Daniel Chapter 11 and “Failed” Predictions
James Tabor talks about the failed prophecies in Daniel. – https://jamestabor.com/daniel-chapter-11-and-failed-predictions-some-hanukkah-thoughts/
It all has to do with the obvious historical fulfillment laid out in 11:1-35–a complex but quite accurate detailing of events from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanies in 165 BCE! It reads like a cryptic version of the “morning newspaper,” truly “history in advance,” as prophetic interpreters often put such things. For a breakdown of this section see Lawrence M. Mill’s excellent summary article, “The Lead up to Chanukah in the Book of Daniel.”
If the prophecy ended with v.39 all would be well. However, the events that follow in vv. 40-45, that in fact lead up to the “great tribulation” and the “end of the age,” including the resurrection of the dead–never happened! At first these verses, which describe an arrogant king who will exalt himself above every god, seem to be a redux of Antiochus Epiphanies. However, neither the language nor the activities of this “final evil figure” fit Antiochus IV or the Maccabean revolt.
Dan. 11:40 “At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him; but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train. 44 But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many.
Scholars usually dismiss this section as the unfounded speculation of the author or authors, living in the Maccabean period, but before the liberation of the Temple from the forces of Antiochus in 164 BCE. For example, my Oxford Annotated RSV has the note: “None of these predictions was fulfilled.” This would include the various calculations of chapter 12 regarding periods of 1260, 1290, and 1335 days.
However, pious believers in the inspiration of the book of Daniel–even though it was relegated to the “Writings” and not put with the Prophets in the standard arrangement of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh–would never take such a position. To quote Jesus in the gospel of John, “Scripture can not be broken (John 10:35)–to the Bible must be true! The obvious implication is that these mysterious verses will come about in the last days–as a sort of parallel repeat of an Antiochus-like figure–a final evil ruler, often called the “Antichrist” will appear on the scene, just before the End of the Age. Antiochus was just a “type” of this final evil ruler.
The famous Aramaic “Son of the Most High” text (4Q246) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, though often misapplied to the Davidic Messiah, is about just such an evil ruler, as David Flusser and others have made clear. Josephus says that it was this expectation, drawn from what he calls “an ambiguous oracle found in their sacred scriptures,” that most led the Jews to revolt in 66-73 CE (Jewish War 6.310-314). Mark, the earliest New Testament gospels, written close to the same time, puts in the mouth of Jesus the same sort of speculation–that clearly was intended to apply to the events surrounding 70 CE and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and its magnificent Temple (Mark 13:14):
But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 15 let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; 16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
The writer clearly views Vespasian (assisted by his son Titus) in the role of the a final evil “Antiochus-like” figure, and they do indeed “set up the desolating sacrilege” dedicated to Zeus, and stop the Temple sacrifices as predicted in Daniel 11:31-34. That these verses refer to Antiochus in the 2nd century BCE was not a problem for them–since v. 35 says the vision “is yet for the time appointed,” thus placing a “gap” between the time of Antiochus and the final one who is to come.
Paul clearly has Daniel 11 in mind when he tells his Corinthian followers that it is best to not marry or go into business or make any kind of “worldly” plans since the “appointed time of the end has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). A bit later, Paul (or one of his followers) says the same in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, namely that the “Day of the Lord” will not come until this “man of sin” sits in the Temple of God claiming to be god, exalting himself above every other god or object of worship” quoting directly the language of Daniel 11:36-37).
The book of Revelation picks up on the same themes with a final “Beast” power who will hold sway over the entire world, forcing worship of himself rather than God (Rev 13:5-10). Apparently contemporary Christians applied this first to Nero (whose Gematria number in Greek and Hebrew works out to 666), and subsequently to Domitian.
━━━━
Rest of false prophecies
Yes, chapter 11 is basically a textbook on history of the Ptolemid-Seleucid international relations in the Middle East in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, correctly listing a lot of people and events, e.g. political marriages, assassinations, international treaties, wars, rebellions battles etc. in correct chronological order. Here’s just a list of individuals it mentions:
three kings [11.2] = Cambyses II, Pseudo-Smerdis, Darius I
the fourth [11.2] = Xerxes I
a warrior king [11.3] = Alexander
the king od the south [11.5] = Ptolemy I Soter
one of his officers [11.5] = Seleucus I Nicator
the daughter of the kind of the south [11.6] = Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus
his offspring [11.6] = infant grandson of Ptolemy II of unknown name
a branch from her roots [11.7] = Berenice’s brother Ptolemy III Euergetes
the king of the north [11.7] = Seleucus II Callinicus
his sons [11.10] = Seleucus III Ceraunus, Antiochus III the Great
the king of the south [11.11] = Ptolemy IV Philopator
a woman in marriage [11.17] = Cleopatra Syra
a commander [11.18] = Publius Cornelius Scipio (yes, the Romans are in the Old Testament)
one who shall send an official [11.20] = Seleucus IV Philopator
an official [11.20] = Heliodorus
a contemptible person [11.21] = Antiochus IV Epiphanes
the prince of the covenant [11.22] = Onias III
the king of the south [11.25] = Ptolemy VI Philomenor
The chapter correctly describes major events in Antiochus IV’s reign, but then completely flies off the handle and stops being historically accurate – Ptolemy VI never attacts Antiochus IV and Antiochus never conquers Egypt in retaliation [11.40-3]. Antiochus doesn’t die in Palestine [11.45], he in fact dies campaigning in the East.
Importantly, the end of the age and the general resurrection of the dead immediately follows Antiochus’ death in chapter 12.1-3:
At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
That obviously didn’t happen. Christian interpreters tried to fit the entire chapter 11 to a different historical context (there are many such attempts, e.g. claiming that “the king of the north” is the Papacy and “the king of the south” is the Ottoman Empire), but it never works as well as the Ptolemid-Seleucid context. Others have simply moved the entire prophecy to a far future, ignoring the obvious fit with the Middle Eastern international politics of the 3rd and 2nd century.
Many scholars have recognized (and it has been discussed here a lot) that even though chapter 11 is cast as a description of future events, it’s actually an account written by an author living in the 2nd century during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. That’s why it suddenly becomes historically inaccurate – the author at some point stops casting past events as a depiction of the future and starts guessing about what will happen next. And because he doesn’t actually know the future, he gets it wrong. This irronically allows us to pinpoint when the text was written with a great precision: the author starts to get it wrong around 167-164 BCE.
In fact, Leonard J. Greenspoon argued that books like Judith, Daniel, Tobit, and Esther intentionally did this as an effort to emphasize that their work is historical fiction and should not be taken as fact. He writes:
Another characteristic shared by these novels (and the Book of Daniel as well) relates specifically to their historicity. They contain what appear to be historical notices that contradict the historical record preserved elsewhere. So, for example, we know of no Jewish queen in Persia, the forces said to have massed against Judith’s hometown come from different periods, and Daniel is replete both with otherwise unknown–and impossible–personages and with a collapsed or convoluted chronological framework. Although some fundamentalists have sought to expand or correct the generally accepted historical record on the basis of their interpretation of these “historical” details, such efforts must be judged misguided when we realize that their authors were not writing history. They were aware that these things never happened and that these individuals never lived, and their audience had the same knowledge.
As with Esther, Judith, and Tobit, there are [in the Book of Daniel] several deviations from the historical record as known elsewhere. Their utilization in a fully ironic, even mocking, manner makes it unnecessary to charge either ancient author or modern reader with ignorance or carelessness. The author and his initially intended audience fully understood and appreciated Daniel’s novelistic context.
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
This is just wrong. Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon, not Assyria. This is like calling Elizabeth II the Queen of France. Moreover, the prophecy was for 70 years, not 7 generations.
One of the ways in which we date the book of Daniel is because the author gets every prediction “right” up until he describes the death of Antiochus. He gets it so wrong that scholars are reasonably sure that the author was writing before Antiochusʼ death (and since we know when he died thereʼs reasonable confidence as to the date range of authorship.
From Robert Alterʼs footnotes to his translation of Daniel:
Daniel envisages an apocalyptic clash between the kingdom of the north and the kingdom of the south, which in fact never occurred. After his actions in Jerusalem, Antiochus turned his attention to the Persians in the east.
The concluding verses of this chapter show many of the ingredients of apocalyptic vision. This account, written around 167 B.C.E., has nothing to do with Antiochus’s death in Persia in 165, and word of his demise would not have reached Jerusalem until 164.