antiochus iv and daniel’s little horn reexamined final version

Antiochus IV and Daniel’s Little Horn Reexamined 1

Antiochus IV and Daniel’s Little Horn Reexamined

Eduard C. Hanganu

B.A., M.A., Linguistics

Lecturer in English, UE

Draft 86

Revised – March 12, 2014

© 2014


The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him [Antiochus IV Epiphanes]; for he

does not fulfill the specifications in one single particular.

Uriah Smith

There can be no doubt that Antiochus [IV] Epiphanes is denoted here. All the

circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him.

Albert Barnes


Foreword

The prophetic books, Daniel and Revelation, have been for a long time significant research and

interpretation arenas for theologians. This has been so much more the case with the SDA historicist

scholars in view of the fact that the SDA Church has placed an almost inordinate importance on these

books in order to salvage its central creed – the “doctrine of the sanctuary” – after the Millerite Second

Coming prediction fiasco. The most intense efforts the SDA historicist theologians have made to recover

from Miller’s naïve and artless prophetic speculations, though, have been unsuccessful because the

hermeneutical arguments the SDA scholars have proposed are unbiblical and have no linguistic and

historical basis, although the SDA theologians take pride in their “historicism,” and claim to authenticate

their interpretations with hard historical facts. The inconvenient truth is that the SDA theologians have

failed to produce intelligent and reliable biblical and linguistic support for their interpretations, and seem

to have used fictitious or fabricated “historical events” in order to defend their unscriptural and

implausible prophetic interpretations. Such is the case, for instance, with the SDA interpretation for

Daniel 8 that ignores and even disdains indisputable factual evidence from reliable historical records that

demonstrate that the little horn in Chapter 8 represents the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and

instead attempts to advance ersatz data in order to support the view that Rome fulfills the prophetic

criteria. The little horn issue is claimed to have been settled once for all in the SDA historicist theological

circles, but nothing is further from the truth. The fact is that the dogmatic arguments the SDA theologians

have suggested are not supported with factual and dependable historical evidence that can stand serious

examination, but are promoted as indisputable and infallible truths among the SDA church members who

are told that their Christian obligation is to accept the SDA arguable claims with a docile faith, and to

never question the SDA established creeds. This document is written for those who want to decide for

themselves whether or not the SDA Church’s established position on Antiochus IV Epiphanes is based on

historical facts that can survive rigorous and thorough biblical and linguistic examination and historical

review or on questionable theological assumptions imposed on uncritical and submissive church members

who have become captive to an authoritarian and corrupt religious organization that discourages personal

Bible inquiries and punishes the SDA theologians and common church members who happen to depart

even in one point from the inflexible and intolerant SDA dogmas.

This foreword would not be complete without my thanks to Lynn Renee, my wife, who has continued to

be a dedicated supporter, adviser, and proofreader also during the research and writing of this document

on Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Eduard C. Hanganu

Eduard C. Hanganu, B. A., M. A.

E-mail: [email protected]

Evansville, March 12, 2014


Abstract

The SDA historicist theologians have shown an excessive and unnatural revulsion for the notion that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes might be the prophetic little horn in Daniel 8, while the official SDA apologetic

reactions against Antiochus IV Epiphanes have often been expressed in speculative, illogical, and

implausible arguments. Although the SDA historicists have often claimed to depend on historical

evidence in order to confirm their interpretations to Daniel 8, the simple fact is that the arguments against

Antiochus IV Epiphanes are based on nothing more than simplistic theological assumptions and historical

fact distortions while the actual historical events have been dismissed as immaterial and irrelevant. The

SDA prophetic interpretation seems to be in utter confusion at the present time. Smith, for instance,

argues that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails to fulfill the prophetic specifications even “in one single

particular,” and that Rome, claimed to derive from the “one of the four notable horns” in Daniel 8, is the

one that matches the prophetic description for the little horn and commits the vicious acts against God’s

people. His arguments, though, have no reliable biblical or linguistic support and are not based on factual

historical evidence. Current SDA theologians such as Gane, Pfandl, and Pröbstle, though, have altered

these interpretation arguments, and argue that the little horn arises from an indistinct “wind” or cardinal

point, and base their tentative conclusions on an apparent gender discord that proves to be a natural and

common feature of diachronic Hebrew. The confusion about the origin of the vicious little horn in Daniel

chapter 8 extends further to the confusion between the prophetic little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 that some

SDA historicist theologians believe to be identical, and other SDA theologians see as distinct and

separate. The arguments suggested in the SDA theological circles against Antiochus IV Epiphanes are

theoretical and speculative, and cannot be supported with empirical evidence. The genuine and factual

historical records seem to show, instead, that it is Rome – the proposed and preferred SDA historicist

agent – that fails to meet the historical criteria for the little horn, and that the current SDA historicist

defense for Rome comes from distorted historical records and fabricated historical events. The

examination of relevant factual evidence shows that the SDA theologians have no serious case for Rome

as the little horn in Daniel 8. This document provides undeniable biblical, linguistic, and historical

evidence that demonstrates that the vicious little horn in Daniel 8 comes from one of the four “notable

horns” in verse 8, and that all the relevant and authentic historical records contain multiple and reliable

accounts that confirm the fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fits the prophetic expectations in Daniel 8 and

satisfies the identification criteria for that little horn.


Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................8

Three Different Interpretations .................................................................................................................... 8

The Two Contrastive Perspectives .............................................................................................................. 8

Punished for Dogma Refutation ................................................................................................................. 9

The Need to Reexamine the Issue ............................................................................................................. 10

II. True Historicism Characteristics .......................................................................................12

Unambiguous Language Expected ............................................................................................................ 12

(1) Historicism Defined .................................................................................................................. 12

(2) Historical Events Defined ......................................................................................................... 13

(3) Historical Fulfillment Defined .................................................................................................. 13

Exegetical “Facts” vs. True Events ........................................................................................................... 14

III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel ........................................................................................15

The Little Horns Appear Identical ............................................................................................................. 15

The Little Horns Are Not Identical ............................................................................................................ 17

Obvious Fundamental Differences ............................................................................................................ 19

IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn .......................................................................................21

The Little Horn without a Root ................................................................................................................. 21

Lost about Little Horn’s Origin ...................................................................................................... 21

The Little Horn from the Horn ....................................................................................................... 21

The Little Horn from the Wind ....................................................................................................... 22

Prophetic Beast Lost in Action .................................................................................................................. 25

Untrue and Unsound Arguments ............................................................................................................... 26

The “Nearest Antecedent” Trick ............................................................................................................... 26

Gender Discord and Diglossia ................................................................................................................... 28

Little Horn Anaphora Resolution ............................................................................................................. 29

False Claims about Horn’s Origin ............................................................................................................. 35

V. False Claims against Antiochus ..........................................................................................36

Biased SDA Historicist Theologians ......................................................................................................... 36

Roy Gane ........................................................................................................................................ 36

Martin Pröbstle ............................................................................................................................... 36

Gerhard Pfandl ................................................................................................................................ 38

The SDABC Scholars .................................................................................................................... 40

Uriah Smith .................................................................................................................................... 40

The QOD Theologians .................................................................................................................... 42

William H. Shea ............................................................................................................................. 48

The “Inspired” KJV Translation ................................................................................................................ 55

Little Horn Larger Than He-Goat.............................................................................................................. 56


VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome .........................................................................................58

Smith’s Broken Historicist Claims ............................................................................................................ 58

Hewitt’s Unarguable Refutation ..................................................................................................... 60

Miller’s Reckless Number Game .............................................................................................................. 61

Pröbstle’s Revised Historical Data ............................................................................................................ 62

Fictitious Spins and Gremlin Tales ................................................................................................. 63

VII. Hard Arguments against Rome .......................................................................................65

Authentic and Factual Historicism ............................................................................................................ 65

VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus ...............................................................................67

SDA Historicist Credits Antiochus ........................................................................................................... 67

True and Solid Historical Evidence ........................................................................................................... 67

Not Confused With Genuine Facts ............................................................................................................ 69

Compelled to Admit the Evidence ............................................................................................................ 69

The “Heretic” and His Punishment ........................................................................................................... 70

An Authentic Historicist Perspective ........................................................................................................ 72

The Question about the Desolation ........................................................................................................... 74

The Verifiable Prophetic Fulfillment ........................................................................................................ 75

IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations ....................................................................................76

The Jewish Encyclopedia .......................................................................................................................... 76

Moses Stuart .............................................................................................................................................. 77

T. R. Birks ................................................................................................................................................. 79

Winston McHarg ....................................................................................................................................... 79

Robert D. Wilson ....................................................................................................................................... 81

Flavius Josephus ........................................................................................................................................ 83

Edwin R. Bevan......................................................................................................................................... 85

Albert Barnes............................................................................................................................................. 87

Ernest Lucas .............................................................................................................................................. 87

X. Historicism and False Historicism ......................................................................................89

Historical Fact or Dogmatic Fiction .......................................................................................................... 89

Daniel 8:8

Verbatim English Translation ......................................................................................................... 89

True Historicist Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 89

Deductions and Speculations .......................................................................................................... 90

Daniel 8:9




Hewitt’s Sensible Refutation ............................................................................................ 93

Daniel 8:10





Daniel 8:11




Daniel 8:12




Daniel 8:13




Hewitt’s Sensible Refutation ............................................................................................... 99

Daniel 8:14

Verbatim English Translation ....................................................................................................... 100

True Historicist Interpretation ...................................................................................................... 100

Deductions and Speculations ........................................................................................................ 103

Daniel 8:23




Daniel 8:24




Daniel 8:25




XI. When Dogmas Replace Evidence ....................................................................................108

The Terms and Their Definitions ............................................................................................................ 108

(1) Historicism .............................................................................................................................. 108

(2) Historical Events ..................................................................................................................... 108

(3) Historical Fulfillment .............................................................................................................. 109

Historicism vs. Pseudo-Historicism ........................................................................................................ 109

Historical Truth vs. Dogmatic Truth ....................................................................................................... 109

Divine Truth vs. Human Deception ......................................................................................................... 110

XII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................113

The Little Horn Comes From a Horn ...................................................................................................... 113

No Evidence for Rome as Little Horn ..................................................................................................... 113

Little Horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes ................................................................................................... 113

XIII. References ......................................................................................................................114


I. Introduction

Three Different Interpretations

The main traditional interpretations of Daniel 8 and its little horn have been based on the

perspectives of three main hermeneutical schools – preterist, historicist, and futurist. These

schools take positions that show fundamental exegetical differences and contrastive historical

applications from school to school. Shea summarizes the basic distinctions and similarities

between the three hermeneutical schools as follows:

Crucial to the interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14 is the identification of this little horn [in Daniel 8] which

was to do all these things against God and His people [emphasis added]. In their attempt to identify the

little horn commentators have applied the methods advanced by the preterist, futurist, and historicist

schools of prophetic interpretation [emphasis added].

Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already

been fulfilled and, therefore, have no significance for the present day. Thus they hold that the little horn

rose from one of the divisions of Alexander's empire. They conclude that the activities of the little horn

unmistakably point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Futurists generally follow this line of interpretation

also [emphasis added]. In addition, they see Antiochus as a type of an end-time antichrist who is to arise in

the final years of earth's history before Christ's Second Advent.

Historicists, on the other hand, declare that the prophecies in Daniel portray an outline of human and

ecclesiastical history and the story of the struggle between good and evil down to the end of time [emphasis added]. Since a flow of history appears to be involved here, especially when this chapter is

compared with the previous one, the historicist holds that the little horn represents Rome – in its pagan

and papal phases [emphasis added].1

The above paragraphs indicate that there are in fact two dominant interpretations for the

prophetic little horn in Daniel 8: 1. “The activities of the little horn unmistakably point to

Antiochus IV Epiphanes,” and 2. “The little horn represents Rome – in its pagan and papal

phases.” Smith, a Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] historicist pioneer and dilettante

theologian appears more than certain that the biblical prophecies hold no secrets for him and that

the interpretation of Daniel 8 is simple and without hassle. That the SDA religionist is much too

confident in his exegetical abilities and too optimistic about the solution to the important issue

under discussion is a fact that needs no confirmation. He states:

There are two leading applications of the symbol new under consideration, which are all that need be

noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the “little horn” here introduced denotes the Syrian

king, Antiochus Epiphanes; the second, that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test

the claims of these two positions [emphasis added].2

The Two Contrastive Perspectives

There are, then, two hermeneutical camps in relation to the identification of the prophetic

little horn in Daniel 8. One camp claims that the little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, while the

other camp insists that the little horn is Rome. Barnes and Birks defend the first perspective:

There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here [in Daniel 8:9]. All the

circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him [emphasis added], and if it were supposed that

this was written after he had lived, and that it was the design of the writer to describe him by these


symbols, he could not have found symbols that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The

Syriac version has inserted here, in the Syriac text, the words ‘Antiochus Epiphanes,” and almost without

exception, expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to.3

The facts [about Antiochus IV Epiphanes] which have been presented in a compressed form, and

almost entirely in the words of the original authorities, make a comment superfluous to prove the

accurate fulfillment of the prophecy, even in its minutest details [emphasis added]. There is not one

prediction, it may be safely asserted, in the inspired writings themselves, which approaches to this in the

number of distinct and connected particulars, manifestly accomplished in the same order – not one which

yields such overwhelming evidence of the divine knowledge.4

The two scholars make the categorical claim that “all the circumstances of the prediction

find a fulfillment in him [Antiochus IV Epiphanes],” that “almost without exception, expositors

have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to,” and that the divine prediction was fulfilled

with him “even in its minutest details.” Smith, on the other hand, makes the reverse claim, and

contends that “he [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] does not fulfill the specifications in one single

particular [emphasis added].” He also assures his readers that the application of the prophetic

little horn in Daniel 8 to Antiochus IV Epiphanes is due to a pernicious deception that the

“Romanists” had devised and promoted in order to “avoid the application of the prophecy to

themselves” and “to oppose the doctrine that the second advent of Christ is now at hand.” That

Smith was dead wrong in his wild assumptions and prophetic speculations is evident from the

fact that the claimed imminent Second Advent he was so confident about remains “at hand” even

now. States the SDA dogmatist:

The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond

controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev. 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four

years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfil [sic!]

the specifications in one single particular [emphasis added]. The question may then be asked how any

one has ever come to apply it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view to avoid the application of the

prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that the

second advent of Christ is now at hand [emphasis added].5

That most theologians differ in their interpretations of the prophetic books, Daniel and

Revelation, is a known fact. Such differences are not hard to understand when disagreements

between scholars are due to different hermeneutics and concern exegetical details. How this

could happen when historical events are invoked to support altogether different and even

opposite interpretations is impossible to understand. It is obvious that two or more interpretation

schools cannot be true at the same time when each one promotes an opposed interpretation. One

school must be correct, while the other ones must be incorrect. One school must be historicist

and defend its interpretation with true, actual, and verifiable historical events, while the other

schools must be pseudo-historicist and defend their interpretations with distorted, fabricated,

and fictitious events. Smith’s frivolous and reckless claim that Antiochus IV Epiphanes “does

not fulfil the specifications in one single particular” is more than evidence of flagrant ineptitude

on his side. It is the evidence of a retrograde egotism that denies true empirical facts and markets

fictional and fabricated narratives in order to defend a dogmatic position at all costs.

Persecuted for Dogma Refutation

The recent note from a local SDA pastor dismissed the idea that “the little horn [in Daniel

8] refers to Antiochus [IV] Epiphanes” and stated that this is “an old accusation that has been


refuted many times,” even in the “old book Daniel and Revelation that was given to [him] before

[he] was baptized.” The implication was that it would be a waste of time to restart the dialogue

on this issue and to reexamine the traditional SDA position on Antiochus IV Epiphanes because

the matter was settled long before and no further research or investigation was needed. The fact

is that the SDA Church has discouraged, censured, and punished the honest and critical

discussion of its “fundamental beliefs [dogmas]” and that those members or theologians who

dare to question the SDA dictates and prescriptions endanger their memberships and professional

positions in the church.

In a recent inquisitorial event with the Biblical Research Institute [further, BRI] – the

SDA equivalent of the Magisterium in the Catholic Church, a SDA theologian who held to the

scriptural view that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8 and wrote a research

document6

that argued this perspective lost his professorial position in the church because he was

considered a danger to the students he taught. Laiu had taught Greek, Hebrew, and Biblical

Exegesis for 20 years at the Romanian Theological Institute [further, RTI] in Bucharest. After his

“heretical” document was circulated among some SDA theologians, Pfandl, Mueller, and other

BRI intimidators outlawed him because he had dared to read non-SDA theological books and

had dared to express perspectives that were in contradiction with certain SDA unbiblical

opinions and dogmas. The Education Department at the SDA Euro-Africa Church Division

notified the Romanian scholar after a short while that he had been demoted from his current

professor position with the RTI to a bureaucratic desk. So much for freedom of research and

conscience in the autocratic and repressive SDA Church!

The Need to Reexamine the Issue

The claim the SDA historicists make about the little horn in Daniel 8 is that Rome meets

and exceeds in all the minute details the prophetic criteria outlined in Daniel 8 for that horn, and

therefore passes the required “pragmatic test of historical fulfillment,”7 claimed to be the

ultimate confirmation that the SDA historicist interpretation of Daniel 8 is correct, while

Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails the pragmatic test due to “the incompleteness with which this

persecuting Seleucid king fulfilled the specifications set forth.”8

The claim is also that the issue

has been settled once and for all to the complete satisfaction of the SDA scholars and members.

But is the issue, indeed, settled? Does the truthful interpretation of Daniel 8 together with

reliable historical evidence support the SDA perspective that Rome is the little horn? That

uninformed and submissive SDA members take dogmatic Church formulas for Divine oracles

should not be a surprise, but that most SDA scholars continue to propagate the idea that “this

little horn [in Daniel 8] represents Rome in both its phases, pagan and papal,”9 is conclusive

evidence for the dogmatic spell that has survived on “a priori principles accepted as true, instead

of being founded upon experience or induction”10

under which the SDA Church has been since

its inception. This research document is intended to break at least part of this deceptive spell and

show that the Seleucid king meets better than Rome – the SDA proposed agent – the historical

fulfillment parameters outlined in Daniel 8 for the little horn. Factual and indisputable historical

accounts demonstrate that Rome fails the required prophetic criteria, and that, instead, the

Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets to the letter the specific and detailed historical

predictions for the little horn in Daniel 8.


This manuscript is a position document,11

and therefore its conclusion is affirmed from

the start – right after the dogmatic SDA theological claims have been identified, exposed, and

denounced. Authentic, factual, and undeniable historical evidence supports the position that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and not Rome, is the prophetic little horn in Daniel 8 because it meets

the explicit predictive expectations for the vicious Seleucid persecutor. This evidence comes

from numerous, legitimate, and authentic historical sources that will be presented in expanded

details in this research document.


II. True Historicism Characteristics

Unambiguous Language Expected

This document’s goal, which is to reexamine and dispute the SDA historicist claim that

Rome rather than Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8, cannot be accomplished

before a clear terminological framework has been established for the discussion. We first need to

determine the common definitions for (1) historicism, (2) historical events, and (3) historical

fulfillment in order to distinguish and authenticate true historicist facts and differentiate them

from false pseudo-historicist speculations, distortions, and fabrications that often pass for

authentic evidence. We must also avoid equivocal language that would mask errors and provide

opportunities for illogical, spurious, and pseudo-historicist and downright deceptive circular

arguments that must be avoided before clear-cut scientific conclusions can be drawn from the

evidence available for this research.

(1) Historicism Defined

There are a few definitions for “historicism,” as a theological concept, but these

definitions share certain common characteristics that will be summarized after the definitions are

included below. The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia [further, SDAE] describes historicism

as follows:

This term [historicism] is used to describe a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the fulfillment

of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the prophet to

the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.1

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Student’s Source Book [further, SDABSSB], takes from

the book Interpreting Revelation the following definition for the “historicist view” concept:

[p. 137] The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a

symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to

the end of time.2

The next definition for historicism is from Shea, a well-known SDA historicist theologian

and apologist, in connection with the SDA prophetic interpretations for Daniel and Revelation:

Through the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation have been proposed. The

historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at

the time of the prophets who wrote them.3

Vetne examines the traditional SDA definitions for historicism, finds them imperfect and

inadequate, and contends that a more specific, precise, and inclusive definition would be needed

for a better perspective on historicism. He re-formulates the previous definition as follows:

Here is my proposed definition of historicism: Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy

intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between

his day and the eschaton.4

John Noe, an evangelical scholar, known eschatologist, and expert in Daniel and

Revelation, defines historicism and historicists in these terms:


Thus, historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events, institutions,

movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age [emphasis added]. These began in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and will

eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.5

From the five definitions on “historicism” and “historicists” included above we are able

to conclude that historicism is “a school of prophetic interpretation” that perceives the

prophecies in Daniel and Revelation “as covering the historical period from the time of the

prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth,” and that “contends that Revelation

is a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the

first century to the end of time.” The predictions in Daniel and Revelation are “fulfilled through

the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.” The

apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation “reveal information about real, in-history events

in the time span between his [the prophet’s] day and the eschaton.” These eschatological time

prophecies describe “specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and

periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age [emphasis added].” All these socio-political entities “began in the first century, have continued

through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.”

(2) Historical Events Defined

The “historicism” definitions seem to place their emphases on the “historical period from

the time of the prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth,” or “the entire

course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time.” All the

“historical events, institutions, movements, and periods” mentioned in these descriptions are

“real” and “in-history,” and also “specific and identifiable.” The terms “history” and “historical

events” also need to be defined in a clear manner. The Oxford English Dictionary [further, OED]

describes history as,

That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise

ascertained [emphasis added]; the formal record of the past, esp. of human affairs or actions [emphasis

added]; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations.6

The OED also explains “historical” as “pertaining to history,” “of the nature or character

of history,” “following or in accordance with history,” “pertaining to, of history as opposed to

fiction or legend,” and “relating to or concerned with history or historical events [emphasis

added].”7 These two definitions are relevant and important and should be used as criteria points

for a scrupulous review of all the unconfirmed “historical events” or “historical facts” that the

SDA historicist theologians have suggested as fulfillments for the apocalyptic time prophecies in

Daniel and Revelation.

(3) Historical Fulfillment Defined

The “events” review should also be based on Shea’s “pragmatic test of historical

fulfillment [emphasis added]” that requires that the “interpretive results [should] be

confirmed from extrabiblical sources where possible [emphasis added]”8 and that the “events,

institutions, movements, and periods [emphasis added]” suggested and claimed as evidence for

“historical fulfillment” should be “specific and identifiable historical events [emphasis


added],”9 and therefore “real,” and “in-history,”

10 and not assumed, fictional, or counterfeited

pseudo-events. It remains to be seen how historical, factual, true, verifiable, and reliable are the

prophetic “events” that Rome is claimed to have fulfilled in the SDA “pragmatic test of historical

fulfillment,” and whether or not Rome meets all the prophetic requirements for the vicious little

horn in Daniel 8, as Smith has alleged in his undocumented claims.

Exegetical “Facts” vs. True Events

One essential remark that must be made at this time is that no matter how “academic” and

“sophisticated” an interpretation is, exegetical deductions and hermeneutical conclusions cannot

supersede or override historical evidence. This means that the textual or exegetical arguments

presented in support of a certain interpretation should be seen as less adequate and dependable

than real and verifiable historical facts and events. The traditional and current SDA definitions

for “historicism,” indeed, mention as critical words and reference points for the historicist

interpretations “historical period,” “history of the church,” “the course of human history,” and

“real, in-history events,” and such real and undeniable events should be the genuine and true

evidence for the prophetic fulfillments in Daniel and Revelation. While biblical interpretations

and exegetical deductions have their place in biblical research, to dismiss factual evidence and

claim that hermeneutical conclusions have more relevance and weight than actual and observed

historical data is incongruous and unscientific. Failure to provide factual and true historical

evidence in order to defend and support the SDA interpretations for Daniel and Revelation would

conflict with the SDA definitions for “historicism,” and negate the claim that the SDA prophetic

interpretations are based on real and historical human events.


III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel

The SDA position on the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 and the relationship between them

has changed over time from the notion that the two little horns were distinct and separate to the

perspective that their characteristics coincide and therefore the two little horns are identical.

The Little Horns Appear Identical

Some SDA scholars have argued that the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 represent the same

historic agent – Rome, – because their prophetic characteristics and historical fulfillments are

similar, if not identical. Gane, for example, states:

Daniel 8:9 introduces the next player on the scene of action: “Out of one of them came forth a rather small

horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful land.” This

horn, which starts out little and in this sense can be called a little horn, is the same symbol used in

Daniel 7 [emphasis added].1

Gane’s perspective on the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 and their relationship with each

other becomes clear when one examines the prophetic chart2 shown a few pages further in his

book where the SDA theologian suggests that the little horn in Daniel 7 and the little horn in

Daniel 8 describe the same prophetic character, the “church of Rome,”3

as the exclusive religious

and political agent that could fulfill the little horn’s prophetic role:

Daniel 2 Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Dynastic

Prophecy

New

Testament

? ? ? Assyria ?

Gold Babylon Lion ? Babylon ?

Silver Bear Ram Media-Persia Persia ?

Bronze Leopard Goat Greece Macedonia

(Greece)

?

Iron Monster Horn (horizontal) ? Imperial Rome

? Horn Horn (vertical) ? “lawless one”

or “beast”

? Judgment Justifying sanctuary ? ?

Destruction of

earthly powers

Destruction of

earthly powers

Destruction of earthly

powers

? Destruction of

earthly powers

Pröbstle, another SDA historicist theologian, appears to share the same interpretation

position on the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8. The prophetic chart he placed in his book4 appears

shorter and contains fewer details, but it is quite similar to the one Gane has proposed:

Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Interpretation

lion - Babylon

bear ram Medo-Persia

leopard he-goat Greece

fourth beast - Rome (pagan)

little horn Little horn Rome (papal)

heavenly judgment restoration of the holy eschatological Yom Kippur

Transfer of the kingdom to

Son of man and saints

- Second Coming and

beyond


Shea is even more explicit and dogmatic about the resemblance between the two little

horns in Daniel chapters 7 and 8, and argues that besides the fact that their prophetic symbols are

the same, “the powers represented by this same prophetic symbol both engage in similar

actions,” and that therefore “there are significant arguments in favor of identifying the little

horns in these two chapters as the same historical entity,”5 Rome. He states:

From this conclusion about the little horn in Daniel 7, the next main question is, What is its relationship to

the little horn in Daniel 8? Could the little horn in Daniel 8 still be Antiochus Epiphanes even though the

little horn in Daniel 7 does not represent him?

Among historicist and futurist interpreters there have been a significant number who have opted for

different interpretations of these two figures. Virtually all of the pre-Millerite interpreters of the historicist

school from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries referred to by L. E. Froom in volumes 3 and 4 of The

Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers 4 identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as the papacy. Only half of them

identified the little horn in Daniel 8 the same way. The other half interpreted it as Mohammedanism.

A similar split can be seen among futurist interpreters of today. Some of them identify the little horn of

Daniel 7 as the future antichrist and the little horn of Daniel 8 as Antiochus IV. Thus the possibility should

be left open and not ruled out a priori that these two prophetic symbols could refer to different historical

entities.

On the other hand, there are significant arguments in favor of identifying the little horns in these two

chapters as the same historical entity. First, the fact that the same symbol was used for both of them,

whether in Aramaic (chap. 7) or in Hebrew (chap. 8), suggests at the outset that there could well be a

connection between them. If a historical distinction had been intended here, the best way would have been

to use a different symbol, but the symbol remained the same.

Second, the powers represented by this same prophetic symbol both engage in similar actions: Both appear

to arise at a somewhat similar time in history; both begin small and become great (7:8 and 8:9); both are

blasphemous powers (7:8, 25 and 8:11, 25); both persecute the saints of God (7:21, 25 and 8:11, 25); both

appear to endure for protracted periods of prophetic time (7:25 and 8:14); and both eventually suffer similar

fates (7:26 and 8:25).

Thus when two powers represented by the same prophetic symbol arise and carry out the same kinds of

action in the same time slot in the flow of the visions, the probabilities appear to be on the side of those

commentators who have identified them as the same historical entity. Some of the aspects of the work of

the little horn in chapter 7 are not mentioned in chapter 8, and vice versa. The number of correspondences

between them, however, is greater than those aspects of their work not mentioned in both passages. None

of these individual characteristics are mutually exclusive so as to rule out the possibility that they could

refer to the same power.6

The SDA theologian who is the most confident about the presumed similar characteristics

between the two little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 is Pfandl, former associate director with the

Adventist BRI Magisterium and rumored expert on Daniel:

A study of the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 indicates a strong parallelism between them: 1. Both horns are

little in the beginning (Dan. 7:8; 8:9). 2. Both become great later on (Dan. 7:20; 8:9ff.). 3. Both are

persecuting powers (Dan. 7:21, 25; 8:10, 24). 4. Both are self-exacting and blasphemous (Dan. 7:8, 20, 25;

8:10, 11, 25). 5. Both target God’s people (Dan. 7:25; 8:24). 6. Both have aspects of their activity

delineated by prophetic time (Dan. 7:25; 8:13, 14). 7. Both extend until the time of the end (Dan. 7:25, 26;

8:17, 19). 8. And both face supernatural destruction (Dan. 7:11, 26; 8:25).


Since in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolism clearly points to the Papacy, the little horn in Daniel 8 must

refer to the same power. The only difference between the two chapters is that in Daniel 8 the little horn

symbolizes pagan Rome (Dan. 8:9, 10) as well as papal Rome (verses 11, 12).7

The Little Horns Are Not Identical

The similarities between the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 that Gane, Pröbstle, Shea, and

Pfandl propose, though, are superficial and inconsequential. A closer look at the prophetic and

historical details in the chapters shows that the little horns are far from identical. The theologians

who have written Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine [further, QOD] are

positive that this is the case, and warn that to confuse the two horns means to “become involved

in irreconcilable difficulties” [emphasis added]. State the QOD authors:

Why do Adventists reject the position, so widely held, that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills the prophecy of the

“little horn” of Daniel 7 or 8, or both, with his suppression of the Jewish sacrifices between 167 and 164

BC., as the fulfillment of the predicted exploits and time period of the “little horn”?

The issue here raised is more complex, and far more fundamental, than might at first appear. Some apply to

Antiochus Epiphanes the “little horn” symbol of Daniel 7, which became “more stout” than any other of the

ten horns (verse 20), while others apply to him the little horn of Daniel 8, which became “exceeding great”

(Dan. 8:9, 10). Still others seek to apply to Antiochus the little horns in both chapters. But these horns, as

will be shown, are two separate symbols. They are not identical, and parallel each other only in part [emphasis added].

Numerous Bible scholars (such as Faussett, Auberlen, Zündel, Eberhardt, Hӓvernick, Hengstenberg,

Scofield, Gaebelein, and Ironside) warn against confusing the “little horn” of Daniel 7 with the “little

horn” of Daniel 8. Nevertheless, many continue to confuse them, and thus become involved in

irreconcilable difficulties [emphasis added].8

Hewitt, an Advent Christian Church [further, ACC] historicist theologian, and exegesis

professor at the Aurora College, is sure that the two little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are distinct and

separate, and makes a reliable case for his position with nine well-documented contrast points

that demonstrate with irrefutable biblical, linguistic, and historical evidence that the two little

horns cannot be analogous or identical, but are different and separate historical powers:

The following points of contrast [between the little horn in Daniel 7 and the little horn in Daniel 8] indicate

clearly that two separate powers are intended.

1. The little horn of chapter 7 is associated with a beast representing the fourth empire; that of chapter 8 is

associated with a beast which, as we have shown in the preceding paragraph, stands for the third empire. It

is evident, therefore, that they represent powers which are to arise at different periods in history and under

different empires.

2. The little horn of chapter 7 rises directly out of the head of the beast; that of chapter 8 grows out of an

already existing horn. This seems to suggest that the power typified by the former develops directly from

the center and head of the fourth empire itself, whereas the power typified by the latter springs out of a

division of the goat kingdom.

3. The little horn of chapter 7 comes up in the midst of ten already existing horns – that is, after the fourth

empire is divided into ten parts. It is a fresh, new power, rising out of the body of the old empire, but in the

midst of its several parts. Nothing corresponding to this is found in the other little horn. It does not come up

upon the head of the goat, among the four horns which stand there, but out of one of the four. The eleventh


horn of chapter 7 is a horn out of a beast, the little horn of chapter 8 is a horn out of a horn. This

remarkable difference ought not to be glossed over in the interpretation.

4. The eleventh horn of chapter 7 uproots three horns in its rise. Nothing like this is said of the little horn of

chapter 8.

5. The little horn of chapter 7 is said to be “diverse from” the ten amongst which it arises, thus conveying

the definite intimation that it would be a new and different kind of power. No such language is used of the

little horn of chapter 8, and no such intimation is given.

6. The Aramaic for little horn in 7:8 is not equivalent in meaning to the Hebrew for little horn in 8:9. The

former is strictly translated “another horn, a little one,” whereas the latter strictly translated would be “a

horn from littleness.”4

7. It is said of the little horn in chapter 7 that his look is “more stout than his fellows” (v. 20). In other

words, it represents a power that is stronger and more redoubtable than those symbolized by the ten

“fellow” horns. With regard to the little horn of chapter 8 precisely the opposite impression is given. He is

only a horn out of a horn, a “horn of littleness” – an insignificant horn, compared to the four “notable

horns” and the original, Alexandrine horn of the goat. It is true that this horn “waxes great” from his

original “littleness,” and that he plays a large part on a small stage, but this does not imply that he is

regarded as becoming greater than the other goat horns. In chapter 7, however, a special point is made of

the fact that the eleventh horn becomes “stouter” than his fellows.

8. The field of activity of the two horns is very different. That of the little horn of chapter 7 is apparently

the whole extent of the fourth empire, since it develops directly from the head of the beast and rapidly

becomes the dominating force among the other ten divisions. But when we turn to chapter 8 and inquire

into the field of activity of the little horn there, what a difference! How clearly we are given to understand

that its work is restricted to a narrow stage of operations. First, it pertains to only one of four divisions of

the goat power. Second, its attention is restricted principally to a minor province of that split-off portion, –

the “pleasant land” of v.9; i.e., Palestine.

9. The objects of malevolence of the two horns are also different. In chapter 7 the little horn lifts himself up

against “the most High” and the “saints of the most High.” Here we naturally understand the latter to be the

saints of God throughout the length and breadth of the fourth empire. But in chapter 8, the little horn’s

malevolence is directed wholly against the Jewish people, their high-priest, sacrifices and sanctuary.

Boutflower correctly observes that the atmosphere and coloring become definitely local and Levitical.5

Here, then, are nine particulars in which the two little horns are distinguished the one from the other. Surely

that is not an acceptable interpretation which ignores all these marks of difference and forces an unnatural

identity upon the two horns.9

The Greek view errs again in trying to equate the world vision of chapter 7 with the restricted Palestinian

vision of chapter 8. The stage on which is enacted the drama of chapter 7 is clearly world-wide: embracing

the expanse of the ancient world at the beginning and becoming truly global in dimensions at the close,

when the “greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the

most High” – an obvious parallel to the world-wide stone kingdom of chapter 2. Consider in contrast to

this, how the vision of chapter 8 follows the reverse order, beginning on the wide stage of ancient Persian

imperialism and with the great contest for world dominion between that power and Greece (or between

West and East), then rapidly narrowing down, first to Syria, and then to little Palestine – descending, as one

might say, from the contemplation of world events to the delineation of a local persecution in an obscure

province. One can hardly imagine a greater contrast! The atmosphere of chapter 8 is primarily Jewish, that

of chapter 7 is universal, for “all local coloring is absent.”6

The climax of chapter 8 is a temporal event –

the cleansing of the Jewish sanctuary – while the climax of chapter 7 lies in Eternity. In view of these

considerations, it must seem to the candid mind impossible to equate the visions of the two chapters, and

especially to crowd the universal scenes of the seventh into the provincial setting of the eight.10


Hewitt’s prophetic chart demonstrates a radical difference from the ones Gane and

Pröbstle have developed and establishes a categorical and undeniable contrast between the

speculative SDA assumptions and an authentic interpretation based on true historical evidence:

TABLE II11

ROMAN VIEW

CHAP. 2 CHAP. 7 CHAP. 8 IDENTIFICATION

Head of gold Lion Babylon

Breast and arms

of silver

Bear Ram with two horns Medo-Persia

Belly and thighs

of brass

Leopard with four

heads

He-goat with one horn,

then four

Greece (Alexander and

successors)

Little horn from one of the

four horns

Antiochus Epiphanes

Legs of iron Beast with iron teeth

and ten horns

Rome

The ten horns Barbarian Kingdoms

out of Roman Empire

Eleventh horn Temporal power of

Papacy

Feet of iron and

clay

Barbarian kingdoms,

becoming the nations

of Modern Europe

Obvious Fundamental Differences

The obvious fundamental differences between the little horn in Daniel 7 and the little

horn in Daniel 8, as Hewitt describes them, are tabulated below:

The little horn in Daniel 7 The little horn in Daniel 8

1 The little horn of chapter 7 is associated with a

beast representing the fourth empire.

That of chapter 8 is associated with a beast which…

stands for the third empire.

2 The little horn of chapter 7 rises directly out of the

head of the beast.

That of chapter 8 grows out of an already existing horn

[SDA – “wind”].

3 The little horn of chapter 7 comes up in the midst of

ten already existing horns – that is, after the fourth

empire is divided into ten parts.

[The little horn in chapter 8] does not come up upon the

head of the goat, among the four horns which stand

there, but out of one of the four [horns] [SDA –

“wind”].

4 The eleventh horn of chapter 7 is a horn out of a

beast.

The little horn of chapter 8 is a horn out of a horn

[SDA – “wind”].

5 The eleventh horn of chapter 7 uproots three horns

in its rise.

Nothing like this is said of the little horn of chapter 8.

6 The little horn of chapter 7 is said to be “diverse

from” the ten amongst which it arises.

No such language is used of the little horn of chapter 8,

and no such intimation is given.

7 The Aramaic for little horn in 7:8…is strictly

translated “another horn, a little one.”

The Hebrew for [the] little horn in 8:9…strictly

translated would be “a horn from littleness.”4

8 It is said of the little horn in chapter 7 that his look

is “stouter than his fellows” (v. 20).

The little horn of chapter 8…is only a horn out of a

horn, a “horn of littleness” – an insignificant horn.

9 The field of activity…of the little horn of chapter 7 The field of activity of the little horn there [in chapter


is apparently the whole extent of the fourth empire. 8]… pertains to only one of four divisions of the goat

power.

10 In chapter 7 the little horn lifts himself up against

“the most High” and the “saints of the most High.”

In chapter 8, the little horn’s malevolence is directed

wholly against the Jewish people, their high-priest,

sacrifices and sanctuary.

11 The stage on which is enacted the drama of chapter

7 is clearly world-wide.

The vision of chapter 8… [is] descending, as one might

say, from the contemplation of world events to the

delineation of a local persecution in an obscure

province.

12 [The] [atmosphere] of chapter 7 is universal. The atmosphere of chapter 8 is primarily Jewish.

13 The climax of chapter 7 lies in Eternity. The climax of chapter 8 is a temporal event – the

cleansing of the Jewish sanctuary.

Hewitt’s documented and clear position on the fundamental differences between the two

little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 provides sufficient biblical evidence and reliable historical

confirmation for a reasonable conclusion in this matter, and corroborates with the theological

position the QOD writers have taken in their research on the same issue. The factual and

indisputable truth is that there is no exegetical or historical basis for the idea that the two little

horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are identical and represent the same prophetic agent. The Bible texts and

the historical accounts show without doubt that the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are separate and

distinct entities that fulfill unique individual roles in the two different prophetic visions.


IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn

The Little Horn without a Root

The origin of the little horn in Daniel 8 has been studied, deliberated, and argued without

too much success in the SDA theological circles for quite a long time, and the issue still remains

to be settled. Some SDA historicists, such as Smith, contend that the little horn arose from the

“four notable” horns that followed the dissolution of Alexander the Great’s empire, while some

other SDA historicist theologians are certain that the little horn came out of one of the “four

winds of heaven” (Daniel 8:8, 9).

Lost about Little Horn’s Origin

The QOD inexpert writers are not able to determine which position to take about the

origin of the little horn, and decide to leave the issue open to further deliberation and

clarification:

The view that makes Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8, which becomes “exceeding great,” must also be

examined. There is a tempting plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come “out of one of” the

four horn kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Macedonian goat. Nevertheless, even aside from the fact that

there is a difference of opinion as to whether “out of one of them” means out of one of the horn kingdoms

or out of one of “the four winds” (verses 8, 9) – i.e., one of the four directions of the compass – there are

obstacles to considering Antiochus an adequate fulfillment of the prophetic specifications.1

The Little Horn from the Horn

Smith, the despondent Millerite, future SDA pioneer, and popular theologian, is more

than certain that he knows the answer to the question related to the little horn’s origin, and

declares:

There are two leading applications of the symbol now under consideration, which are all that need be

noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the “little horn” here introduced denotes the Syrian king,

Antiochus Epiphanes; the second, that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test the claims of

these two positions.

Does it mean Antiochus? If so, this king must fulfill the specifications of the prophecy? If he does not

fulfill them, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of

the goat [emphasis added]. It was then a separate power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any

of the horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power? 2

The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat [emphasis added]. How, it may be asked,

can this be true of Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not

introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became

connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C. 161. 1

Maccabees 8; Josephus’s Antiquities, book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, Vol. II p. 166. But seven years

before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its

empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as from the conquered Macedonian horn of the

goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be

properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat.3

The SDA historicist’s extravagant claim that the little horn originated from Macedonia

because Rome had conquered the Greek kingdom is so puerile and implausible that no other


SDA theologian seems to have used this “interpretation” in the Adventist circles except for

Smith alone. In fact, Hewitt finds Smith’s position on the issue ridiculous, and comments:

The Roman view can be maintained historically only with the greatest difficulty. The little horn came forth

from one of the four horns of the he-goat, or in other words, out of one of the four kingdoms into which

Alexander’s empire was divided. Now it is certain that Italy was never a part of the Alexandrian domain.

Rome did not rise out of one of these Grecian kingdoms, but far to the west, entirely outside the boundaries

of the Greek dominion, and from this position threw herself in turn upon the four kingdoms, devouring

them one after another.

Advocates of the Roman view endeavor to turn aside the force of this objection by claiming that when the

Romans conquered Macedon in 168 B.C., Rome took the place of that horn, and so may be said, in a sense,

to have come forth out of it.16

In other words, when one nation invades another from without and conquers

it, the invader becomes identified with its conquered foe to such an extent that it may properly be spoken of

as having sprung from it. According to this principle, one might argue that the United States could

properly be represented as having sprung from the Land of the Rising Sun, because American forces

conquered and occupied Japan! [emphasis added].

4

The Little Horn from the Wind

In the past decades, the standard SDA historicist position on the origin of the prophetic

little horn in Daniel 8 has regressed into the nonsensical and bizarre perspective that the horn

comes out of one of “the four winds of heaven” (verses 8-9). Some of the scholars who share

this extravagant notion are Pröbstle, Gane, Pfandl, the authors of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible

Commentary [further, SDABC], and Shea. Pröbstle, well known for his pseudo-linguistic and

contorted “exegetical studies” claims:

Antiochus IV was a king of the Seleucid kingdom that is already represented by one of the four horns of the

he-goat (Dan. 8:8). The little horn, however, does not stem from those horns, but “came forth” from

one of the directions of the compass, as contextual, literal-structural, and semantic considerations

suggest [emphasis added].3 5

Gane concurs with Pröbstle, and articulates his claim as an indisputable truth that requires

no further support from factual evidence. While he argues for the “winds” option instead of the

“horns” alternative, the SDA historicist cannot provide credible reasons for his choice, but leaves

his readers with the odd impression that he claims the absolute and ultimate prerogative to decide

what is appropriate and correct in matters of interpretation. The SDA theologian bases his

mistaken arguments on the speculative “nearest antecedent” assumption that Laiu6 finds illogical

and implausible and refutes with ease later in this section. Speculates Gane:

Daniel 8:9 introduces the next player on the scene of action: “Out of one of them came forth a rather small

horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land.” This

horn, which starts out little and in this sense can be called a little horn, is the same symbol used in Daniel 7.

However, whereas in Daniel 7 the little horn sprouts from a monstrous beast, here in Daniel 8 the little horn

comes “out of one of them,” meaning out of one of the four winds of heaven. The “four winds” represent

the four directions of the compass (see Jeremiah 46:36; Ezekiel 37:9; Daniel 7:2; Zechariah 2:6; Matthew

24:31; Revelation 7:1) – north, south, east, and west – into which Alexander’s empire was divided.

In attempting to establish Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Hellenistic Seleucid ruler, as the little horn, many

scholars have taken “out of one of them” to mean that the little horn comes out of one of the Hellenistic

horns – after all, horns do not come out of winds. But neither do horns normally grow out of other horns,

and this is symbolic prophecy, where symbols need not conform to what we find in real life. For example,

have you even seen a leopard with four wings and four heads (Daniel 7:6)?


Several points justify our rejecting the interpretation that Daniel 8:9 predicts the rise and career of

Antiochus:

1. The “them” in “out of one of them” at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest

antecedent [emphasis added]: the immediately preceding “four winds of heaven” at the end of verse 8. So

the little horn need not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the

directions toward which Alexander’s kingdom was divided. This agrees with our previous conclusion that

the little horn in Daniel 7 is a Roman power.7

Pfandl, the “expert in residence” with the BRI, echoes Pröbstle’s claim about the little

horn’s origin from a “wind,” and adds a “geographical plane” angle to the historicist timeworn

arguments in order to stretch to the limit his hopeless speculation, while in the meantime he also

deplores the fact that all the commentators who disagree with him “assume that the little horn

came out of one of the four horns,” which appears to suggest to his mislead readers that he alone

has the little horn interpretation right:

Most commentators assume that the little horn came out of one of the four horns, but contextual and

literary-structural grounds make that unlikely [emphasis added].4 The previous verse ended with the

words “In place of it [the notable horn] four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven.” The

immediate antecedent of “one of them,” therefore, is “the four winds of heaven,” not four horns. The

geographical expansion of the little horn (south, east, beautiful land) suggests that its emergence also

belongs to the geographical plane, i.e., it comes out of one of the four points of the compass. Furthermore,

the verb, yatza, used for the “coming out” of the little horn (verse 9), stands in contrast to the verb ‘alah,

used for the “coming up” of the other horns (verse 3 and 8).8

The SDABC scholars depend on gender discord, which is a common Hebrew language

diglossia [two language varieties in use] phenomenon, in order to resolve the origin of the little

horn in Daniel 8, and to establish the whole interpretation of the chapter, but ignore the important

fact that gender discord is common and frequent in Hebrew and cannot be relevant for the

exegesis of verses 8 and 9 in Daniel 8. The SDABC scholars also include in their failed

apologetics the outdated and unscientific “nearest antecedent” assumption that Pfandl and Gane

have used in their implausible arguments, and which expert linguistic research discounts and

discards as unempirical and unreliable. State the SDABC authors:

9. Out of one of them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word for “them,” hem,

is masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is “winds” (v. 8) and not “horns,” since

“winds” may be either masculine or feminine, but “horns,” only feminine. On the other hand the word for

“one,” achath, is feminine, suggesting “horns” as the antecedent. Achath could, of course, refer back to the

word for “winds,” which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would

assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical

agreement, either achath should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to

“winds,” or the word for “them” should be changed into a feminine, in which case the reference would be

ambiguous, since either “winds” or “horns” may be the antecedent. A number of Hebrew manuscripts have

the word for “them” in the feminine. If these manuscripts reflect the correct reading, the passage is still

ambiguous.

Commentators who interpret the “little horn” of v. 9 to refer to Rome have been at a loss to explain

satisfactorily how Rome could be said to arise out of one of the divisions of Alexander’s empire. If “them”

refers to “winds,” all difficulty vanishes. The passage then simply states that from one of the four

points of the compass would come another power [emphasis added]. Rome came from the west. In the

literal explanation of the symbols of the vision Rome is said to arise “in the latter time of their kingdom”

(v. 23), that is, the “kingdom” of the four horns. However, v. 23 refers only to the time when the little horn

would arise and says nothing of the place of its rising, whereas v. 9 is concerned exclusively with its

location.9


Shea, a venerated but uninformed SDA historicist theologian, resorts to the same

speculative, unscientific, and nonoperational arguments to support the fallacious perspective that

the little horn in Daniel 8 came out of a “wind,” and to formulate his bogus “exegesis” of the

chapter. He, though, introduces a small variation in his theological misinterpretations and makes

the absurd claim that “the [correct] antecedent of ‘them’ in the Hebrew language phrase ‘from

them’ (vs. 9), is neither ‘winds’ nor ‘horns,’ but ‘heavens.’” Alleges the SDA theologian:

Origin of the little horn. A major question concerning the little horn in Daniel 8 is whether it came out of

the four preceding horns or from one of the four winds toward which those horns extended. The obvious

reason why this is important is that if the little horn came from the Seleucid horn, then it could have been a

Seleucid king like Antiochus Epiphanes. However, if it came from one of the winds, then it would not

represent Antiochus IV since he should more naturally issue from the Seleucid horn.

Given the importance of this point, the syntax of the statement on the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8:8-

9 should be examined carefully. Any commentary which does not do this is shirking its exegetical duty,

because the decision on how the Hebrew sentence structure should be translated will affect the subsequent

interpretation of verse 9.

This problem involves the agreement in gender between a pronominal suffix at the beginning of Daniel 8:9

(“them”) and the antecedents proposed for it in the preceding verse (“horns/winds”). Verse 8 concludes,

“and instead of it [the great horn of Alexander that was broken] there came up four conspicuous horns

toward the four winds of heaven.” Drawing on this picture and relating to it, verse 9 continues, “Out of one

of them came forth a little horn....” The question is, to what in verse 8 does “them” refer – the horns or the

winds?

The linguistic setting is more specific in Hebrew than in the English translation, inasmuch as nouns and

pronouns in Hebrew have gender which requires their agreement. The problem then is: The pronominal

suffix “them” in verse 9 is a masculine plural. On the other hand, the Hebrew word for “horn” is always

feminine. The word for “winds” is written as a feminine plural, although it can occasionally be written in

masculine form. This means that as the Hebrew text stands there is no agreement in gender between the

pronominal suffix “them” (vs. 9) and either of its potential antecedents – “horns” [understood] or “winds” –

in verse 8.

This problem is compounded further by the form of the numerals used in these two verses. The numeral

“four” at the end of verse 8 and the numeral “one” at the beginning of verse 9 are both feminine in form.

Thus this masculine pronominal suffix (“them”) does not agree with the gender of either of its potential

antecedent nouns (“horns/winds”), nor does it agree with the gender of the numerals (“four”) used with “it”

and “them.” The nature of this problem, but not its final solution, has been summarized thus in The SDA

Bible Commentary:

Out of one or them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word for “them,” hem, is

masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is “winds” (vs. 8) and not “horns,” since

“winds” may be either masculine or feminine, but “horns” only feminine. On the other hand, the word for

“one,” achath, is feminine, suggesting “horns” as the antecedent. Achath could, of course, refer back to the

word for “winds,” which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would

assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical

agreement, either achath should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to

“winds,” or the word for “them” should be changed into feminine, in which case the reference would be

ambiguous, since either “winds” or “horns” may be the antecedent.5

In my opinion, it is not necessary to resort to an emendation of the text if the syntax of this statement is

understood. Verse 8 states that four horns appeared in the place of the great horn that was broken. The last

phrase of the verse indicates that those horns extended “toward the four winds of the heavens.” Verse 9


begins with the prepositional phrase, “Out of one of them” and goes on to describe how the little horn went

forth and grew up to a position of great exaltation.

The English translation, “Out of one of them,” however, obscures and smooths out the actual Hebrew

construction. The sentence actually opens with two prepositional phrases. Translated literally the sentence

reads, “and from the one from them ...,” etc. The reason why it is important to notice this literal

construction is that it provides a precise parallel to the gender of the elements found in the last phrase of

verse 8. This can best be shown by transposing the first phrase of verse 9 to line up beneath the last phrase

of verse 8 with these elements in parallel columns.

When this procedure is carried out, it can be seen that the gender of the first two elements in verse 9

(“one/them”) lines up perfectly with the gender of the last two elements at the end of verse 8

(“winds/heavens”).

In writing his visions Daniel simply broke up the construct chain at the end of verse 8 (“the four winds of

the heavens”) and distributed its two elements to two separate prepositional phrases at the beginning of

verse 9 (“from the one/from them”). This is not poetic parallelism, it is syntactic parallelism in which the

gender of the elements in the second statement parallels the gender of the elements in the first, or

preceding, statement.

Thus the antecedent of “them” in the phrase “from them” (vs. 9), is neither “winds” nor “horns,” but

“heavens” [emphasis added]. Since “heavens” is masculine by gender and treated as a plural in biblical

Hebrew, according to the verbs and adjectives used with it, there is perfect agreement in gender and

number with the masculine plural pronoun “them.” The feminine “one” of verse 9 refers back to the

feminine “winds” of verse 8. The text discloses the origin clearly enough: It came from one of the four

winds of the heavens, that is, from one of the directions of the compass.

From this understanding of the syntax in verses 8-9, it is evident that when the little horn came onto

the scene of action, it did not come from the Seleucid horn nor from the other three. In the pictorial

vision it is simply seen as coming from one of the compass directions [emphasis added]. Thus the syntax

of this statement does not support the contention that the little horn developed from the Seleucid

horn/kingdom.10

Shea’s interpretation artifices, which he calls “exegesis” but are in fact pseudo-linguistic

nonsense, are an example of the SDA pseudo-hermeneutical approach to the Bible and to Daniel

and Revelation. Rather than examine the text at discourse level and discover the true authorial

intent, the overconfident SDA historicist ignores the semantic fragment in Daniel 8 and tears the

words apart in order to promote and defend an illogical and bizarre interpretation. Laiu,11

cited

later in this document, demonstrates that Shea’s arguments are based on pure ignorance and

dogmatic overconfidence and shows that such an “exegesis” is an example of what Biblical

Interpretation should never be.

Prophetic Beast Lost in Action

There is another matter that needs to be explained when one considers the option that the

little horn in Daniel 8 might have come from a “wind” or cardinal point. In Daniel, all horns are

attached to a beast. This is not possible when the evil little horn materializes from a cardinal

point. How do we solve this problem? Well, it is simple. We produce again one thousand wild

suppositions and preposterous assumptions and hope that the SDA readers are conditioned

enough to accept them as “present truth.” Quips Pfandl, the BRI magisterial oracle:

But where is the beast to which the horn belongs? One possibility is that it is outside the frame of the

vision, and thus Daniel does not see it. The reason for this could be that the animals symbolizing Medo-


Persia in Daniel 9 were ritually clean ones, while any “terrible beast” such as used to symbolize Rome in

Daniel 7, would have been an unclean creature. “That would have distorted the connection between the

vision and the sanctuary.”6 However, in biblical symbolism horns represent powers or nations, and they can

appear by themselves without the animals to which they naturally belong. Zechariah 1:18,19, for example,

tells how the prophet sees four horns by themselves, and an angel explains that “these are the horns

[nations] that have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” (verse 19).12

Gane takes a rather different interpretation path in order to explain the elusive beast, and

his speculative exegetical approach and individual pseudo-historicist perspective demonstrates

how inconsistent, divided, and fragmented is the SDA scholarship in matters of prophetic

interpretation. States the theologian:

Now we are stuck with a dilemma. In Daniel 7, the Roman Church little horn arose from the imperial

Roman monster, but Daniel 8 moves directly from the four Hellenistic kingdoms to the little horn. Where is

the imperial Rome in this chapter? There are two options. Either the vision simply skips over imperial

Rome, or the little horn includes imperial Rome. The latter options seems to work best because verse 9 has

the little horn expanding in three horizontal directions, corresponding to the direction of imperial Rome’s

initial expansion. “Verse 9 states that the little horn pushed its conquests ‘to the south and to the east and

toward the Beautiful Land.’ These directions fit Rome perfectly as it picked off the four main pieces of the

Greek Empire – Macedonia and Pergamum to the east in 168 and 133 B.C., the ‘Beautiful Land’ of Judea

in 60 B.C., and Egypt to the south in 33 B.C.”1

Then verses 10-12 describe the horn’s vertical thrusts up

against heaven, implying that it has become transformed into a religious power.2

Why would Daniel 8 combine imperial and papal Rome under the same symbol? Perhaps in order to

emphasize the continuity between them, which is even greater than in Daniel 7, where the little horn

(Church of Rome), which is different from the earlier horns, sprouts from the fourth beast (imperial Rome),

which is “different” from the earlier beasts (verses 7, 23, 24).3 Notice the similarity here between the fourth

beast and the little horn: They are both different.13

Such assumptions, speculations, and absurdities are part of the ineffectual and

implausible “professional explanations” produced in the SDA historicist theological circles

whenever biblical support for their dogmas is absent. How should the members treat this

uninhibited nonsense? The advice from the SDA leadership is to trust the SDA scholars and

administrators that all that is taught in the church is pure and undiluted “present truth.” When

confusion is the norm among the SDA theologians about biblical interpretation, it is no wonder

that members get also confused and lose faith in their church and their dictatorial leadership and

look for answers outside their congregations.

Untrue and Unsound Arguments

The common arguments the SDA theologians use in order to manipulate the prophetic

text and postulate that the little horn in Daniel 8 came from a “wind” (cardinal point) rather than

from a Greek horn are: (1) the unscientific “nearest antecedent” notion, and (2) the presumed

gender discord in Daniel 8:8 and 9. Laiu provides intelligent and proficient empirical evidence

that indicates that both these arguments depend on Hebrew language ignorance and exegetical

ineptitude.

The “Nearest Antecedent” Trick

Gane invokes the “nearest antecedent” notion in order to resolve the confusion about the

true referent for the pronoun “them” in Daniel 8:9 because according to him “the ‘them’ in ‘out

of one of them’ at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest antecedent

[emphasis added]: the immediate preceding ‘four winds of heaven’ at the end of verse 8,”14

but

his claim reveals ignorance about linguistic matters and anaphora resolution issues. Had the


historicist theologian done his homework, he would have come across the relevant comment

Mitkov had made in 1999 about the possible statistical distance between the anaphor and its true

antecedent. In that comment, the anaphora resolution expert had warned:

Most of the anaphora resolution systems deal with resolution of anaphors which have noun phrases as their

antecedents because identifying anaphors which have verb phrases, clauses, sentences or even

paragraphs/discourse segments as antecedents, is a more complicated task. Typically, all noun phrases

(NPs) preceding an anaphor are initially regarded as potential candidates for antecedents. Usually, a search

scope has to be identified: most approaches look for NPs in the current and preceding sentence. However,

an "ideal" anaphora resolution system should extend its scope of search: antecedents which are 17

sentences away from the anaphor have already been reported (Mitkov 1995a)! [emphasis added] 15

Besides the fact that the “nearest antecedent” speculation is a weak and unscientific

defense for a position that has no biblical basis and no linguistic support, the whole theological

argumentation is plagued with unacceptable logical and grammatical errors. States Laiu:

The phrase ּוִמן ָהַאַחת ֵמֶהם û·min ha·’aḥaṯ mē·hém “and out of one of them” in Da 8:9 has been usually

understood by Jewish and Christian scholars as a reference to the four horns, which is the subject of the

preceding sentence. William Miller’s interpretation involves the same understanding: the four horns were

the four parts of Alexander’s divided kingdom: Persia (east), Syria (north), Macedon and Europe (west),

Egypt and Africa (south).44

To my knowledge, Uriah Smith and generally our pioneers inherited the same

basic approach, that was held also by Isaac Newton,45

namely the little horn coming out of one “of the four

horns” of the goat, only changing the focus, from vague geographical identification to a more accurate

political identification: the little Roman horn comes out of the Hellenisitic Macedon, by annexation.46

Noting a gender disagreement in the Hebrew text, an alternative solution of the origin of the little horn has

been promoted in 1955 by the authors of the SDA Bible Coomentary (vol. IV, Daniel, pp. 840-41): the

Roman horn has come out of one of “the four winds of heaven.” This solution, with few variations was

adopted after 1980 by some of our best scholars,47

and it was popularized even through the Sabbath School

(2004, 4Q).48

Please consider the following critical points in reaction to this new solution:

The logical referent and subject of the last sentence is the “four prominent [horns].” Thus, logically “one of

them” corresponds to the four horns, as one may see in the following tables:

1. The goat became extremely great

2. but, when it was strong,

3. its great horn was broken;

4. and there arose in its place four conspicuous horns

toward the four winds of the skies.

5. Out of one of them

6. emerged one horn from smallness

!

?

?


Blue text emphasizes adverbs and adverbial phrases. A. The logical referent of the pronoun “them” is “horns,” because this is the major subject of the paragraph, [or center], and the subject of the preceding sentence. B. “Winds of the skies” is the closest possible referent, but it is a false referent, because it is part of an adverbial phrase.

The solution of the problem depends on how one understands the sequence of clauses and the logical

subject:

Preposition Numeral Logical Subject Modifier Or Digressive Phrase

four horns to the four points of compass

out of one of them

one horn out of smallness

The closeness of the modifier (digressive phrase) “to the four points of compass” proves to be an

interesting logical trap.49

The true referent cannot be one of the winds, since “winds” is part of a digressive

phrase.

An expression like “one of the winds of heaven” occurs nowhere in Hebrew and carries no meaning. If the

writer had said “out of the western wind”, or anything similar, he would have communicated to us an

information. But an expression like “out of one of the[m = winds of heaven]” does not convey any

information. “From one of the directions of the compass” means “from anywhere”. Tell me, Daniel, the

precise direction of compass you saw the horn rising from, as you did with the goat, and implicitly with the

ram. To say that it came “out of one of the four winds,” is like saying “out of no matter where.” This is

more perplexing than a sibylline message, because it has no clue. It is perfectly useless.16

That the SDA theologians have not thought the matters through with this “nearest

antecedent” argument becomes obvious when one attempts to extend this half-baked “closest

antecedent” hermeneutical approach to similar biblical text situations and runs into impossible

and insurmountable logical dilemmas. Continues Laiu:

See other examples of similar pseudo-referents:

1K 19:1-2 (“Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, how he killed all the prophets …. Jezebel sent a

messenger to Elijah with this warning, “May the gods judge me severely if … I do not take your life as you

did theirs!”). Which is the closest and which is the logical referent (both masculine): the gods, or the

prophets?

Ezekiel 39:28 (“They will know that I am YH their God, when I will bring them captives to the nations.

Then I will gather them to their country, I will leave none of them there anymore.”) Could the pronouns

them and their in the second sentence refer to nations, since this is the “closest referent”? Actually they

have the same referent as the pronouns emphasized in the first sentence, that point back to verse 22 (where

the explicit referent is identified as “the house of Israel”). The true logical referent are the Israelites, the

future of Israel is the issue.17

Gender Discord and Diglossia

The gender discord case in Daniel 8:8-9 is another failed scheme the SDA historicist

theologians have used together with the fallacious “nearest antecedent” idea in order to claim

that the little horn in Daniel 8:9 arises from a “wind.” Here again, the basis for the incorrect

assumption is a natural language phenomenon – diglossia (two different Hebrew language

varieties in use) that has no practical relevance or exegetical weight for the SDA deductive

speculation. To base the interpretation of Daniel 8 on such questionable ideas is an undisputable

indication of theological and linguistic incompetence. Explains again Laiu:


The gender disagreement in Da 8:9 and consequently the grammatical chiastic agreement suggested

50 by

scholars have been best explained by Martin Pröbstle,51

following Rendsburg’s studies.52

While this

masculine form ֵמֶהם mē·hém, instead of the required feminine form ֵמֶהן mē·hén is not Standard Biblical

Hebrew, and would be considered as a grammatical disagreement, it is merely a formal disagreement,

specific to the spoken Hebrew that often uses masculine forms for both genders.53

G. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew, American Oriental Series, vol. 72, American Oriental Society,

New Haven, Connecticut (1990:62-63). Actually Rendsburg (op. cit. p 48) quotes the cases of Da 1:5; 8:9

as examples among others. Similar cases of gender neutralization are at least in the following places: Gn

26:15, 16, 18; 29:10; 32:16; 41:23, 27; Ex 2:16-17; 25:29; 36:14; Lv 26:3, 33; 32:16; 41:23; Nu 16:18;

27:7, 17; 36:6; Dt 27:2, 4-5; Job 1:14-15; 3:24; 16:22; 21:20; 39:1, 3; 42:15; Jos 17:3-4; Jg 16:3; 21:21-22;

Rt 1:19, 22; 2:9; 4:11; 1S 6:7, 10; 9:20; 31:7; 2S 1:24; 20:3; 21:12; 24:12; 1K 11:3; 22:17; 2K 18:13; Ps

16:4; 34:20; 102:28; Pr 3:1-2; 16:3; 23:23; Ecc 2:6, 10; 10:9; 11:8; 12:1,4; Song 2:7; 3:5, 7; 4:2; 5:8; 6:8, 9;

8:4; Am 4:1-2; Hos 14:1,7; Is 3:16; 17:9; 19:18; 23:1; 32:11; 34:17; 36:1; 38:16; 49:11; 60:8; Jr 5:10; 43:9;

44;2; Ez 1:5, 6, 10, 18, 20, 26; Ez 13:[17-] 20; 20:16; 34:12, 26; Da 1:20; 8:4; 11:15, 22, 31, 41, 44; Zc 2:4;

5:9; 6:1, 7; 11:4, 5, 7, 9, 16; 14:12; Est 1:17, 20; 2:3, 12; Jl 2:22; 1Cr 6:49, 50; 8:8; 10:7; 23:22; 28:15;

2Cr 11:11; 20:37; 35:25; Ezra 10:3; Ne 1:9; 2:13; 3:34.

While the interpretation making the little horn appear out of some “wind” is ingenious and it has a few

supporters in the academic world,54

it is not gladly admitted by every SDA scholar. Besides the persisting

interpretation of U Smith, various other solutions have been suggested in the Adventist theological

community in the last fourth years.55

W Shea, of the first promoters of the interpretation “one of the four winds”, is less dogmatic now on this

issue;56

and M Pröbstle, while finally decides in favor of “the four winds,” he criticizes the syntactic

arguments of the former proponents of this view.57

The “one of the four winds” solution probably sprang out of dissatisfaction with our traditional

interpretation of the origin of the horn [emphasis added]. As these interpretations became obsolete, it

emerged the need to find a better solution that would avoid a possible application to Antiochus IV

Epiphanes. The present reluctance to discard this new explanation as well is probably motivated by the

same emotional reason.18

Little Horn Anaphora Resolution

While the SDA historicist theologians continue to speculate and debate whether or not

the little horn in Daniel 8 came from a horn,19

“winds,” 20, 21

or even “heavens”22

in the futile

attempt to find the answer to their question through inept “contextual, literal-structural, and

semantic considerations,”23

linguistics provides a scientific and reliable method for the solution

to the problem. This scientific approach is called anaphora resolution and eliminates the

confusion about what the authentic antecedent to “them” might be. Orăsan and Evans define

anaphora resolution as follows:

Anaphora resolution is the process which attempts to determine the meaning of expressions such as

pronouns or definite descriptions whose interpretation depends on previously mentioned entities or

discourse segments [emphasis added]. Anaphora resolution is very important in many fields of

computational linguistics such as machine translation, natural language understanding, information

extraction and text generation (Mitkov, 2002).24

Prolo delivers a short but clear explanation about the natural discourse references

introduced with previous expressions, the distinction between anaphor and its antecedent and the

discourse relationship between the two, and then restates in more explicit and detailed terms

what the antecedent or pronoun resolution approach involves:


Anaphora is roughly speaking

1 the phenomenon of making in a discourse abbreviated references to entities

that have been directly or indirectly introduced by a previous expression. The expression used to make the

abbreviated reference is called the anaphor and the previous expression the antecedent. In this paper I

restrict myself to the cases where the anaphor is a pronoun. The concept is illustrated in (1). The occurrence

of the pronoun he makes an anaphoric reference to the discourse entity introduced by the noun phrase

Carlos. Hence he is the anaphor and Carlos is the antecedent. There are two occurrences of the possessive

pronoun its, the first has as antecedent the paper, and the second, as well as the occurrence of it, refers to

the introduction of the paper.

(1) Carlos is writing a paper. Right now he is rewriting its introduction because he is not happy with its

current form. It should be clear enough so that people not familiar with the area can understand at least

the topic the paper is about.

By pronoun resolution I mean the process of finding for each pronoun its antecedent, and the rules

that govern the choice of the antecedent by the hearer/listener are the central point of this problem

that the proposals here discussed try to capture [emphasis added]. 25

The anaphora or pronoun resolution process involves work with multiple and verified

linguistic “constraints” and “preferences” that will allow the scholar to distinguish the true and

genuine noun antecedent from other possible but illegitimate antecedents and resolve the

anaphora or pronoun antecedent issue. Mitkov, professor of Computational Linguistics and

anaphora resolution expert at the British University of Wolverhampton, describes the anaphora

resolution process as follows:

1.3 The process of anaphora resolution

Most of the anaphora resolution systems deal with resolution of anaphors which have noun phrases as their

antecedents because identifying anaphors which have verb phrases, clauses, sentences or even

paragraphs/discourse segments as antecedents, is a more complicated task. Typically, all noun phrases

(NPs) preceding an anaphor are initially regarded as potential candidates for antecedents. Usually, a search

scope has to be identified: most approaches look for NPs in the current and preceding sentence. However,

an “ideal” anaphora resolution system should extend its scope of search: antecedents which are 17

sentences away from the anaphor have already been reported [emphasis added] (Mitkov 1995a)!

Assuming that the scope of search for a specific approach has already been specified, the NPs preceding the

anaphor within that scope are identified as candidates for antecedents and a number of anaphora resolution

factors are employed to track down the correct antecedent.

Approaches to anaphora resolution usually rely on a set of “anaphora resolution factors.” Factors used

frequently in the resolution process include gender and number agreement, c-command constraints,

semantic consistency, syntactic parallelism, semantic parallelism, salience, proximity etc. These factors can

be “eliminating” i.e. discounting certain noun phrases from the set of possible candidates (such as gender

and number constraints3, c-command constraints, semantic consistency) or “preferential,” giving more

preference to certain candidates and less to others (such as parallelism, salience). Computational linguistics

literature uses diverse terminology for these – for example E. Rich and S. LuperFoy (Rich & LuperFoy

1988) refer to the "eliminating" factors as “constraints,” and to the preferential ones as “proposers,”

whereas Carbonell and Brown (Carbonell & Brown 1988) use the terms “constraints” and “preferences.”

Other authors argue that all factors should be regarded as preferential, giving higher preference to more

restrictive factors and lower – to less “absolute” ones, calling them simply “factors” (Preuß et al. 1994),

“attributes” (Rico Pérez 1994), "symptoms" (Mitkov 1995b) or “indicators” (Mitkov 1996a, 1998b).

The division of factors into constraints and preferences has led to distinguishing between constraint-based

and preferences-based architectures in anaphora resolution (Mitkov 1997b).


1.3.1 Constraints

Several constraints will be outlined and illustrated by examples. Coreferential items are given the same

index.

• Gender and number agreement

This constraint requires that anaphors and their antecedents must4 agree in number and gender.

Example:

Janei told Philipk and his friendsm that shei was in love.

• Syntactic binding theories’ constraints

Results in Government and Binding Theory (GB) 5

and Lexical Functional Grammar have provided useful

constraints on the anaphors and their antecedents which have been successfully used in anaphor resolution.

For instance, various GB c-command restrictions have been formulated in (Ingria & Stallard 1989) for

eliminating unacceptable candidates when searching for the antecedent:

(a) A non-pronominal NP cannot overlap in reference with any NP that c-commands it.

Hei told them about Johnj.

(b) The antecedent of a bound anaphor must c-command it.

Johni likes pictures of himselfi.

(c) A personal pronoun cannot overlap in reference with an NP that c-commands it.

Johni told Billj about himk.

• Semantic consistency

This constraint stipulates that if satisfied by the anaphor, semantic consistency constraints must be satisfied

also by its antecedent.

Vincent removed the diskette from the computeri and then disconnected iti.

Vincent removed the diskettei from the computer and then copied iti.

1.3.2 Preferences

Preferences, as opposed to constraints, are not obligatory conditions and therefore do not always hold. We

shall illustrate three preferences: syntactic parallelism, semantic parallelism and center of attention.

• Syntactic parallelism

Syntactic parallelism could be quite helpful when other constraints or preferences are not in a position to

propose an unambiguous antecedent. This preference is given to NPs with the same syntactic function as

the anaphor.

The programmeri successfully combined Prologj with C, but hei had combined itj with Pascal last time.

The programmeri successfully combined Prolog with Cj, but hei had combined Pascal with itj last time.

• Semantic parallelism


This is a useful (and stronger than syntactic parallelism) preference but only systems which can

automatically identify semantic roles, can employ it. It says that NPs which have the same semantic role as

the anaphor, are favoured.

Vincent gave the diskette to Sodyi. Kim also gave himi a letter.

Vincenti gave the diskette to Sody. Hei also gave Kim a letter.

• Centering

Although the syntactic and semantic criteria for the selection of an antecedent are very strong, they are not

always sufficient to distinguish between a set of possible candidates. Moreover, they serve more as filters

to eliminate unsuitable candidates than as proposers of the most likely candidate. In the case of antecedent

ambiguity, it is the most salient element among the candidates for antecedent which is usually the

frontrunner. This most salient element is referred to in computational linguistics as focus (e.g. (Sidner

1979) [sic!] or center6 e.g. (Grosz et al. 83) though the terminology can be much more diverse (Hirst 1981;

Mitkov 1995a).

For instance, neither machines, nor humans, would be able to resolve the anaphoric pronoun “it” in the

sentence

Jenny put the cup on the plate and broke it.

However, if this sentence is part of a discourse segment7 which makes it possible to determine the most

salient element, the situation is different:

Jenny went window shopping yesterday and spotted a nice cup. She wanted to buy it, but she had no money

with her. Nevertheless, she knew she would be shopping the following day, so she would be able to buy the

cup then. The following day, she went to the shop and bought the coveted cup. However, once back home

and in her kitchen, she put the cup on a plate and broke it...

In this discourse segment, “the cup” is the most salient entity and is the center of attention throughout the

discourse segment.

It is now clear that very often when two or more candidates “compete” for the antecedent, the task of

resolving the anaphor is shifted to the task of tracking down the center/focus of the sentence (clause).

Various methods have already been proposed to center/focus tracking (e.g. Brennan et al. 1987; Dahl &

Ball 1990; Mitkov 1994b; Sidner 1986; Stys & Zemke 1995; Walker et al. 92).

However useful the term center (or focus) can be for anaphora resolution, we should point out that it has

suffered from two inconveniences: its intuitive nature and the use of different terms to describe concepts

which either seem to be very close to “center” or even could be considered practically identical (e.g. focus,

topic, theme - for further details please see (Hirst 1981) and (Mitkov 1995a).26

Based on the constraints and preferences data taken from Mitkov27, 28

and other world

experts in anaphora resolution,29, 30, 31, 32, 33

the above-mentioned selection parameters have been

organized into a table that will be used to solve the pronoun resolution issue in Daniel 8:8-9. The

biblical texts that will be considered in the anaphora or pronoun resolution process come from

the English KJV translation and are included below:

KJV7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the

ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down

to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.


KJV8

Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it

came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven [emphasis added].

KJV9 And out of one of them [emphasis added] came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,

toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

KJV10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to

the ground, and stamped upon them.

The various constraints and preferences that will allow the distinction and separation

between the true and legitimate noun antecedents and other possible but illegitimate antecedents

in the anaphora or pronoun resolution process have been organized into the table below that will

facilitate the resolution process and provide an overall perspective on the linguistic approach:

Anaphora Resolution in Daniel 8:8-9

Resolution Parameters

Little Horn From

“Them” (“Notable

Ones [Horns]”)

Little Horn From

“Them” (“Winds of

Heaven”)

Linguistic Data on the

Parameters

Constraints

The constraints are used to

eliminate certain noun phrases

(NPs) from the set of possible

antecedent candidates.

1. Number Agreement

+

Number agreement.

+

Number agreement.

This constraint requires that the

anaphor and its antecedent

should agree in number.

2. Gender Agreement

+

Gender neutralization.

+

Gender agreement.



should agree in gender.

3. Person Agreement

+

Person agreement.

+

Person agreement.



should agree in person.

4. Case Agreement

+

Construct relation.

+

Construct relation.



should agree in case.

5. Syntactic Constraints

+

Outside local domain.

+

Outside local domain.

The pronouns choose their

antecedents outside of their local

domain.

6. Selectional Restrictions

+

Direction mentioned.

-

Direction not mentioned.

A verb places restrictions on its

arguments.

7. Semantic consistency

+

Antecedent consistent.

_

Antecedent inconsistent.

If satisfied by the anaphor,

semantic consistency constraints

must be satisfied also by its

antecedent.

8. Recency

+

Both entities recent.

+

Both entities recent.

Entities introduced recently are

more salient than those

introduced before.

9. Grammatical Role

+

“Horns” more salient.

-

“Winds” less salient.

Entities mentioned in subject

position are more salient than

those in object position.

a. Subject Position

+

Subject position.

-

Object position.

From the list of potential

candidates, the subject of the

previous sentence (clause) is the

preferred antecedent.


b. Object Position

-

Subject position.

+

Object position.

From list of potential candidates,

the subject of the previous

sentence (clause) is the preferred

antecedent; the second preferred

antecedent is the direct object.

c. Genitive Position

+

Construct relation.

+

Construct relation.

From the list of potential

candidates the subject of the

previous sentence (clause) is the

preferred antecedent; the second

preferred antecedent is the direct

object. The third preferred

antecedent is in the genitive

position.

Preferences

While the constraints rule out

the implausible candidates, the

preferences emphasize the

proper selection of the most

likely antecedent.

1. Syntactic Parallelism

+

Subject – Subject.

-

Subject – Object.

This preference is given to the

entities with the same syntactic

function as the anaphor.

2. Semantic Parallelism

+

Parallelism present.

-

Parallelism absent.

The favored antecedents are

those that have the same

semantic role as the anaphor.

3. Verb Semantics

+

No semantic emphasis.

+

No semantic emphasis.

Certain verbs appear to place a

semantically-oriented emphasis

on one of their argument

positions.

4. Repeated Mention

+

“Horns” are repeated.

-

“Winds” not repeated.

Entities that have been focused

on in the prior discourse are

more salient.

5. World Knowledge

+

Factual agreement.

-

Factual disagreement.

A horn cannot grow greater than

the animal on which it sits.

6. Distance

-

Furthest possible

antecedent.

+

Nearest possible

antecedent.

Candidates from the previous

clause or sentence are preferred.

7. Animate

+

“Horns” more sentient.

-

“Winds” less sentient.

Animate (sentient) entities are

more salient that inanimate

entities.

Discourse Center

+

The horns are the

discourse center.

-

The winds are not the

discourse center.

Certain discourse entities are

more central than the others.

The anaphora resolution table submitted above shows that the two possible antecedents

to “them” – the “notable ones [horns],” and the “winds of heaven” – obtain similar values for

number, gender, person, case, syntactic constraints, and recency, but that these two potential

antecedents differ concerning their grammatical roles (“horns” is the sentence subject, while

“winds” is the sentence object), syntactic parallelism (the term “horn” is parallel to “horn,” while

the term “horn” is not parallel to “wind”), repeated mention (“horn” is repeated in Daniel 8:8-9,

while “wind” is never repeated in the texts), world knowledge (a “horn” cannot grow greater

than the animal on which it sits), animation (horns are animated, while winds are not), and

discourse center (“horn” is the discourse center, while “wind” is an adverbial and therefore

peripheral). For these multiple reasons it is obvious that “wind” (verse 8) cannot be the


legitimate and actual antecedent for the little “horn” (verse 9) and that the preferred and

acceptable antecedent must be a “notable horn.”

False Claims about Horn’s Origin

The biblical and linguistic evidence submitted in this document’s section shows that the

SDA historicist apologetics on the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8 is unscientific and

inadequate, and that the speculative idea that the little horn came out of a fictional “wind” or out

of “heaven” is not credible. Plain and natural textual interpretation that avoids wild speculations

and tendentious dogmatic conclusions indicates that the little horn originates in one of the

notable horns from the prophetic narrative:

KJV8 Therefore the he-goat [Sentence subject, Center] waxed [Verb] very great [Adverbial of manner]: and

when he was strong [Adverbial clause of manner], the great horn [Sentence subject – Center] was broken

[Verb]; and for it [Adverbial of place] came up [Verb] four notable ones [Sentence subject – Center]

toward the four winds of heaven [Adverbial phrase of place].

KJV9 And out of one of them [Adverbial phrase of place] came forth [Verb] a little horn, [Sentence

Subject – Center] which waxed [Verb] exceeding great [Adverbial of manner] toward the south, and

toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land = supplied] [Adverbials of place].

The text’s propositional content is so clear, unambiguous, and obvious, that all the

pseudo-historicist forced “exegesis” that attempts to reach a different conclusion and argue that

the little horn in Daniel 8 originates from a “wind” appears manufactured and implausible

because it is based on multiple and fanciful assumptions, speculations, and deductions, and

therefore needs to be discarded as invalid, unauthentic, and unreliable.


V. False Claims against Antiochus

Biased SDA Historicist Theologians

The idea that Antiochus IV Epiphanes might be the little horn in Daniel 8 has been

considered an abomination in the SDA church, and all efforts have been made to oppose and

dispute this notion, and to intimidate and “discipline” the SDA scholars and church members

who dared to propose or even entertain such a “heretical” thought. In this document section we

will review arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes that have been compiled from known

SDA historicist theologians such as Gane, Pröbstle, Pfandl, the SDABC scholars, Smith, the

QOD authors, and Shea.

Roy Gane

Gane advances three main arguments against the “unorthodox” perspective that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8. His arguments revolve around the little

horn’s origin and its exploits. Argues the SDA historicist:

Several points justify our rejecting the interpretation that Daniel 8:9 predicts the rise and career of

Antiochus:

1. The “them” in “out of one of them” at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest

antecedent: the immediately preceding “four winds of heaven” at the end of verse 8. So the little horn need

not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the directions toward which

Alexander’s kingdom was divided. This agrees with our previous conclusion that the little horn in Daniel 7

is a Roman power.

2. In Daniel 8, the Medo-Persian ram “magnified himself” (verse 4), Alexander’s Greek goat “magnified

himself exceedingly” (verse 8), and the little horn “grew exceedingly great” (verse 9). Antiochus never

achieved a “greatness” comparable to that of Alexander the Great or even Media-Persia.

3. The earthly powers in Daniel 8 replace each other: Media-Persia gives way to Alexander’s united Greek

kingdom, which, in turn, divides into the four Greek kingdoms, and they yield to the little horn which is

presented as a separate empire. Antiochus did not replace another kingdom in this way. Rather, he was

simply part of one of the four Greek kingdoms.1

Laiu2 has provided relevant biblical examples that demonstrate that the “nearest

antecedent” claim is unscientific and fallacious and that its across-the-board application would

produce absolute exegetical nonsense. The “Little Horn Anaphora Resolution” linguistic

discussion in the previous section of this document has also presented reliable evidence that there

is no true linguistic basis for the “nearest antecedent” assumption. Gane’s third apologetic

contention that in Daniel 8 the little horn is “presented as a separate empire,” disregards the

important fact that chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10-12 in Daniel are parallel and expand on one

another. His interpretation is forced, inconsistent, breaks the parallelism between the above

chapters, and has no true scientific and theological merit.

Martin Pröbstle

Pröbstle, a SDA historicist who claims to be a linguistics expert and wrote the Sabbath

School Guide for the fourth semester 2013 saturated with dogmatic speculations and theological

nonsense against the Seleucid king, proposes six apologetic arguments against the notion that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes could be the little horn in Daniel 8:


Contrary to the majority of scholars, the horn power in Daniel 8 does not refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes

in the second century B.C., but to Rome.2 There are several reasons for such a view:

1. Antiochus IV was a king of the Seleucid kingdom that is already represented by one of the four horns of

the he-goat (Dan. 8:8). The little horn, however, does not stem from those horns, but “came forth” from one

of the directions of the compass, as contextual, literal-structural, and semantic considerations suggest.3

2. The growth and self-magnification of the horn is much greater than that of the previous powers.

Antiochus IV was never more powerful than Greece or Medo-Persia, but Rome was.

3. Since the little horn functions on the same structural level as the ram (Medo-Persia) and the he-goat

(Greece), we must therefore identify it historically as Rome, which followed the kingdoms of Medo-Persia

(verse 20) and Greece (verse 21). Though imperial Rome might be included, the horns symbol clearly

represents papal Rome and its religious war, the primary focus of the vision.

4. Striking parallels between the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 show that they represent the same power. In

Daniel 7 the horn and its characteristics clearly point to the Roman Church,4 so must the horn in Daniel 8.

5. The temporal sequence of the kingdoms in Daniel 7 and 8 indicates that the power represented by the

little horn should originate from within imperial Rome (the fourth animal in Daniel 7) and extend to the

end-time. Note the similarities between the bear (two sides, three ribs, devouring much flesh) and the ram

(two horns, three directions of attack, no other beast could stand against it), and between the leopard (four

winds, four heads) and the he-goat (without touching the ground, four horns).

6. Jesus suggested that the abomination of Desolation was still future in His time (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27),

thus not supporting the view that Antiochus IV was the desolater mentioned in Daniel.3

The evidence seems to run counter to Pröbstle’s claims. There is no adequate linguistic

support for the absurd idea that the little horn originates “from one of the directions of the

compass.” Ample evidence, instead, has been provided to show that his pseudo-linguistic claim

is based on sheer will power and wild speculations unverified and unconfirmed from reliable

factual data. The biblical text is clear and unmistakable that the little horn is a Greek horn

because it arose from one of the notable horns that resulted from the disintegration and division

of Alexander’s empire, and the factual historical evidence that supports that interpretation cannot

be ignored or refuted with, logical, intelligent, and empirical counterarguments.

The bizarre assumption that the “growth and self-magnification of the horn is much

greater than that of the previous power”4 is another speculation based on an a priori text

interpretation from a historicist position, and so is the undocumented notion that “the little horn

functions on the same structural level as the ram (Medo-Persia) and the he-goat (Greece).”5 One

wonders: How large can an animal horn grow? Could the “little horn” in Daniel 7 have grown

greater than the fourth beast in the same chapter? Could the “little horn” in Daniel 8 have grown

larger than the he-goat that carried it? That some SDA theologians have come to believe that the

little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 could have grown larger than the animal heads that originated and

carried them, and even larger than the beasts themselves, is abundant evidence for the desperate

SDA historicist attempts to support and protect an indefensible theological position with

groundless and irrational arguments.

There are no “striking parallels” between the two little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 that would

provide evidence that the horns are identical. In fact, the absolute opposite is true, as we have

shown in a previous section of this document. The little horns are different and distinct prophetic

entities. The similarities between them are incidental. While the little horn in Daniel 7 might


point to Rome, there is irrefutable evidence that the other little horn in Daniel 8 represents

Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Pröbstle’s claim that the “temporal sequence of the kingdoms in Daniel

7 and 8” suggests that “the power represented by the little horn should originate from within

imperial Rome”6 is another unscientific and frivolous speculation. The QOD writers had warned

about five decades before that to confuse the two prophetic little horns means to “become

involved in irreconcilable difficulties”7 [emphasis added], but Pröbstle is too overconfident and

arrogant to heed their admonition.

The SDA theologian does not seem to be too keen in biblical interpretation, or otherwise

he would not claim that because “Jesus suggested that the abomination of Desolation was still

future in His time” He also denied “the view that Antiochus IV was the desolator mentioned in

Daniel.”8 Such a claim is, again, based on a presumptive historicist interpretation of Daniel and

the Gospels. A short search through the SDABC would indicate that Antiochus IV Epiphanes

and the “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15 are not mutually exclusive but rather

successive socio-political events and that Antiochus’s desecration of the Maccabean temple

could have well preceded the later desolation of the Herodian temple by the Roman legions:

Further, inasmuch as this third view maintains that the little horn is a symbol of imperial Rome as well as

of papal Rome (see on vs. 9, 13), predictions concerning its activities may also be understood as applying

to pagan Rome, as well as to papal Rome. Thus the “daily” may also refer to the earthly Temple and its

services, and the taking away of the “daily” to the desolation of the Temple by Roman legions in A.D.

70 and the consequent cessation of the sacrificial services [emphasis added]. It was this aspect of the

activity of “the abomination of desolation” to which Christ referred in His delineation of future events (see

on Dan. 11:31; cf. Matt. 24:15–20; Luke 21:20).9

Gerhard Pfandl

The former BRI associate director and high-handed historicist seems to reserve the right

to make ex cathedra pronouncements based on mere dilettante and improvised personal

impressions. His arrogance and overconfidence pervade his gratuitous arguments against

Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He states:

Most modern Bible scholars interpret the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 as the Syrian king Antiochus IV

Epiphanes (175-163 B.C). In 168 B.C., after a successful campaign against Egypt, Antiochus IV returned

home via Judea and encountered an insurrection in progress. He put down the rebellion by massacring

thousands of Jewish men, women, and children (2 Macc. 5:12-14). A year later he invaded Egypt again.

This time, however, he underwent a humiliating experience when during his march on Alexandria the

Roman legate G. Pompilius Laenas handed him a letter from the Roman Senate ordering him to leave

Egypt. To add insult to injury, Pompilius Laenas arrogantly drew a circle around Antiochus and demanded

that he respond before stepping outside the circle. Knowing the might of Rome, Antiochus had to

acquiesce. He then vented his anger on the Jews. Attempting to make Palestine a Syrian province, he tried

to compel the Jews “to abandon their ancestral customs and live no longer by the laws of God” (2 Macc.

6:1). If they did not reject their heritage they would face death. Then he desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem

by dedicating it to Olympian Zeus and sacrificing unclean animals on its altar (verses 1-5). His persecution

of the Jews led to the Maccabean revolt and the eventual rededication of the Temple on the twenty-fifth of

Chislev (December), 164 B.C.

Seventh-day Adventists identify the little horn in Daniel as pagan and papal Rome. They reject the equation

of the little horn with Antiochus IV for several reasons: 1. The little horn came up among 10 horns (Dan.

7:8), but Antiochus did not emerge among 10 Hellenistic kings. He was the eight king in the Seleucid

kingdom, which had 28 kings during its existence. 2. The vision in Daniel has three horns plucked up


before it (verse 8). Antiochus IV did not uproot three kings. 3. The little horn became greater than the other

horns (verse 20). Clearly Antiochus IV was not greater than the other kings of his time. In fact, the

presence of the Roman ambassador Pompilius Laenas was sufficient to cause Antiochus IV to withdraw

from Egypt. 4. The saints were given into his hands for three and a half times/years (verse 25). According

to 1 Maccabees 1:57 and 4:52-54, the desecration of the Temple lasted only three years and 10 days. 5. The

ram (Persia) became great (Dan. 8:4); the goat (Greece) grew very great (verse 8); and the little horn grew

exceedingly great (verse 9). At no time was Antiochus IV greater than Medo-Persia or Greece.

A study of the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 indicates a strong parallelism between them: 1. Both horns are

little in the beginning (Dan. 7:8; 8:9). 2. Both become great later on (Dan. 7:20; 8:9ff.). 3. Both are

persecuting powers (Dan. 7:21, 25; 8:10, 24). 4. Both are self-exacting and blasphemous (Dan. 7:8, 20, 25;

8:10, 11, 25). 5. Both target God’s people (Dan. 7:25; 8:24). 6. Both have aspects of their activity

delineated by prophetic time (Dan. 7:25; 8:13, 14). 7. Both extend until the time of the end (Dan. 7:25, 26;

8:17, 19). 8. And both face supernatural destruction (Dan. 7:11, 26; 8:25).

Since in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolism clearly points to the Papacy, the little horn in Daniel 8 must

refer to the same power. The only difference between the two chapters is that in Daniel 8 the little horn

symbolizes pagan Rome (Dan. 8:9, 10) as well as papal Rome (verses 11, 12).10

Pfandl’s arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes include distorted and concocted

historical accounts, speculative historicist assumptions, and biblical text misinterpretations, while

in the meantime he manages to confirm with factual evidence that Antiochus is indeed the little

horn in Daniel 8. His pseudo-historical narrative looks infantile even to those readers who are not

familiar with the Jewish history. He claims, for instance, that the mere “presence of the Roman

ambassador Pompilius was sufficient to cause Antiochus IV to withdraw from Egypt” and

ignores the fact that the ambassador had behind him the imperial power to deliver on the threats

he had made. He also states that after his encounter with the Pompilius Antiochus IV “vented his

anger on the Jews,” and then, “attempting to make Palestine a Syrian province” he forced the

Jews to abandon their religion. The historical record, though, disputes Pfandl’s nonsensical and

emotional claims. Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not have to pressure the Jews to abandon their

religion in order to turn Palestine into a Syrian Province. The troops under his command were

sufficient for that purpose. Also, that his actions against the Jews extended far beyond a mere

childish temper tantrum is shown in his organized and persistent efforts to eliminate the Jewish

religion and to obliterate all the elements of religious tradition from their social life at the public

and personal level.

The BRI pseudo-historicist manages to confuse the little horn in Daniel 7 with the little

horn in Daniel 8, and does so with the insolence and condescension that have been his constant

trademark. Most of his claims against Antiochus IV Epiphanes are based on this mix-up, and are

useless. The biblical and historical evidence that the two horns are distinct and separate has been

presented in this document and is irrefutable. For this reason, it would be irrelevant to argue that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not the little horn in Daniel 8 because it fails to meet the prophetic

criteria in Daniel 7. All that matters is how Antiochus IV meets the prophetic and historical

criteria in chapter 8. Pfandl’s false assumption that “since in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolism

clearly points to the Papacy, the little horn in Daniel 8 must refer to the same power” because

“the only difference between the two chapters is that in Daniel 8 the little horn symbolizes pagan

Rome (Dan. 8:9, 10) as well as papal Rome (verses 11, 12)”11

is not based on empirical historical

evidence but on uninformed personal speculations, and is worthless.


The SDABC Scholars

The SDABC scholars have struggled to demonstrate that “a careful examination of the

prophecy makes evident the incompleteness with which this Seleucid king fulfilled the

[prophetic] specifications set forth,” and that for this reason Antiochus IV could not be the little

horn in Daniel 8. Their claims are as follows:

A number of commentators have set forth the view that the “little horn” power of ch. 8 symbolizes the

career of Antiochus Epiphanes (see on ch. 11:14). However, a careful examination of the prophecy makes

evident the incompleteness with which this persecuting Seleucid king fulfilled the specifications set forth.

The four horns of the goat (ch. 8:8) were kingdoms (v. 22), and it is natural to expect the little horn to be a

kingdom also. But Antiochus was only one king of the Seleucid empire, hence was a part of one horn.

Therefore he could not be another complete horn. Further, this horn grew great toward the south, the east,

and the pleasant land of Palestine (v. 9). Antiochus’ advance into Egypt ended in humiliation from the

Romans, his successes in Palestine were short-lived, and his push to the east was cut short by his death. His

policy of enforced Hellenism utterly failed, nor did his craft bring him outstanding prosperity (v. 12).

Furthermore, Antiochus did not come at the latter end (v. 23), but about the middle of the period of the

divided Hellenistic kingdoms; his might could hardly be attributed to anything but his own power (v. 22);

his craft and policy failed more than they prospered (v. 25); he did not stand up against any Jewish “Prince

of princes” (v. 25); his casting of the truth to the ground (v. 12) was temporary and completely

unsuccessful, for it drove the Jews to the defense of their faith against Hellenism. Even though he spoke

proud words, oppressed the people of God, and briefly desecrated the Temple, and though some other

points might be argued for as partly true of his activities, nevertheless the inadequacy of Antiochus as a

fulfillment of many specifications of the prophecy is obvious. See further on v. 14; chs. 9:25; 11: 31.12

The contention that “a number of commentators [emphasis added] have set forth the

view that the ‘little horn’ power of ch. 8 symbolizes the career of Antiochus Epiphanes”

misrepresents the facts. The bare truth is that except for the SDA theologians all the respectable

scholars share in the position that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the true and legitimate horn in

Daniel 8. The unbiased “examination of the prophecy” uncovers undeniable historical evidence

that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8 and that there are no real facts that

support the notion that Rome is the little horn. For the most part, the SDA historicist theologians

depend on distorted and invented pseudo-historical accounts to support their case for Rome. The

fact that Antiochus IV enforced Hellenism on the Jews, that he forbade them to continue in their

religious rites, that he “spoke proud words, oppressed the people of God, and briefly desecrated

the temple,” is clear evidence that he more than fulfilled the prophetic requirements. To ignore

and discard all these factual and undisputable historical fulfillments and claim that what

Antiochus IV Epiphanes did against the Jews has no relevance and significance for the

interpretation of Daniel 8 exposes an obtuse and pernicious attitude that denies all the facts that

conflict with its dogmas.

Uriah Smith

The depressed Millerite and semi-recovered SDA popular historicist theologian makes

some extreme arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His theological vision is so damaged

and reduced that he squashes all the evidence that challenges his dogmatic position and pushes

forward with his urgent personal agenda. His immodest self-assurance and arrogance, common

to most SDA theologians, are too obvious when he makes the triumphalist claim that “it has been

an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus.” Here are his arguments:


1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of

Alexander’s empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the

Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was

Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian

horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence he could not be at the same time a separate

and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was.

2. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be

applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means

sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious, he was illustrious only

in name; for nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be

more alien to his true character; for, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool

and others a madman, they changed his name of Epiphanes, “The Illustrious,” into Epimanes, “The

Madman.”

3. Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being terribly defeated in a war with the Romans, was

enabled to produce peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money, and the surrender of a

portion of his territory; and, as a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was

obliged to give hostages, among whom was this very Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The

Romans ever after maintained this ascendency.

4. The little horn waxed exceedingly great; but this Antiochus did not wax exceedingly great; on the

contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he

immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist from

his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the unoffending Jews.

5. The little horn, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, was exceedingly great. Persia is simply

called great, though it reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Esther 1:1. Grecia, being more

extensive still, is called very great. Now the little horn, which waxed exceeding great, must surpass them

both. How absurd, then, to apply this to Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of

the Romans, to whom he paid enormous sums of money as tribute. The Religious Encyclopedia gives us

this item of his history: “Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to levy tribute, and

collect large sums which he had agreed to pay the Romans.” It cannot take long for anyone to decide the

question which was the greater power, – the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one that commanded that

evacuation; the one which exacted tribute, or the one which was compelled to pay it.

7. The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond

controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four

years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfill the

specifications in one single particular. The question may then be asked how any one has ever come to apply

it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and

many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that the Second Advent of Christ is now at

hand.13

One notices from the start that Smith attempts to minimize and even negate at all costs

the Seleucid king’s historical relevance because Antiochus IV Epiphanes, claims the uninformed

SDA pioneer, is “simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the

goat,” and is not allowed a horn of his own. Smith claims that the little horn should be “applied

to the most powerful and illustrious of them [Syrian kings] all,” but the dogmatic historicist fails

to indicate who could be that “illustrious” Syrian king, although he manages to provide sufficient

evidence that Antiochus IV was notorious enough to promote himself among all the other Syrian

kings and make a name for himself in the Jewish religious records. The next hopeless argument

in Smith’s apologetic arsenal seems to be both illogical and redundant. If the SDA inexpert

theologian means that the Romans maintained control over Antiochus IV even after the future


king left Rome, Smith fails to demonstrate how that issue would prevent the Seleucid king from

being the little horn in Daniel 8.

There should be no doubt now, after we have examined Smith’s claims, that the notorious

SDA pioneer lives in absolute denial of exegetical and historical facts and that all the evidence

he sees is the one that confirms his personal ideas. It is obvious that he ignores all the opposed

interpretation alternatives when he states that “he [Antiochus] does not fulfill the specifications

in one single particular.” To make such an irrational and absurd claim necessitates more than

extreme overconfidence and total ineptitude. It requires the absolute intellectual blindness that

will not be persuaded with true facts no matter how undeniable those facts are.

Arguments 3, 4, and 5 appear to indicate that Smith is obsessed with the outdated English

term “exceeding” and argues that “this Antiochus did not wax exceeding great.” The best current

definition for the dated and seldom used English word is, according to the OED, 14

“an amount

(of funds, goods, etc.) in excess of calculation, or of what is usual; an excess, a surplus.” The

confused SDA pioneer seems to make the illogical claim that Rome, as the genuine and authentic

little horn has grown “in excess.” One wonders what “in excess” would mean, how could that

little horn grow “in excess,” and compared to what. Does the little horn in Daniel 8 grow larger

than the he-goat that carries the horn? Does the little horn grow greater and larger than the four

beasts that populate the vision in Daniel 7?

It becomes clear that the SDA pioneer fails to recognize the absurd claims he makes, and

continues with his irrational description of a horn larger than unbroken logic would allow. The

obvious conclusion is that while for a short time the KJV translation might have been acceptable

for the English Bible readers, at this time the antiquated and illogical phrase “waxed exceeding

great” makes no sense and fails to provide the proper rendition of the Hebrew text for the current

readers. It should, therefore, be abandoned and discarded for a modern and much more correct

translation, while the absurd claim that the little horn grows larger than the he-goat that carries it

should be treated as another eccentric pseudo-historicist SDA speculation.

Smith’s pernicious influence on some other SDA historicist theologians becomes more

than evident when one recalls that Pfandl’s twisted and distorted pseudo-historical narrative

about Antiochus IV Epiphanes includes the absurd note that “He [Antiochus] then vented his

anger on the Jews” – which echoes Smith’s previous allegation that “the rage of his disappointed

ambition he [Antiochus IV] vented upon the unoffending Jews.” The SDA pioneer’s claim is that

the Seleucid king could not “stand up against the Prince of princes,” and this seems more than

enough to prove that Antiochus IV has flunked the prophetic test. The inexpert dogmatist,

though, fails to inform his readers who would be the better historical character that meets such

specific prophetic criterion. It is apparent that Smith must have been in some anomalous and

illogical religious fervor when he wrote his arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and that

the real and material world failed to appeal to him at that time.

The QOD Theologians

The QOD doctrinaire writers have suggested an extensive list of arguments against

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and some SDA theologians have returned from time to time to that list


in order to compile their “original” and “innovative” personal arguments against the Seleucid

king. These undocumented and untested claims have been organized in three main sections:

1. - “3. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 7 NOT MET,”

2. - “4. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 8 NOT MET,” and

3. - “5. TIME SPECIFICATIONS FAIL FOR BOTH DANIEL 7 AND 8”

[emphasis in the original].

Hewitt has provided ample evidence that the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot be mistaken

for the little horn in Daniel 8. These two horns are distinct and separate, and the QOD authors

hold the same perspective on the issue. While the traditional protestant theologians have

interpreted the little horn in Daniel 7 to be the papal Rome, there has been no doubt in the same

learned theological circles that the little horn in Daniel 8 designates the Seleucid king, Antiochus

IV Epiphanes. Hewitt’s arguments that support the distinction between the two little horns stand

on solid empirical evidence. For this reason, the Seleucid king does not have to meet the

prophetic criteria for the little horn in Daniel 7 as the QOD writers expect, but should meet the

criteria for the little horn in Daniel 8. The QOD authors, though, are confused in this matter and

also propose unrealistic expectations for Antiochus IV Epiphanes, an issue that indicates

theological ignorance and exegetical ineptitude, as the QOD arguments below demonstrate:

4. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 8 NOT MET

The view that makes Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8, which becomes “exceeding great,” must also be

examined. There is a tempting plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come “out of one of” the

four horn kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Macedonian goat. Nevertheless, even aside from the fact that

there is a difference of opinion as to whether “out of one of them” means out of one of the horn kingdoms

or out of one of “the four winds” (verses 8, 9) – i.e., one of the four directions of the compass – there are

obstacles to considering Antiochus an adequate fulfillment of the prophetic specifications.

a. In the first place, Antiochus was not a “horn.” The four horns of the goat were “four kingdoms” (verse

22), the largest of which was the Seleucid (or Syrian) kingdom. Antiochus was not a separate horn, or

kingdom, but one of the kings of the Seleucid horn, and hence a part of one of the horns.

b. Antiochus did not wax “exceeding great” (verse 9) in comparison with the Greco-Macedonian empire of

Alexander (verse 8). Antiochus was not even the most powerful king of the Seleucid division of

Alexander's empire.

c. Antiochus hardly grew exceeding great through conquest (verse 9). His push to “the south” into Egypt

was stopped by the mere word of a Roman officer; his expedition to “the east” resulted in his death; and his

dominion of “the pleasant land” of Palestine did not last, for his persecution of the Jews drove them to

resistance that later resulted in their independence.

d. The horn’s fury against “the host of heaven” (verse 10), who are evidently equated with “the mighty and

the holy people” (verse 24), is plausibly a reference to Antiochus' persecution of the Jews. However, if the

specifications point rather to another power that also persecuted the people of God, this verse cannot be

decisive.

e. Against what “prince of the host” (verse 11) or “Prince of princes” (verse 25) did Antiochus stand? A

mere Jewish priest is hardly such a figure; “Prince of princes” could be only an unusual designation for

God or Christ, whose worship he attacked.


f. Antiochus did take away the “daily sacrifice” to the true God, though he did not abolish the Temple

sacrifices; he substituted others in honor of heathen gods. However, he only desecrated “the place of his

sanctuary”; it was not “cast down” until the Romans destroyed it in AD. 70.

g. His attempts to “cast down the truth” (verse 12) were unsuccessful. The net result of his persecution was

to strengthen the truth by uniting the Jews against the Hellenization of Judaism.

h. Though Antiochus was not a weak king, his ambitious policy can scarcely be said to have “Practised, and

prospered” (verses 12; compare verse 24), nor did his “craft ... prosper in his hand” (verse 25) in attaining

his ends.

i. The attempts to reckon the 2300 days (verse 14) as the literal period of Antiochus’ desecration of the

Temple fail in making the chronology fit, any of the sources (see p. 330, Sec. 6).

j. Antiochus did not reign “in the latter time of” the Hellenistic kingdoms of Alexander's empire (verse 23),

but nearly in the middle of the period.

k. Antiochus was “fierce” toward the Jews, but was not noted for understanding dark sentences – (verse

23).

1. His “power” was not outstandingly “mighty,” nor can it be said that it was “not by his own power”

(verse 24). At least such phrases give no particular confirmation to the identification of Antiochus.

m. Antiochus was not “broken without hand” (verse 25); there is no suggestion of anything miraculous or

mysterious about either his failure with the Jews or his death.

n. To find, as some do, the Papacy as the little horn in chapter 7, and Antiochus as the little horn in chapter

8, is to throw the two prophecies out of balance – to interfere with the obvious parallel between the two

series of world powers presented (see p. 335). If chapter 7 follows the sequence from Babylon through

Persia, Alexander's empire, and his divided successors, on through the Roman Empire and the Papacy

down to the judgment, then chapter 8, which begins with Persia, one step later, should cover the same

sequence – Persia, Alexander, the four horn-kingdoms that grew out of his empire, and then another horn,

obviously another kingdom. To preserve the obvious parallel, this horn should logically be the next world

power after the Hellenistic monarchies, namely Rome; and we should expect the scope of the prophecy to

be similar to that of chapter 7, that is, extending to the end, when the horn would be broken without hand.

(This does not mean that the two little horns are in all respects identical; see p. 337).

Although certain details of this prophecy of Daniel 8 might be considered applicable to the activities of

Antiochus, yet the figure of that ruler, with his moderate successes and outstanding failures, is entirely too

small to fill the picture.

5. TIME SPECIFICATIONS FAIL FOR BOTH DANIEL 7 AND 8

The sources cited for the time specifications of both little horns are themselves in hopeless conflict. Thus,

as to Daniel 7, the activities of Antiochus do not meet the time demands of the prophecy. Despite the

claims of proponents to the contrary, according to 1 Maccabees 1:54, 59 and 4:52, Antiochus suppressed

the Jewish sacrifices exactly three literal years. But this does not comport with the demand of Daniel 7:25

for three and one-half “times,” which are generally recognized as involving 1260 prophetic days.*

Furthermore, Josephus, two centuries later – in conflict with the Maccabean record – says (Wars i. 1. 1)

that the episode lasted three and one-half years, though elsewhere (Antiquities xii. 7. 6) he contradicts

himself by saying it was three years to the day! But more than that, he neutralizes both of these statements

in his Preface to Wars when he imperturbably states that it was actually three years and three months. So

one cancels out the others. There is thus hopeless conflict and contradiction in the sources themselves.

Furthermore, all attempts to equate the 1260 days of the little horn (of Dan. 7:24, 25) with the 2300 days, or

“evenings-mornings,” of Daniel 8:14 – or with 1150 days, if 2300 be divided by two, as some insist – are


plainly forced. They constitute only an approximation, for 2300 days (or 1150) assuredly do not equal

1260. And conversely, the 1260 days of Daniel 7 certainly do not equate with the 2300 “half days,” or 1150

“full days,” of Daniel 8. One number cannot be accommodated to meet the demands of the others. That is

too great a stretch – for the figures are not elastic. Quite apart from the year-day principle, fixing upon one

number clearly rules out the others. So all are out, under such a scheme.

We concur with Bishop Thomas Newton (Dissertations on the Prophecies, 1796, p. 217), who in the

eighteenth century wisely wrote:

These two thousand and three hundred days, can by no computation be accommodated to the times of

Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the days be taken for natural days. And Dean F. W. Farrar, though

personally holding the Antiochus theory, admits that “no minute certainty about the exact dates is

attainable” (The Book of Daniel, 1895, p. 266). And he freely confesses, “By no reasonable supposition can

we arrive at close accuracy.” – Ibid., p. 264.*

And a half century ago Dr. Charles H. H. Wright, of Trinity College, Dublin and Oxford (Daniel and His

Prophecies, 1906, p. 186), declared, on the 2300 day calculations of Daniel 8:

All efforts, however, to harmonize the period, whether expounded as 2300 days or as 1150 days, with any

precise historical epoch mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees or in Josephus have proved futile.

Indeed, Dr. Wright goes so far as to say:

No satisfactory interpretation has been given of the 2300 days regarded as referring to Maccabean times. It

is quite possible that those 2300 days may be a period of prophetic days or [literal] years which have still to

run their course – Ibid., p. 190.*

But quite apart from these inconsistent and contrasting features as to the exact timing, the interpretation of

the three and one-half times (1260 days), or the 2300 days, as simply that number of literal days violates

the fundamental law of symbolism – which is that all symbols stand for something other than the object or

item used as the symbol. Thus the “beasts” of Daniel 7 and 8 symbolize not literal beasts but specified

nations. Similarly, the attendant time features must stand for some time measurement other than the actual

unit used in the prophetic portrayal. Thus in symbolic time prophecy a prophetic day stands for an actual

year in literal fulfillment. (See Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6.) Therefore the 2300 days could not stand for the

same number of literal days, but for that number of years. Consequently, anyone who insists that Antiochus

is symbolized by the little horn violates the basic principle of symbolism, by literalizing the inseparable

time factor. (See Questions 25 and 26.) 15

The QOD arguments listed above suffer from a common fault – no true historical support

for the claim that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails to meet the SDA assumed “SPECIFICATIONS

OF DANIEL 8” [emphasis in the original]. While the QOD scholars must acknowledge in the

preamble to their arguments the undeniable genuine historical evidence that “there is a tempting

plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come ‘out of one of’ the four kingdoms in the

head of the Greco-Macedonian goat,” their immediate dogmatic reaction is to dismiss the truth

and launch into a series of speculations about what the prophetic text in Daniel 8 should mean

from their pseudo-historicist perspective. Their initial attempt (point a.) is to negate that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes is a horn based on the idea that the Seleucid king “was not a separate

horn or kingdom,” although the angel Gabriel identifies the little horn with such words in Daniel

8:23 and Daniel 11:21. Instead, later in the chapter, the QOD writers claim that Imperial Rome

meets better the prophetic criteria for the little horn. Their interpretation, though, breaks the

parallelism between chapters 7 and 8. In both chapters, the world empires are shown as great

beasts, and the kings and kingdoms as horns, therefore the little horn in Daniel 8 could not be the

Rome that had been depicted in Daniel 7 as a beast.


The next two QOD arguments (claims b. and c.) are based on three exegetical fallacies

that Carson identifies and denounces as “appeal to selective evidence (all the opposite evidence

is ignored or suppressed),”16

“uncontrolled historical reconstruction (the actual historical record

is distorted in order to introduce bogus evidence for a certain viewpoint),”17

“and cavalier

dismissal (all the other views are written off, but not argued against with accurate and reliable

evidence).”18

For these claims, the QOD historicist authors must depend on the archaic and

outdated King James (further, KJV) Bible in order to argue their point and ignore all the modern

Bible translations because these much more correct, accurate, and reliable Old Testament

[further, OT] Hebrew-English translations fail to support a speculative SDA interpretation for

Daniel 8 and cannot be used to sell the dogmatic and spurious SDA prophetic speculations.

The SDA theologians have strained ad nauseam the implausible notion that the little horn

in Daniel 8 “waxed exceeding great” (verse 9), and that because “Antiochus did not ‘wax

exceeding great’” he cannot be the little horn in Daniel 8. Besides the fact that the archaic and

outdated KJV translation is hard to understand and inaccurate, the verbal phrase “waxed

exceeding great” makes little or no sense. As stated above, the OED19

defines the outdated and

seldom used adverb “exceeding” as “an amount (of funds, goods, etc.) in excess of calculation,

or of what is usual; an excess, a surplus.” When we replace this English term, “exceeding,” with

“in excess” or “excessive,” the KJV text we obtain is either “waxed great in excess” or “waxed

excessively great.” The questions we need to ask ourselves in order to place the matters in proper

perspective are: If it is indeed true that the little horn in Daniel 8 represents Rome, how

“excessive” could the horn on the he-goat’s head grow? Could it grow larger and greater than the

he-goat’s head? Could it grow larger than the he-goat himself? Larger than the fourth beast

described in Daniel 7? Did the pagan or papal Rome ever grow “in excess” in their historical

progress? What would that mean, and what is the historical evidence that supports this frivolous

claim? Also, if Antiochus IV Epiphanes “was not even the most powerful king of the Seleucid

division of Alexander’s empire” who was that king, and what, again, is the actual historical

evidence for this claim that has no factual support?

That Antiochus did not grow “exceeding great through conquest” is debatable in the first

place because the KJV translation is incorrect and illogical, but the factual and indisputable truth

is that the Seleucid king had successful campaigns in Egypt, the countries of the East, and

Palestine. That his conquests did not last forever is a true fact about all conquests. Imperial Rome

expanded and then declined and fell after a while, and lost all its conquered territories, while

Papal Rome possessed no actual territories during its short religious dominance in Europe. The

truth is that the pagan or papal Rome did not fare better than Anthiochus IV Epiphanes in these

matters and to state otherwise is nothing but an unfounded and dogmatic opinion.

Once in a while, the pseudo-historicist QOD authors are compelled to admit that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets at least in part the prophetic criteria, and therefore contradict

Smith’s preposterous claim that the Seleucid king “does not fulfill the specifications in one

single particular.” It is a true, historical, and proven fact that the little horn’s vicious attacks

against the temple in Jerusalem, the temple servants, and the Jewish population is “a reference to

Antiochus’ persecution of the Jews,” and whether or not “the specifications point rather to

another power that also persecuted the people of God” is irrelevant for prophetic interpretation

purposes. The QOD authors combine the frivolous dismissal of Antiochus’ actions against the


Jewish temple with distortions and speculations that claim that “he did not abolish the Temple

sacrifices,” that, in their perspective, while Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Jewish

temple he did not cast it down – although he stopped the sacrifices in the temple, – and that “his

attempts to ‘cast down the truth (verse 12)’ were unsuccessful.” Such flippant claims, though, are

a matter of perspective. Where the QOD writers see no event, most scholars see clear historical

evidence, and where the QOD writers see failure, most interpreters see achievement and

undeniable prophetic fulfillment.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes did reign in the last part of the Greek period, and did desecrate

the Jewish temple – which was later restored from his desecration. These are historical facts that

cannot be denied. While there might be some disagreement about the exact dates that started and

ended his attack on the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, it cannot be denied that those

events happened. The claim that the Seleucid king “was not noted for understanding dark

sentences” is pure gibberish as the QOD writers even fail to explain what that means and what

confirmation this requires. The Seleucid king’s death seems to have happened in unusual

circumstances, and to claim that nothing strange occurred is another brazen and outrageous

denial of the historical records. Rather than “throw the two prophecies [Daniel 7 and Daniel 8]

out of balance” with the proposal that Antiochus is the actual little horn, this true and verified

historical interpretation preserves the parallelism between the above chapters. This means that

the pseudo-historicist SDA argument that Rome must be the little horn in Daniel 8 negates the

link between the two chapters because in Daniel 7 pagan Rome is described as a beast while

papal Rome is represented as a small horn.

The QOD writers make the claim that “although certain details of this prophecy of Daniel

8 might be considered applicable to the activities of Antiochus,” he cannot “fill the [prophetic]

picture” because while he had “moderate successes and outstanding failures,” the vicious and

notorious Seleucid king “is entirely too small to fill the picture.” This idea, though, is not based

on historical facts. The truth is that factual historical evidence supports the perspective that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes had an immense and exceptional impact on the Jews, their religion, and

their temple, but the QOD authors, trapped in their pseudo-historicist presuppositions and

assumptions, cannot accept the historical record and disregard all the historical facts that

contradict their biased dogmatic perspective and their fraudulent prophetic distortions.

The fact that 1 Maccabees and Josephus are in disagreement about the start and end dates

for the “2,300 days” in Daniel 8:14 cannot invalidate the clear historical record. It is a known

fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes persecuted the Jews and desecrated their temple. In spite of the

claimed “hopeless conflict and contradiction in the sources themselves” the historical evidence

stands. The same cannot be said about the fictional SDA pseudo-historicist “2300 years” time

period. No true historical event can be suggested for the start of this period, and the event

claimed to end the period is a fictional and unverifiable event that is supposed to have happened

in heaven in 1844. So much for the “better” SDA pseudo-historicist “evidence” to support Rome

as the little horn in Daniel 8!


William H. Shea

Shea, the venerated SDA theologian, continues the speculative pseudo-historicist

interpretation about the vicious little horn and Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 8. He dismisses

and discards the relevant historical evidence that demonstrates that the Seleucid king meets the

prophetic requirements, and argues against Antiochus with strange theories that depend on

capricious, whimsical, and inexpert “exegetical” gimmicks. His comments are deductive and

speculative, overloaded with theoretical and abstract questions, and use biblical texts as pretexts

for his wild and extravagant speculations. He states:

The horn as a symbol for king/kingdom. Daniel 8:23 identifies the little horn as a “king.” But the

question may be raised whether the term was not intended to stand for a “kingdom” rather than for a single

“king.” Several points suggest this possibility. Since the four preceding horns are identified as kingdoms in

verse 22, one might expect them to be succeeded by another kingdom rather than an individual king. The

two horns on the Persian ram represented the “kings of Media and Persia;” that is, the dynastic houses that

ruled those nations (vs. 20).

Going back to chapter 7, the historicist interpretation of the little horn suggests that it represents the papacy

which came up among the horn-nations of Europe that resulted from the breakup of the Roman Empire-

beast. It should also be noted in chapter 7 that whereas the four beasts were referred to as “four kings” (vs.

17), they were understood to represent kingdoms and not individual monarchs (vs. 23). The same concept is

evident as early as chapter 2, where Nebuchadnezzar was told that he was the head of gold to be succeeded

by another kingdom (Dan 2:38-39).

The only place among these symbols where one can clearly point to the identification of a horn as an

individual king is in the case of Alexander, represented by the great horn of the Grecian he-goat (Dan

8:21). Alexander's horn, of course, did not come up from the other horns of the goat. If the little horn of

Daniel 8 came out of another horn and is interpreted as a king, such an interpretation would prove to be

unique among this series of symbols. Although this point is not definitive when studied in isolation, it

seems more reasonable to assume that the little horn represents a corporate kingdom rather than an

individual king.20

Gabriel explains that the little horn in Daniel 8 is “a king of fierce countenance,” but

Shea discounts the angelic interpretation and argues that the angel is mistaken and that the word

“king” must mean “kingdom” instead. How much more arrogant and defiant than that could an

interpreter be? That Shea’s speculation is nothing more than pure gibberish becomes obvious

when one understands that while the SDA historicist’s arguments provide clear textual support

that the little horn is indeed a king, the SDA theologian contradicts his own factual arguments

and draws a final conclusion that opposes the empirical evidence in order to force the biblical

text to conform to his unbiblical a priori assumptions, and to establish the whole interpretation

for Daniel 8 on the wild and unsupported speculation that “it seems more reasonable to

assume that the little horn represents a corporate kingdom rather than an individual king [emphasis added].”

Shea’s next pseudo-historicist and deceptive arguments on some presumed “comparative

greatness of the little horn” are based on fallacious claims that depend on the obsolete and

unreliable KJV Bible translation on the little horn in Daniel 8, while he ignores much more

accurate and reliable Hebrew-English Old Testament scientific and modern translations. He

states:


Comparative greatness of the little horn. The Persian ram “magnified himself” (8:4); the Grecian goat

“magnified himself exceedingly” (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself exceedingly in different

directions. On the horizontal level it “grew exceedingly great” toward the south, east, and glorious land. On

the vertical plane it “grew great ... to the host of heaven,” and ultimately “magnified itself ... up to the

Prince of the host” (8:9-11).

The verb “to be great,” gadal, occurs only once each with Persia and Greece, but it appears three times with

the little horn. In view of this verbal usage and the adverb for “excessively,” which accompanies it in the

first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative. Translating this

into historical terms means that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in

greatness. Obviously, this was not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but

little success.

This argument finds further support as we return to the parallel of the little horn in Daniel 7. There we

discover another point which militates against the identification of the little horn with Antiochus IV: the

judgment scene. It seems unlikely that the heavenly court would have been called into session on such a

grand scale in order to judge Antiochus IV. A setting far less glamorous, such as Micaiah ben Imlah's

prediction concerning Ahab in 1 Kings 22, should have been adequate for Antiochus IV. To say it

differently, because of its grandeur the vision of the heavenly court session in Daniel 7 would not at all

match the political and religious importance of the party being judged there, if that little horn were

Antiochus. Given the parallels between the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8, this merely emphasizes the

disparity between Antiochus IV and the superlative greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8.21

The arguments that attempt to dismiss all factual evidence that supports the notion that

Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8 are based, as stated before, on an erroneous

KJV Bible translation. Although Shea knows well that the KJV text is outdated, inaccurate, and

unreliable, he goes ahead and uses it because he depends on this translation for his fictitious

conclusions. His false assumption is that there is “a progression from the comparative to the

superlative” in the prophetic description, and that “Antiochus IV should have exceeded the

Persian and Greek Empires in greatness.” The veteran SDA historicist theologian never attempts

to explain, though, how Papal Rome was greater than the Medo-Persian and Greek empires in its

development, because the true historical facts contradict his invented narrative. In order to argue

for the “progression” position Shea combines the little horn in Daniel Chapter 7 with the little

horn in Chapter 8, and drums on the SDA fantastic notion of a judgment in heaven during which

God is investigated so that the universe will know whether or not He was just in his decisions

concerning the beings he had created and whether or not he should maintain his leadership in the

universe!!!

The fabricated and undocumented claims about the “comparative greatness of the little

horn” appear to indicate that the veteran SDA historicist has missed basic grammar lessons about

the comparison degrees of the English qualifiers. He insists:



first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative [emphasis

added]. Translating this into historical terms means that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the

Persian and Greek Empires in greatness [emphasis added].

Given the parallels between the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 [the grandeur the vision of the heavenly court

session in Daniel 7], this merely emphasizes the disparity between Antiochus IV and the superlative

greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8 [emphasis added].22


Shea’s claims are so loaded with the most absurd and unscientific speculations that the

notion that such nonsense has been published in what has been claimed to be the best and most

expert work ever published in the SDA theological circles in unthinkable. His unfounded

speculations advance from the claim that “the little horn magnified itself exceedingly in different

directions,” that the repeated usage of the Hebrew verb gadal makes it “evident that this is a

progression from the comparative to the superlative,” and that, as a consequence, “Antiochus

should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in greatness.” The SDA historicist even

talks about “the superlative greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8,” because he has no clear idea

what “superlative greatness” might be. Does he mean that the little horn has grown greater than

all the prophetic horns ever mentioned in the biblical text? Does he mean that the little horn in

Daniel 8 has grown so much that its real and actual dimension is so massive and extreme that

there is no possible comparison between this horn and the forth beast in Daniel 7 or the he-goat

in Daniel 8? It becomes obvious that the veteran theologian has gotten the “excess” metaphor out

of control with consequences that he is unable to comprehend because he has more than

overstated his case with such intemperate statements. Shea, indeed, manages to propel his case

for the little horn’s utter and unqualified greatness to the absolute and superlative absurd!!!

That a scholar of Shea’s claimed high reputation among the SDA scholars ignores the

Hebrew text and bases all his arguments on an antiquated and disputed translation should be

enough indication that Shea is not in search for truth, but wants to reach his pre-established

conclusions at all costs. The SDA theologians is not a true and honest historicist, as the term was

defined in section II of this document, but a dogmatist who relies on fabricated events to support

his wild interpretations and speculations. This fact becomes more than evident when one

recognizes to what lengths the SDA historicist theologian goes in order to dismiss the true and

unquestionable historical facts that demonstrate that Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets the little

horn prophetic requirements in Daniel 8. States Shea:

Activities of the little horn:

Conquests. The horn “grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious

land.”

To the south. Antiochus III was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when

he defeated the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern

frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta

in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria to undertake its siege, but was turned

back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success

in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow “exceedingly great toward the south.”

To the east. Antiochus III subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him

to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after

the Romans defeated him at Magnesia.

Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory during the eastern campaign he conducted in the

last two years of his reign. After some initial diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and Media,

however, he found himself unable to make further headway against the Parthians. He died during the

course of his campaign against the latter, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C.

While Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as

Antiochus III; and this project was left incomplete at the point of his death. It is open to question, therefore,


as to what extent these partial and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning

the little horn as "growing exceedingly great" toward the east.

To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the

temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because

Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C. He could not have "grown

exceedingly great toward the glorious land," Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest or acquiring

control of it by military action. He could have "[grown] exceedingly" only in the sense of exercising or

abusing his control over it, since it was already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.

Although Antiochus IV was not the conquerer of Palestine, the defeats his forces suffered there toward the

end of his reign started the course of events that eventually led to the complete independence of Judea from

the Seleucids. While he himself was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces suffered defeats at

Emmaus (1 Mace 3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Mace 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews

liberated the polluted temple from Seleucid hands and rededicated it (1 Mace 5:52). Antiochus died in the

east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Mace 6:15).

Summary. Antiochus IV never captured Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, but he enjoyed military successes

in Lower Egypt during his campaigns from 169 to 167 B.C. However, he had to forsake these briefly held,

ill-gotten gains, due to diplomatic pressure from the Romans. Only the first part of his campaign toward the

east was successful. He died before he had carried out his plans for that region to consolidate his control

over it.

Although he bore down harder on the Jews than had his predecessors, he was not the one who brought

Judea into the Seleucid Empire, since it was already part of that dominion when he came to the throne. The

three defeats his forces suffered there shortly before he died signaled developments that ultimately led to

Judea's independence.

The net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was rather negligible

and even negative in some cases. Thus he does not fit very well the specification of this prophecy which

states that the little horn was to grow “exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the

glorious land.”23

Not much should be said about Shea’s statements. Facts speak for themselves. No matter

how much the SDA theologian works to distort and negate the facts, it is obvious that the

historical records show that the Seleucid king met the prophetic criteria, and is indeed the little

horn in Daniel 8. He had “partial success” when he attempted to “extend his southern frontier,”

in spite of Shea’s preposterous argument that “it is doubtful that he [Antiochus] really did grow

‘exceedingly great toward the south.’” He also had “some initial successes” in his attempts to

expand to the east, although Shea argues that “it is open to question, therefore, as to what extent

these partial and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning the

little horn as ‘growing exceedingly great’ toward the east.” Antiochus also reached towards

Palestine and was known as “the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the

Jews.” While the SDA historicist theologian strives to argue that “he [Antiochus] could not have

‘grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land,’ Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest

or acquiring control of it by military action,” he must concede that Antiochus IV Epiphanes

could have still done so “in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over it, since it was

already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.”

Shea’s conclusion that Antiochus IV Epiphanes “does not fit very well the specification

of this prophecy which states that the little horn was to grow ‘exceedingly great toward the

south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land’” is a speculative and uninformed opinion


based on an obscurantist and obtuse pseudo-historicist viewpoint. That Rome cannot meet even

as much as Antiochus IV Epiphanes the prophetic expectations from authentic historical

evidence is not information that Shea wants to share with his docile readers. His unsuccessful

efforts to show that if Rome is not the little horn in Daniel 8 then no other legitimate historic

agent can fulfill that prophetic role are not based on rigorous empirical claims but on fabricated

pseudo-historical narratives that he feeds to naïve and ignorant SDA readers.

The SDA theologian adopts and uses the outdated KJV translation when it is convenient

to him, but is also more than eager to distort the words in this preferred Bible rendition in order

to argue for a fantastic and ludicrous perspective on the issue under discussion, as is the case

with his extensive and unsuccessful argumentation that attempts to convince his readers that the

specific Hebrew word “temple” means something else:

Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the “daily” or “continual.” It

holds true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the temple,

or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices. Nevertheless, the phrase, “the

place of his sanctuary was cast down” (8:11, KJV), which indicates what was done to the temple building

itself by the little horn, does not fit the activities of Antiochus. The word used for “place” (Hebrew, makon)

is both interesting and important. It occurs in the Hebrew Bible 17 times. In every instance but one it refers

to the place where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests.

This word appears first in the Bible in the "Song of the Sea" which the Israelites sang on the shore of the

Red Sea after their deliverance from Pharaoh's army (Exod 15:17). In that song God's makon is identified

as the place where he would establish His abode, that is, His sanctuary in the promised land. The term

appears four times in the address Solomon gave when the temple was dedicated (see 1 Kings 8 and its

parallel passage of 2 Chronicles 6). Once the king uses the term to refer to the temple; three times it denotes

God's dwelling place in heaven (1 Kgs 8:13, 39, 43, 49).

In Psalm 33:14 the word likewise is used for God's dwelling in heaven. Three other texts employ makon to

refer to the place of God's dwelling on earth. It occurs twice in Isaiah, once referring to the location of

God's earthly abode on Mount Zion (Isa 4:5), and once referring to the place from which God looked upon

Ethiopia in judgment (18:4), presumably the earthly temple again. In Ezra 2:68 it was used more

specifically for the place upon which God's earthly temple was to be rebuilt. In Psalms 89:14 and 97:2 this

word was used in the metaphorical sense. Justice and righteousness are said to be the "foundation" of His

throne.

Aside from this occurrence in Daniel, therefore, makon is used seven times for the place of God's dwelling

in heaven, six times for the place of His earthly dwelling, and twice for the place of His throne in a

metaphorical sense. The only instance where this word was not used for God's dwelling place, whether

earthly or heavenly, is Psalm 104:5 where it is used poetically for the "foundations" upon which the earth

was set.

It was this “place” of God's sanctuary that was to be cast down by the little horn, according to Daniel 8:11.

One could apply this to what the Romans did to the temple in AD. 70. But Antiochus never did anything to

the temple which would qualify as “casting down its makon,” or “place.” Desecrate it he did; but, as far as

is known, he did not damage its architecture in any significant way.

On the contrary, it would have been to his disadvantage to have done so, since he turned it over to be used

for the cult of Zeus. Thus while it is fair to say that Antiochus suspended the daily or continual

sacrifices/ministration of the temple, we have no indication that he cast it down from its place, or cast down

its place. Consequently, this aspect of the prophecy is in opposition to the interpretation of the little horn as

Antiochus IV.24


One wonders whether Shea ever consulted the ample historical records and demonstrable

evidence when he made the inane comments included above. To depart to such a length from the

biblical text and claim that the papal Rome as the little horn in Daniel 8 cast down “the place

where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests,” that is, heaven itself, must be the

ultimate feat in arrogance and self-deception. Should we assume that the papal little horn must

have reached these high heavens on a contraption similar to Jacob’s ladder about which we are

unable to learn because of our lack of theological clearance? Facetious or not, such statements

seem proper when one considers the utter nonsense regarded as rigorous “exegesis” among the

SDA scholars and still considered fundamental interpretation work in the SDA Church. Such

things happen when scholars discard a scientific interpretation and slide into a theological

dreamland and total obscurantism in order to validate the most illogical, incongruous and

irrational prophetic interpretations. It is no great surprise that most if not all non-SDA scholars

disregard, discount, and ridicule such inconceivable SDA dogmatic speculations.

We must be grateful to Shea, though, for the large amount of factual evidence that

supports Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn in Daniel 8, although his manifest intention

has been to use that historical data in order to argue against Antiochus and for Rome. That Shea

fails to see the truth in all that material and observable historical data should not surprise the

readers. It is a common fact that religionist minds suffer from spiritual and intellectual blindness

and often little can be done to shake the victims out of their religious stupor. The historical facts

Shea presents are indisputable evidence that the SDA historicists have no case that Rome is the

little horn of Daniel 8, and we will allow now Shea to prove this again in his own words:

Time factors for the little horn:

Time of origin. The rise of the little horn is dated in terms of the four kingdoms which came from

Alexander's empire. It was to come up “at the latter end of their rule” (8:23).

The Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C. Antiochus

IV was the eighth in line, and he ruled from 175 to 164/3 B.C. Since more than a dozen Seleucids ruled

after him and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he can hardly be said to have arisen “at the latter end of

their rule.”

It would be more correct to fix the period of his rule in the middle of the dynasty; and chronology supports

this argument. The Seleucids ruled for a century and a third before Antiochus IV and a century after him.

This fact places this particular ruler within two decades of the midpoint of the dynasty. Thus Antiochus IV

did not arise “at the latter end of their rule.”

Duration. The chronological datum given in the question and answer of Daniel 8:13-14 has been

interpreted as giving the length of time Antiochus IV was to have desecrated the temple or persecuted the

Jews. Precise dates are available for the disruption of the temple services and its pollution. The pagan

idol was set up on the altar of burnt offering on the fifteenth day of the ninth month of the 145th year of the

Seleucid Era, and pagan sacrifices began there ten days later (1 Mace 1:54, 59) [emphasis added].

On the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month in the 148th year of the Seleucid era a newly built altar was

consecrated and the celebrations continued for eight days thereafter (1 Mace 4:52, 54). Thus a period of

three years, or three years and ten days, was involved here. Neither 2300 literal days (six years, four and

two-thirds months) nor 1150 literal days (made by pairing evening and morning sacrifices to make full

days) fits this historical period, since even the shorter of the two is two months too long.


Various attempts have been made to explain this discrepancy. None of them are satisfactory. The troops of

Antiochus did sack the temple, though, on their way back from Egypt two years earlier [emphasis

added], but that still falls a year and a half short of the longer period.

Since a connection between this time period and the temple is lacking, it has been suggested that it should

be interpreted as referring to persecution. Menelaus (one of two rival Jewish high priests) talked

Andronicus, an official of Antiochus, into killing Onias, a former high priest (2 Mace 4:34). This might

have occurred in 170 B.C. (2 Mace 4:23), or six and one half years (2300 days) before the cleansing of the

temple late in 164 B.C. When he heard about it, Antiochus executed Andronicus (2 Mace 4:38).

Thereafter, Menelaus and his brother Lysimachus led a fight against some of the Jews who opposed them.

This was not a Seleucid persecution. It was partisan Jewish in-fighting, and Antiochus executed his own

official for his part in the affair. Thus neither the 2300 days nor the 1150 days fits Antiochus' desecration of

the temple or his persecution of the Jews as some of the more candid critical commentators readily

acknowledge.

The other way to look at the relationship of this time period to Antiochus is by taking the historicist

interpretation into account. That school of prophetic interpretation utilizes the day-for-a-year principle for

time periods found in apocalyptic contexts. If this position (see chap. 3) is correct, it means that we are

dealing with a period of 2300 years, not 2300 literal days. Regardless of where one begins in the B.C. era, it

is obvious that they must extend far beyond the narrow chronological confines of Antiochus' one-decade

reign in the second century B.C.

The End. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8, he introduced his explanation

with the statement, “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end” (8:17). At the

beginning of his actual explanation Gabriel again emphasized this point by stating, “Behold, I will make

known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the

end” (8:19). The phrases, “the time of the end” and “the appointed time of the end,” are also essential for a

correct identity of the little horn.

Since the third and final section of the vision is concerned mainly with the little horn and its activities, it

seems reasonable to conclude that the horn relates most directly to the “time of the end.” The end of the

little horn, therefore, should coincide in one way or another with “the time of the end.”

At a bare chronological minimum Daniel's time prophecies (Dan 9:24-27) had to extend to the time of the

Messiah in the first century AD. “The time of the end” could only arrive some time after the fulfillment of

that prophecy. Therefore, there is no way for Antiochus’ death in 164/3 B.C. to be made to coincide with

“the time of the end” when the little horn was to come to its end.

Nature of the end of the little horn. According to the prophecy, the little horn was to come to its end in a

particular way, “But, by no human hand, he shall be broken” (8:25). This phraseology sounds somewhat

similar to the description of the fate for the king of the north in Daniel 11:45 – “he shall come to his end,

with none to help him.” The end to the little horn in Daniel 7 was to come about by a decision of God in the

heavenly court. In Daniel 2 the image was brought to an end by a stone that smote the image on its feet, and

that stone was cut out without the assistance of any human hand (Dan 2:45). The conclusions to the

prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 are all to be brought about by God's direct intervention in human

history. Given the nature of the statement in 8:25 (and its parallels in the other prophecies of Daniel), it is

difficult to see how Antiochus IV could fulfill this particular specification. As far as is known (compare 1

Macc 6:8-17), he died of natural causes – not in battle nor from extraordinary circumstances during the

course of his eastern campaign in 164/3 B.C.25

The assumed SDA expert appears to misunderstand some fundamental prophetic texts

and to misconstrue them from a pseudo-historicist perspective. This is the case, for instance, with

the little horn’s time of origin. Shea states that the little horn in Daniel 8 “was to come up ‘at the

latter end of their rule’ (8:23),” and claims that because “Antiochus IV was the eighth in [the


Seleucid] line,” the king “did not arise ‘at the latter end of their rule.’” The same KJV translation

that Shea prefers has for the same verse the rendition “in the latter time of their kingdom,” and

this might well mean that the prophetic vision designated in these verses the entire historical

Greek time period. In this case, Antiochus IV Epiphanes came indeed towards the end of the

Greek domination and met this prophetic time requirement.

While the SDA historicist claim that “neither the 2300 days nor the 1150 days fits

Antiochus’ desecration of the temple or his persecution of the Jews,” might be true, the

alternative Shea offers, that the 2300 days should be interpreted as 2300 years, is even worse

because it returns us to Miller’s Second Coming prediction fiasco and draws us into the fictional

and untested SDA narrative that includes the claim that Jesus was locked for 1800 years in the

first apartment of a “wood and cloth” celestial temple where he force-performed the ceremonial

work of an Aaronic priest and then he escaped from that first celestial prison into a second

apartment of that same temple in 1844 so that he could perform again an Aaronic high priest

function. While Shea sees the “time of the end” in Daniel 8:17 as the Second Coming in the

Millerite tradition, other non-SDA theologians appear to make more sense with the notion that

the time of the end could better mean the end of the prophetic time in Daniel 8, rather than the

absolute and ultimate end of the world.

The “Inspired” KJV Translation

The SDA historicist theologians place an enormous and undeserved weight on the archaic

King James Version [further, KJV] English translation of the Bible because it validates their odd

interpretation for Daniel’s prophetic messages. Much theological commotion is made about the

obsolete and almost never used English language expression that in Daniel 8 Rome “waxed

exceeding great [emphasis added]” while the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not

have the good fortune to do so. In fact, two main points in the QOD arguments are drawn from

this defective and imprecise KJV translation. State the QOD theologians:

b. Antiochus did not wax “exceeding great” [emphasis added] (verse 9) in comparison with the Greco-

Macedonian empire of Alexander (verse 8). Antiochus was not even the most powerful king of the Seleucid

division of Alexander's empire.

c. Antiochus hardly grew exceeding great [emphasis added] through conquest (verse 9). His push to “the

south” into Egypt was stopped by the mere word of a Roman officer; his expedition to “the east” resulted in

his death; and his dominion of “the pleasant land” of Palestine did not last, for his persecution of the Jews

drove them to resistance that later resulted in their independence.26

This extreme confidence in a Bible translation denotes more than simple incompetence in

language matters. It indicates an indoctrinated and rigid mindset that clings to theological straws

in order to get from the biblical text what it wants. The total number of English Bible translations

is hard to count. Most Internet sites make available about 40 Bible texts to their readers, and

even for those who are not experts in Biblical Hebrew a simple comparison between those

translations is much better than Shea’s exclusive use of an archaic and defective text. Such

simple and effortless text comparisons would reveal that the SDA historicist’s “progression from

the comparative to the superlative”27

among the prophetic beasts in Daniel 8 has no basis in the

biblical Hebrew text and needs to be relegated to the trash bin.


Little Horn Larger Than He-Goat

Based on the outdated KJV translation of Daniel 8:9 that renders the Hebrew text to mean

that the little horn “waxed exceeding great,” some SDA theologians such as Pröbstle have

proposed a size and power struggle between the two beasts and other prophetic entities in Daniel

Chapter 8, and have claimed that “the growth and self-magnification of the [little] horn is much

greater than that of the previous powers.”28

Gane, the Andrews theologian, agrees:

In Daniel 8, the Medo-Persian ram “magnified himself” (verse 4), Alexander’s Greek goat “magnified

himself exceedingly” (verse 8), and the little horn “grew exceedingly great” (verse 9). Antiochus never

achieved a “greatness” comparable to that of Alexander the great or even Media-Persia.29

Shea is also in full agreement with Gane. The biblical texts he mentions to support his

similar position are based on the unproven claim that “this is a progression from the comparative

to the superlative,” and the cited texts are almost identical. He states:

Comparative greatness of the little horn. The Persian ram “magnified himself” (8:4); the Grecian goat

“magnified himself exceedingly” (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself exceedingly in different

directions. On the horizontal level it “grew exceedingly great” toward the south, east, and glorious land. On

the vertical plane it “grew great ... to the host of heaven,” and ultimately “magnified itself ... up to the

Prince of the host” (8:9-11).



first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative. Translating this

into historical terms means that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in

greatness. Obviously, this was not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but

little success.30

One wonders what English translations have the two SDA theologians used to support

their fictive claims. An examination of the KJV Bible provides a partial answer to the question

when one compares the biblical texts Gane and Shea have quoted with KJV texts that are

supposed to match the quotes. The claim is that in Daniel 8:4 “the Medo-Persian ram ‘magnified

himself,’” that in verse 8 “Alexander’s Greek goat ‘magnified himself exceedingly,’” and that in

verse 9 “the little horn ‘grew exceedingly great.’” The KJV version texts, though, fail to match

the texts Gane and Shea mention:

KJV4

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before

him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became

great [emphasis added].

KJV8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great [emphasis added]: and when he was strong, the great horn was

broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

KJV9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great [emphasis added],


The unsuccessful match with the KJV texts could suggest that Gane and Shea might have

used an obscure English translation, the Hebrew Names Version (HNV), in order to support their

position on the issue:


HNV4

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; and no animals could stand before

him, neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and

magnified himself [emphasis added].

HNV8 The male goat magnified himself exceedingly [emphasis added]: and when he was strong, the great

horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable [horns] toward the four winds of the sky.

HNV9 Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceeding great [emphasis added], toward

the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious [land].

Even the biblical texts from this HNV translation fail to match the quoted texts from the

two theologians, and therefore we must conclude that the two scholars must have picked and

chosen texts from various Bible versions, or have produced their homespun Hebrew-English

translations in order fabricate the “evidence” that would allow them to argue their speculative

positions because even the original Hebrew texts fail to match their “original” renditions.

The question again left out in this pseudo-historicist hodge-podge is whether or not the

little horn has grown larger than the two beasts in Daniel 8, the ram, and the he-goat, and

how large he could have grown in order to demonstrate the assumed “progression from the

comparative to the superlative.” If the little horn is Rome, as the SDA historicist theologians

have claimed, how and when has the papal Rome grown greater and “in excess” than the two

previous historical empires – the great Medo-Persia, and the immense Grecian empire under

Alexander? It seems obvious that a response that attempts to maintain the above claims cannot

be based on factual evidence from historical records, but on fictional pseudo-historical data, and

therefore the Roman position must be abandoned as baseless and without scientific merit.


VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome

The SDA historicist theologians have claimed that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails to meet

the prophetic criteria for the little horn in Daniel 8, and have argued, instead, that “the little horn

represents Rome – in its pagan and papal phases.”1 Hewitt summarizes the main arguments that

support this indefensible SDA historicist perspective as follows:

According to the Roman opinion, the power described by the “little horn which waxed exceedingly great”

is none other than the mighty Roman Empire. The advocates of this hypothesis claim that this power is the

only one which properly fulfills all the requirements of the prophecy [emphasis added]. With

commendable earnestness and no little skill they build up an impressive argument for the view.

1. In the other visions of Daniel, the power which succeeds Grecia as the fourth great empire is Rome. So

in this vision, the “little horn” which succeeds Grecia and becomes “exceeding great” must also be Rome.

2. This horn waxed great “toward the east, and toward the south, and toward the pleasant land.” This is

precisely the direction in which the conquests of Rome proceeded. She overran Macedonia, Greece, Asia

Minor and Syria to the east; she conquered Egypt on the south, and she planted her eagles in “the pleasant

land” of Palestine.

3. This horn waxed great even to the host of heaven and cast down some of the stars. By “the host of

heaven” most expositors agree we are to understand the Jewish people, as the nation elect or favored of

heaven. The “stars” would therefore represent the leaders of that nation.12

Rome fulfilled these figures by

warring against the Jewish people, slaying many of their leaders, and terminating Jewish national existence.

4. This “very little horn” magnified himself against “the prince of the host” (v.11), even “the Prince of

princes” (v.25). This latter figure, it is argued, naturally suggests Jesus the Christ, who is “King of kings

and Lord of lords.” The earthly power that “magnified itself” against Jesus was none other than Rome,

which, in the person of Pontius Pilate, the representative in Judea of the Roman government, ordered the

crucifixion.

5. By this “little horn” the “daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down”

(v. 11).

It is pointed out by some that on the simplest and most natural meaning of these words, they refer to the

daily sacrifices of the Jews and to the sanctuary of Jehovah in Jerusalem, and that Rome did forever take

away the smoking sacrifices on the altars of Jehovah and did cast down His sanctuary, when the soldiers of

Titus destroyed the temple in 70 A.D.13

A point in favor of this interpretation is the fact that it brings this

prophecy into line with a similar prediction recorded in the vision of the next chapter (9:26, 27) and which

the overwhelming majority of conservative expositors believe refers to events which culminated in the

destruction of Jerusalem.2

Smith’s Broken Historicist Claims

Extreme overconfidence seems to be Smith’s personal trademark, and the SDA pioneer

and popular theologian never fails to express it as often as possible. After he has dismissed

Antiochus IV Epiphanes without the proper and adequate research because in his perspective, the

Seleucid king “does not fulfill the [prophetic] specifications in one single particular,” Smith

states that “it has been an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus” and

therefore, “it will be just as easy to show that it does denote Rome.” He then moves to argue his

position with a series of vacuous pseudo-historicist arguments:

1. The field of vision here is substantially the same as that covered by Nebuchadnezzar’s image of chapter

2, and Daniel’s vision of chapter 7. And in both these prophetic delineations we have found that the power


which succeeded Grecia as the fourth great power, was Rome. The only natural inference would be that

the little horn, the power which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an “exceeding great” power, is also

Rome [emphasis added].

2. The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of

Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till

they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the

people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C. 161. 1 Maccabees 8: Josephus’s Antiquities,

book 12, chap 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, Vol. II, p. 166. But seven years before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome

had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into

prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests

in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this

prophecy as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat [emphasis added].

3. The little horn waxed great toward the south. This was true of Rome. Egypt was made a province of the

Roman empire B.C. 30, and continued such for some centuries.

4. The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of Rome. Rome conquered Syria B.C. 65,

and made it a province.

5. The little horn waxed great toward the pleasant land. So did Rome. Judea is called the pleasant land in

many scriptures. The Romans made it a province of their empire, B.C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city

and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth.

6. The little horn waxed great even to the host of heaven. Rome did this also. The host of heaven, when

used in a symbolic sense in reference to events transpiring upon the earth, must denote persons of

illustrious character or exalted position. The great red dragon (Rev. 12:4) is said to have cast down a third

part of the stars of heaven to the ground. The dragon is there interpreted to symbolize pagan Rome, and the

stars it cast to the ground were Jewish rulers. Evidently it is the same power and the same work that is here

brought to view, which again makes it necessary to apply this growing horn to Rome.

7. The little horn magnified himself even to the Prince of the host. Rome alone did this. In the interpretation

(verse 25) this is called standing up against the Prince of princes. How clear an allusion to the crucifixion

of our Lord under the jurisdiction of the Romans.

8. By the little horn the daily sacrifice was taken away. This little horn must be understood to symbolize

Rome in its entire history, including its two phases, pagan and papal. These two phases are elsewhere

spoken of as the “daily” (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the “transgression of desolation;” the daily

(desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal [emphasis

added]. (See on verse 13.) In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of,

sometimes the other. “By him” (the papal form) “the daily” (the pagan form) “was taken away

[emphasis added].” Pagan Rome was remodeled into papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or

worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of government was removed by Constantine in A.A.

330 to Constantinople. This same transaction is brought to view in Rev. 13:2, where it is said that the

dragon, pagan Rome, gave to the beast, papal Rome, his seat, the city of Rome.

9. A host was given him (the little horn) against the daily. The barbarians that subverted the Roman empire

in the changes, attritions, and transformations of those times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the

instruments of the dethronement of their former religion. Though conquering Rome politically, they were

themselves vanquished religiously by the theology of Rome, and became the perpetuators of the same

empire in another phase. And this was brought about by reason of “transgression;” that is, by the working

of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy is the most cunningly contrived, false ecclesiastical system ever

devised; and it may be called a system of iniquity because it has committed its abominations and

practiced its orgies of superstition in the garb, and under the pretense, of pure and undefiled religion [emphasis added].


10. The little horn cast the truth to the ground, and practiced and prospered. This describes, in few words,

the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured; it is loaded with traditions;

it is turned into mummery and superstition; it is cast down and obscured [emphasis added].

And this antichristian power has “practiced” – practiced its deceptions upon the people, practiced its

schemes of cunning to carry out its own ends and aggrandize its own power.

And it has “prospered.” It has made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. It has run its allotted

career, and is soon to be broken without hand, to be given to the burning flame, and to perish in the

consuming glories of the second appearing of our Lord.

Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and

no other, is the power in question. And while the descriptions given in the word of God of the

character of this monstrous system are fully met, the prophecies of its baleful history have been most

strikingly and accurately fulfilled [emphasis added].3

Hewitt’s Unarguable Refutation

Hewitt realizes Smith’s utter confusion, and reacts to the SDA pioneer’s baseless

contention that the little horn came from Macedonia because Rome had invaded and conquered

the Greek kingdom in 168 B.C. with understandable amusement:

The Roman view can be maintained historically only with the greatest difficulty. The little horn came forth

from one of the four horns of the he-goat, or in other words, out of one of the four kingdoms into which

Alexander’s empire was divided. Now it is certain that Italy was never a part of the Alexandrian domain.

Rome did not rise out of one of these Grecian kingdoms, but far to the west, entirely outside the boundaries

of the Greek dominion, and from this position threw herself in turn upon the four kingdoms, devouring

them one after another.





it, the invader becomes identified with its conquered foe to such an extent that it may properly be spoken of



conquered and occupied Japan! [emphasis added]

4

The ACC scholar also perceives that Smith, the SDA unexceptional theologian, proposes

an unusual interpretation that seems to make no sense at all, is a dreadful “example of everything

that exegesis ought not to be,” and needs to be denounced as absurd and outrageous. States

Hewitt:

Some who make a great deal of this chapter [Daniel 8] suggest a variation of this interpretation. It will be

best to let an advocate of the view state it in his own words:

“We understand that the little horn symbolized Rome in its entire history, including the two phases of

pagan and papal. The two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the ‘daily’ (sacrifice is a supplied word) and

the ‘transgression of desolation’; the daily (desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of

desolation, the papal. In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of, sometimes the

other. ‘By him’ (the papal form) ‘the daily’ (the pagan form) ‘was taken away.’ Pagan Rome gave place to

papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of

government was removed to Constantinople.”14


This paragraph has been quoted, it must be confessed, principally as an example of everything that

exegesis ought not to be. The extreme artificiality and ineptitude of this suggestion become apparent

the moment we endeavor to substitute the meanings suggested for these symbols in the place of the

symbols themselves in the text [emphasis added]. The result is something like this:

“Yes, Rome in both the pagan and the papal forms magnified itself even to the Prince of the host, and

by Rome in the papal form Rome in the pagan form was taken away and the city of Rome was cast

down when the capital was removed from Rome to Constantinople. And an host was given to Rome

against the pagan form thereof by reason of the papal form, and Rome cast down the truth to the

ground, and Rome practised and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said

unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the pagan form, to give

both the city of Rome and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, unto two

thousand and three hundred days; then shall the city of Rome be cleansed [emphasis added].”5

Such an outrageous speculative interpretation is not a “sound exposition” of the biblical

text, or even “common sense,” but rather a terrible distortion of the prophetic message in Daniel

Chapter 8, and Hewitt must warn his readers about such a falsification of God’s word:

Who can think that this is either sound exposition or good common sense [emphasis added]? It would

seem ruled out not alone by its fanciful nature but also by certain plain requirements of the text. For

example, the “transgression of desolation” is clearly the result of the taking away of the daily sacrifice, and

not the cause of it, as Elder Smith contends that it was. A transgression is not a transgressor; it is either

the act of a transgressor, or the result of his action. Legitimate exposition will not thus identify cause

and effect [emphasis added]. And again, one of the most natural understanding of the passage, the

“sanctuary” is not the place of the little horn’s worship but of that of “the prince of the host.” It is the

prince’s sanctuary that is defiled, not the horn’s; the horn does the defiling, and it is this act of casting

down the prince’s sanctuary that climaxes the horn’s impious magnifying of himself against that one. If

Smith is serious in suggesting that the sanctuary was “cast down” when the seat of Roman government was

removed to Constantinople, then, by parity of reasoning, he ought to hold that its cleansing should be

accomplished by a reverse movement back to Rome! But of course nothing like this has ever occurred in

history, or conceivably will occur [emphasis added]. We are persuaded, also, that Smith would evade the

logic of this suggestion on other grounds! All in all, we cannot resist the conclusion that his treatment

of the Roman theory is an effective reduction ad absurdum of that position [emphasis added].6

Miller’s Reckless Number Game

The ACC theologian has noticed that the SDA Church “bases its entire, distinctive

system of prophetical interpretation upon its understanding of Daniel 8 particularly of the feature

of the sanctuary and its cleansing”7 and that the SDA historicists must hold on to their

interpretation at all costs in order to save face after the Millerite Second Coming prediction

failure. He also deplores the disastrous consequences and human tragedies that had followed

Miller’s reckless Second Coming number game for which the super confident and super

enthusiastic but deluded popular theologian was never held accountable. States Hewitt:

Most attempts to fix a date for the end of the world have stemmed from the time period of 2,300 days found

herein [in Daniel 8]. There have been many such attempts, but the most conspicuous is that of William

Miller in this country about a century ago. According to Miller, the 2,300 year-days are to be reckoned

from the beginning of the Seventy Weeks of the following chapter. And since he thought that the Seventy

Weeks (or 490 year-days) began in 457 B.C., then the 2,300 year-days must also have begun at that date

and would run out in 1843 A.D. That year, Mr. Miller believed, would witness “the cleansing of the

sanctuary,” which he understood would be accomplished by the second coming of Christ.1

Many other students of the prophetic Word have believed that the “grand clue” to the understanding of

chronological prophecy is to be found in this chapter. This “clue” is the theory that the Seventy Weeks, or

490 year-days, of chapter 9 are the first segment of the 2,300 year-days of chapter 8. William C. Davis in


this country and Archibald Mason of Scotland appear to be responsible for first discovering this “clue”

shortly after the year 1800.2 The writings of both these men were greatly admired among the “Millerites”

and were responsible for their fixing upon the 1843 date. The importance which was attached to this

clue may be judged from the following extravagant estimate of Mr. Froom [emphasis added], when he

says: “It was this grand clue – of the seventy weeks as the first segment of the 2,300 years; cut off for the

Jews and climaxing with the Messiah – that burst simultaneously upon the minds of men in Europe and

America, and even in Asia and Africa. This was the great advance truth that led to the emphasis upon the

2,300 years from 457 B.C. to A.D. 1843 or 1844 which we have surveyed.”3

In fact, among popular writers on prophecy (as distinguished from more sober, scholarly expositors)

[emphasis added] the 2,300-day period became “the focal point of discussion” in both Europe and America

in the early decades of the nineteenth century, and great importance was attached to the debate as to

whether the right number was 2,300 (Cunningham and others) or 2,400 (Frere and his supporters), the latter

being based on the reading of certain manuscripts of the Septuagint version of Daniel.4

The majority held

for the former, and indeed they had the better of the argument, for the best textual authority was clearly on

their side. The fact that many good and earnest men, some of them men of ability and sound learning,

were so preoccupied with the vision which we are now to consider, and the further fact that their

interpretation led to such misunderstandings and disappointments, not only testifies to the

importance of the subject but also lays upon the present-day interpreter a heavy responsibility to

reach more sound and reliable conclusions [emphasis added].8

Pröbstle’s Revised Historical Data

That the SDA pseudo-historicist arguments that endorse and promote Rome as the little

horn in Daniel 8 depend on fabricated and fictitious historical events is even more obvious from

the most recent attempts to argue Antiochus IV Epiphanes out of Daniel 8 and replace the true

historical evidence with absolute religionist nonsense. The SDA theologian who has performed

this remarkable stunt is Pröbstle, who packs in a recent book

9 the dogmatic SDA claims that

support the Roman perspective and collates these fabrications into a pseudo-linguistic and

pseudo-exegetical section entitled “The Little Horn’s Attack on Holiness.”10

His arguments

reveal that while true historicists depend on verifiable historical records and true historical facts

in order to demonstrate real and actual prophetic fulfillments, the SDA pseudo-historicists revise

and rewrite historical data in order to defend their speculative theological positions. Pröbstle’s

“evidence” for Rome as the little horn in Daniel 8 is as follows:

As in Daniel 7, the horn power basically attacks God [emphasis added], His people, and His sanctuary

(Dan. 8:9-14). The horn power first grows horizontally, enlarging its territory of influence upon the earth

(verse 9), then vertically against the “host of heaven” (verse 10), and finally it exalts itself up to the “prince

of the host” (verse 11, KJV).

The “host of heaven” and the “stars” symbolize the people of God (Gen. 37:9; Num. 24:17; cf. also the

simile in Dan. 12:3). Some of them get trampled by the horn, which resembles the terrorizing of the saints

in Daniel 7:21, 25.

The “prince of the host” must be a divine person. In Joshua 5:13-15, the only other place in which a

heavenly “prince of the host” appears, He is the supreme commander of the host of Yahweh and is

distinctly marked as divine – as Yahweh. Joshua, who was standing on “holy” ground in His presence,

bowed down to Him and listened to His, Yahweh’s, words (Joshua 6:2-5). Thus we should identify the

“prince of the host” in Daniel 8:11 as the divine-like commander Michael, the chief of the angels. It is

nobody else than Christ, the Son of man, who is distinct from the Most High.5

We see the divinity of the prince of the host underlined by the fact that a sanctuary (Hebrew

miqdash) belongs to Him (Dan. 8:11). The term miqdash often indicates an earthly temple, but it can

also refer to a heavenly sanctuary, as it does here [emphasis added].6 Throwing down the “place”


(foundation) of His sanctuary” (verse 11) is parallel to throwing down the truth (verse 12). Obviously, the

horn attacks the fundamental truths the heavenly sanctuary is built upon [emphasis added].

The horn took away “the daily” (Hebrew tamid) from the prince of the host (verse 11, KJV). What does the

word tamid mean? It is a cultic expression.7 In the Torah tamid designates the regularity (with intervals) or

continuity (without interruption) of activities, events, or state or affairs and, as such, describes the regular

activities of the daily service at the sanctuary.8 A priest (often the high priest) performs such activities “in

the presence of Yahweh,” and they thus form part of the continual worship service of Yahweh.9

In addition to the regular sanctuary service, the tamid also refers to the true worship by the people of God.

We find two reasons for this. First, Daniel 6:16, 20 uses the Aramaic equivalent for tamid in connection

with Daniel’s constant worship. Thematically, Daniel 6 is about the struggle for the tamid of an individual,

the prophet’s continual worship, whereas Daniel 8 is about the struggle for the universal tamid, the

continual worship by God’s people. Second, in Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 the tamid is replaced by

false worship (“abomination of desolation”), indicating that it is the true worship. In short, the tamid in

Daniel 8 designates (a) the continual service of the “Prince of the host” as high priest, and (b) the continual

worship directed toward the “Prince of the host” by believers.

Daniel 8:11, 12 then describes how the horn interferes with the worship of the divine “Prince of the host,”

the true priest. The horn acts as another “prince of the host” and commands its own counterfeit

“host,” which the horn sets up against the tamid (verse 12) [emphasis added]. In a warfare context, the

word “host” refers to an army, but in a sanctuary framework it indicates a “priestly host.” Because the

counterfeit host goes against the regular worship service, it could point to a counterfeit priestly host. Verse

12, with the repetition of the hook words tamid and “throw down,” functions as an explanation of the two

activities of verse 11.

Of course, the horn cannot interfere in Christ’s continual priestly mediation in the heavenly

sanctuary (Heb. 7:25; 8:1, 2) Who could do that anyway? Christ’s priestly ministry itself remains

unaffected and untouched. However, the horn power usurps the responsibilities of the heavenly

priest and interrupts the continual worship of God on earth. It substitutes the true worship of God

with a false, sacrilegious worship. Historically, the “taking away of the daily” by the horn

“represents the introduction of such papal innovations as a mediating priesthood, the sacrifice of the

Mass, the confessional, and the worship of Mary, by which it has successfully taken away knowledge

of, and reliance upon, the continual ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and rendered that

ministry inoperative in the lives of millions of professed Christians [emphasis added].10

The horn wages a religious war against the divine heavenly Prince, His sanctuary, and His people. It

becomes an earthly instrument of Satan, as indicated by the phrase that the horn power is “mighty, but not

by his own power” (Dan. 8:24). Its activities are indicative of a cosmic war fought on two levels, the

earthly and the heavenly.11

Fictitious Spins and Gremlin Tales

Such a misconstruction of the little horn’s prophetic narrative in Daniel 8 is nothing less

than a Kabbalistic falsification of the Bible that shows a consistent effort to distort the biblical

text and mutilate the truth. All means are used to divert the SDA readers from a genuine biblical

interpretation supported with solid historical evidence and to provide instead anecdotal and

fraudulent theological narratives that would protect face-saving historicist dogmas – a cherished

and honored practice in the SDA Church. Pröbstle needs to use revision, distortion, and

falsehood in order to support his dogmatic and spurious arguments because no factual evidence

could be invoked for his Kabbalistic misrepresentations.

These SDA pseudo-historicist inventions and Kabbalistic distortions look like desperate

gibberish when compared with Hewitt’s intelligent and biblical interpretation of Daniel 8. True


to the historicist precepts that “interpretive results [should] be confirmed from extrabiblical

sources where possible,”12

and that the “events, institutions, movements, and periods” proposed

and claimed as evidence for “historical fulfillment” must be “specific and identifiable historical

events,”13

and should therefore “reveal information about real, in-history events,”14

rather than

disseminate speculative or fabricated rumors and anecdotes, the expert scholar establishes his

interpretation on factual and positive historical data as true and genuine historicists should do.


VII. Hard Arguments against Rome

Authentic and Factual Historicism

There is a good, scientific, and reliable case to be made against Rome as the little horn in

Daniel 8, and Hewitt supports his historical and well-documented position with “six compelling

reasons which may prompt the careful student to place a question mark against the Roman

view.” States the Advent Christian Church [ACC] theologian:

It would be manifestly unfair to charge the extravagancies of Smith upon the Roman view as a whole.

There is much to be said for it, and many careful students have championed it (e.g., Sir Isaac Newton,

Bishop Newton, Joseph Wolff, Cuninghame, Irving, Birks, and others). It is undeniable, for example, that

the five arguments given above make out a good case for Rome’s filling the picture of this little horn as she

does the other one in Daniel 7. But on the other hand, the position labors under many difficulties which

should not be overlooked [emphasis added].

1. This interpretation identifies the two little horns. In Chapter Four the reader’s attention was called to

no less than nine points of distinction between these horns, which forbid such an identification

[emphasis added].

2. This view maintains that the fourth empire of the preceding visions appears in this chapter as a

“very little horn” growing up out of a larger “notable” horn on the head of a beast symbolizing the

third word empire. Such a type of representation is neither appropriate nor consistent. It imports

confusion into the symbolic pattern of those visions [emphasis added].

One searching critic of the theory has well said:

“The first objection that may be urged against it, is the improbability that the same Power which in the

former vision was represented under the symbol of a great and terrible beast, should now be

described under that of only a ‘little’ horn [emphasis added]. In prophetic imagery there is, to the full, as

exact a discrimination of ideas as in ordinary language; otherwise…there could be no definiteness and

precision in any of the symbolical predictions. Accordingly we shall find that a Universal Empire is never

symbolized by a Horn, but always by a Beast [emphasis added].”15

3. The Roman view can be maintained historically only with the greatest difficulty [emphasis added].

The little horn came forth from one of the four horns of the he-goat, or in other words, out of one of the

four kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided. Now it is certain that Italy was never a part of

the Alexandrian domain. Rome did not rise out of one of these Grecian kingdoms, but far to the west,

entirely outside the boundaries of the Greek dominion, and from this position threw herself in turn upon the

four kingdoms, devouring them one after another.





it, the invader becomes identified with its conquered for to such an extent that it may properly be spoken of



conquered and occupied Japan! [emphasis added].

4. The conquests of Rome were by no means limited to the directions in which the exploits of the little

horn were confined. Rome not only advanced her sway to “the south, and the east, and the pleasant

land,” but to the north and the west, and even beyond the Pillars of Hercules [emphasis added]. The

terms of the prediction mark the “little horn” power as Asiatic; Rome was principally a European power.

5. Those who hold the Roman theory face another problem in their view of the sanctuary. They have

usually believed that the sanctuary will be cleansed at or near the second coming of Christ. Some have held


that it is the earth, and that the cleansing referred to is the renewal of the earth after the judgment. Others

have held that by the sanctuary we are to understand the Christian Church, which will be cleansed of papal

and other abominations at the judgment. Yet when advocates of these hypotheses allude to the casting

down or defiling of the sanctuary they speak of the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In

other words, according to this theory, the sanctuary to be cleansed is not the same sanctuary that was

defiled! Careful students will ask, How can this be? [emphasis added].

6. This seems rather astonishing, to be sure. Yet it is a minor inconsistency compared with the difficulty

created by the 2,300 days. According to the Roman view, these are to be understood on the year-day

principle as so many years. Even a cursory examination reveals that these 2,300 days mark the period of

time during which the sanctuary was to be cast down or defiled. (Compare v. 11 with v.14) Here is a fact

which advocates of this theory seem completely to have overlooked. Before the event proved them wrong,

it was the fashion with such expositors to end the period in 1843, or thereabouts, at which time they

speculated the Lord might come, and to begin it 2,300 years earlier, or in 457 B.C.17

It did not occur to them, apparently, to ask themselves, What sanctuary was cast down or defiled in 457

B.C. [emphasis added]? That is the year in which Artaxerxes Longimanus, emperor of Persia, issued his

famous decree for the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem. If this edict had any direct bearing on the

temple and temple worship, its effect must have been favorable rather than otherwise. As defined, then, by

the terms of the vision in Daniel 8, there seems to have been no acceptable terminus a quo for this great

chronological period at the time suggested. Furthermore, can advocates of the Roman theory find any

sanctuary that, on any fair understanding of the words, has lain waste and desolate for 2,300 years

[emphasis added]? Neither 70 A.D., when a sanctuary of God was cast down that has never yet been

restored, nor 395 A.D., when according to Uriah Smith, the “sanctuary” was defiled by the seat of

government being moved from Rome to Constantinople, yields a terminus a quo that is at all satisfactory to

these interpreters.1


VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus

SDA Historicist Credits Antiochus

There is no doubt that all true and factual historical evidence supports the position that

the little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Even the most dogmatic SDA theologians

acknowledge that at least some partial credit is due to the notorious Seleucid king. Shea makes

this matter obvious in a document that defines where he stands on the issue – explicit and

unequivocal against Antiochus and all for Rome.1 Still, for the sake of balance in his

apologetic debate, the inflexible SDA historicist includes in his document the opposed

viewpoint, or “arguments in favor of Antiochus IV Epiphanies and the Little Horn” – certain

unassailable historical records and unquestionable events that establish with undeniable realism

that the little horn in Daniel 8 is the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. States Shea:

Since Antiochus IV is commonly identified with the little horn of Daniel 8, arguments favoring this

identification will be considered first.

Arguments in Favor of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Little Horn

Antiochus was a Seleucid king. As one of this dynasty of kings, he could have proceeded from one of the

four horns referred to in Daniel 8:8 [emphasis added] – provided that was the little horn's origin.

Antiochus’ succession was irregular. If the phrase, “but not with his power [welo bekoho],” at the

beginning of Daniel 8:24 is original with the MT (the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT) and not a

dittography or scribal repetition from the end of verse 22, it would suggest that, historically speaking, the

little horn came to power through an irregular succession.

A son of Seleucus IV Philopator should have succeeded to the rule after his father's assassination by the

courtier Heliodorus. However, the king's brother, Antiochus IV came to the throne instead, aided by the

armies of Pergamos. It is possible to apply the phrase “but not by his own power” to this course of events.

Antiochus persecuted the Jews.

Antiochus polluted the Jerusalem temple and disrupted its services. However, it remains to be seen

whether in fact he did all the things against the temple that Daniel 8 says the little horn did.

There are, therefore, two reasonably straightforward arguments in favor of identifying the little horn

as Antiochus IV: his irregular succession and his persecution of the Jews. There are two other

arguments which may possibly support that identification, but they must be qualified to some extent.

These have to do with his origin and his desecration of the temple [emphasis added]. The question here

is whether these four points, two reasonably straightforward and two qualified, provide a sound basis for

making this identification.2

True and Solid Historical Evidence

The SDA historicist adds to his document even more genuine historical evidence that

confirms Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn, although the theologian misinterprets and

distorts the historical facts to argue against the Seleucid king, rather than support him. Still, the

actual historical information Shea provides is relevant to this discussion and is included here not

as evidence that the SDA theologian supports the “Antiochus perspective,” but as truthful and

indisputable historical evidence that will help the readers conclude that, indeed, the vicious

Seleucid king is the little horn in Daniel 8, and that Rome fails to meet the prophetic criteria:


Activities of the little horn:

Conquests. The horn “grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious

land.”

To the south. Antiochus III was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when

he defeated the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern

frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta

in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria to undertake its siege, but was turned

back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success

in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow “exceedingly great toward the south.”

To the east. Antiochus III subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him

to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after

the Romans defeated him at Magnesia.

Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory during the eastern campaign he conducted in the

last two years of his reign. After some initial diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and Media,

however, he found himself unable to make further headway against the Parthians. He died during the

course of his campaign against the latter, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C.

While Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as

Antiochus III; and this project was left incomplete at the point of his death. It is open to question, therefore,

as to what extent these partial and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning

the little horn as “growing exceedingly great” toward the east.

To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated

the temple and persecuted the Jews [emphasis added]. This did not occur because of any conquest of his

own, but because Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C.

He could not have “grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land,” Judea presumably, in any sense of

conquest or acquiring control of it by military action. He could have “[grown] exceedingly” only in the

sense of exercising or abusing his control over it, since it was already part of his kingdom when he

came to the throne [emphasis added].

Although Antiochus IV was not the conquerer of Palestine, the defeats his forces suffered there toward the

end of his reign started the course of events that eventually led to the complete independence of Judea from

the Seleucids. While he himself was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces suffered defeats at

Emmaus (1 Mace 3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Mace 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews

liberated the polluted temple from Seleucid hands and rededicated it (1 Mace 5:52). Antiochus died in the

east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Macc 6:15).

Summary. Antiochus IV never captured Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, but he enjoyed military successes

in Lower Egypt during his campaigns from 169 to 167 B.C. However, he had to forsake these briefly held,

ill-gotten gains, due to diplomatic pressure from the Romans. Only the first part of his campaign toward the

east was successful. He died before he had carried out his plans for that region to consolidate his control

over it.

Although he bore down harder on the Jews than had his predecessors, he was not the one who brought

Judea into the Seleucid Empire, since it was already part of that dominion when he came to the throne. The

three defeats his forces suffered there shortly before he died signaled developments that ultimately led to

Judea's independence. The net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres

was rather negligible and even negative in some cases. Thus he does not fit very well the specification of


this prophecy which states that the little horn was to grow “exceedingly great toward the south, toward the

east, and toward the glorious land.”

Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the “daily” or “continual.”

It holds true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the

temple, or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices [emphasis added].3

Not Confused With Genuine Facts

From Shea’s pseudo-historicist perspective, whether or not Antiochus IV Epiphanes

meets the prophetic criteria in Daniel 8 seems to be less a matter of true historical record than an

interpretation issue “open to question.” Between verifiable factual evidence and some

speculative SDA “exegesis,” the theologian never hesitates to accept deduction over induction

and personal theological opinion over confirmed historical evidence. For instance, although Shea

never questions the true and indisputable fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes “was successful in

conquering most of the [Egyptian] Delta in 169 B.C.” when the Seleucid king “attempted to

extend his southern frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C.,” he diminishes the

event’s relevance and disputes its true historical value when he contends that “it is doubtful that

he really did grow ‘exceeding great toward the south.’” Shea’s preferred English translation

seems to be the KJV because no modern English Bible renders the Old Testament original

Hebrew text as “exceeding great” or “excessively great.” When pagan Rome, even at its utmost

height, extended its territories or political power “in excess” or “too much” is a matter that has

never received a logical and rational explanation from the SDA historicists.

Shea has similar comments for the Seleucid king’s conquests to the east. Again, “while

Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area

as Antiochus III,” and therefore “it is open to question, therefore, as to what extent these partial

and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning the little horn as

‘growing exceedingly great’ toward the east.” The “question” which the theologian mentions

must mean “interpretation” because in the final instance what will prevail in his argument are not

the historical facts but the SDA pseudo-historicist interpretation that denies the evidence and

excludes Antiochus IV Epiphanes from Daniel 8 for dogmatic reasons. Shea offers identical

protests for the idea that the Seleucid king might have met the prophetic criteria in his conquest

of the “glorious land,” but accepts the notion that while Antiochus “‘could not have grown

exceedingly great toward the glorious land,’ Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest or

acquiring control of it by military action,’” the notorious and vicious Seleucid king “could have

‘[grown] exceedingly’ only in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over it, since it was

already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.”

Compelled to Admit the Evidence

Unquestionable historical evidence compels the SDA theologian to acknowledge that in

matters of “anti-temple activities” the facts cannot be ignored, negated, or dismissed, and

therefore “it is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the ‘daily; or ‘continual.’ It holds

true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the

temple, or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices.”4

Shea’s

admission feels like a breath of fresh air when one compares it with the slanted and distorted


interpretation Pröbstle suggests for the same plain historical event in order to propagandize

Rome as the little horn:















the true priest. The horn acts as another “prince of the host” and commands its own counterfeit “host,”

which the horn sets up against the tamid (verse 12). In a warfare context, the word “host” refers to an army,

but in a sanctuary framework it indicates a “priestly host.” Because the counterfeit host goes against the

regular worship service, it could point to a counterfeit priestly host. Verse 12, with the repetition of the

hook words tamid and “throw down,” functions as an explanation of the two activities of verse 11.

Of course, the horn cannot interfere in Christ’s continual priestly mediation in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb.

7:25; 8:1, 2). Who could do that anyway? Christ’s priestly ministry itself remains unaffected and

untouched [emphasis added]. However, the horn power usurps the responsibilities of the heavenly priest

and interrupts the continual worship of God on earth. It substitutes the true worship of God with a false,

sacrilegious worship. Historically, the “taking away of the daily” by the horn “represents the

introduction of such papal innovations as a mediating priesthood, the sacrifice of the Mass, the

confessional, and the worship of Mary, by which it has successfully taken away knowledge of, and

reliance upon, the continual ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and rendered that ministry

inoperative in the lives of millions of professed Christians [emphasis added].10

The horn wages a religious war against the divine heavenly Prince, His sanctuary, and His people. It

becomes an earthly instrument of Satan, as indicated by the phrase that the horn power is “mighty, but not

by his own power” (Dan. 8:24).5

The “Heretic” and His Punishment

Those who are close enough to the SDA theologians have noticed that a lot of scholars

seem to change their interpretations on Daniel right after their retirement, and that quite often

their new perspectives – free from the SDA dogmatic constraints – are rather unorthodox and

even “heretic.” Some SDA theologians and scholars, though, dare to “see the light” before their

due retirement and risk to be punished and removed from their church positions. Such is the case

with Laiu, Biblical Languages and Old Testament exegesis professor at the Romanian

Theological Institute, who critiqued the traditional unbiblical and dogmatic SDA perspective

against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and was demoted from his college professor position. States the

Romanian theologian:

After our scholars gradually abandoned or tend to ignore today the traditional solutions for the origin of the

little horn, the implication of the phrase “out of one of the [m = four horns]” compells [sic!] me to resort to

the traditional Christian solution: Antiochus-Antichrist, in Daniel 8 and 11, but with the identity of


Antichrist–Papacy taken from Daniel 7. Though we do not need to resort to the so-called apotelesmatic

principle, this solution has apologetic advantages: it is already acknowledged, and it does not contradict our

application to Rome and Papacy. Most important, the little horn of Daniel 8 has its widely acknowledged

parallel character in the prophecy of Daniel 11:21-35. The vile king of the North is best applied to

Antiochus, as it is commonly agreed, usually outside the SDA circles.

There is no reason to see the little horn as representative of the professed people of God, or of their sins,

confessed or unconfessed, as some have proposed.58

The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 are symbolic for the

same class of hostile forces as the other horns, and as the beastly heads where they are rooted. No matter

that the wicked horn represents first either Antiochus or pagan Rome, how can these professed pagans

represent the professed people of God? If the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Roman (Papal) Antichrist, and it

has a correspondent in the wicked horn of Daniel 8, how could a Pagan-Christian power represent the

professed people of God or their sins? Such interpretation was an ingenious way of compensate the

lack of contextual support for the historical view of cleansing the sanctuary from the confessed sins

of God’s people in the eschatological Day of Atonement [emphasis added].

If there is any wonder how a horn can grow out of another horn, we must remember the monstrous

character of the visionary beasts. There is no need to find something similar in apocalyptic literature. Do

we find any beast chewing animal ribs, or another horn with eyes and mouths, or another beast with two

unequal horns, save in Daniel 7? This feature is not as monstrous as it appears anyway, since it is specific

to some relatives of the goat, such as the hart and the reindeer, in the wild life. Visions are certainly wilder

than life.

On the other hand, the possibility to have a horn appearing with no animal support may be compared to the

vision of Zechariah (1:19), where four horns appear out of nothing. These four horns have general symbolic

functions. They are not related to any animal, just like the iron horns of the false prophet Zidkiyahu ben-

Kena‘nah (1K 22:11; 2Ch 18:10). By contrast, in Daniel 8 all the other seven horns (two of the ram and one

plus four of the goat) come out of animal heads. Why this last horn should come simply out of a wind

(direction)? A horn in Hebrew poetry means power. The four horns in Zechariah symbolize the universal

political forces that have dispersed God’s people, and not four specific political powers, while the horns in

Daniel 8 have specific identities as political dynasties: two of the Medo-Persians and six of the Greeks.

It is said that the verb יָָצא yāṣā’ could not possibly describe the waxing of a horn, since such a movement is

described in Daniel 8 by the verb ָעָלה ‘ālāh (8:3, 8). But it is sometimes a synonym for ָעָלה ‘ālā

h59, and it is

known to have a broader range of meanings, not limited to describing a military movement from some

direction. Daniel uses also the verb ָעָמד ‘āmāḏ for the same purpose (8:22-23). Furthermore, if יָָצא yāṣā’

describes:

flowers sprouting from a rod (Nu 17:23);

a shoot springing from a stem (Is 11:1);

a tower that protrudes/projects from a palace (Ne 3:25);

any product of the field (Gn 1:12; Dt 14:22);

the source/spring of a river (Gn 2:10);

racial descendance (Gn 19:14; 17:6).

Why then יָָצא yāṣā’ cannot be used to describe the growing up of a horn?

It is true that each animal in Daniel 8 comes out of some direction. The ram is not said to have come out of

a specific direction, it is only implied the east, since it batters toward three western directions. The verb יָָצא

yāṣā’ is not used for the horizontal campaigns of the ram. Actually, the goat only is spoken of coming out

of a specific “wind” (west), though neither for it is used the verb יָָצא yāṣā’, but the verb ָבא bā’ (came

[from]). In any case, the direction is either implied or specified. But when we come to the Luciferian horn,

there is no direction specified or implied.


If Daniel wanted to say that the horn came out of one direction, but not indicate the direction, it could come

from the north, or from the west, judging from its directions of expansion. But when Gabriel explains the

vision he does not refer to the specific direction wherefrom this horn-king came, neither has he given any

clue. The information received by vision is sufficient for the time. The angel will give further instruction in

chapter 11.

If the divine inspiration intended a symbol of Rome, as a new and different empire, would it not the

image of another beast have been more appropriate, as in chapter 7? The present solution, of a horn

coming out of one wind/direction, has no apologetic future, in my opinion [emphasis added].

Comparing the prophecy of Daniel 8 with the comparatively ill-studied prophecy of Daniel 11, and noting

the oldest Jewish and Christian commentaries and some modern commentaries, we are encouraged to admit

a twofold application of this prophecy: first to Antiochus, and next to Antichrist, his sinister long shadow,

revealed in Daniel 7 as a Roman outgrowth.

Actually, there is no unique historical fulfillment corresponding to all the details indicated by the prophet.

If this prophecy must be fulfilled by a single historical entity, one wonders who such power was. Neither

the Roman Empire, nor the Papacy did come from a Hellenistic state. On the other side, Antiochus had no

connection with the 2300 days and did not survive to the time of the end, to be finally crushed by God’s

hand.

Desmond Ford’s proposal that Antiochus is a first, incomplete and typical fulfillment of this

prophecy, which had to be better fulfilled by the pagan and Christian Rome, seems to me the best

solution [emphasis added], even though I don’t like double prophecies.60

I would avoid it, if I could find a

better solution. Anyway, it seems to me, hermeneutically and apologetically, more acceptable than any

other historical or current Adventist explanations.

Rome and Papacy better fulfill much better the most prophetic features of the little horn, but Antiochus fits

best the origin of the little horn – at least. In Daniel 11, in the same manner, the king of the north is, in the

last phase, the Papal Antichrist, but at the moment of his first appearance (11:21), and in a lot of dealings

with the Jewish religion (vv. 21-34), it is clearly the Hellenistic king. Antiochus is the spiritual root of

Antichrist, and as a character he is even a “Roman” king, since he was educated in Rome and played so

ominously his role as a persecuting god-king.

The close connection between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the prophecy of Daniel 11-12 is a

generally accepted view.61

However, in the determination to avoid the presence of Antiochus in

Daniel 11, SDA have adopted a pattern that does not hold water. Our historical insistence to describe

the dominant role of imperial Rome in Daniel 11 is forced and doomed to failure [emphasis added].

Some SDA expositors would say that Rome appears early in this prophecy, in verse 14, to play an

exclusive role in verses 16-30. But while they made ingenious attempts to explain each verse consistently,

our traditional expositions of the “king of the north” have no future.62

Others would make appear the Roman forces much earlier in the chapter, beginning with the last sentence

of verse 4, but with little or no attempt to identify the historical events in the prophecy.63

Unfortunately, our usual interpretations ignore the solutions of SDA teachers who identified

Antiochus in Daniel, at least in chapter 11 (H C Lacey, W G Wirth, M C Wilcox, S Horn, R Cottrell,

D Neufeld, A Vaucher, D Ford, etc.) [emphasis added].64

Some important consideration to this subject

showed Zdrávko Stefanović in his commentary on Daniel, reviewing some non-Adventist expositions that

contain applications to Antiochus.65

Likewise Antonio Caracciolo of Villa Aurora, very practically put in

parallel the SDA classical view and some Catholic and Evangelical views focused on Antiochus.66 6

An Authentic Historicist Perspective

Hewitt reviews the biblical and historical arguments that support Antiochus IV Epiphanes

as the little horn in Daniel 8 in intelligent and competent statements free from pseudo-historicist


dogmatic distortions and misinterpretations and faithful to the biblical text and to the divine

prophetic intent in these comments:

The Test of History

This position, maintained by eminent conservative scholars and commentators, satisfies the test of

conformity to history. Since this phase of the subject has been touched upon frequently in this and the

preceding chapter, it is hardly necessary at this point to do more than give a brief summary.

1. Antiochus fits the requirements as to origin. He was a “horn from littleness,” springing up out of

one of the four kingdoms into which the Macedonian Empire was divided [emphasis added].

2. Antiochus meets also the geographical test in verse 9; his warlike expeditions were directed against

“the south” (Egypt), “the east,” (Persia), and “the pleasant land” (Judea) [emphasis added].

3. He satisfies the requirement of objective, for the particular objects of his hatred and violence were “the

host of heaven” – God’s holy and chosen people – and the “stars.” Since the Jewish people are

symbolized by the heavenly bodies – “the host of heaven” – individual stars are to be understood as

referring to conspicuous leaders among the people. A number of such were deposed or slain by the

machinations of this mad king, among them the venerable and beloved high priest, Onias III

[emphasis added].

4. Antiochus meets also the specification of daring impiety. There can be no doubt that he “magnified

himself even to the prince of the host,” or “Prince of princes” (v. 25); i.e., against Jehovah himself.

This he did by attempting to suspend the provisions of the Mosaic law and to prohibit the worship of

Jehovah [emphasis added]. The reader should consult I Maccabees 1:44-50 on this point.

5. This iniquitous “little horn” meets also the test of desolating the sanctuary. He did this not all at

once but by a succession of steps, all of which were calculated to suppress the divine worship [emphasis added]. Perhaps the first of these acts was the rifling of the temple treasury by a certain

Menelaus to whom Antiochus had sold the high priesthood. This was followed by other and more

outrageous attacks. The author of I Maccabees describes those days of terror and depredation in language

that faithfully reflects the horror with which all the faithful contemplated them:

“Thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary and defiled it: insomuch that the inhabitants

of Jerusalem fled because of them: whereupon the city was made an habitation of strangers, and became

strange to those that were born in her; and her own children left her. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a

wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, her honour into contempt” (I

Macc. 1:37-39).

The height of this insolence and iniquity was reached when, on Chisleu (December) 25, 168 B.C., the

minions of Antiochus offered heathen sacrifices upon the idolatrous altar which they had erected ten

days before upon the altar of burnt offerings [emphasis added].

6. Antiochus meets the test of taking away the daily sacrifice (v. 11) [emphasis added]. The word

“sacrifice” does not appear in the Hebrew; literally the passage reads: “and he took away the continual”

(Heb., tamid). Commentators are agreed, however, that the reference is to the “continual burnt offering”

(Exod. 29:42), and that the translators have given the right sense of the passage. That Antiochus

suppressed the offering of the daily sacrifices in the temple for a considerable period is authenticated

by the author of I Maccabees, Josephus and other Jewish authorities [emphasis added]:

“For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow

the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple…”

(I Macc. 1:44, 45).


7. Antiochus meets the test of character. He was just the sort of person that is envisioned by the “little

horn.” He was indeed a “king of fierce countenance” (v. 25), as witness his ferocity and venom

toward the Jews. He “understood dark sentences” or “stratagems.” Barnes comments that Antiochus

was “more distinguished for craft and policy then he was for wisdom [emphasis added].”20

Driver

mentions in particular “the manner in which he completely misled the legates who were sent by the

Romans for the purpose of ascertaining his feelings toward them.”21

This characteristic of craft is more

fully delineated in verse 25. It can also be said with perfect fidelity to history that this king “magnified

himself in his heart” (v. 25), that he “practiced” and “prospered” (v. 24), and that he was “mighty in power”

– one of the most powerful monarchs of his time – and that his power was “not his own,” since it was given

him by God, for precisely the same purpose that in former days God had given power to the kings of

Assyria and Babylon, i.e., that they might be instruments in the divine hand for bringing punishment upon

Israel for her sins.

8. Antiochus meets also the test of fate [emphasis added]. It is written of the little horn that while he shall

“stand up against the Prince of princes,” yet he “shall be broken without hand.” The last phrase recalls the

manner in which the stone of King Nebuchadnezzar’s vision was cut out of the mountain (Dan. 2:34). This

was explained as meaning “by divine agency.” The suggestion therefore is that there would be something

about the death of Antiochus which would suggest the hand of God in punishment. It is significant that all

of the ancient authors, Greek as well as Jewish, agree that he died very suddenly while on an

expedition against the Parthians as a result of some strange malady, accompanied by supernatural

tokens “such as might well suggest the idea of a divine stroke [emphasis added].”

With all these remarkable points of conformity between the career of Epiphanes and the

specifications of this vision, there is indeed good reason for accepting the Maccabean view of it – the

strongest of all grounds in a question of this sort, the point-by-point correspondence of history to

prophecy [emphasis added].7

The Question about the Desolation

Besides the perpetual dispute about the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8, another

problem of special interest concerns the question, “How long shall be the vision concerning the

daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host

to be trodden under foot?” in Daniel 8:13, and is about what events are considered in the

question. The traditional SDA response to this essential prophetic time issue is that “although the

question singles out a few activities of the horn (perhaps the most horrible ones), it still seeks the

length of the entire vision [emphasis added] – that is, it is inquiring about the events shown in

the vision of Daniel 8.11

”8 This dogmatic interpretation, though, is standard pseudo-historicist

speculation and text distortion. Hewitt dismisses it the following statements:

There remains, however, a final problem to be solved before we can agree that the case for the Maccabean

position is complete. It is a serious problem. It concerns the length of time the sanctuary should lie

desolate [emphasis added]. In his vision Daniel heard a certain saint ask the angel interpreter, “How long

shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the

sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? [emphasis added] And he said unto me, Unto two

thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (vv. 13, 14). Was there any period

corresponding to this in the depredations of Epiphanes against the “host” and their “sanctuary”?

The first thing to notice is the beginning and the ending of this period. (As the scholars would call them, the

terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem.) Some have supposed that the 2,300 days measure the entire

duration of the history contemplated in this vision [emphasis added], i.e., from the rise of Persia to the

cleansing of the sanctuary. Others have looked outside of this vision for a convenient beginning point.

This is the more surprising because the language is so specific [emphasis added]. The inquiring saint

did not ask, How long shall be the vision concerning the ram and the he-goat? He did not ask, How

long shall be the vision from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem


unto the cleansing of the sanctuary? [emphasis added] (That mixes up two visions rather badly!) What he

did ask was, “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of

desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” [emphasis added] This is

exceptionally clear phraseology and can mean only one thing; viz., that the “vision” which is to be

measured by 2,300 days is limited to that part of the whole vision which concerns the taking away of

the daily sacrifice and the treading under foot of the sanctuary. The terminus a quo must therefore

coincide with the beginning of these desolations, and the terminus ad quem, with the cleansing. This

seems to require that the 2,300 days be looked for somewhere during the Maccabean period

[emphasis added].

The second thing to notice is that on this basis the “days” of this vision must be literal and not symbolic

days. In other words, that the year-day principle cannot be applied to this measurement, for obviously 2,300

years cannot be compressed within the limits of the Maccabean struggle against Antiochus.9

The Verifiable Prophetic Fulfillment

The SDA historicist claim that the question in Daniel 8:13 “seeks the length of the entire

vision” in the chapter is essential for the defense of the “sanctuary doctrine” assumed to be the

SDA “unique contribution” to the prophetic interpretation of Daniel. This doctrine also depends

on the claims that Daniel 9 explains the “2300 days” in Daniel 8, and that an important event

took place in heaven in 1844. This assumed “event,” though, is not verifiable with factual

historical data, and is not acceptable as a historical fulfillment for the prophetic events described

in Daniel 8:9-26. A better interpretation for the “2300 days” is needed, and Hewitt provides the

true historical evidence for the fulfillment of the events predicted about the vicious little horn

and the desolation he had caused. He states:

We may now be on the threshold of a most interesting discovery. For if the number 2,300 measures the

period of both the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation against

sanctuary and host, it appears to have been fulfilled with startling exactness [emphasis added].

What was the first act of desecration performed against the sanctuary in the warfare of Antiochus to

suppress the Jewish faith? It was the pillaging of the temple treasures by the renegade high priest

Menelaus, a tool of Epiphanes [emphasis added]. This Menelaus had secured his appointment by

promising the king a huge bribe. After he secured the office by this unlawful means, he had no money

wherewith to pay; so he pilfered many precious golden vessels from the sanctuary treasures. Some of these

he gave into the hands of the royal treasurer, and others he sold in Tyre and other places, to satisfy his debt.

By this daring sacrilege as well as by other nefarious actions, such as procuring the murder of the revered

ex-high priest Onias, and corrupting many of the leaders of the Jews to the God-dishonoring designs of

Antiochus, Menelaus not only aroused resentment in the hearts of the faithful but also fomented greater

hostility on the part of the king. Moses Stuart declares that this sacrilege of Menelaus “was the

commencement of that long series of persecution, oppression and bloodshed which took place in the

sequel under Antiochus [emphasis added].”22

Can we now determine an accurate terminus a quo for this period of desolation? Fortunately, we are

able to do so. The date for the sacrilege of Menelaus is given by Josephus as the one hundred and

forty-second year of the Syrian kingdom, the sixth month and the sixth day. It was just six years, four

months and twenty days after this when, according to I Macc. 4:52, the cleansed sanctuary was

rededicated and the burnt offerings again lifted their smoke from the altar of Jehovah. And in six

years, four months and twenty days, Jewish reckoning, there are exactly 2,300 days. The prophecy

was thus fulfilled to the very day [emphasis added].10


IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations

The complete list of all the theologians, commentators, Bible scholars, and ancient and

modern historians who concur with Hewitt that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is indeed the little horn

in Daniel 8 is so extensive that it would be quite difficult if not impossible for all their comments

and notes to be included in this limited research document. There are a few, though, such as The

Jewish Encyclopedia, Moses Stuart, T. R. Birks, Winston McHarg, Robert D. Wilson, Flavius

Josephus, Edwin R. Bevan, Albert Barnes, and Ernest Lucas whose informed and expert remarks

would be hard to leave outside this investigative document on Antiochus IV Epiphanes:

The Jewish Encyclopedia

The authors of The Jewish Encyclopedia should know well the historical narratives and

ancient records of their own nation, and this matter is evident from the abundance of factual

information that populates the “Antiochus” section in the treatise:

ANTIOCHUS IV., EPIPHANES

(“the Illustrious”): King of Syria; reigned from 175 B.C.; died 164. He was a son of Antiochus the Great,

and, after the murder of his brother Seleucus, took possession of the Syrian throne which rightly belonged

to his nephew Demetrius. This Antiochus is styled in rabbinical sources , “the wicked.” Abundant

information is extant concerning the character of this monarch, who exercised great influence upon Jewish

history and the development of the Jewish religion. Since Jewish and heathen sources agree in their

characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct. Antiochus combined in himself the worst faults

of the Greeks and the Romans, and but very few of their good qualities. He was vainglorious and fond of

display to the verge of eccentricity, liberal to extravagance; his sojourn in Rome had taught him how to

captivate the common people with an appearance of geniality, but in his heart he had all a cruel tyrant's

contempt for his fellow men.

The attempt of modern phil-Hellenes to explain Antiochus’ attitude toward the Jews as an endeavor “to

reform a stiff-necked people” receives no confirmation from the fact that a Tacitus first formulated it.

Antiochus had no wish to Hellenize his conquered subjects, but to denationalize them entirely; his Aramean

subjects were far from becoming Hellenes simply because they had surrendered their name and some of

their Semitic gods. His attempt to level all differences among the nations he ruled arose not from a

conviction of the superiority of Greek culture, the true essence of which he can scarcely be said to have

appreciated, but was simply a product of his eccentricity.

The Jews themselves afforded Antiochus the first opportunity to interfere in their domestic affairs. The

struggle of the Tobiads against the high priest Onias III., originally a personal matter, gradually assumed a

religio-political phase. The conservatives siding with the legitimate high priest approached the king of

Egypt; for they relied more on that monarch than on Antiochus, sometimes nick-named 'Επιμανής

(madman), while the Tobiads well understood that Antiochus’ favor was to be purchased with gold. The

Tobiads caused the deposition of Onias (173), and the appointment of their own partizan, Jason. In order to

ingratiate himself with the king, this new high priest established an arena for public games close by the

Temple. But the king cared very much more for gold than for the Hellenizing of Palestine, and a certain

Menelaus made use of the fact so shrewdly that he received the high-priesthood in place of Jason, in the

year 171. But when false tidings came to Jerusalem that Antiochus had died on a campaign in Egypt,

Menelaus could not maintain himself in the city, and together with the Tobiads fled to Egypt.

On his return homeward, Antiochus came to Jerusalem to reinstate Menelaus, and then the true character of

the Hellenism that Antiochus desired was revealed to the Jews. He entered the Temple precincts, not out of

curiosity, but to plunder the treasury, and carried away valuable utensils, such as the golden candlestick

upon the altar and the showbread table, likewise of gold. This spoliation of the Sanctuary frustrated all the

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14418-tobiads


attempts of Jason and the other Tobiads to Hellenize the people, for even the most well-disposed of

Hellenizers among them felt outraged at this desecration. They must have given vent to their sentiment very

freely; for only thus can the policy of extermination waged by Antiochus against the Jews and Judaism, two

years later, 168, be explained. As long as he was occupied with preparations for his expedition against

Egypt, Antiochus had no time for Palestine; but when the Romans compelled him to forego his plans of

conquest, his rage at the unexpected impediment was wreaked upon the innocent Jews. An officer,

Apollonius, was sent through the country with an armed troop, commissioned to slay and destroy. He first

entered Jerusalem amicably; then suddenly turning upon the defenseless city, he murdered, plundered, and

burnt through its length and breadth. The men were butchered, women and children sold into slavery, and

in order to give permanence to the work of desolation, the walls and numerous houses were torn down.

The old City of David was fortified anew by the Syrians, and made into a very strong fortress completely

dominating the city. Having thus made Jerusalem a Greek colony, the king's attention was next turned to

the destruction of the national religion. A royal decree proclaimed the abolition of the Jewish mode of

worship; Sabbaths and festivals were not to be observed; circumcision was not to be performed; the sacred

books were to be surrendered and the Jews were compelled to offer sacrifices to the idols that had been

erected. The officers charged with carrying out these commands did so with great rigor; a veritable

inquisition was established with monthly sessions for investigation. The possession of a sacred book or the

performance of the rite of circumcision was punished with death. On Kislew (Nov.-Dec.) 25, 168, the

"abomination of desolation" ( , Dan. xi. 31, xii. 11) was set up on the altar of burnt offering in

the Temple, and the Jews required to make obeisance to it. This was probably the Olympian Zeus, or Baal

Shamem.

Antiochus, however, had misunderstood the true character of Judaism, if he thought to exterminate it by

force. His tyranny aroused both the religious and the political consciousness of the Jews, which resulted in

the revolution led by the Maccabees. After the passive resistance of the Ḥasidim (pious ones), who, much

to the surprise of the Hellenes, suffered martyrdom by hundreds, the Hasmonean Mattathias organized open

resistance in 167-166, which, through the heroic achievements of his son and successor Judas the Maccabee

in defeating two large and well-equipped armies of Antiochus, grew to formidable proportions. Antiochus

realized that a serious attempt must be made to put down the rising, but was himself too busily occupied

against the Parthians to take personal charge. Lysias, whom he had left as regent in Syria, received

instructions to send a large army against the Jews and exterminate them utterly. But the generals

Ptolemæus, Nicanor, and Gorgias, whom Lysias despatched with large armies against Judah, were defeated

one after the other (166-165), and compelled to take refuge upon Philistine soil. Lysias himself (165) was

forced to flee to Antioch, having been completely routed by the victorious Jews. But although he began to

gather new forces, nothing was accomplished in the lifetime of Antiochus, who died shortly thereafter in

Tabæ in Persia, 164.1

Moses Stuart

To discard and ignore the above potent historical facts that come from unquestionable

and corroborated ancient Jewish records is clear evidence for a mindset that places speculative

theories above the truth. Stuart confirms the facts presented above with comprehensive and

pertinent comments about the vicious deeds of the Seleucid king:

This [the temple restoration – Daniel 8:14] was done when Judas Maccabaeus, after the three and a half

years in which all temple-rites had been suspended, and heathen sacrifices had been offered there, made a

thorough expurgation of everything pertaining to the temple, and restored its entire services. This was on

the 25th of Dec. 165 B.C., just three years from the time when swine’s flesh was first offered there by

Antiochus. We have then the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days; and it is not difficult, therefore, to find

the terminus a quo. These days, at 30 in a month 9 which is clearly the prophetic mode of reckoning), make

6 years, 4 months, and twenty days. Dec. 25 of 171 makes six years, and the four months and twenty days

will bring the time to the latter half of July in the same year, i.e. 171 B.C. During this year, Menelaus, the

high-priest appointed by Antiochus on the ground of a proffered bribe, and in this transaction he was


assisted by his brother Lysimachus. The regular and lawful high-priest, Onias III, who had been removed,

severely reproved this sacrilege committed by his brethren; and afterward, through fear of them, fled for

refuge to Daphne, and asylum near Antioch in Syria. Thence he was allured by the false promises of

Menelaus, and perfidiously murdered by the king’s lieutenant, Andronicus. See the whole story in 2 Macc.

4:27 seq. The Jews at Jerusalem, incensed by the violent death of their lawful high-priest, and by the

sacrilegiou8s robberies of Menelaus and Lysimachus, became tumultuous, and a severe contest took place

between them and the adherents of those who committed the robbery, in which the patriotic Jews at last

gained the victory, and Lysimachus was slain at the treasury. This was the first contest that took place,

between the friends of Antiochus and the adherents to the Hebrew laws and usages. The whole of it was

occasioned by the baseness of Antiochus, in accepting bribes for bestowing the office of high priest on

those who had no just claim to it. The payment of the bribes occasioned the robbing of the temple and the

sacrilege committed there; and this was the commencement of that long series of oppression, persecution,

and bloodshed, which took place in the sequel under Antiochus.

We have, indeed, no data in ancient history by which the very day, or even month, connected with the

transactions above related can be exactly ascertained. But the year is certain; and as the time seems to be

definite in our text, the fair presumption is, that the outbreak of the populace, and the battle that followed,

constitute the terminus a quo of the 2300 days. See Froelich, Annales Reg. Syr. p. 46; and also Usher’s

Chronol. The first of these two solid and excellent writers, has taken the most pains to enucleate the Syrian

history, and it the most to be relied upon. Both depend mainly on 2 Macc. 4:39-42 as their source; where

the time is not specifically noted. But Froelich seems most thoroughly and accurately to have developed the

course of events.

As to the difference between the time here, viz. 2300 days, and the three and a half years in 7:25, if the

reader narrowly inspects the latter, he will perceive, that the time there specified has relation to the period

during which Antiochus entirely prohibited the Jewish religion in every shape. This period, as is well

known, corresponds with historical facts. In the passage before us, a more extensive series of events is

comprised, as vs. 10-12 indicate. They begin with assaults on the priesthood, (which we have seen to be

matter of fact, as stated above), and end with the desecration and prostration of all that is sacred and holy. It

is unnecessary to show that each of the things described belongs to each and every part of the 2300 days.

Enough that the events are successive, and spread over the time specified in our text. The trampling down

or degradation of the priesthood and the sanctuary commenced the whole series of oppression and

persecution; and this with most aggravated acts of sacrilege and blasphemy, was also the consummation of

the tyrant’s outrages.2

In Dan. 8:13, 14, a period of 2300 days is mentioned, as the limit to which the desolations in Judaea

shall come. Judas Maccabaeus restored the temple worship, Dec. 25, A.C. [Ante Christum – “Before

Christ] 165. Now if we count back for six years, four months, and twenty days – 2300 days, (counting

thirty days to a month and twelve months in a year, which is plainly the prophetic usage), we shall of

course find 171 A.C., and some time in that year during the month of August, to be the terminus a

quo of the 2300 days. In that very year the temple was plundered, through the urgency of Antiochus

for the tribute promised to him by the high priest, Menelaus. It was moreover profaned, in such a

way as to occasion an insurrection among the Jews, who slew the deputy of the high-priest and all

concerned in the sacrilege. From that time, there were frequent aggressions made upon the temple

and holy city, particularly for the last 3 ½ years of Antiochus’ reign, until final victory perched upon

the standard of Judas Maccabaeus, in Dec. 165 A.C. [emphasis added].

Now as Dan. 8:9-13 (comp 8:22-25) makes it plain that Antiochus is the person to whom the 2300 days

stand related, so it is certain (as before) that these cannot mean 2300 years. How could Antiochus in person

oppress the Jews for two thousand and three hundred years? Events in the life and reign of Antiochus make

it quite unnecessary, as it would seem, to look after any other than a literal interpretation of the days which

are specified in Da. 8:14.3

In the year 168 A.C., in the month of May, Antiochus, on his way to make an attack upon Egypt, detached

Apollonius, one of his military officers, with 22,000 men, to subdue and plunder Jerusalem. This was

accomplished. A horrible slaughter was made of the men, and the women and children were made captives,

and multitudes of them sold as slaves. The Jews were soon compelled to eat swine’s flesh, and to


sacrifice to idols. In December of that same year, the temple was profaned by introducing the statue

of Jupiter Olympius, and on the 25th

of that month, sacrifices were made to this idol upon the altar of

God. Just three years after this, i.e. in 165 A. C. Dec 25th

, the temple was expurgated by Judas

Maccabaeus, and the worship of Jehovah restored. Thus three years and six months, if not to the day,

yet very nearly so, marked the period of desolation in the holy city and temple as predicted by

Daniel* [emphasis added].4

T. R. Birks

T. R. Birks continues to support the testimonies that came from the scholars quoted

above, and shares with the readers his complete amazement that the remarkable divine

predictions in Daniel 8 about Antiochus IV Epiphanes – unique in the entire Bible for their

impressive details – have been fulfilled in such an accurate manner:

31. “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they will not give the honour of the kingdom.”

So we read in Livy: “About this time Antiochus, son of Antiochus the Great, who had long been a hostage

at Rome, on the death of Seleucus, his brother, seized on the kingdom of Syria…Obtaining the throne by

the help of Eumenes and Attalus, he was received with such favour of the people that they surnamed him

Epiphanes…Not was he wanting in warlike skill and vigour of mind; but he was so depraved and reckless

in the whole course of his life and manners, that soon after, changing the surname, instead of Epiphanes

(the Illustrious), they called him Epimanes (the Madman)” (Liv. xli. 19).

It is needless at present to trace the correspondence between the ten following verses and the history

of Antiochus. The facts which have been presented in a compressed form, and almost entirely in the

words of the original authorities, make a comment superfluous to prove the accurate fulfillment of

the prophecy, even in its minutest details. There is not one prediction, it may be safely asserted, in the

inspired writings themselves which approaches to this in the number of distinct and connected

particulars, manifestly accomplished in the same order – not one which yields such overwhelming

evidence of the divine foreknowledge [emphasis added].5

Winston McHarg

McHarg organizes similar information about the Seleucid king into contrastive and

detailed points, and demonstrates that even the most minute vision points have had their

fulfillment in the life and deeds of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. No arguments can negate or dismiss

that incomparable prophetic fulfillment:

1. The little horn of Daniel 8 is a Greek horn. Unlike the little horn of Daniel 7, which emerges from the

Roman beast, this horn is said to emerge from one of the four horns upon the Greek beast. It is crystal

clear—while the horn of Daniel 7 emerges from the fourth world empire, the horn of Daniel 8 emerges

from the third world empire. This fact is so plain and transparent that one can only wonder why some

have overlooked it [emphasis added].

2. One of the first things that the angelic interpretation says about the little horn, is that he is ‘… a King of

fierce countenance …’ (v. 23). According to the traditional Adventist view the horn represents a kingdom,

namely the Roman Empire. It is hard to see how a kingdom could have ‘a fierce countenance’ and

‘understand dark sentences.’ The angelic interpretation allows no misunderstanding.

3. This King emerges from one of the fourfold divisions of the Greek Empire. ‘Out of one of them came

forth a little horn …’ (v. 9). Antiochus emerged from the Seleucid horn, which was a division of the

Greek Empire. Rome did not—it emerged on the Italian peninsula to the west of the Greek Empire [emphasis added].


4. The horn would arise ‘in the latter time’ of the fourfold division, which pictures well Antiochus’s

emergence. The fourfold division of Greece had passed the peak of its power when he emerged, this is

evidenced by the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the Romans while on his way to invade

Egypt [emphasis added].

5. The horn would attack the South and East and the pleasant land, i.e. Palestine. Antiochus did

exactly that. However, when Rome came to power, it expanded in all directions, including West to

Britain and North to the Germanic tribes [emphasis added]. This little horn is clearly not Rome.

6. The horn would be noted for his cunning and intrigue. He would ‘understand dark sentences’ and ‘cause

craft to prosper’ (v. 25). Antiochus was renowned for his craftiness and cunning; Rome, more for her

brute strength and power [emphasis added].

7. The horn would destroy the mighty and holy people. History reveals that tens of thousands perished as

Antiochus attempted to force the Jews to deny their faith.

8. The horn would take away the daily sacrifices (v. 11). Antiochus put a stop to the sacrifices for a

period of over three years [emphasis added].

9. Antiochus ‘cast down’ the place of God’s Sanctuary (v. 11) when he shut down its daily ministry

and set up the abomination that caused horror, i.e. the image of Zeus Olympias, and slaughtered

swine on the altar of burnt offering [emphasis added]. The importance of the Sanctuary service, lay, not

so much in the building, as in the daily sacrifices and offerings, by taking these away Antiochus ‘brought

low’ God’s dwelling place.

10. Antiochus continued for approximately (possibly precisely, it is impossible to determine) 2300 days (v.

14) i.e. from the first attacks upon the Sanctuary to his death in 164 BC. One of the world’s leading

conservative Scholars stated, ‘In this year (i.e. 171BC) began the laying waste of the Sanctuary. The

termination would then be the death of Antiochus (164BC).2 There is no convincing fulfillment of the 2300

days in the history of the Roman Empire and only by a fine-spun linking of the Roman Empire with the

Roman Church, and a further fine-spun linking of Daniel 8 with Daniel 9 (these two chapters are

historically separated by at least 10 years) can Seventh-day Adventists arrive at a closing date for the 2300

days. This date is October 22, 1844 when Christ is said to have shifted his ministry from the first apartment

of the heavenly Sanctuary into the second, to begin a work of judgement.

11. In his desecration of the Sanctuary and his persecution of true believers, Antiochus did ‘practice

and prosper’ and ‘was exceeding great’ (v.9 & v.12). One of the major objections to Antiochus as the

fulfillment of the prophecy is the fact that he was a relatively minor player on the stage of history. It

is sometimes asserted he is not big enough to fulfil the prophecy. This objection fails to take into

account the simple fact that this particular prophecy centres primarily on the fate of the people and

religion of God. The great theme of this vision is an unprecedented and successful attack upon the

saints and true worship. It is in this sense that Antiochus practices and prospers and becomes

exceeding great [emphasis added].

Another important point, is that there is much to imply that more than Antiochus alone is portrayed here.

Almost all conservative Scholars agree that Daniel 8 portrays Antiochus as a type of the final Antichrist.

Many believe that the prophecy will have a further, fuller and final fulfillment in the future.

12. That Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel 8, is convincingly confirmed by a comparison with the final

vision of chapter 11. This final vision covers much the same ground as chapter 8. Various Persian and

Grecian kings, including Alexander the Great, are referred to, but all are dealt with briefly in just one or

two verses. As the vision moves towards its climax, Antiochus is once again centre stage, and no less than

fifteen full verses are devoted to him (see 11:21-35). Antiochus is clearly no minor player in this vision.

There then follows an almost imperceptible blending of Antiochus with the one whom most conservative


Scholars consider to be the final manifestation of evil (see v. 36 onwards). It is clear, then, that this Old

Testament tyrant, in his overt and unbridled opposition to the true God, his truth and his people, is a

remarkable and fitting type of the even more horrifying figure of the Antichrist to come.6

Robert D. Wilson

For those who claim that the Seleucid king was much too small, insignificant, and

irrelevant to be the little horn in Daniel 8, and that “what Antiochus accomplished in these three

geographical spheres [south, east, and the glorious land] was rather negligible and even negative

in some cases,”7

Wilson provides a remarkable and impressive description of the terrible

persecution Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched at the Jews and about its important consequences

for the entire population in Palestine:

THE IMPORTANCE OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES

The time has now arrived to grapple with the most insidious and treacherous attack that has been made

upon the Book of Daniel. It is insidious because it claims to be philosophical and scientific. It is

treacherous in so far as it is made by professing Christians. A philosopher who believes that God wound up

the universe, like a clock, and then let it run its course without any interference, must refuse to accept the

Book of Daniel as true. So, also, must one who thinks that nothing contrary to the ordinary course of

human or natural events can be proved by testimony. A scientist (or shall we say sciolist?) who thinks he

knows that the laws of nature are binding on their Creator and that a modern chemist or psychologist or

animal trainer can manipulate the elements, or the minds of men, or of lions, better than the Almighty, will

not hesitate to reject Daniel because of the extraordinary events recorded there as having been wrought by

God. But a Christian who necessarily accepts the principles of theism, and who consequently believes in

God's intervention in the affairs of men, and in predictive prophecy as well as miracle, cannot refuse to

accept the Book of Daniel as historical and reliable, as authentic, genuine, and veracious, simply because of

the character of its predictions.

Now, in works already published42

and elsewhere in this volume we have endeavoured to show, that the

objections against Daniel based upon the alleged inaccuracy of its statements about the age of

Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus are unfounded, that the argument from silence as illustrated in Ecclesiasticus

and other cases is fallacious, that the argument from Daniel's place in the present Hebrew Bible has no

basis to rest on, and that the origin and influence of its ideas and its background including its language are

in harmony with its claims to have been written in the sixth century B.C. in a Babylonian environment.43

There remains but one important obstacle standing in the way of the Christian who desires to follow

Christ and the apostles in their apparent acceptance of the Book of Daniel as being what it purports

to be. It is the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes looms so high in the mind of the prophet. It is difficult

to account for the prominence given to this "contemptible" monarch in the midst of a narrative that

opens with an account of Nebuchadnezzar the king of great Babylon that he had built, that thinks

Cyrus the founder of the Persian empire to be worthy of the merest reference, and that alludes to

Alexander the Great in the most cursory fashion. Why should Epiphanes be selected from all the

successors of Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, Perdiccas, Eumenes, Antigonus, Demetrius

Poliorcetes, and the rest? [emphasis added].

Why should he be given forty verses, or more, of a book which barely squints at the Persian kings, and

never gives but a glimmering intimation that the Roman fleets and legions were to become in his time the

masters of the world? Why should a vision predicting with such accuracy and detail the campaigns of the

kings of the North and the South never allude to that unequalled family of heroes who were to begin at

Modin the liberation of God's people and scatter like the leaves of Vallombrosa the numerous and frequent

hosts of deadly enemies who were to desolate the homes and attempt to suppress the religion of that

Jehovah in whose name the prophet spoke? Why above all was his detailed vision to cease with the

renovation of the temple and fade off into dim outlines when it passed beyond that time into the more


distant vistas but the more glorious hopes of the Messianic kingdom? Why especially should he describe

the true course of events in Epiphanes' expedition against Egypt till the year 169 and then picture another

campaign which according to the critics never occurred at all?

These and similar questions have vexed the righteous souls of many who would like to believe in the real

Daniel and who have no prejudices against the possibility of the kind of predictive prophecy alleged to be

found in the book. They can accept the first six chapters which record the striking occurrences in the lives

of Daniel and his companions. They can accept the principle of the possibility and the fact of divine

revelation of future events. But they hesitate at accepting the whole, at least, of Daniel, because they see

no good and sufficient reason why he should have narrated with such length and clearness the

history of the Seleucids up to the death of Epiphanes and have given so much emphasis to the deeds

of this tyrant while barely mentioning such superlatively and relatively important events as the

resurrection, the judgment, and the kingdom of the Messiah [emphasis added].

Now, in order to remove this hesitation, it may seem to some sufficient to affirm our belief that these

predictions might have been made by God through Daniel, even though we could perceive no good reason

for them. We think, however, that we can perceive a good and sufficient reason for them, one at least that

justifies them in our estimation, and we shall proceed to state it, in order that if possible we may make the

ways of God appear just to the men of little faith.

It appears to us, then, that the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the most important

events in the history of the church. It can be rivalled only by the call of Abraham, the giving of the

Law, the Captivity, and the Incarnation. Among all the crises to which the people of God have been

subjected, it can be compared only with the dispersion in the time of Nebuchadnezzar [emphasis

added]. The return of the exiles had been definitely foretold by Jeremiah, and Jeremiah's prediction was

known and pondered by Daniel.44

He was not needed, nor was it given to him, to supplement the work of

his great predecessor. But he performed a greater and more lasting service for the church. He showed

clearly that all the tyrants of the earth were under the control of the God of heaven, that the kingdoms of

this world were foreordained by Him and should at last be superseded by the Kingdom of the Messiah and

his saints, and he encouraged the people not merely of his own time but of all time to be steadfast in the

midst of fiery trials and deadly perils of all kinds in view of the certainty that God could and would

eventually circumvent or crush the tyrants and deliver the innocent for time and for eternity.

Now, the deadliest peril that the church has ever confronted was the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes

to suppress it utterly. For reasons of state, and perhaps also of religion, he determined to enforce

conformity of worship throughout his dominions. His plan of operations was the most astute that has

ever been devised. He ordered the cessation of circumcision, the sign of the covenant between the

people and their God and that which held them together as a race. He stopped the services in the

temple and instituted in their stead the worship of Jupiter. He set up idol altars in every city and

demanded that every Jew should sacrifice according to the heathen ritual which he had introduced.

He commanded that the holy writings should be destroyed so that the laws and customs and

institutions might be gradually but surely forgotten and eliminated. And for all who refused to accept

these severe and stringent regulations and requirements he pronounced the penalty of death;

whereas he crowned with honours and emoluments all who apostatized and renounced the God of

their fathers. The result of his well calculated machinations was almost complete enough to equal the

most sanguine expectations. Most of the Jewish people seem to have cast away without any apparent

qualm the hereditary claims of race and country and religion, and to have grasped with eagerness the

proffered hand of the subtle enemy of their faith. The blood-thirsty tyrant executed his threats of

death upon all who opposed his will. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered. Whole

families were extirpated for the guilt of one of their number. The chosen people were on the point of

being annihilated and the promises and the hopes of the covenant of being annulled for ever

[emphasis added].

There never was, before or since, such a period of desperation and despondency in the history of the

church. Pharaoh's aim had been to destroy the race, but the promise to Abraham had been fulfilled

through Moses and Joshua. Nebuchadnezzar had carried the people captive and destroyed Jerusalem


and the temple; but the sacred books had been preserved, apostasy was rare, and through God's

servants, the kings of Persia, the people and the temple were at length restored to their former

worship, as it had been foretold by the prophets. But, now, under Epiphanes, was attempted what

had never been proposed by Babylonian conqueror or Persian friends, the entire destruction of

people and religion at one fell blow. Prophecy had ceased. The tribes of Israel were scattered over the

earth, some foreign cities like Alexandria and Antioch having more Jewish inhabitants than

Jerusalem. The Holy Land was largely in possession of the Gentiles. The Jews themselves had

become indifferent to the Law. The High Priests were murdering each other and one of them when

deposed at Jerusalem built a rival temple in Egypt. The whole polity of the Jews was disintegrated,

all their fortresses and cities were in the hands of the enemy, they had no army and no leaders, and

all seemed lost [emphasis added].

Then it was that one man stood up and defied the haughty king. His name was Mattathias. He lived at a

village named Modin. The heathen had constructed an altar. The priest was ready to sacrifice the victim,

when Mattathias slew him and made a fiery appeal to his fellow citizens to take arms against the tyrant. To

hearten them, he called to mind the great deeds of their fathers and the faith that had inspired them. In the

climax of his speech he referred to the fiery furnace and to Daniel in the den of lions. This recalled to them

that their God could and would save those who put their trust in Him. They rallied round Mattathias and his

five noble sons, the most valiant and able of them all. The pious sprang to arms and after many a hard

fought fight the Syrians were overcome and the kingdom of the Jews was reestablished under the

Asmonean rulers.

Had the attempt of Antiochus succeeded, the preparation for the coming of the Messiah could not

have been completed. A people waiting for his appearing would not have been existent. A Diaspora

eager to receive and disseminate the gospel would not have been ready. In short, the continuity of the

church would have been destroyed, the records of the Old Testament might have disappeared as

utterly as the archives of Tyre and the memoirs of Hannibal, the New Testament could not have been

written, the life of Jesus would have been entirely different, the method of the early propagation of

the gospel must have been altered and the whole plan of salvation changed [emphasis added].

But, it will be said, how did the time when these alleged predictions of Daniel were written affect all this?

Only in this respect, that it affords sufficient reason for their having been made so many years before. Just

as the deliverance of the three children from the fiery furnace and of Daniel from the lions’ den on account

of their faith in Israel’s God gave Mattathias a fitting climax in his speech inciting the people to

steadfastness in their trials, so the knowledge that their evil condition had been foretold nearly four hundred

years before would strengthen the hearers’ confidence that the rest of the prediction would be fulfilled in

the overthrow of the oppressor and in the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God. The stupendous crisis

justified the prediction; the prediction justified the expectation of deliverance.

Because the hearers of Mattathias knew about the three children and Daniel, they were incited by

Mattathias’ speech to emulate their conduct and to imitate their faith. Because the learned leaders of the

Jews believed that the visions were really those of Daniel, they accepted the book as true and received it as

canonical. Had the history been fictitious, Mattathias would not have cited from it and the people would not

have been roused by it. Had the visions not been considered genuine, the educated church of that day would

not have acknowledged the book as holy and its teachings as divine. Had the book not been deemed

authentic, it would have been condemned as a forgery and would have failed in that purpose of consolation

and encouragement to which all critics ascribe the reason of its existence. Because both people and rulers

and literati esteemed the book to be authentic, genuine, and veracious, they placed it among those holy

writing for whose preservation they willingly gave up their lives.8

Flavius Josephus

Flavius Josephus, the famous Romano-Jewish historian, lived close to the events

described in Daniel about Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His detailed narratives are impressive and

powerful, while the facts he presents are true, reliable, and indisputable:


1. At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about

his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had

a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to

be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of

Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to

make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came

upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that

favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and

put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six

months [emphasis added]. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the

Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple (1)

concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.

2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with

the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering

what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and

to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they

all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death [emphasis added].

Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own

natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the

inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he

provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves.9

1. About this time, upon the death of Onias the high priest, they gave the high priesthood to Jesus his

brother; for that son which Onias left [or Onias IV.] was yet but an infant; and, in its proper place, we will

inform the reader of all the circumstances that befell this child. But this Jesus, who was the brother of

Onias, was deprived of the high priesthood by the king, who was angry with him, and gave it to his younger

brother, whose name also was Onias; for Simon had these three sons, to each of which the priesthood came,

as we have already informed the reader. This Jesus changed his name to Jason, but Onias was called

Menelaus. Now as the former high priest, Jesus, raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after

him, the multitude were divided between them both. And the sons of Tobias took the part of Menelaus, but

the greater part of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were

distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their

country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian

way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a † Gymnasium at Jerusalem. And

when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were

naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own

country, and imitated the practices of the other nations.

2. Now Antiochus, upon the agreeable situation of the affairs of his kingdom, resolved to make an

expedition against Egypt, both because he had a desire to gain it, and because he contemned the son of

Ptolemy, as now weak, and not yet of abilities to manage affairs of such consequence; so he came with

great forces to Pelusium, and circumvented Ptolemy Philometor by treachery, and seized upon Egypt. He

then came to the places about Memphis; and when he had taken them, he made haste to Alexandria, in

hopes of taking it by siege, and of subduing Ptolemy, who reigned there. But he was driven not only from

Alexandria, but out of all Egypt, by the declaration of the Romans, who charged him to let that country

alone; according as I have elsewhere formerly declared. I will now give a particular account of what

concerns this king, how he subdued Judea and the temple; for in my former work I mentioned those things

very briefly, and have therefore now thought it necessary to go over that history again, and that with great

accuracy.

3. King Antiochus returning out of Egypt, for fear of the Romans, made an expedition against the city

Jerusalem; and when he was there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the kingdom of the Seleucidae, he

took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him. And when he had gotten


possession of Jerusalem, he slew many of the opposite party; and when he had plundered it of a great deal

of money, he returned to Antioch.

4. Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that

month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third

olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by

treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches

that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold,

and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he

ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden

candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering];

and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its

secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation,

for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law.

And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive,

together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive

amounted to about ten thousand. He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the

city walls, he built *a citadel in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the

temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of

Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from

whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. And when the king had built an idol

altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the

Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid

their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol

altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to

circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his

injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed

many Jews there were who complied with the king's commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the

penalty that was denounced. But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did

pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened

to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they

were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still

alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the

king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were

any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably

perished also.10

Edwin R. Bevan

Bevan has written an entire book on the House of Seleucus, and the historical facts

presented in the book’s chapters are well-documented and impressive, saturated with remarkable

and pertinent information that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant and inadequate. States the

famous expert on the Hellenistic world:

The definite quarrel of Antiochus with the Jews – or so, as he perhaps regarded it, with the faction among

the Jews opposed to the High-priest [Menelaus] and to the great Jewish families who supported the High-

priest – began when the intelligence reached him during one of his campaigns in Egypt1 that Jerusalem had

risen for the house of Ptolemy in his rear. Jason had suddenly (on a false report that Antiochus was dead)

come back from the Ammonite country with a band he had got together and possessed himself of

Jerusalem, except the citadel, where Menelaus had taken refuge. Those who Jason found of the party of

Menelaus – from the Seleucid point of view, the loyal party – were put to the sword. It was not Antiochus

who drew the first blood in Jerusalem.

The defection of Jerusalem at a critical moment determined the King to visit it with signal chastisement. A

city so near the Egyptian frontier must be made sure beyond question. We can well believe that the


passionate and wilful nature of Antiochus took a direction of strong vindictiveness towards the treacherous

city. On his return from Egypt he turned aside, and came to Jerusalem with a fierce countenance to wreak

vengeance. That the people generally, whose religion had been outraged by the high-priesthood of the

Benjamite Menelaus, and still more by his manner of exercising office, had given a welcome to Jason we

can hardly doubt. Jason, before the arrival of Antioch, had already played the part of the hireling shepherd;

he was safe once more across the Jordan, and upon the people the punishment fell. It shows, of course, not

that Antiochus was a fiend, but that he was of that order of statesmen who would repress disaffection by

unscrupulous violence without ascertaining whence it springs. Once more blood ran in the streets of

Jerusalem, and the Syrian soldiery told of for the work of massacre were probably no more merciful than

those whom the Ottoman Sultan sets upon the Armenian Christians.

It was not in blood only that Antiochus made the Jews pay. Their rebellion had given him the excuse to

take into the royal treasury the precious things of the Temple of the Lord, as, on one pretext or another, he

appropriated the riches of the other Syrian temples. With unspeakable horror the Jews saw him enter within

the holy doors which might be passed by the priests alone. And the Lord withheld His hand!

Antiochus had not yet declared war on the Jewish religion. He had but chastised Jerusalem as another

rebellious city might have been chastised. The further development of this policy did not manifest itself till

after an interval.1

Since Antiochus could no longer after 168 protect the Coele-Syrian province by holding

any Egyptian territory, its internal consolidation became imperative in the first degree. The weak spot was

Jerusalem. What the Seleucid court believed it saw there was a loyal party, readily accepting the genial

culture which was to harmonize the kingdom, on the one hand, and on the other a people perversely and

dangerously solitary, resisting all efforts to amalgamate them with the general system, and only waiting the

appearance of a foreign invader to rebel. And on what ground did this people maintain its obstinate

isolation? On the ground of an unlovely barbarian superstition. Very well: the religion of Jehovah must be

abolished. The Hellenization of Jerusalem must be made perfect. If part of the population took up an

attitude of irreconcilable obstruction, they must be exterminated and their place filled by Greek colonists.

Apollonius, the commander of the Mysian mercenaries, was charged with the first step of effecting a strong

military occupation of Jerusalem. His errand was concealed; he went with a considerable force, ostensibly

in connexion with the tribute from southern Syria, and seized Jerusalem by a coup de main. A fresh

massacre, directed probably by Menelaus and his adherents, cleared Jerusalem of the obnoxious element. A

new fortress of great strength was built on Mount Zion, and a body of royal troops, “Macedonians,”

established in it to dominate the city.

But now came the second part of the process, the extinguishing of the Jewish religion. It was simple

enough in Jerusalem itself. Jehovah was identified with Zeus Olympius, and Zeus Olympius, it would

appear, with Antiochus. The ritual was altered in such a way as to make the breach with Judaism

more absolute. A Greek altar – the “Abomination of Desolation”1 – was erected upon the old Jewish

altar in the Temple court, and swine sacrificed upon it. The High-priest partook of the new sacrificial

feasts, of the “broth of abominable things.” To partake was made the test of loyalty to the King. The

day of the King’s birth was monthly celebrated with Greek rites. A Dionysiac festival was

introduced, when the population of Jerusalem went in procession, crowned with ivy. That everything

might conform to the purest Hellenic type, the framing of the new institutions was entrusted to one of

the King’s friends from Athens. At the same time that the transformation was accomplished in

Jerusalem, the other temple built to Jehovah in Shechem, the religious centre of the Samaritans, was

constituted a temple of Zeus Xenios.1 [emphasis added].

To purge Jerusalem of all trace of Judaism was comparatively easy; it was another matter to master the

country. In the country villages and smaller towns of Judaea the royal officers met with instances of

extreme resistance. Their instructions were to compel the population to break with the old religion by

taking part in the ceremonies of Hellenic worship, especially in eating the flesh of sacrificed swine, and to

punish even with death mothers who circumcised their children. The books of which the Jews made so

much were destroyed, if found, or disfigured by mocking scribbles, or defiled with unholy broth.


There can be no question that these measures threw the bulk of the Jewish people, who had perhaps

wavered when there seemed a possibility of combining Judaism with Hellenism, into definite antagonism.

But immense force was brought to bear upon them. Antiochus did not omit to have the reasonableness of

Hellenism put in a friendly way to those who would hear, and he punished without mercy those who would

not. And under the stress of those days numbers of the Jews conformed; those who held fast generally

forsook their homes and gathered in wandering companies in desolate places. But there also shone out in

that intense moment the sterner and sublime qualities which later Hellenism, and above all the Hellenism of

Syria, knew nothing of – uncompromising fidelity to an ideal, endurance raised to the pitch of utter self-

devotion, a passionate clinging to purity. They were qualities for the lack of which all the riches of Hellenic

culture could not compensate. It was an epoch in history. The agony created new human types and new

forms of literature, which became permanent, were inherited by Christendom. The figure of the martyr, as

the Church knows it, dates from the persecution of Antiochus; all subsequent martyrologies derive from the

Jewish books which recorded the sufferings of those who in that day “were strong and did exploite.”1 11

Albert Barnes

Barnes, the American theologian, promoted a brand of expert Biblical criticism far ahead

of his time, and supported his commentaries with ample and irrefutable evidence. In his famous

and well distributed Notes on the Book of Daniel, the scholar adds to his arguments for the

Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes the support that comes from 1 Maccabees – an authentic

piece of Jewish history and a record of the events that occurred in Palestine while the vicious

Antiochus persecuted the Jews:

The daily sacrifice was taken away. The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and

evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Mac. i. 20-24, 29-32, 44-50. In the

execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he “entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar,

and the candlestick, and all the vessel thereof; and the table of shew-bread, the pouring vessels, &c.,

and stripped the temple of all the ornaments of gold [emphasis added],”

After two years he again visited the city, and “smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel, and

when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and pulled down the walls thereof on every side.”

Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. “Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts

were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, her honour into contempt.”

Subsequently, by a solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the

temple, and polluted and defiled every part of it. “For the king had sent letters by messengers unto

Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-

offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbaths and

festival days; and pollute the sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and

sacrifice swine’s flesh, and unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and

make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget

the laws, and change all the ordinances.” 1 Mac. i. 44-49

It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us [Daniel 8:10-11] refers, and

the event accords with the words of the prediction so clearly as if what is a prediction had been

written afterwards, and had been designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of

historical record [emphasis added]. 12

Ernest Lucas

Ernest Lucas provides the historical context to his commentaries on Daniel, and makes

sure to provide an adequate historical context for the prophetic book in which he includes

detailed information about Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his exploits in Palestine:


When Seleucus was murdered, his younger brother came to the throne as Antiochus IV. His path to power

is not quite clear (see the ‘Comment’ on 11:21). Dan. 11:21-39 is concerned with his career, and he is

generally seen as the person represented by the ‘small horn’ in Dan. 7-8. A struggle for control of the high-

priesthood in Jerusalem between the pro- and anti- Hellenists gave him the opportunity to make much-

needed money by selling the office to the highest bidder among the pro-Hellenists. This meddling of a

pagan monarch in the highest religious office outraged orthodox Jews, and especially so when he

eventually appointed someone, Menelaus, who was not from the traditional high-priestly family. Menelaus

compounded the problem by having Onias III, the ousted conservative high priest, murdered. Antiochus

invaded Egypt twice. On the second occasion, after initial success, he was forced to withdraw when an

emissary arrived from the Roman Senate and ordered him to do so. Faced with the power of Rome, he had

no option but a humiliating retreat (11:30). As he passed through Palestine after each campaign in Egypt,

unrest in Jerusalem came to his attention and provoked action. In 169, with Menelaus’ connivance, he

plundered the temple. In 167 he sent an army led by Apollonius to deal with the problem. Having given the

impression of coming with peaceful intentions, he attacked and sacked the city on a Sabbath day. A strong

citadel, the Acra, was built in Jerusalem. It was a colony of Hellenized pagans and renegade Jews, and had

its own constitution as a Greek city (11:31a).

Antiochus, apparently exasperated by the religious intransigence of the orthodox Jews, tried to break it by

outlawing traditional Jewish religious practices: reading the Torah, keeping the Sabbath, practicing

circumcision, keeping the food laws and offering Jewish sacrifices in the temple, including the regular daily

sacrifices. Antiochus’ agents desecrated the temple by rededicating it to the pagan god Zeus/Jupiter, setting

up an image to his god, and then offering swine-flesh on the altar of burnt offerings (11:31b). A fierce

persecution was then unleashed against Jews who remained faithful to their God and his Torah (11:32-35;

see also 1 Macc. 1; 2 Macc 6-7). Eventually, armed revolt flared up. It began in the village of Modein, to

the north-west of Jerusalem. When one of Antiochus’ agents arrived in the village and tried to get people to

offer a pagan sacrifice, an elderly priest, Matththias, killed both Antiochus’ agent and a renegade Jew, who

was willing to offer the sacrifice. Mattathias and his sons then fled, and became the leaders of a guerrilla

band (1 Macc. 2). When Mattathias died, his son Judas became the leader. He was given the nickname

‘Maccabeus’ (‘Hammer’). He lead a successful campaign against the Antiocene forces in Judea. After a

series of victories over them, he marched on Jerusalem and took over the whole city except Acra. He and

his followers were then able to purify and rededicate the temple in December 164, a little over three years

after it had been desecrated ( 1 Macc. 4:36-58). They instituted the annual feast of Hanukkah (‘Dedication’)

to commemorate the event (1 Macc. 4:59). It may be Maccabean forces that are referred to (somewhat

disparagingly) as the ‘little help’ in Dan. 11:34a. Whether or not this is the case, it is notable that the

Maccabean forces are given no positive notice in the book of Daniel. At about the time the Jerusalem

temple was rededicated, Antiochus met an untimely death while attempting to rob a temple in Persia (see

the ‘Comment’ on Dan. 11:4-45).13


X. Historicism and False Historicism

Historical Fact or Dogmatic Fiction

The fundamental difference between biblical and unbiblical interpretations comes from

the presence or absence of supportive evidence. No matter how persuasive and impressive are

the theological claims or how erudite and brilliant appear to be the arguments, if no factual

historical data is provided to support the claims with empirical evidence, those interpretations are

not reliable. This is the case with the SDA arguments on Daniel 8 and the actions of the little

horn. The comparison between the factual and accurate non-SDA historicist commentaries and

the SDA pseudo-historicist speculations will provide undeniable and irrefutable evidence that

the SDA interpretations are based on assumptions, speculations, and distorted and manufactured

truths. The truthful non-SDA historicist interpretations of the texts in Daniel 8:8-25 and the

unbiblical and manufactured historicist SDA interpretations of the same texts will be shown

below for the readers’ evaluation. The Bible texts used in this contrast between genuine truth and

dogmatic speculations come from the flawed and outdated KJV Bible, and Laiu’s verbatim and

current Hebrew-English Bible translation:

Daniel 8:8

KJV8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was

broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Verbatim English Translation

LAIU8 And the buck of the goats grew great until/as far as very much but as/when his

becoming strong, was broken the horn the big one, and they came up [horns of]

distinction four in place of her [it], toward the four winds of the skies.1

True Historicist Interpretation

8. Therefore the he-goat waxed very great. The Macedonian power, especially under the reign of

Alexander.

¶ And when he was strong, the great horn was broken. In the time, or at the period of its greatest strength.

Then an event occurred which broke the horn in which was concentrated its power. It is easy to see the

application of this to the Macedonian power. At no time was the empire so strong as at the death of

Alexander. Its power did not pine away; it was not enfeebled, as monarchies are often, by age, and luxury,

and corruption; it was most flourishing and prosperous just at the period when broken by the death of

Alexander. Never afterward did it recover its vigour; never was it consolidated again. From that time this

mighty empire, broken into separate kingdoms, lost its influence in the world.

¶ And for it came up four notable ones. In the place of this one horn in which all the power was

concentrated, there sprang up four others that were distinguished and remarkable. On the word notable, see

Notes on ver. 5. This representation would lead us to suppose that the power which had thus been

concentrated in one monarchy would be divided and distributed into four, and that instead of that one

power there would be four kingdoms that would fill up about the same space in the world, occupy about the

same territory, and have about the same characteristics – so that they might be regarded as the succession to

the one dynasty. The same representation we have of this one power in ch. vii. 6: “And the beast had four

heads.” See also ch. xi.4: “His kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of

heaven.” This accords with the accounts in history of the effect of Alexander's death, for though the


kingdom was not by him divided into four parts, yet, from the confusion and conflicts that arose, the power

was ultimately concentrated into four dynasties.

At his death, his brother Aridaeus was declared king in his stead, and Perdiccas regent. But the unity of the

Macedonian power was gone, and disorder and confusion, and a struggle for empire, immediately

succeeded. The author of the books of Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:7, 8, 9) says: “So Alexander reigned twelve

years, and then died. And his servants bare rule every one in his place. And after his death, they all put

crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many years; and evils were multiplied in the earth.”

Alexander died B.C. 323; Antipater succeeded Perdiccas, B.C. 321; Ptolemy Lagus the same year took

possession of Egypt; Cassander assumed the government of Macedon, B.C. 317; Seleucus Nicator took

possession of Syria, B.C. 311; in 305 B.C. the successors of Alexander took the title of kings, and in 301

B.C. there occurred the battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, who reigned in Asia Minor, was killed, and

then followed in that year a formal division of Alexander's empire between the four victorious princes,

Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. This great battle of Ipsus, a city of Phrygia, was fought

between Antigonus and his son Demetrius on the one side, and the combined forces of these princes on the

other.

Antigonus had aimed at universal sovereignty; he had taken and plundered the island of Cyprus; had

destroyed the fleet of Ptolemy Lagus, and had assumed the crown. – Against him and his usurpations,

Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus, combined their forces, and the result was his complete overthrow at

the battle of Ipsus. Lengerke, in loc. In this battle, Antigonus lost all his conquests and his life. In the

division of the empire, Seleucus Nicator obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, and Susiana, Armenia, a part of

Cappadocia, Cilicia, and his kingdom, in name at least, extended from the Hellespont to the Indies. The

kingdom of Lysimachus extended over a part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocia, and the countries

within the limits of Mount Taurus. Cassander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly, and a part of Greece.

Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, and ultimately Coelo-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, and a part of

Asia Minor and Thrace. Lengerke, in loc.

¶ Toward the four winds of heaven. Toward the four quarters of the world. Thus the dominions of Seleucus

were in the east; these of Cassander in the west; those of Ptolemy in the south, and those of Lysimachus in

the north.2

Deductions and Speculations

8. Waxed very great. Or, “magnified himself exceedingly” (see on vs. 4, 9).

When he was strong. Prophecy predicted that Alexander would fall while his empire was at the height of

its power. At the age of 32, still in the prime of life, the great leader died of a fever aggravated, no doubt,

by his own intemperance. See on ch. 7:6.

Four notable ones. On the four Macedonian (or Hellenistic) kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was

divided, see on chs. 7:6; 11:3, 4.3

Daniel 8:9

KJV9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,



LAIU9 And out of the one of them [=horns], (he) came horn one/an out of smallness and

she magnified herself exceedingly toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the

Splendor [land].4



9. And out of one of them, came forth a little horn. Emblematic of new power that should spring up. Comp.

Notes on ch. vii. 8. This little horn sprang up out of one of the others; it did not spring up in the midst of the

others as the little horn in ch. vii. 8 did among the ten others. This seemed to grow out of one of the four,

and the meaning cannot be misunderstood. From one of the four powers or kingdoms into which the empire

of Alexander would be divided, there would spring up this ambitions and persecuting power.

¶ Which waxed exceeding great. Which became exceedingly powerful. It was comparatively small at first,

but ultimately became mighty. There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here. All the

circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him, and if it were supposed that this was written after

he had lived, and that it was the design of the writer to describe him by this symbol, he could not have

found a symbol that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The Syriac version has

inserted here, in the Syriae text, the words ‘Antiochus Epiphanes,’ and almost without exception,

expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to. For a general account of him, see Notes on

ch. vii. 24, seq. The author of the book of Maccabees, after noticing in the passage above quoted, the death

of Alexander, and the distractions that followed his death, says, “And there came out of them a wicked

root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been a hostage at Rome, and he

reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.” 1 Mac. i. 10. A few

expositors have supposed that this passage refers to Antichrist – what will not expositors of the Bible

suppose? But the great body of interpreters have understood it to refer to Antiochus. This prince was a

successor of Seleucus Nicator, who, in the division of the empire of Alexander, obtained Syria, Babylonia,

Media, &c. (see above on ver. 8), and whose capital was Antioch. The succession of princes who reigned in

Antioch, from Seleucus to Antiochus Epiphanes, were as follows:

(1) Seleucus Nicator, B.C. 312-280.

(2) Antiochus Soter, his son, 280-261.

(3) Antiochus Theos, his son, 261-247.

(4) Seleucus Callinicus, his son, 247-226.

(5) (Alexander), or Seleucus Ceraunus, his son, 226-223.

(6) Antiochus the Great, his brother, 223-187.

(7) Seleucus Philopater, his son, 187-176.

(8) Antiochus Epiphanes, his brother, 176-164.

Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. III. appendix, ch. iii.

The succession of the Syrian kings reigning in Antioch was continued until Syria was reduced to the form

of a Roman province by Pompey, B.C. 63 Seleucus Philopater, the immediate predecessor of Antiochus,

having been assassinated by one of his courtiers, his brother Antiochus hastened to occupy the vacant

throne, although the natural heir, Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was yet alive, but a hostage at Rome.

Antiochus assumed the name of Epiphanes, or Illustrious. In Dan. xi. 21, it is intimated that he gained the

kingdom by flatteries; and there can be no doubt that bribery, and the promise of reward to others, was

made use of to secure his power. See Kitto’s Cyclo. i. 168–170. Of the acts of this prince there will be

occasion for a fuller detail in the Notes on the remainder of this chapter, , and ch. xi.

¶ Toward the south. Toward the country of Egypt, &c. In the year B.C. 171, he declared war against

Ptolemy Philometor, and in the year 170 he conquered Egypt, and plundered Jerusalem. 1 Macc. i.16 – 19.

“Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might

have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore he entered Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and

elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee

was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the land of

Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof.”


¶ And toward the east. Toward Persia and the countries of the East. He went there – these countries being

nominally subject to him – according to the author of the book of Maccabees (1 Macc. iii. 28–37), in order

to replenish his exhausted treasury, that he might carry on his wars with the Jews, and that he might keep

up the splendor and liberality of his court: “He saw that the money of his treasures failed, and that the

tributes in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague which he had brought upon the

land, and he feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give

so liberally as he did before; wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into

Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. So the king departed from

Antioch, his royal city, the hundred fifty and seventh year; and having passed the river Euphrates, he went

through the high countries.”

¶ And toward the pleasant land. The word here used – צבי – tseb y – means, properly, splendor, beauty. Isa.

iv. 2; xxiv. 16; xxviii. 1, 4, 5. It is applied, in Isa. xiii. 19, to Babylon – ‘the glory of kingdoms.’ Here it

evidently denotes the land of the Israelites, or Palestine – so often described as a land of beauty, as flowing

with milk and honey, &c. This is such language as a pious Hebrew would naturally use of his own country,

and especially if he was an exile from it, as Daniel was. Nothing more would be necessary to designate the

land so as to be understood than such an appellation – as nothing more would be necessary to designate his

country to an exile from China than to speak of ‘the flowery land.’ Antiochus, on his return from Egypt,

turned aside and invaded Judea, and ultimately robbed the temple, destroyed Jerusalem, and spread

desolation through the land. See 1 Mac. i.5


There is a tempting plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come “out of one of” the four

horn kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Macedonian goat [emphasis added]. 6

The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat [emphasis added]. It was then a separate

power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any of the horns of the goat. 7

The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat [emphasis added]. 8

The little horn, however, does not stem from those horns, but “came forth” from one of the directions

of the compass [emphasis added], as contextual, literal-structural, and semantic considerations suggest.9

The “them” in “out of one of them” at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest

antecedent: the immediately preceding “four winds of heaven” at the end of verse 8. So the little horn

need not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the directions

toward which Alexander’s kingdom was divided [emphasis added]. This agrees with our previous

conclusion that the little horn in Daniel 7 is a Roman power.10

Most commentators assume that the little horn came out of one of the four horns, but contextual and

literary-structural grounds make that unlikely [emphasis added].11

If “them” refers to “winds,” all difficulty vanishes. The passage then simply states that from one of the

four points of the compass would come another power [emphasis added]. 12

From this understanding of the syntax in verses 8-9, it is evident that when the little horn came onto the

scene of action, it did not come from the Seleucid horn nor from the other three. In the pictorial

vision it is simply seen as coming from one of the compass directions [emphasis added].13

Thus the antecedent of “them” in the phrase “from them” (vs. 9), is neither “winds” nor “horns,” but

“heavens” [emphasis added]. Since “heavens” is masculine by gender and treated as a plural in biblical

Hebrew, according to the verbs and adjectives used with it, there is perfect agreement in gender and

number with the masculine plural pronoun “them.” The feminine “one” of verse 9 refers back to the

feminine “winds” of verse 8. The text discloses the origin clearly enough: It came from one of the four

winds of the heavens, that is, from one of the directions of the compass [emphasis added].14


3. The little horn waxed great toward the south. This was true of Rome. Egypt was made a province of the

Roman empire B.C. 30, and continued such for some centuries.

4. The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of Rome. Rome conquered Syria B.C. 65,

and made it a province.

5. The little horn waxed great toward the pleasant land. So did Rome. Judea is called the pleasant land in

many scriptures. The Romans made it a province of their empire, B.C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city

and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth.15

Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and

no other, is the power in question. And while the descriptions given in the word of God of the

character of this monstrous system are fully met, the prophecies of its baleful history have been most

strikingly and accurately fulfilled [emphasis added].16

Hewitt’s Sensible Refutation

4. The conquests of Rome were by no means limited to the directions in which the exploits of the little

horn were confined. Rome not only advanced her sway to “the south, and the east, and the pleasant

land,” but to the north and the west, and even beyond the Pillars of Hercules. The terms of the

prediction mark the “little horn” power as Asiatic; Rome was principally a European power.

[emphasis added].17

Daniel 8:10

KJV10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host

and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.


LAIU10 She magnified herself as far as the host of the heaven, and she cast to the ground

from [e.g. some of] the host and (namely) from the stars, and trampled them.18


10. And it waxed great. It became very powerful. This was eminently true of Antiochus, after having

subdued Egypt, &c.

¶ Even to the host of heaven – Marg., against. The Hebrew word – עד‛ad – means to or unto, and the

natural idea would seem to be that he wished to place himself among the stars, or to exalt himself above all

that was earthly. Comp, Notes on Isaiah xiv. 13: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into

heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” Lengerke supposes that the meaning here is, that he

not only carried his conquests to Egypt and to the East, and to the holy land in general, but that he made

war on the holy army of God – the priests and worshippers of Jehovah, here spoken of as the host of

heaven. So Maurer understands it. In 2 Mac. ix. 10, Antiochus is described in this language: “And the man

that thought a little afore he could reach the stars of heaven,” &c. The connection would seem to demand

the interpretation proposed by Lengerke and Maurer, for it is immediately said that he cast down some of

the host and the stars to the ground. And such an interpretation accords with the language elsewhere used,

of the priests and rulers of the Hebrew people. Thus, in Isa. xxiv. 21, they are called “the host of the high

ones that are on high.” See Notes on that passage. This language is by no means uncommon in the

Scriptures. It is usual to compare princes and rulers, and especially ecclesiastical rulers, with the sun, moon,

and stars. Undoubtedly it is the design here to describe the pride and ambition of Antiochus, and to show

that he did not think any thing too exalted for his aspiration. None were too high or too sacred to be secure

from his attempts to overthrow them, and even those who, by their position and character, seemed to

deserve to be spoken of as suns and stars, as “the host of heaven,” were not secure.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/isa024.htm#021


¶ And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground. The horn seemed to grow up to the stars,

and to wrest them from their places, and to cast them to the earth. Antiochus, in the fulfillment of this, cast

down and trampled on the princes, and rulers, and people, of the holy host or army of God. All that is

implied in this was abundantly fulfilled in what he did to the Jewish people. Comp. 1 Mac. i, and 2 Mac.

viii. 2.

¶ And stamped upon them. With indignation and contempt. Nothing could better express the conduct of

Antiochus toward the Jews.19


As in Daniel 7, the horn power basically attacks God, His people, and His sanctuary (Dan. 8:9-14). The

horn power first grows horizontally, enlarging its territory of influence upon the earth (verse 9), then

vertically against the “host of heaven” (verse 10), and finally it exalts itself up to the “prince of the host”

(verse 11, KJV).

The “host of heaven” and the “stars” symbolize the people of God (Gen 37:9; Num. 24:17; cf. also the

simile in Dan. 12:3). Some of them get trampled by the horn, which resembles the terrorizing of the saints

in Daniel 7:21, 25.20

The “prince of the host” must be a divine person. In Joshua 5:13-15, the only other place in which a

heavenly “prince of the host” appears, He is the supreme commander of the host of Yahweh and is

distinctly marked as divine – as Yahweh. Joshua, who was standing on “holy” ground in His presence,

bowed down to Him and listened to His, Yahweh’s, words (Joshua 6:2-5). Thus we should identify the

“prince of the host” in Daniel 8:11 as the divine-like commander Michael, the chief of the angels. It is

nobody else than Christ, the Son of man, who is distinct from the Most High.5

We see the divinity of the prince of the host underlined by the fact that a sanctuary (Hebrew miqdash)

belongs to Him (Dan. 8:11). The term miqdash often indicates an earthly temple, but it can also refer to a

heavenly sanctuary, as it does here.6 Throwing down the “place [foundation] of His sanctuary” (verse 11) is

parallel to throwing down the truth (verse 12). Obviously, the horn attacks the fundamental truth the

heavenly sanctuary is built upon.21

Daniel 8:11

KJV11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily

sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.


LAIU11And as far as to the Prince of the host magnified himself and from Him was lifted

up the daily offering and was despised the dwelling place of His Sanctuary.22


11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host. Grotius, Ephraem the Syrian, and others,

understand this of Onias the high priest, as the chief officer of the holy people. Lengerke supposes that it

means God himself. This interpretation is the more probable; and the idea in the phrase “prince of the host”

is, that as God is the ruler of the host of heaven – leading on the constellations, and marshalling the stars, so

he may be regarded as the ruler of the holy army here below – the ministers of religion, and his people.

Against him as the Ruler and Leader of his people Antiochus exalted himself, particularly by attempting to

change his laws, and to cause his worship to cease.

¶ And by him. Marg., “from him.” The meaning is, that the command or authority to do this proceeded from

him.


¶ The daily sacrifice was taken away. The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and

evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Mac. i 20–24, 29–32, 44–50. In the

execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he “entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the

candlestick, and all the vessels thereof; and the table of shew-bread, the pouring vessels, &c., and stripped

the temple of all the ornaments of gold.” After two years he again visited the city, and “smote it very sore,

and destroyed much people of Israel, and when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and

pulled down the walls thereof on every side.”

Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. “Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts

were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt.” Subsequently, by a

solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the temple, and polluted

and defiled every part of it. “For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of

Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and

drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbaths and festival days; and pollute the

sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and

unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable

with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget the laws, and change all the

ordinances.” 1 Mac. i. 44 – 49.

It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us refers, and the event accords with

the words of the prediction as clearly as if what is a prediction had been written afterward, and had been

designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of historical record. The word which is rendered

‘daily sacrifice’ – the word “sacrifice” being supplied by the translators – יד t m yd – means properly,

continuance, perpetuity, and then what is continuous or constant – as a sacrifice or service daily occurring.

The word sacrifice is properly inserted here. Gesenius, Lex. The meaning of the word rendered ‘was taken

away’ – הרם– huram (Hophal from ר ם r m - to exalt, to lift up) - here is, that it was lifted up, and then

was taken away; that is, it was made to cease - as if it had been carried away. Gesenius.

¶ And the place of his sanctuary. Of the sanctuary or holy place of the, ‘Prince of the host,’ that is, of God.

The reference is to the temple.

¶Was cast down. The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its

holy vessels were carried away. The walls indeed remained, but it was desolate, and the whole service then

was abandoned. See the passages quoted above from 1 Mac. 23


Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the “daily” or “continual.” It

holds true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the temple,

or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices.24
















the true priest. The horn acts as another “prince of the host” and commands its own counterfeit “host,”

which the horn sets up against the tamid (verse 12). In a warfare context, the word “host” refers to an army,

but in a sanctuary framework it indicates a “priestly host.” Because the counterfeit host goes against the

regular worship service, it could point to a counterfeit priestly host. Verse 12, with the repetition of the

hook words tamid and “throw down,” functions as an explanation of the two activities of verse 11.

Of course, the horn cannot interfere in Christ’s continual priestly mediation in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb.

7:25; 8:1, 2). Who could do that anyway? Christ’s priestly ministry itself remains unaffected and

untouched. However, the horn power usurps the responsibilities of the heavenly priest and interrupts the

continual worship of God on earth. It substitutes the true worship of God with a false, sacrilegious

worship. Historically, the “taking away of the daily” by the horn “represents the introduction of such papal

innovations as a mediating priesthood, the sacrifice of the Mass, the confessional, and the worship of Mary,

by which it has successfully taken away knowledge of, and reliance upon, the continual ministry of Christ

in the heavenly sanctuary, and rendered that ministry inoperative in the lives of millions of professed

Christians.10 25

3. It took away the daily and cast down the place of God’s sanctuary (Dan. 8:11). – How did the Papacy

remove the daily sacrifice and cast down the place of his Sanctuary? By placing human intercession into

the hands of priests, the use of the confessional, and by sacrificing Christ anew in every Mass, the Papacy

has eclipsed Christ’s heavenly ministry in the minds of the worshipers. Believers no longer approach

Christ directly [emphasis added]; instead they go to the priest, to the saints, or to Mary. By substituting the

priest’s service here on earth for Christ’s role in the heavenly sanctuary the little horn has symbolically

“cast down the place of his sanctuary” to the earth and thereby defiled it.

In the sacrifice of the Mass the Roman priest becomes an alter Christus, that is “another Christ,” in that he

sacrifices the real Christ upon the altar and presents Him for the salvation of the faithful. We see this

clearly taught in the latter edition (1994) of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church. “The sacrifice of

Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass] are one single sacrifice: ‘The victim is one and the same:

the same now offers through ministry of the priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner

of offering is different.’ In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who

offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody

manner.”11

Furthermore, the priest changes the substance of bread and wine into the true substance of Christ’s body

and blood. “The bread and wine are bought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of

Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood.”12

In other words, in

obedience to the priests’s words Christ descends on the altar in every Mass. The Jesuit priest Franz Xaver

Esser wrote: “Oh, priest, how superhuman and great you are, you are like Christ who commanded the wind

and the sea, and who walked on the heaving waves…With his scepter the priest enters heaven and takes the

Son of God from the closed circle of the angelic choir and they are all powerless, they cannot prevent it.13

In the confessional the priest forgives sins by the formula “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” It is a miraculous key in the hands of the priest. Says the Catechism,

“Bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of the Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins ‘in

the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’”14

It is through such teaching that the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary has been

overthrown in the minds of many Christians and its place effectively taken by misleading substitutes [emphasis added]. The mass and the confessional draw the minds of Christian believers away from a

continual dependence upon the mediatorial ministry of the Savior in His sanctuary. Elaborate ceremonies,

all in the name of Christ, obscure the ministry of Christ [emphasis added]. “Instead of trust in the

inspired Word and in the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit men are taught to depend upon an infallible

church and transubstantiation, purgatory, adoration of images, immortality of the soul, the sacrifice of the

Mass, the immaculate conception. Our Great High Priest, who invites us to come to His throne of grace and

find grace to help in time of need, finds His perpetual intercession pushed aside, and other means of grace,

other mediators and intercessors, are interposed between him and his people… His place is taken in the


Roman system by human priests who offer sacrifices, forgive sins, and confer the Holy Spirit [emphasis

added].26

Daniel 8:12

KJV12

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,

and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.


LAIU12And a host/warfare will be given/set over/against the daily [sacrifice] in

rebellion/sin and she will cast the Truth to the ground; and she will do [it] as she will

prosper.27


12. And a host was given him. The Vulgate renders this, ‘and strength – robur – was given him,’ &c.

Theodotion, ‘and sin was permitted – t edoth – against the sacrifice; and this righteousness was cast

on the ground; so he acted and was prospered.’ Luther renders it, ‘and such might (or power, macht) was

given him.’ The Syriac renders it, ‘and strength was given him,’ &c. Bertholdt renders it, Statt jenes stellte

man den Greuel auf, ‘instead of this [the temple] there was set up an abomination.’ Dathe, ‘and the stars

were delivered to him’ – tradita ei fuerunt astra, seu populus Judaicus. Maurer understands it also of the

Jewish people, and interprets it, ‘and an army – exercitus – the people of the Jews was delivered to

destruction, at the same time with the perpetual sacrifice, on account of wickedness, that is, for a wicked

thing, or for impure sacrifices.’ Lengerke renders it, as in our translation, ‘an host – ein Heer – was given

up to him at the same time with the daily offering, on account of evil.’ The word host – צב ts b ' – is

doubtless to be taken here in the same sense as ver. 10, where it is connected with heaven – ‘the host of

heaven.’ If it refers there to the Jewish people, it doubtless does here, and the appellation is such an one as

would not unnaturally be used. It is equivalent to saying ‘the army of the Lord,’ or ‘the people of the Lord,’

and it should have been rendered here ‘and the host was given up to him;’ that is, the people of God, or the

holy people were given into his hands.

¶ Against the daily sacrifice. This does not convey any clear idea. Lengerke renders it, sammt den

bestandigen opfer – ‘at the same time with the permanent sacrifice.’ He remarks that the preposition לע ‛al

– (rendered in our version against), like the Greek π epi, may denote a connection with anything, or a

being with a thing – Zusammenseyn – and thus it would denote a union of time, or that the things occurred

together. Gen. xxxii. 12; Hos. xiii.14; Amos iii. 15. Comp. Genenius, Lex. on the word לע ‛al, 3. According

to this, the meaning is, that the ‘host,’ or the Jewish people, were given to him at the same time, or in

connection with the daily sacrifice. The conquest over the people, and the command respecting the daily

sacrifice, were simultaneous. Both passed into his hands, and he exercised jurisdiction over them both.

¶ By reason of transgression – ב ע bepp sha‛. That is, all this was on account of the transgression of the

people, or on account of abounding iniquity. God gave up the people, and their temple, and their sacrifices,

into the hands of Antiochus, on account of the prevailing impiety. Comp. 1 Macc. i. 11–16. The author of

that book traces all these calamities to the acts of certain wicked men, who obtained permission of

Antiochus to introduce pagan customs into Jerusalem, and who actually established many of those customs

there.

¶ And it cast down the truth to the ground. The true system of religion, or the true method of worshipping

God – represented here as truth in the abstract. So in Isa. lix. 14, it is said: “Truth is fallen in the street, and

equity cannot enter.” The meaning here is, that the institutions of the true religion would be utterly

prostrate. This was fully accomplished by Antiochus. See 1 Mac. i.


¶ And it practised - Heb. ‘it did,’ or it acted. That is, it undertook a work, and was successful. So in Ps. i 3,

where the same expression occurs: “And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” This was fully accomplished

in Antiochus, who was entirely successful in all his enterprises against Jerusalem. See 1 Mac. i. 28


Cast down the truth. The papacy loaded the truth with tradition and obscured it by superstition.

29

4. It cast truth to the ground (Dan. 8:12). – Jesus said of Himself, “I am the truth” (John 14:6), and in regard

to God’s Word, He said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). From the twelfth century onward various

popes prohibited the use of the Bible in the vernacular the Waldenses and later the Protestants used

it against the teachings of the church [emphasis added].

The council of Trent in 1546 decreed that no one was to interpret Scripture contrary to the opinion of the

church, for the church was the judge of the true sense of Scripture. “No one, relying on his own skill, shall

– in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine – wresting the sacred

Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy

mother Church – whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures – hath held

and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers”16 30

Daniel 8:13

KJV 13

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which

spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression

of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?


LAIU13 I heard one/an holy being speaking, and (then) said an [other] holy being to the

anonymous one who was speaking: Until when the vision: the daily offering, and the

rebellion/sin devastating to give/set both sanctuary and host [become] overtrodden

ground? 31


13. Then I heard one saint speaking. One holy one. The vision was now ended, and the prophet represents

himself now as hearing earnest inquiries as to the length of time during which this desolation was to

continue. This conversation, or these inquiries, he represents himself as hearing among those whom he calls

‘saints’ – or holy ones – ד q d sh. This word might refer to a saint on earth, or to an angel – to any holy

being. As one of these, however, was able to explain the vision, and to tell how long the desolation was to

continue, it is more natural to refer it to angels. So Lengerke understands it. The representation is, that one

holy one, or angel, was heard by Daniel speaking on this subject, but nothing is recorded of what he said. It

is implied only that he was conversing about the desolations that were to come upon the holy city and the

people of God. To him thus speaking, and who is introduced as having power to explain it, another holy

one approaches, and asks how long this state of things was to continue. The answer to this question (ver.

14) is made, not to the one who made the inquiry, but to Daniel, evidently that it might be recorded. Daniel

does not say where this vision occurred – whether in heaven or on earth. It was so near to him, however,

that he could hear what was said.32

¶ How long shall be the vision. Concerning the daily sacrifice. How long is that which is designed to be

represented by the vision to continue; that is, how long in fact will the offering of the daily sacrifice in the

temple be suspended?


¶ And the transgression of desolation - Marg., making desolate. That is, the act of iniquity on the part of

Antiochus producing such desolation in the holy city and the temple – how long is that to continue?

¶ To give both the sanctuary. The temple; the holy place where God dwelt by a visible symbol, and where

he was worshipped.

¶ And the host. The people of God – the Jewish people.

¶ To be trodden under foot. To be utterly despised and prostrated – as anything which is trodden under our

feet. 33


Although the question singles out a few activities of the horn (perhaps the most horrible ones), it still

seeks the length of the entire vision – that is, it is inquiring about the events shown in the vision of

Daniel 8.11

[emphasis added] 34

Hewitt’s Sensible Refutation

There remains, however, a final problem to be solved before we can agree that the case for the Maccabean

position is complete. It is a serious problem. It concerns the length of time the sanctuary should lie

desolate [emphasis added]. In his vision Daniel heard a certain saint ask the angel interpreter, “How long

shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the

sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? [emphasis added]. And he said unto me, Unto two

thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (vv. 13, 14). Was there any period

corresponding to this in the depredations of Epiphanes against the “host” and their “sanctuary”?

The first thing to notice is the beginning and the ending of this period. (As the scholars would call them, the

terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem.) Some have supposed that the 2,300 days measure the entire

duration of the history contemplated in this vision [emphasis added], i.e., from the rise of Persia to the

cleansing of the sanctuary. Others have looked outside of this vision for a convenient beginning point.

This is the more surprising because the language is so specific [emphasis added].

The inquiring saint did not ask, How long shall be the vision concerning the ram and the he-goat? He

did not ask, how long shall be the vision from the going forth of the commandment to restore and

build Jerusalem unto the cleansing of the sanctuary? [emphasis added] (That mixes up two visions

rather badly!) What he did ask was, “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the

transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” [emphasis

added].

This is exceptionally clear phraseology and can mean only one thing; viz., that the “vision” which is

to be measured by 2,300 days is limited to that part of the whole vision which concerns the taking

away of the daily sacrifice and the treading under foot of the sanctuary. The terminus a quo must

therefore coincide with the beginning of these desolations, and the terminus ad quem, with the

cleansing. This seems to require that the 2,300 days be looked for somewhere during the Maccabean

period [emphasis added].

The second thing to notice is that on this basis the “days” of this vision must be literal and not symbolic

days. In other words, that the year-day principle cannot be applied to this measurement, for obviously 2,300

years cannot be compressed within the limits of the Maccabean struggle against Antiochus.35


Daniel 8:14

KJV

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the

sanctuary be cleansed.


LAIU14 And he said/answered to me: Until evening and morning two thousand and three

hundred: and will be vindicated the sanctuary.36


14. And he said unto me. Instead of answering the one who made the inquiry, the answer is made to Daniel,

doubtless that he might make a record of it, or communicate it to others. If it had been made to the inquirer,

the answer would have remained with him, and could have been of no use to the world. For the

encouragement, however, of the Hebrew people, when their sanctuary and city would be thus desolate, and

in order to furnish an instance of the clear fulfillment of a prediction, it was important that it should be

recorded, and hence, it was made to Daniel.

¶ Unto two thousand and three hundred days. – Marg., evening, morning. So the Hebrew, ברע ר ב ‛ereb

boqer. So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et manè. And so Theodotion – ς π ας α π ι he s

hesperas kai pr i – ‘to the evening and morning.’ The language here is evidently what was derived from

Gen. i., or which was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the ‘evening and the morning’ as

constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and

obvious interpretation. The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner by

the word ν ήμ ν nuchth meron (see 2 Cor. xi. 25), in order more emphatically to designate one

complete day. See Prof. Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, pp. 99, 100. The time then specified by this would

be six years and a hundred and ten days [emphasis added].

Much difficulty has been felt by expositors in reconciling this statement with the other designations of time

in the book of Daniel, supposed to refer to the same event, and with the account furnished by Josephus in

regard to the period which elapsed during which the sanctuary was desolate, and the daily sacrifice

suspended. The other designations of time which have been supposed to refer to the same event in Daniel,

are ch. vii. 25, where the time mentioned is three years and a half – or twelve hundred and sixty days, and

chapter xii. 7 where the same time is mentioned, ‘a time, times, and an half,’ or three years and an half, or,

as before, twelve hundred and sixty days, and ch. xii. 14, where the period mentioned is ‘a thousand two

hundred and ninety days,’ and ch. xii. 12, where the time mentioned is ‘a thousand three hundred and

thirty-five days.’ The time mentioned by Josephus is three years exactly from the time when ‘their Divine

worship was fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use,’ till the time when the lamps were

lighted again, and the worship restored, for he says that the one event happened precisely three years after

the other, on the same day of the month - Ant. B. xii. ch. vii. § 6. In his Jewish Wars, however, B. i. ch. i. §

1, he says that Antiochus ‘spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily

sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.’ Now, in order to explain the passage before us, and to

reconcile the accounts, or to show that there is no contradiction between them, the following remarks may

be made:

(1) We may lay out of view the passage in ch. vii. 25. See Notes on that passage. If the reasoning there be

sound, then that passage had no reference to Antiochus, and though, according to Josephus, there is a

remarkable coincidence between the time mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice

was suspended, yet that does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.


(2) We may lay out of view, also, for the present, the passages in ch. xii. 11, 12. Those will be the subject

of consideration hereafter, and for the present ought not to be allowed to embarrass us in ascertaining the

meaning of the passage before us.

(3) On the assumption, however, that those passages refer to Antiochus, and that the accounts in Josephus

above referred to are correct – though he mentions different times, and though different periods are referred

to by Daniel, the variety may be accounted for by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to at the

starting point in the calculation – the terminus a quo. The truth was, there were several decisive acts in the

history of Antiochus that led to the ultimate desolation of Jerusalem, and at one time a writer may have

contemplated one, and at another time another. Thus, there was the act by which Jason, made high priest by

Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem after the manner of the heathen (Prideaux,

iii. 216; 1 Mac. i. 11–15); the act by which he assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the most holy place,

stripping the temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a great sow on the altar of burnt-

offerings (Prideaux, iii. 230, 231; 1 Mac. 1:20–28); the act, just two years after this, by which, having been

defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all his wrath on the Jews, and, on his return, sent

Apollonius with a great army to ravage and destroy Jerusalem – when Apollonius, having plundered the

city, set it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, and with the ruins of the demolished city

built a strong fortress on Mount Acra, which overlooked the temple, and from which he could attack all

who went to the temple to worship (Prideaux, iii. 239, 240; 1 Mac. i. 29-49); and the act by which

Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple.

(Prideaux, iii. 241, 242; 1 Mac. i. 44–51). Now, it is evident that one writing of these calamitous events,

and mentioning how long they would continue, might at one time contemplate one of these events as the

beginning, the terminus a quo, and at another time, another of these events might be in his eye. Each one of

them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each one might be contemplated as a period which, in

an important sense, determined the destiny of the city, and put an end to the worship of God there.

(4) It seems probable that the time mentioned in the passage before us is designed to take in the whole

series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act which led to the suspending the daily sacrifice, or the

termination of the worship of God there, to the time when the ‘sanctuary was cleansed.’ That this is so

would seem to be probable from the series of visions presented to Daniel in the chapter before us. The acts

of the ‘little horn’ representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the ‘pleasant land’

(ver. 9) and the things which attracted the attention of Daniel were, that he ‘waxed great,’ and made war on

‘the host of heaven,’ and ‘cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground’ (ver. 10) and ‘magnified

himself against the prince of the host’ (ver. 11) acts which refer manifestly to his attack on the people of

God, and the priests or ministers of religion, and on God himself as the ‘prince of the host’ – unless this

phrase should be understood as referring rather to the high priest. We are then rather to look to the whole

series of events as included within the two thousand and three hundred days, than the period in which

literally the daily sacrifice was forbidden by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and the worship

of God interrupted during all that time.

(5) The terminus ad quem – the conclusion of the period is marked and settled. This was the ‘cleansing of

the sanctuary.’ This took place, under Judas Maccabeus, Dec. 25, 165 B.C. Prideaux, iii. 265-268. Now,

reckoning back from this period, two thousand and three hundred days, we come to August 5, 171 B.C. The

question is, whether there were in this year, and at about this time, any events in the series of sufficient

importance to constitute a period from which to reckon; events answering to what Daniel saw as the

commencement of the vision, when ‘some of the host and the stars were cast down and stamped upon.’

Now, as a matter of fact, there commenced in the year 171 B.C. a series of aggressions upon the priesthood,

and temple, and city of the Jews on the part of Antiochus, which terminated only with his death. Up to this

year, the relations of Antiochus and the Jewish people were peaceful and cordial.

In the year 175 B.C. he granted to the Jewish people, who desired it, permission to erect a gymnasium in

Jerusalem, as above stated. In the year 173 B.C. demand was made of Antiochus of the provinces of Coele-

Syria and Palestine by the young Philometor of Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother

– a demand which was the origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of

all the disturbances. Prideaux, iii. 218. In the year 172 B.C., Antiochus bestowed the office of high priest


on Menelaus, who was the brother of Jason the high priest. Jason had sent Menelaus to Antioch to pay the

king his tribute money, and while there Menelaus conceived the design of supplanting his brother, and by

offering for it more than Jason had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem. Prideaux, iii.

220-222. Up to this time all the intercourse of Antiochus with the Jews had been of a peaceful character,

and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred.

In 171 B.C. began the series of events which finally resulted in the invasion and destruction of the city, and

in the cessation of the public worship of God. Menelaus, having procured the high priesthood, refused to

pay the tribute money which he had promised for it, and was summoned to Antioch. Antiochus being then

absent, Menelaus took advantage of his absence, and having, by means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at

Jerusalem, procured the vessels out of the temple, he sold them at Tyre, and thus raised money to pay the

king. In the meantime, Onias III., the lawful high priest, who had fled to Antioch, sternly rebuked Menelaus

for his sacrilege, and soon after, at the instigation of Menelaus, was allured from his retreat at Daphne,

where he had sought an asylum, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vicegerent of Antiochus. At the

same time, the Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at the profanation by Menelaus, and the sacrilege in

robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who defended him, and both

cut off this ‘sacrilegious robber’ (Prideaux), and the guards by whom he was surrounded.

This assault on the officer of Antiochus, and rebellion against him, was the commencement of the

hostilities which resulted in the ruin of the city, and the closing of the worship of God. Prideaux, iii. 224–

226; Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, p. 102. Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and

the temple, and the city of the Jews, which, with occasional interruption, continued to the death of

Antiochus, and which led to all that was done in profaning the temple, and in suspending the public

worship of God, and it is doubtless to this time that the prophet here refers. This is the natural period in

describing the series of events which were so disastrous to the Jewish people; this is the period at which

one who should now describe them as history, would begin. It may not, indeed, be practicable to make out

the precise number of days, for the exact dates are not preserved in history, but the calculation brings it into

the year 171 B.C., the year which is necessary to be supposed in order that the two thousand and three

hundred days should be completed. Comp. Lengerke, in loc., p. 388.

Various attempts have been made to determine the exact number of the days by historic records. Bertholdt,

whom Lengerke follows, determines it in this manner. He regards the time referred to as that from the

command to set up pagan altars to the victory over Nicanor, and the solemn celebration of that victory, as

referred to in 1 Mac. vii. 48, 49. According to this reckoning, the time is as follows: – The command to set

up idol altars was issued in the year 145, on the 15th of the month Kisleu. There remained of that year, after

the command was given,

Half of the month Kisleu 15 days

The month Thebet 30 days

The month Shebath 29 days

The month Adar 30 days

The year 146 354 days





The year 15l to the 13th day of the month Adar, when the victory over Nicanor was achieved 337 days

Two intercalary months during this time, according to the Jewish reckoning 60 days

Total of 2,271 days.


This would leave but twenty-nine days of the 2300 to be accounted for, and this would be required to go

from the place of the battle – between Beth-Horon and Adasa (1 Mac. vii. 39, 40) to Jerusalem, and to

make arrangements to celebrate the victory. See Bertholdt, pp. 501 – 503. The reckoning here is from the

time of founding the kingdom of the Seleucidae, or the era of the Seleucidae.

¶ Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Marg., justified. The Hebrew word צד ts daq – means, to be right

or straight, and then to be just or righteous; then to vindicate or justify. In the form used here (Niphal), it

means to be declared just; to be justified or vindicated, and, as applied to the temple or sanctuary, to be

vindicated from violence or injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lex. There is undoubtedly

reference here to the act of Judas Maccabeus, in solemnly purifying the temple, and repairing it, and re-

dedicating it, after the pollutions brought upon it by Antiochus. For a description of this, see Prideaux’s

Connexion, iii. 265–269. Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in the temple; pulled down the altars

which the pagan had erected; bore out all the defiled stones into an unclean place; built a new altar in place

of the old altar of burnt-offerings which they had defiled; hallowed the courts; made a new altar of incense,

table of shew-bread, golden candlestick, &c., and solemnly re-consecrated the whole to the service of God.

This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kisleu), and the solemnity continued for eight

days. This is the festival which is called “the feast of dedication” in the New Testament (John x. 22) and

which our Saviour honored with his presence. See 1 Mac. iv. 41–58, 2 Mac. x. 1–7. Josephus, Ant. B. xii.

ch. vii. § 6, 7.37


Days. Heb. ‘ereb boqer, literally, “evening morning,” an expression comparable with the description of the

days of creation, “the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5), etc. The LXX has the word

“days” following the expression “evening and morning.”

In an attempt to make this period roughly conform to the three years of the devastation of the Temple by

Antiochus IV, some have ingeniously assigned to the expression “2300 evening morning” only 1150 literal

days.

Concerning this, Keil has remarked that the prophetic period of the 2300 evening-mornings cannot be

understood as “2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at creation constituted

not the half but the whole day.” After quoting the foregoing statement, Edward Young says, “Hence, we

must understand the phrase as meaning 2300 days” (The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 174).

Commentators have tried, but without success, to find some event in history that would fit a period of 2300

literal days. As Wright observes, “All efforts, however, to harmonise the period, whether expounded as

2300 days or as 1150 days, with any precise historical epoch mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees or

in Josephus have proved futile. … Professor Driver is justified in stating, ‘It seems impossible to find two

events separated by 2300 days (=6 years and 4 months) which would correspond with the description’”

(Charles H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 1906, pp. 186, 187). The only way that consistency can

be given to these “days” is to apply them in a prophetic sense by the application of the year-day principle.

The time here involved is specific and definite, but in ch. 8 no date is indicated for its beginning. However,

in ch. 9 such a date is specifically mentioned (see on v. 25). This will be shown to be 457 B.C. From this

date as a beginning, the 2300 prophetic days, designating as many solar years (see on ch. 7:25), reach to the

year A.D. 1844. For a consideration of contextual evidence that ch. 9:24–27 provides an explanation of the

vision of ch. 8:13, 14, and thus locates the starting point of the 2300 days or years, see on ch. 9:21. For

comment on the validity of the date 457 B.C. see on ch. 9:25. For comment on a nonexistent LXX reading

“2400” instead of 2300, formerly often cited but based on a misprint, see p. 58).

Sanctuary. Inasmuch as the 2300 years project us far into the Christian Era, the sanctuary cannot refer to

the Temple at Jerusalem, which was destroyed in A.D. 70. The sanctuary of the new covenant is clearly the

sanctuary in heaven, “which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Heb. 8:2; GC 411–417). Of this sanctuary

Christ is the high priest (Heb. 8:1). John foresaw a time when special attention would be directed toward


“the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein” (Rev. 11:1). The symbols employed by

the revelator are strikingly similar to those employed in Dan. 8:11–13.

Be cleansed. From the Heb. sadaq, “to be just,” “to be righteous.” The verb occurs in the form here found

(niphal) only this once in the OT, which may suggest that a specialized meaning of the term is indicated.

Lexicographers and translators suggest various meanings, such as “be put right,” or “be put in a rightful

condition,” “be righted,” “be declared right,” “be justified,” “be vindicated.” The translation “shall be

cleansed” is the reading of the LXX, which here has the verb form katharisthesetai. It is not known

whether the translators of the LXX gave an adapted meaning to the Heb. sadaq or translated from

manuscripts employing a different Hebrew word, perhaps tahar, the common Hebrew word for “to be

clean,” “to cleanse.” The Vulgate has the form mundabitur, which also means “cleansed.” See on ch. 9:24.

As an aid to determining what event in connection with the heavenly sanctuary is here referred to, it is

helpful to examine the services of the earthly sanctuary, for the priests in the earthly sanctuary served “unto

the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5). The services in the wilderness tabernacle and in

the Temple consisted of two main divisions, the daily and the yearly. Christ’s daily ministration as our high

priest was typified in the daily services. The annual Day of Atonement typified a work that Christ would

undertake at the close of the age. For a detailed discussion of these two phases of service see on Lev. 1:16;

see also GC 418–432. The prophecy of Dan. 8:14 announces the time for the beginning of this special

work. The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary comprehends the entire work of final judgment, beginning

with the investigative phase and ending with the executive phase, which results in the permanent

eradication of sin from the universe.

A significant feature of the final judgment is the vindication of God’s character before all the intelligences

of the universe. The false charges that Satan has lodged against the government of God must be

demonstrated as utterly groundless. God must be shown to have been entirely fair in the selection of certain

individuals to make up His future kingdom, and in the barring of others from entrance there. The final acts

of God will evoke from men the confessions, “Just and true are thy ways” (Rev. 15:3), “Thou art righteous,

O Lord” (Rev. 16:5), and, “True and righteous are thy judgments” (Rev. 16:7). Satan himself will be led to

acknowledge God’s justice (see GC 670, 671). The word translated “just” and “righteous” is dikaios,

equivalent to the Heb. saddiq, derived from sadaq, a form of which is translated “shall be cleansed” in Dan.

8:14. Thus the Heb. sadaq may convey the additional thought that God’s character will be fully vindicated

as the climax to “the hour of his judgment” (Rev. 14:7), which began in 1844. See Problems in Bible

Translation, pp. 174–177.38

Daniel 8:23

KJV23

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full,

a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.


LAIU23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, as making their full the rebels/sins, their

will stand up a king hard/thick skinned of face and understanding things locked up.39


23. And in the latter time of their kingdom. When it shall be drawing to an end. All these powers were

ultimately absorbed in the Roman power; and the meaning here is, that taking the time from the

period of their formation – the division of the empire after the battle of Ipsus (Notes on ver. 8), till

the time when all would be swallowed up in the Roman dominion, what is here stated – to wit, the

rise of Antiochus, would be in the latter portion of that period. The battle of Ipsus was fought 301

B.C., and the Roman power was extended over all those regions gradually from 168 B.C., the battle


of Pydna, when Perseus was defeated, and Macedonia was reduced to a Roman province, to 30 B.C.,

– when Egypt was subjected – the last of these kingdoms that submitted to the Roman arms.

Antiochus began to reign, 175 B.C. – that it was in the latter part of this period [emphasis added].

¶ When the transgressors are come to the full. Marg., accomplished. That is, when the state of things – the

prevalence of wickedness and irreligion in Judea – shall have been allowed to continue as long as it can be

– or so that the cup shall be full – then shall appear this formidable power to inflict deserved punishment on

the guilty nation. The sacred writers often speak of iniquity as being full – of the cup of iniquity as being

full – as if there was a certain limit or capacity beyond which it could not be allowed to go. When that

arrives, God interposes, and cuts off the guilty by some heavy judgment. Comp. Gen. xv. 16: “The iniquity

of the Amorites is not yet full.” Matt. xxiii. 32: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” 1 Thess. ii. 16

“to fill up their sins alway.” The idea is, that there is a certain measure or amount of sin which can be

tolerated, but beyond that the Divine compassion cannot go with safety to the universe, or consistently with

the honor of God, and then the punishment may be expected; then punishment must come. This is true,

doubtless, of individuals and nations, and this period had arrived in regard to the Jews when Antiochus was

permitted to lay their temple, city, and country waste.

¶ A king of fierce countenance. Stern and severe. This expression would be applicable to many who have

held the kingly office, and no one can doubt that it may be applied with strict propriety to Antiochus.

¶ And understanding dark sentences. Gesenius (Lex.) explains the word here rendered ‘dark

sentences’ to mean artifice, trick, stratagem. This will better agree with the character of Antiochus,

who was more distinguished for craft and policy than he was for wisdom, or for explaining enigmas.

The meaning seems to be that he would be politic and crafty, seeking to make his way, and to

accomplish his purpose, not only by the terror that he inspired, but by deceit and cunning. That this

was his character is well known. Comp. Notes on ver. 25. [emphasis added].

¶ Shall stand up. Shall succeed, or there shall be such a king.40


1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of

Alexander’s empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the

Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was

Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian

horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence he could not be at the same time a separate

and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was.

2. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be

applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means

sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious, he was illustrious only

in name; for nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be

more alien to his true character; for, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool

and others a madman, they changed his name of Epiphanes, “The Illustrious,” into Epimanes, “The

Madman.”41

k. Antiochus was "fierce" toward the Jews, but was not noted for understanding dark sentences- (verse

23).42

Daniel 8:24

KJV24

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy

wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy

people.



LAIU24 And it will be mighty (in) his power and not with his power and wonders/

amazingly he shall destroy, and he shall prosper, and he shall do, and he shall destroy

strong ones and a people of holy ones; 43


24. And his power shall be mighty. He shall be a powerful monarch. Though not as mighty as

Alexander, yet his conquests of Egypt and other places show that he deserved to be numbered among

the mighty kings of the earth.

¶ But not by his own power. That is, it shall not be by any strength of his own, but by the power which God

gives him. This is true of all kings and princes (Comp. John xix. 11; Isa. X 5, seq.), but it seems to be

referred to here particularly to show that the calamities which he was about to bring upon the Hebrew

people were by Divine direction and appointment. This great power was given him in order that he might

be an instrument in the Divine hand of inflicting deserved punishment on them for their sins.

¶ And he shall destroy wonderfully. In a wonderful or extraordinary manner shall he spread desolation. This

refers particularly to the manner in which he would lay waste the holy city, and the land of Judea. The

history in the books of Maccabees shows that this was literally fulfilled.

¶ And shall prosper. Antiochus was among the most successful kings in his various expeditions.

Particularly was he successful in his enterprises against the holy land [emphasis added].

¶And practise. Hebrew, do. That is, he shall be distinguished not only for forming plans, but for executing

them; not merely for purposing, but for doing.

¶And shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. The people of God – the Jewish nation. See Notes on vs.

9–12.44


4. The little horn waxed exceedingly great; but this Antiochus did not wax exceedingly great; on the

contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he

immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist

from his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the

unoffending Jews.45

Daniel 8:25

KJV25

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall

magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up

against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.


LAIU25 An to his mind he shall prosper (with) deception in his hand; and in his heart shall

magnify himself, and at ease shall destroy many, and over against the Prince of princes

shall he stand up/arise, and with no/zero hand he shall be broken.46



25. And through his policy. The word rendered policy here – ל s' kel – means, properly, intelligence,

understanding, wisdom; and then, in a bad sense, craft, cunning. So it is rendered here by Gesenius, and the

meaning is, that he would owe his success in a great measure to craft and subtlety.

¶ He shall cause craft to prosper in his hand. He shall owe his success in a great measure to a crafty policy,

to intrigue, and to cunning. This was true in an eminent sense, of Antiochus. See his history in Prideaux,

above referred to, and the books of Maccabees. Comp. Notes on ch. xi. 21. The same character is given of

him by Polybius, Relig. lib. xxxi. c. 5, Tom. iv. p. 501, Ed. Schweighauser; Appian, "de reb. Syr." xlv. t. 1,

p. 604, ed. Schweigh. Compare 2 Macc. 5:24-26. He came to the kingdom by deceit (Prideaux, iii. 212),

and a great part of his success was owing to craft and policy.

¶ And he shall magnify himself in his heart. Shall be lifted up with pride, or esteem himself of great

consequence.

¶ And by peace shall destroy many. Marg., prosperity. The Hebrew word – ל ה shalev h – means properly,

tranquility, security, ease, carelessness. Here the phrase seems to mean ‘in the midst of security’ (Gesenius,

Lex.); that is, while they were at ease, and regarded themselves as in a state of safety, he would come

suddenly and unexpectedly upon them, and destroy them. He would make sudden war on them, invading

their territories, so that they would have no opportunity to make preparation to meet him. Comp. ch. xi. 21,

24. It would seem to mean that he would endeavor to produce the impression that he was coming in peace;

that he pretended friendship, and designed to keep those whom he meant to invade and destroy in a state of

false security, so that he might descend upon them unawares. This was his policy rather than to declare war

openly, and so give his enemies fair warning of what he intended to do. This description agrees every way

with the character of Antiochus, a leading part of whose policy always was to preserve the appearance of

friendship, that he might accomplish his purpose while his enemies were off their guard.

¶ He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes. Notes, ver. 11. Against God, the ruler over the kings

of the earth.

¶ But he shall be broken without hand. That is, without the hand of man, or by no visible cause. He shall be

overcome by Divine, invisible power. According to the author of the first book of Maccabees (ch vi. 8– 6),

he died of grief and remorse in Babylon. He was on an expedition to Persia, and there laid siege to Elymais,

and was defeated, and fled to Babylon, when, learning that his forces in Palestine had been repulsed,

penetrated with grief and remorse, he sickened and died. According to the account in the second book of

Maccabees (ix.), his death was most distressing and horrible. Comp. Prideaux, iii. 272–275. All the

statements given of his death, by the authors of the books of Maccabees, by Josephus, by Polybius, by

Q. Curtius, and by Arrian (see the quotations in Prideaux), agree in representing it as attended with

every circumstance of horror that can be well supposed to accompany a departure from this world,

and as having every mark of the just judgment of God. The Divine prediction in Daniel was fully

accomplished, that his death would be ‘without hand,’ in the sense that it would not be by human

instrumentality; but that it would be by a direct Divine infliction [emphasis added]. When Antiochus

died, the opposition to the Jews ceased, and their land again had peace and rest.47


m. Antiochus was not “broken without hand” (verse 25); there is no suggestion of anything

miraculous or mysterious about either his failure with the Jews or his death [emphasis added].48


XI. When Dogmas Replace Evidence

This research document has reexamined issues related to the actual origin and the true

nature of the little horn in Daniel 8. In order to establish a logical and scientific basis for the

discussion, we have also demarcated from the start, in section II (True Historicism

Characteristics), a language framework that would provide adequate protection against logical

deadlocks due to possible communication confusion, and also against truth and fact

manipulations that appear to be too common in the SDA theological circles. We have determined

general definitions for (1) historicism, (2) historical events, and (3) historical fulfillment in order

to prevent false claims related to the terms mentioned above. We will revisit and summarize

those established definitions in order to be able to draw a valid and legitimate conclusion to this

document.

The Terms and Their Definitions

(1) Historicism

This term [historicism] is used to describe a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the fulfillment

of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the prophet to

the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.1

[p. 137] The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a

symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to

the end of time.2

Through the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation have been proposed. The

historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at

the time of the prophets who wrote them.3

Here is my proposed definition of historicism: Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy

intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between

his day and the eschaton.4

Thus, historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events, institutions,

movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age [emphasis added]. These began in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and will

eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.5

(2) Historical Events

That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise

ascertained [emphasis added]; the formal record of the past, esp. of human affairs or actions [emphasis

added]; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations.6

The OED also defines “historical” as “pertaining to history,” “of the nature or character of history,”

“following or in accordance with history,” and “pertaining to, of history as opposed to fiction or

legend,” and “relating to or concerned with history or historical events [emphasis added].” These two

definitions are relevant and important and should be treated as criteria points for a scrupulous review of all

the unverified “historical events” or “historical facts” that the SDA historicist theologians have proposed

as fulfillments for the apocalyptic time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.7


(3) Historical Fulfillment

This “events” review should also be based on Shea’s “pragmatic test of historical fulfillment [emphasis

added]” that requires that the “interpretive results [should] be confirmed from extrabiblical sources

where possible [emphasis added]”8 and that the “events, institutions, movements, and periods [emphasis

added]” suggested and claimed as evidence for “historical fulfillment” must be “specific and identifiable

historical events [emphasis added],”9 and therefore “real,” and “in-history,”

10 and not assumed, simulated,

counterfeited, or fabricated. It remains to be seen how historical, factual, true, verifiable, and reliable are

the prophetic “events” that Rome is claimed to have fulfilled in the SDA “pragmatic test of historical

fulfillment,” and whether or not Rome has qualified as the little horn in Daniel 8.

Historicism vs. Pseudo-Historicism

The definitions included above (1. historicism, 2. historical events, and 3. historical

fulfillment) have allowed us to establish whether or not the SDA biblical interpretation claims

for Daniel 8 and the little horn have been based on factual historical data or on mere

assumptions, speculations, and fact manipulations. The interpretations based on empirical

historical evidence are authentic and “historicist.” On the other hand, the interpretations based on

theological opinions and unverifiable historical narratives cannot be considered historicist, but

“pseudo-historicist,” a situation in which theoretical perspectives based on deductions and

assumptions are considered more significant and important than empirical, actual, and verifiable

historical facts. We have also concluded that theoretical perspectives or deductions could never

supersede or prevail over actual facts, and that failure to document an interpretation with actual

evidence would weaken and invalidate an interpretation, and reduce it to a simple personal

opinion. The collected evidence demonstrates that in spite of the high claims of “true and

authentic historicism” the SDA theological interpretations of Daniel 8 and its vicious little horn

show to be pseudo-historicist because no authentic historical and verifiable data has been

submitted to support the assumptions, speculations, and text manipulations that have been passed

for genuine and factual data in those interpretations and commentaries.

Historical Truth vs. Dogmatic Truth

The factual data assembled in this document also compels us to conclude that the position

the SDA Church theologians have taken on Antiochus IV Epiphanes cannot be considered

“historical truth” but rather “dogmatic truth” – a deductive and speculative theological position

that cannot be supported with rigorous factual evidence and fails the empirical test. Gane

summarizes well the unfortunate situation in which the SDA Church finds itself at the present

time because it defends contrived dogmas rather than biblical and historical truth, and

discourages and punishes all the serious research about Antiochus IV Epiphanes for fear that this

research would expose the errors in the SDA interpretations for Daniel 8. States the historicist:

Why don’t more people accept the eschatological aspects of sanctuary teaching, including a pre-Advent

judgment taking place now? Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Abandonment of the Reformation view regarding the Church of Rome, in favor of ecumenism and

political correctness. Without including the Church of Rome in fulfillment of the “little horn,” it is

impossible to accurately interpret the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14.

2. Abandonment of historicism by most Christians after the disappointment of 1844, when William Miller

and his associates predicted Christ’s Second Coming on the basis of Daniel 8:14, mistakenly interpreting


the cleansing of the “sanctuary” after 2,300 days = years as the cleansing of the world by fire. Other

exegetical mistakes and excesses by historicists have not helped the cause of historicism. Well-trained

Adventist scholars are now being much more careful and cautious, utilizing all the rich exegetical resources

at their disposal, but the stigma is still strong.44

3. The misconception that the Adventist teaching that Christ began a new phase of heavenly sanctuary

ministry in 1844, namely, participation in a pre-Advent judgment in heaven, is simply a face-saving

strategy of reinterpretation for disappointed Millerites.45

Of course, we know that the same kind of

argument was long ago directed against the reality of Christ’s Resurrection.

4. The fact that nothing happened on earth in 1844 to prove the beginning of a new phase of salvation

in heaven. Acceptance of this, as with other Christian beliefs, is based on faith in the biblical evidence

alone [emphasis added].

5. Failure to grasp the role of the pre-Advent judgment in the Lord’s plan of salvation, supposing it to

legalistically destroy the Gospel assurance of faithful, saved people.46

6. The misconception that Adventist sanctuary eschatology is based on the writings of Ellen G. White

rather than biblical exegesis. While White participated in the Bible study through which the basic Adventist

view was developed and she wrote on this topic, she directed people to Scripture as the sole authority.

Notice that the present paper relies on the Bible alone.

7. The fact that interpreting the time prophecies of Daniel is a rather complicated process. Of course, other

aspects of biblical interpretation are complicated too, and the need to deal with layers of misinterpretation

greatly augments the complexity, through no fault of Daniel.11

Divine Truth vs. Human Deception

That plain, honest, and unadorned truth is inconvenient and uncomfortable and never fails

to infuriate the deception brokers is a verified and often painful fact. Walter Rea learned this

matter first hand when he experienced persecution from those who have called themselves “the

remnant” and “the truth bearers” but have acted like gangsters and terrorists when their evil

deeds have been brought out into the open so that others could see what was hidden under those

sanctimonious cloaks. States the maligned, harassed, and oppressed scholar:

In view of what I have observed, experienced, and learned, I have thought it proper and necessary to record

for future generations the findings of my ongoing study. These coming generations will want to know the

truth about what has been unearthed from the past. It will be a part of what they will take into consideration

in their religious experience and judgments.

Despite much good counsel to the contrary, I have chosen the title THE WHITE LIE for my book. I do not

apply that term separately and only to Ellen G. White. When we (any of us) give our consent or support

to perpetuating a myth (in whole or in part) about any person or any thing, we ourselves are thereby

party to a white lie [emphasis added]. The message of this book is to help reveal to all of us that often we

do indeed carry on a legend.

The worst lies that are told are often the ones told in religion – because they are told in a way that the

assumption is that God endorses them and that therefore they are for our good. That that good can, and

does, become harmful, wrongful, and even evil does not usually occur to those zealous persons who

promote legends in the name of God.


In this study I have intended to deal not only with the facts as I have found them but also with their

outworking in the church and in us personally as I have come to view that outworking. I hope also to leave

a lesson or two for those who may be looking for such lessons.

Much study remains to be done on the question of why some of us accept as much as we do from

whomever we do. What thing is it deep within us that is tapped to make us react as unquestioningly as

we do to unreliable information – so that we make it "truth" and let it govern our thinking and our

lives? [emphasis added].

At this stage in my thinking, if there is blame left to be assessed or portioned out, I must accept much of it

for having been so gullible, without adequate study or research on my own part, as to consent to much of

that which was originally portrayed to me as "the truth" but which, in fact, contains much untruth that

diverts us from that about which we ought to be concerned primarily. The major regret I have is that

time will not allow me to correct some of the misinformation that I myself unwarily “bought” and

passed on to others as the white lie [emphasis added].

Every institution, every corporate entity, every established system – whether political, economic, social, or

religious – must have its patron saint. That saint may be a founder, a benefactor, a charismatic leader, or a

long-dead mystic figure. Regardless of the category or the time period of existence, the patron is venerated

even if he was a vampire; he is canonized even if he was a con artist; he is given sainthood even if he was a

known sinner.

There is something in the human mind that seeks to create the unreal – to imagine or pretend that

something is so even if all logic says it is not so. What is unseeable we claim is a vision; what is fallible

we label perfection; what is illusory we give authority [emphasis added]. Much study has been given to

why we want to believe, and indeed have to believe, the “permissible lie.” For my purpose here, it is

enough to say that we do so – and we seem to have to do so. For if we reject the fantasy we now hold,

probably we will find or invent another in our effort to keep from facing reality.

The sellers of nostrums for fantasizers (who tend to hold psychic manifestations in awe) are the

supersalesmen of the psychic. They are the ones who manipulate, maneuver, and massage the conscience of

those they wish to convince. In all times and in all places, they have been the magicians that led the

populace to believe that the emperor really was dressed with the unseeable, and that those who will listen

and come to them for counsel and guidance (for which, of course, proper payment must be given) will be

among the few who really do see what isn’t there to see.

The element that is essential, without exception, to any con game is the lie [emphasis added]. To be

sure, it is a white lie, a small thing that deviates from the truth a little, over and over until, with the passing

of time and under the right circumstances, it expands into an enormous hoax.

The techniques of the supersalesmen are few, but absolutely essential. They consist of playing down the

humanity of the one to be venerated; exalting the venerated one’s virtues to the level of the miraculous;

denying access to reliable source records and facts of the significant past; appealing to the inclination

to be superstitious (or at least gullible); and buying time [emphasis added].

One Webster dictionary edition says that a white lie is a minor lie uttered from polite, amiable, or

pardonable motives; a polite or harmless fib.

To understand, in a small way, how people arrive at where they are is possible only if one looks at where

they have been, what manner of salesmen sold them the trip, and what motivated them to go. It is not

possible to view all these aspects in one lump. But we will touch on what circumstances make a “true

believer,” what kind of supersalesmen have sold the wares, and what happens to those who buy.


Books such as The Status Seekers, The Permissible Lie, and The True Believer

10 hint at the connection

between all disciplines – economic, social, and religious. In all these disciplines salesmen sell their product

by using the white lie. Though the salesmen of social and economic ideas claim to be interested in your

present, they are really more interested in their future. Salesmen of the psychic claim to be interested in

your future, but what they are really interested in is their present. All hucksters sell the white lie in

whatever size or shape they think their public will buy. Adventists know and accept these facts of life about

the systems of others; but they believe that their own system is "different" and therefore better. Very little

study has been offered to prove or to disprove their belief.

Most people accept the fact that there are few, if any, holy men left selling merchandise in social or

economic or political reform. What is harder for them to acknowledge or accept is that there are likewise

few, if any, saints in religion. There are no holy men or women except as we ourselves make them so by

our own wishful thinking. Because we have always with us this pretense factor, it is easy for the

supersalesmen of religion to gain control through our own quirks and consciences and to exercise authority

over our minds and actions. There have been many on this planet who have sold themselves to the

world as saints offering salvation for the future – when in reality they were just supersalesmen who,

by instilling guilt and fear and by bending their followers to their own will, have robbed us of our

freedom to think [emphasis added].

As you read, keep in mind that someone has sold you the idea that what you believe deep within

yourself is “unique” and has authority from God, the highest court of appeal; that you are

“different” because of this authority; and that you will be “saved” if you follow the rules. The

problem with this line of thinking is that your truth may be only your saints interpretation of truth,

and the pronouncements you have accepted as authority may be ideas your saint borrowed from

others [emphasis added].

In this odyssey that we take together, the supersalesmen will be the clergymen, the preachers, the

reverends, the divines – who more than any professionals have been granted license (both by the

people themselves and by the state) to peddle their wares to the unwary, to project their fears on the

fearful, and to sell their guilt to the remorseful [emphasis added].

The true believers will be the unwary, the fearful, the guilt-ridden, the overzealous, the well-

intentioned, the unquestioning. Lacking personal confidence in God, they seek him through their

chosen saint, who they think has an unfailing pipeline to the heavenly places [emphasis added].

This book seeks to trace the birth, growth, and full bloom of the white lie in Adventism. It cannot

explain all the strings that bind us, Gulliver-like, on our travel – because access is thus far denied to

many sources of the facts [emphasis added]. It can only point the reader to certain sources so that he can

see for himself what is there to be seen.

I do not seek to show those who, having eyes, do not wish to see, or to shout at those who, having ears,

do not wish to hear. But because someone has an obligation to the generations that will follow, this

material is put forth to light a little candle in a world of superstition and fear and guilt. It may be

that the flame, though even a small one, can help light the path to the real Saint of all saints – Jesus

Christ [emphasis added].12


XII. Conclusion

The Little Horn Comes from a Horn

The SDA assumption that the little horn in Daniel 8 comes from a “wind” has no biblical

or linguistic basis. It is an implausible pseudo-historicist speculation, and nothing more. One

does not need to be an expert theologian in order to see that a plain reading of the Bible provides

factual and irrefutable evidence that the vicious little horn originates in one of the four “notable

horns” that followed the dissolution of Alexander’s empire.

No Evidence for Rome as Little Horn

There is no reliable historical evidence that the little horn in Daniel 8 is Rome, and even

less that the little horn represents both the pagan and papal Rome. All the SDA claims are based

on wild speculations and personal opinions. This document has shown that except for the fact

that the SDA historicist theologians are “original” in their interpretation of Daniel 8 no biblical

and linguistic evidence supports their perspective.

Little Horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes

There is, on the other hand, abundant Biblical and historical evidence that the little horn

in Daniel 8 is the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. While the idea that the SDA historicist

theologians are unique in their assumption that the little horn is Rome gives them an euphoric

state of mind, an examination of the reasons all the other theologians have decided long ago that

all the historical evidence points towards Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the one who fulfilled the

prediction for the little horn in Daniel 8 should encourage the SDA historicists to understand that

their dogmatic position is untenable and indefensible. The little horn in Daniel 8 is the Seleucid

king, and there is no escaping from this truth. The unbiblical position that defends Rome as the

little horn must be discarded, and the SDA theologians must accept the biblical and linguistic

evidence that the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is the vicious persecutor in Daniel 8.


References

I. Introduction

1William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8” in Daniel and

Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised

Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing

Association, 1992), 32.

2Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald Publishing Assn.,

1907), 198.

3Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 343-344.

4T. R. Birks, First Elements of Sacred Prophecy (London: William Edward Painter, 1843), 148-

149.


1907), 202.

6Florin Laiu, The Sanctuary Doctrine: A Critical-Apologetic Approach (Bucharest: Romania,

2013). Unpublished manuscript. http://www.academia.edu/4145197/The_Sanctuary_Doctrine_--

_A_Critical_-_Apologetic_Approach

7William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series

volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.

Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.

8Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8:25.

9Ibid., Daniel 8:9.

10

John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

Second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Dogmatic, 3.

11

Kristine Hansen, “Public Position Papers and Opinion Pieces” in A Rhetoric for The Social

Sciences: A Guide To Academic And Professional Communication (Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall, 1998), 301-306.

II. True Historicism Characteristics

1Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association,1978). Historicism.

2Don F. Neufeld, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Student’s Source Book, (Washington, DC: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1962). Historical (Historicist) Interpretation, 1257.

http://www.academia.edu/4145197/The_Sanctuary_Doctrine_--_A_Critical_-_Apologetic_Approach



3William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm (Spring

2003), 22.

4Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting

Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.

5John Noe, “An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of

Revelation,” JETS, 49/4 (December 2006), 774.

6John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), History.

7Ibid., History.






10

Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting


III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel

1Roy Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing


2Ibid., 44.

3Ibid., 43.

4Martin Pröbstle, Where God and I Meet (Hagerstown, MD: The Review and Herald Publishing


5William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8,” Daniel and




6Ibid., 37-38.

7Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing

Association, 2004), 76-77.


8Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald

Publishing Association, 1957), 317-318.

9Clarence H. Hewitt, The Seer of Babylon – Studies in the Book of Daniel (Boston, MA: Advent

Christian Publication Society, 1948), 147-149.

10Ibid., 149.

11Ibid., 140.

IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn


Publishing Association, 1957), 327.


1907), 198.

3Ibid., 202-203.


Christian Publication Society, 1948), 171.





_A_Critical_-_Apologetic_Approach, 17-20.






Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 9.

10

William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8” in Daniel and







11

Florin Laiu, The Sanctuary Doctrine: A Critical-Apologetic Approach (Bucharest: Romania,



12

Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing




14Ibid., 37.

15Ruslan Mitkov, Anaphora Resolution: The State Of The Art, working paper based on the

COLING'98/ACL'98 tutorial on anaphora resolution (University of Wolverhampton,

Wolverhampton, 1999), 3.

16

Florin Laiu, The Sanctuary Doctrine: A Critical-Apologetic Approach (Bucharest: Romania,



17

Ibid., 19.

18

Ibid., 19-21.

19

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald Publishing Assn.,

1907), 202-203.

20

Martin Pröbstle, Where God and I Meet (Hagerstown, MD: The Review and Herald Publishing


21Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 9.

22

William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8” in Daniel and




23



24Constantin Orăsan and Richard Evans, “NP Animacy Identification For Anaphora Resolution,”

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 29 (2007), 79.

25Carlos Augusto Prolo, “Computational Approaches to Pronoun Resolution,” Letras de Hoje.

Porto Alegre. v. 41, nº 2, Junho, 2006, 139-140.






26

Ruslan Mitkov, Anaphora Resolution: The State Of The Art, working paper based on the

COLING'98/ACL'98 tutorial on anaphora resolution (University of Wolverhampton,

Wolverhampton, 1999), 3-6.

27Ibid., 4-6.

28Ruslan Mitkov (1997). “Factors In Anaphora Resolution: They Are Not The Only Things That

Matter. A Case Study Based On Two Different Approaches.” In Proceedings of the

ACL'97/EACL'97 workshop on Operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution,

Madrid, Spain, 14-17.

29Adrian Brasoveanu, (Spring 2010), Anaphora Resolution. Retrieved December 22, 2013 from

people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/anaphora%20resolution.ppt

30Andrew Kehler (1997), Current Theories of Centering for Pronoun Interpretation: A Critical

Evaluation, Association for Computational Linguistics, 467-475.

31Susan E. Brennan, Marilyn Walker Friedman, and Carl J. Pollard (1987), A Centering

Approach to Pronouns, 25th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics,

155-162.

32Roland Stuckardt, “Anaphor Resolution and the Scope of Syntactic Constraints,” German

National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD) Retrieved on December 22, 2013

from acl.ldc.upenn.edu/C/C96/C96-2158.pdf , 1-6.

33Constantin Orăsan and Richard Evans, “NP Animacy Identification For Anaphora Resolution,”

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 29 (2007), 79-103.

V. False Claims against Antiochus







Association, 2013), 104-105.

4Ibid., 105:1.

5Ibid., 105:2.

6Ibid., 105.









Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 11.

10



11

Ibid., 77.

12

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8:25.

13

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald Publishing

Assn., 1907), 198-202.

14

John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

Second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Exceeding.

15

Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald

Publishing Association, 1957), 327- 333.

16

D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996),

93.

17

Ibid., 131.

18

Ibid., 118.

19John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Exceeding.

20

William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8,” Daniel and




21

Ibid., 44-45:1.

22

Ibid., 44-45:2.

23

Ibid., 45-46.

24

Ibid., 46-47.


25

Ibid., 47-50.

26



27





28



29

Roy Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing


30





VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome








1907), 202-205.



5Ibid., 168-169.

6Ibid., 169-170.

7Ibid., 155.

8Ibid., 155-157.



Association, 2013), 104-116.

10Ibid., 105-107:1.

11Ibid., 105-107:2.




13

John Noe, “An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of


14



VII. Hard Arguments against Rome



VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus




Association, 1992), 64:2.

2Ibid., 42-43.

3Ibid., 45-46.

4Ibid., 46.


Association, 2013), 106-107.













10Ibid., 220-221.

IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations

1Isidore Singer, Editor, The Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls

Company, 1906). From: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1589-antiochus-iv-

epiphanes.

2Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850), 238-

239.

3Moses B. Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 464-

465.

4Ibid., 463.

5T. R. Birks, First Elements of Sacred Prophecy (London: William Edward Painter, 342, Strand,

1843), 148-149.

6Winston McHarg, “Why the Little Horn of Daniel 8 Must Be Antiochus Epiphanes,” at Good

News For Adventists.com: http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel-

8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/





8Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, Second series (New York: Fleming H.

Revell Company, 1938), 270-276.

9William Whiston, Translator, The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus – The war of the Jews

or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book 1, Chapter 1 (Chicago, ILL.: Thompson &

Thomas, 1901), 500-501.

10William Whiston, Translator. The Whole Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Vol II,

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Chapter 5, (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton and Co., 1829), 164-

167.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1589-antiochus-iv-epiphanes

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1589-antiochus-iv-epiphanes

http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel-8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/

http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel-8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/


11

Edwin R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol. II (London: Edward Arnold, 1902), 171-175.


13Ernest Lucas, Daniel (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsiti Press, 2002), 40-42.

X. Historicism and False Historicism

1Florin Laiu, “Daniel 8 Hebrew-English Lexicon & Grammar,” (Bucharest: Romania, 2013).

Unpublished document.


3Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 8:8.







1907), 198.

8Ibid., 202.



10

Roy Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing










14

Ibid., 52.


15

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald Publishing Assn.,

1907), 203.

16

Ibid., 204-205.

17

Clarence H. Hewitt, The Seer of Babylon – Studies in the Book of Daniel (Boston, MA: Advent




19

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 345.

20



21

Ibid., 106.








25


Association, 2013), 106-107.

26








30



31

Florin Laiu, “Daniel 8 Hebrew-English Lexicon & Grammar,” (Bucharest: Romania, 2013).



32

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 347.

33Ibid., 348.









and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 14.

39



40

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 348-351.


1907), 198-201.

42



43





1907), 201.

46



47Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 355.




XI. When D`ogmas Replace Evidence

1Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association,1978). Historicism.

2Don F. Neufeld, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Student’s Source Book, (Washington, DC: Review

and Herald Publishing Association,1962). Historical (Historicist) Interpretation, 1257.

3William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm (Spring

2003), 22.

4Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting




6John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), History.

7Ibid., History.






10



11

Roy E. Gane, “Christ at His Sanctuary – Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue,” Paper

presented at dialogue with World Evangelical Alliance, Andrews University, August 6, 2007, 16-

17.

12

Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M & R Publications, 1982), 19-25.

antiochus iv and daniel’s little horn reexamined final version

Documents

sda theologians

sda interpretation

sda scholars

sda churchs

sda historicist theologians

sda church members

sda historicist scholars

sda arguable claims