later; that it was a totally new power sweeping in on one of the winds. Namely Rome. The grammatical structure of the verse in the original also supports that this horn came out of one of the directions or winds.

Look at the adjectives "grew exceedingly great" "it prospered" "he shall prosper and thrive" Does Epiphanies meet these specifications? Did his reign out shine the Seluicid kingdom of which he was one of the middle rulers in a succession of rulers? Did he gain control of the other kingdoms?

History tells us he initially had a few successful victories in Egypt, but Rome came by and told him to go home. On his way home he stopped in Palestine and vented his frustrations. He did considerable damage to Palestine, but he did not thrive and prosper, quite the opposite. The Maccabeans united their forces and drove Epiphanies out of Palestine. All Epiphanies ambition came to nothing in his own life time, he lost Palestine, he did not conquer it.

When Epiphanies came to throne, the Seleucid kingdom was in decline. Epiphanes himself had been a hostage of Rome as a child, as Rome tried to control his father, Antiochus III the Great (223-187 B.C.), who was a far greater statesman and king then his son Ephiphanies. The Selucied empire was not growing (much less growing exceedingly great).
Antiochus III the Great, before Epiphanies did much more to restore Seleucid greatness then Epiphanies. However, Antiochus III the Great had already lost influence to Rome.

When Epiphanies came to the throne, Palestine was already part of His kingdom. Epiphanies tried to expand his territory by marching on Egypt, he had initial success, but Rome pushed back and forced Epiphanies to leave Egypt. Epiphanies marched north and took out his frustrations on Palestine but he only succeeded in provoking the Jews into open revolt against the Seluicid control over their nation. The Maccabees's succeeded in expelling the Seleucids from Palestine and established an independent State.
Epiphanies then tries to expand eastward and dies (of natural causes) in the attempt.
His son Antiochus V tried to restore control in Jerusalem, and partially succeeded. He did not interfere with Jewish religion. However the Maccabees continued to fight for independence, succeeded and actually built up quite a large Palestinian state.

In 63 BC the Roman General Pompey captured Jerusalem and once again Palestine lost it's independence.

In no way can Epiphanies be called exceedingly great, prospering, mighty and thriving. Yes he was destructive and caused considerable trouble, but growing exceedingly great does not fit this king.

Rome however presents a different story. It began small and slowly grew to be more powerful than all the other kingdoms. Persia became great, Greece grew very great, and Rome grew exceedingly great.

The descriptions in Daniel 8 far better describe Rome — who, even in Epiphanies day had the greater power and were definitely thriving and growing.

Verse 24 "His power will be mighty

Go back to the original vision — we see the ram becoming great (8:4)
The goat comes along and becomes very great (8:8)
Then we see the little horn coming up from one of the winds (directions) and it grew exceedingly great.
All through Daniel 8 this power far exceeds even Alexanders power and might, it exceeds Cyrus's power and might — this prophecy is not about Epiphanies who ended up losing practically every territory he did battle in. Epiphanies was driven out of Egypt by ROME. Epiphanies was expelled from Palestine by the Maccabees. He heads east and dies...

Oh, yes the Jews celebrated the event — Epiphanies did cause them much distress — They did apply the prophecy to themselves --- but that does not make it the correct interpretation EPIPHANIES DOES NOT FIT THE DESCRIPTIONS AT ALL.

"but not by his OWN power,"

Epiphanies definitely ran on his own power.
Rome was much more complex and as it grew it relied on the power of others. This is especially true of Papal Rome who used the power of the various kingdoms and their armies under her influence, to achieve her purposes.

" and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and succeed in what he does."

Here Epiphanies falls far short — he was destructive but he did not succeed in what he set out to do — he lost.
Rome did succeed. And was far more destructive — FAR MORE!

See the article on Daniel 8 for more information on who the little horn really is, and how it has tried to reach into heaven itself to destroy Christ's ministry.


The opponent states: "The book of Daniel originated in its present form during the time of the Maccabees and the crisis brought about by Antiochus Epiphanes between 168-164 B.C.

First of all Daniel tells us the date of his writing. He is present in Nebuchadnezzar's court.
He writes:

Dan. 8.1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel.

Dan 9.1-2 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood. Dan. 10.1-2 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel,... In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.

Daniel makes a point of saying, "I-- Daniel"
He tells us, that he--Daniel, lived during the reign of Babylonian and Persian kings.

For scholars to say Daniel didn't really write the book during the Babylonian captivity means they have departed from the clear testimony of the book itself. They must also assum the book's pseudonymity and must conjecture a purpose for writing it that is not stated in the book itself.

Secondly we have the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls that Daniel's claims are true.
They have found at least eight scrolls containing the book of Daniel.
These fragmentary textual writings reassure us that the original text has very much the same meaning as we now have. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered many scholars questioned the reliability of the book of Daniel and took great liberties in adjusting it to their thinking.

It is evident from these scrolls that these people living around 165 already regarded the Book of Daniel as part of the scriptural canon. According to Ulrich who wrote, "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran" Part 1, p. 19, "However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later called "canonical" the Book of Daniel was certainly in that category."
The fragment known as 4QFlorilegium, actually employs the quotation formula; "which is written in the book of Daniel the prophet."
This sounds much like Jesus statement in Matthew 24:15, where He refers to "Daniel the prophet."

According to Hasel in "Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 1990 p. 44, he writes:
In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison concluded that the second-century B.C. dating of the book of Daniel is rendered absolutely impossible by the evidence from Qumran. There was, he said, insufficient time for Maccabean compostions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect."

Question: But Daniel uses Persian and Greek words that make it impossible for him to have written it during the Babylonian captivity.

As for the Persian "loanwords" one scholar, Danile, Kitchen, says they are specifically Old Persian words which Daniel, who was involved with Persian administration as the book claims, would naturally have been familiar with.

As far as the Greek words, according to Koch, scholars have found out that all but three of the alleged Greek words have turned out to be old Persian words as well. The three that remain are the names of musical instruments.
This could be readily explained with the thought that some "updating" in language had occured.

Besides if this document was REALLY written in second century as some claim, why are there not many more Greek words?

Thirdly We have the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who wrote in Vol. 11 chapter 8
"And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (Alexander the Great)(23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended."

According to Josephus, Jaddua, the Jewish High Priest, in about 332 BC saw Alexander the Great as fulfilling Daniel’s prophesy that Persia would be replaced by Greece.

As R. K. Harrison says in his "Introduction To The Old Testament"
“It can only be concluded that the critical case against the historicity of Daniel has survived to the present because its adherents have failed to take a second and more critical look at the arguments that have been propounded so unimaginatively and with such tedious repetition in recent times.” [p. 1122]

Jesus recognized Daniel as a prophet, not just a historian. If Jesus recognized Daniel as a prophet prophecing future events, it seems right and good for us to believe that this was his position and message. But if such a view of Daniel is wrong, then all those who have esteemed Daniel highly were wrong, including our Lord.

These criticisms of Daniel all begin with unbelief—unbelief in an all knowing God, who supernaturally foretells future events and then brings them to pass. God’s Word always accomplishes that purpose for which it is intended.

“I declared the former things long ago And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them. Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, And your neck is an iron sinew, And your forehead bronze, Therefore I declared them to you long ago, Before they took place I proclaimed them to you, Lest you should say, ‘My idol has done them, And my graven image and my molten image have commanded them.’ You have heard; look at all this. And you, will you not declare it? I proclaim to you new things from this time, Even hidden things which you have not known. They are created now and not long ago; And before today you have not heard them, Lest you should say, ‘Behold, I knew them’” (Isaiah 48:3-7).

Questions on the meaning of "cleansed"
Other Issues raised on Daniel 8
Return to Daniel Homepage

Placed June 21, 2003