RELT 433 OT Apocalypse—Daniel PDF

RELT 433 OT APOCALYPSE—DANIEL THE APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL  Some Definitions Apocalyptic – comes from the Greek work apokalypsis, which means “revelation” or “disclosure;” it has come to designate a literary genre. Apocalypse – John Collins defines it “as a genr...

RELT 433 OT APOCALYPSE—DANIEL THE APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL  Some Definitions Apocalyptic – comes from the Greek work apokalypsis, which means “revelation” or “disclosure;” it has come to designate a literary genre. Apocalypse – John Collins defines it “as a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world”. Apocalyptic Eschatology – provides the conceptual framework within which the diverse materials encompassed by the apocalyptic writings are interpreted. Its belief is that, in accordance with divine plan, the adverse conditions of the present world would end in judgment of the wicked and vindication of the righteous, thereby ushering in a new era of prosperity and peace. Apocalypticism – it is a movement that has adopted the perspective of apocalyptic eschatology as its ideology, must accordingly be used with great caution, and only in cases where sufficient evidence accumulates to point to a community that has constructed its identity upon the world view of apocalyptic eschatology. Two Kinds of Apocalyptic Literature 1. Historical. The revelation is often given in symbolic visions, and gives an overview of the history that culminates in a crisis. Some authors refer to Daniel as an example of this type. 2. Travel to areas out of this world which are more mystical in orientation. Examples of this type is 1 Enoch 1-36.  Some Extra-biblical Texts As Apocalyptic. Marduk prophecy, Kummaya’s dream vision, Prophecy of Neferti, Hesiod’s Works and Days, 1-2 Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles. However, only the prophecies in the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation are truly apocalyptic  Some Extrabiblical Apocalyptical Books “In the classification of plants and animals in natural science the various orders and genera present the observer with some classes that have all the features that characterize the general Mass prominent and easily observable, while in others these features are so far from prominent that to the casual observer they are invisible. This may be seen in the apocalyptic writings: there are some that present all the marks of Apocalypses, such as the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and the Apocalypse of Baruch. They all claim to be revelations of the future--a future which begins, however, from the days of some ancient saint--and then, passing over the time of is actual composition, ends with the coming of the Messiah, the setting up of the Messianic kingdom and the end of the world. There are others, like the Book of Jubilees, in which the revelation avowedly looks back, and which thus contain an amount of legendary matter. One of the books which are usually reckoned in this class, has, unlike most of the Apocalypses, which are in prose, taken the Book of Psalms as its model--the Psalter of Solomon. A very considerable number of the works before us take the form of farewell counsels on the part of this or that patriarch. The most famous of these is the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Although the great masonry has been written in Hebrew or Aramaic by Jews resident in Palestine, the Sibylline books, composed to a great extent by Jews of Alexandria, present an exception to this” (ISBE Bible Dictionary) The Classical Prophecy in the Bible The classical prophecy were produced by an extraordinary line of Hebrew figures – the prophets – who were a messengers of Yahweh. Many of their prophecies “deal with the here and now, rebuking sins such as drunkenness, idolatry and imitation of the neighbours’ pagan practices, oppression of the poor, injustice, bribery, immorality, and spiritual torpor, thereby calling individuals, or the nation to repentance. Such messages were forthtelling, not foretelling, and they account for much of classical prophecy”.  Characteristics of Classical Prophecies 1. It was given by Yahweh’s prophet. 2. Some of their prophecies are predictive in nature about kingdoms and kings, but the time involved in the prediction might be short (Jon 3:4; Eze 4:6). 3. The prophets talked about “the day of the Lord” which describes Yahweh’s visitation in wrath on a city, His people, a foreign nation, or the whole earth (e.g. Isa 2:12; 13:6; Eze 30:3; Amos 5:18; Zeph 1:14). 4. Not all predictions carried messages of doom. There are many prophecies about hope and consolation. 5. Many of them deal with the here and now of the prophet. 6. These messages have a clear moral content, and exhort their hearers to abandon their sinful ways.  Apocalyptic and Nonapocalyptic Predictions The question is: Are all the prophecies in the OT conditional, both classical and apocalyptic? Or, is the apocalyptic prophecy a statement of God’s foreknowledge, and therefore these predictions are absolutely certain – not conditional upon a particular human response? This question can be better understood if we recognize the various types of predictive prophecy in Scripture. There are at least four groups of predictions in the nonapocalyptic biblical literature: a. Predictions to Israel that arise out of a covenant context. b. Short-term predictions. c. Long-term predictions. d. Predictions of the first advent of Christ. Classification of the nonapocalyptic portions of biblical prophecy reveals the complexity of the data. Conditionality emerges as an important principle of classical prophecy.  The Biblical Apocalyptic By biblical apocalyptic we mean the books of Daniel and Revelation, and the following sections of other biblical works: a. Isaiah 24-27 b. Ezekiel 38, 39 c. Joel 2:18-3:16 d. Zechariah 9-14 All these materials exhibit common features that at once resemble one another, and set them apart from the other literature of the Bible: 1. Revelatory Literature. It is a revelatory literature of the future, and unknown to human affairs. 2. Circumstances and Manner of Revelation. The circumstances and manner in which the prophecies are received is unique. 3. Heavenly Beings. It is common that angelic beings intervene in the explanation of the prophecy. 4. Times of Crisis or National Tragedy. 5. Striking Contrasts. It contains sharp contrasts in its descriptions. 6. Vivid Imagery. 7. The End of History. It indicates the end time, and much of its content is about it. 8. Its applications are more universal than local. 9. Resurrection and judgment as the goal of history. Apocalyptic writings at times see the righteous resurrected to a kingdom established on this present earth, while at other times they inherit a purified and renewed earth. 10. Appearance of a Messiah. In several apocalyptic books we find the appearance of a Messiah figure. Particularly in the Similitudes of Enoch the Son of Man, a powerful and pre-existent heavenly Messiah, plays an important part. 11. Pseudonymity. Usually the apocalyptists used the names of well known OT characters, long dead, as a means to validate their revelations, e.g., Enoch, Moses, Ezra, etc. Except for the last one, pseudonymity, these characteristics are also present in the book of Daniel.  The Characteristics of Daniel’s Prophecies (1) A whole sequence of events that starts with Daniel’s own time, and runs forward without interruption until the establishment of God’s kingdom glory; (2) The fact that it contains a number of historical outlines each culminating in the world judgment by the God of Israel. Four major outlines series can be distinguished (Dan 2; 7; 8-9; 10-12); (3) The Messiah-centered focus of all outlines (Dan 2:44; 7:13,14; 8:11, 25; 9:25-27; 10:5-6; 12:1); (3) The predetermined time-divisions which serve as the sacred calendar of God’s progressive history of redemption (Daniel 7 to 12); (4) The unconditional aspect of redemption history, which emphasizes a predetermined judgment session in heaven, and the vindication of the faithful saints by a Son of Man. The Origin of the Apocalyptic Literature The influences alien to Judaism “Scholars were once confident that the source could be traced to a form of Persian dualism with which Judaism came into contact in the Second Temple.” Initially it was thought an influence of Persian dualism, but the lateness of these writings in some 500 years later, difficult this position. Mesopotamian has been proposed for the origin of Apocalyptic Literature because of the similarity of Babylonian “Enoch” Enmeduranki with the character and location of Daniel in the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar. For this reason some have proposed a development in the Eastern diaspora, though the Babylonians did not have an apocalyptic tradition. In the same line has been indicated, since the nineteenth century, and it was revived by Gerhard von Rad, some contact with the mantic wisdom of the Chaldeans. But there aren’t many examples that support these concepts. A proposed gender, which has come to light in recent years, is the Akkadian prophecy defined as “a prose composition consisting of a number of 'predictions' of past events”. “These Babylonian prophecies do not end with the transcendent, cosmic eschatology which characterizes Apocalypticism, and are not to be properly called ‘apocalyptic’, but they provides one of the building blocks for one type of apocalypse.” Others scholars have tried to find in the Persian dualism the origin of Apocalypticism, but “the full relationship between Persian and Jewish Apocalypticism, and the degree of influence of the one on the other, remains one of the major unresolved problems in the study of apocalypticism”. All these has led to the recognition that it was originated in Judaism. The influence of the sacred Hebrew Bible It is quite likely that the literary and cultural currents mentioned above have exercised their influence on the writers of the apocalypse, but this influence is negligible compared with that of the Hebrew writings. This is found when comparing this literature to the sacred scrolls of Israel, as will be discussed below. But it is also logical Hebrews understand this influence, in light of the fact that apocalypticism emerged as a reaction to foreign domination and Hellenic influence. They developed a strong nationalistic spirit willing to be strengthened in their ancestral roots and reject any foreign influence. For this reason, it is very difficult to accept a foreign origin for the apocalyptic literature. Several reasons have been recognized for the rise of apocalyptic literature apocalypticism.  four basic reasons for the development of apocalypticism in postexilic Judaism Since the time of Ezra the Law took the center stage in Judaism, and scribes replaced the prophets, post-exilic prophets emphasized the importance of the temple, which downplayed the prophecy, against foreign culture (wisdom Chaldean, Greek philosophy, astrology, magic), prophecy lost popularity, the scribes said that within Judaism prophetic inspiration had ceased. The people’s despair due to missing forecasts of the prophets concerning the righteous, led them to consider God as far from man. Furthermore, the absence of prophets from the days of Zechariah and Malachi led the people to look somewhere else for prophecy that gave them the assurance their parents had once experienced through the messengers of the Hebrew canon. Another very influential factor was the crisis experienced by the Jews under Persian, Greek, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Roman rule, and so on. Notice the following elements reflected in Old Testament apocalyptic literature, making it very similar to extrabiblical apocalyptic literature. Their first appearances took place between the third and second centuries BC, and great influence on this is attributed to two Old Testament books, according to Hanson:17 Ezekiel. The prophet begins his book by declaring I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God” (Ezek 1:1, NIV). Turn around 5 visions. Zechariah. In the 8 visions of his first six chapters, the prophet has visions that the angel explained to him. To this, Isaiah 24-27, 56-66, Zechariah 9-14 can be added. This group of Biblical texts would designate a group of writings referred to as “early apocalyptic”: “They indicated that Jewish apocalyptic becomes increasingly complex over the course of the centuries and especially as it enters the Hellenistic era.”  The Book of Daniel as a Model The scholars are in agreement that the Book of Daniel is the main apocalyptic expression in the Hebrew Bible. The Ladd suggests: “As above indicated, all these take the Book of Daniel as their model, and imitate it more or less closely. One peculiarity in this connection must be referred to. While we have already said these later Apocalypses were practically unknown by the Jews of a couple of centuries after the Christian era, the Book of Daniel was universally regarded as authoritative alike by Jews and Christians”. The proposal is that the Book of Daniel must be dated before the arising of the Apocalyptic literature. Therefore, this Biblical writing served as a model for the apocalyptic writers. The features of Daniel – its historical and archaeological background, its structure, its languages and its theological message – suggest so.  Date and Authorship It is indisputable that the certainty about the identity of the author of the book gives confidence in the fidelity of its historical record and inspires faith in the reliability of prophetic anticipation of the book. Hasel points out the reasons for the importance of correctly dating the book of Daniel. 1. Knowledge of the time of writing for any biblical book enables the reader to see it in a particular historical setting. 2. The book of Daniel purports to contain narratives of events (chap. 1-6) that involve Daniel and his friends as Jewish exiles in Babylon, the nation that conquered Judah in three stages (605, 597 and 586 ac). 3. The issue over the dating of the book of Daniel reflects directly on the question of the historical nature and the accuracy of the material contained in it. “If Daniel’s God was able to predict the future, then there is reason to believe that the course of history is completely under Yahweh’s sovereignty. On the other hand, if the predictions are fraudulent, then one must remain agnostic about Daniel’s God”. 4. Under the influence of the Age of the Enlightenment, and on the basis of philosophical concerns, the denial of predictive prophecy in the book of Daniel has become the standard position in modern historical-critical scholarship. 5. The NT has a direct reference to the book of Daniel from the mouth of Jesus (Matt 24:15; cf. Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20). “To determine the message of the Book of Daniel, it is first necessary to understand the composition and design of the book as a whole”. “There is nothing in the book itself that demands a date in the second century B.C., the consensus date among critical scholars. The assumption that the book must be a vaticinium ex eventu is not scholarship but dogmatism”.  The Maccabean Hypothesis There are two main views on the date and authorship of the book of Daniel. The first, commonly known as the Maccabean hypothesis and introduced by the NeoPlatonist Porphyry (233-304 CE), holds that the book is a pseudonymous document written in the 2nd century BCE in reaction to the activities of the Syrian King Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). This position is held primarily by critical scholars who have been influenced by rationalism, which denies God’s intervention in history and rejects predictive prophecy. They raise issues regarding history (e.g., Dan 1:1 vs. Jer 25:1; 46:2; Darius the Mede; Belshazzar as king; Ecclesiasticus 44-50), language (i.e., written in Hebrew and Aramaic; use of Greek and Persian terms), and prophecy (i.e., supernaturalism; placement in the Writings) to argue their position. For these scholars, the so-called predictions in the book were written after the events had already taken place (i.e., vaticinia ex eventu). The arguments for the Maccabean Thesis of the authorship of the book of Daniel are: (1) Alleged historical inaccuracies; Features considered to be historical inaccuracies include: a. Problems of dating in chapters 1 and 2, b. The reference to Belshazzar as king, c. The figure of Darius the Mede, d. The nature of the “Chaldeans” mentioned as a class of wise men. These problems will be studied later, when studying each chapter. (2) Linguistic problems, especially in 2:4-7:28. Within the book are several Persian and Greek loanwords. Therefore, it would indicate a date for the book subsequent to the exile, possibly after Alexander the Great’s conquest of Palestine or even a date as late as the second century B.C. The modern consensus of historical-critical scholarship on the date of the book of Daniel is posited by pointing out two aspects: a. There is a consensus on the Maccabean date hypothesis. The final form of the book of Daniel derives from the second century B.C., particularly the crisis at the time of Antiochus IV, or about 167/6 to 164/3 B.C. b. Since there are elements in the book of Daniel that unquestionably are older than the second century B.C. (chaps. 1-6 or certain aspects in these chapters), the tendency is strong to date parts or all of these chapters to the third century and to ascribe them to one or more authors. “Scholars have long been aware that the language of Daniel is earlier than the second century. The consensus was that the Hebrew resembled that of the Chronicler and was earlier than that of the Mishnah. It is, indeed, noticeably closer to Chronicles than to Qumran (second-first centuries). Similarly, the Aramaic (2:4b-7:28) is closer to that of Ezra and the fifth century papyri than to that from Qumran.” (3) Similarities/Differences between Chapter 11 and the Second Century B.C., especially with the life and work of Antiochus IV Epiphanes35 (175- 164 AC) (1) the most important primary contemporary sources depicting the events between 168-164 B.C. in detail are few, limited primarily to 1 and 2 Maccabees and Polybius, and there are a number of weighty disagreements within these sources. (2) Therefore, it is difficult to draw up a consistent and accurate historical reconstruction for these events under consideration. (3) While several similarities can be proposed between the book of Daniel and the Maccabean situation, there are even more dissimilarities which have to be either ignored or passed over. (4) The change of the third singular person in chapters 1 to 6 to first singular persona in the last 6 chapters.39 In short, there is uncertainty about to its authorship and the proposals are varied. (5) The proposition that the book of Daniel was a pseudonymous composition. “It is significant that within the period covered by the OT no example has so far come to light of a pseudepigraphon which was approved or cherished as an authoritative book, and… there was opposition to the interpolation of new material into a text”. If however, the book originated during the exile, pseudonymity is not necessary. Possibly the most serious problem with the notion of pseudonymity in the book of Daniel is the fact that it robs this biblical book of its impact. G. Wenham appropriately remarks that ‘the idea that God declares his future purposes to his servants is at the heart of the book’s theology.’  The Exilic Thesis Conservative scholars who believe in divine inspiration and thus accept the claims of the text itself argue that Daniel wrote the book. Both internal (e.g., Dan 7:1-2, 15; 8:1-2; 9:1; 10:2; 12:4-5) and external (e.g., Matt 24:15; 4QFlorilegium; 4QNab; Jewish Antiquities 10.10.1) evidence suggest that the book was written in the 6th century BCE. As the book indicates, Daniel and his friends were taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the beginning of the 6th century BCE. The book must have been composed during the long service of Daniel in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kingdoms to encourage God’s people, present and future, in times of crises In behalf of the Exilic Thesis, there are strong evidences that support a Danielic authorship and a dating in the VI BC: (1) The view of both Jewish and Christian about Daniel as the author, (2) The historical and archaeological evidence supporting the historical background of the book. Archaeological and historical evidence in favor of characters in the book such as Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Belteshazzar, Darius the Mede and Daniel himself and an analysis of apparent chronological problems of the book. ( 3) The explicit claims of the same book regarding his Danielic authorship (1:1, 2, 21, 2:1, 7:1, 2, 8:1, 9:1, 10.1, etc.). The supposed difficulty of bilingualism of the book is not considered as such after studies.48 Tanner suggested that the use of Aramaic in Chapters 2 to 7 is because it focuses on the Gentile nations under which the Jewish nation was subject to discipline and were written in Aramaic because “Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Gentile world in Daniel’s day”. It must be added that the same arguments presented against the Maccabean thesis provide new elements for a single writer who lived in the sixth century BC. After explaining key issues in the book of Daniel, “such as the angelology, Belteshazzar’s father, the way of dating the prophecies, “We feel justified, despite all the difficulties that remain, to maintain the traditional date of Daniel”. The literary structure of the book and the parallelism of its four prophetic lines reveal a harmonious unity suggesting a single authorship of it. Place Among the Scriptures The book of Daniel is located in the third division of the TaNak, in the section called Ketubim. The Deuteronomic theology background and the calls for a moral change given to Belteshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar, suggest that Daniel has a very close affinity with the classical prophets (Nebi'im) located in the subdivision known as Prophets. This evidence would support the idea that Daniel was initially placed in this section of the Hebrew canon, or at least there's a strong argument for considering Daniel in the line of classical prophecy. “In the LXX and occasionally in Josephus (Cont. Apion 1:40), and Matthew 24:15, (Daniel) was counted among the prophets. Their placement among the Writings in the Hebrew Bible is because the canon of the prophets was closed, when the book was included.” The Talmud also includes Daniel among the prophets. The reason for the exclusion, according to Harrison, is that “Daniel was not regarded as having occupied the prophetic office as such. He was not a prophet in the classic sense associated with Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others of the literary coterie for the simple reason that he did not function as spiritual mediator between God and a theocratic community, despite the fact that he was endowed with certain conspicuous prophetic gifts”. the possibility that the rabbis did not consider the book of Daniel as a prophetic book. “More probable,” they say, “is the theory that because the book appeared so late (second quarter of the second century BC) it could not be included in the prophetic corpus which the rabbis held to be closed with the death of the fifth century BC prophet Malachi” the association of Daniel with the prophets encouraged a focus on the End, which was troublesome to the Jews and led to the placement of the book among the Writings – a position that invited “a more pedagogical reading” What, however, is the historical evidence? There are a number of early witnesses which place Daniel among the prophets: a. Matthew 24:15 calls Daniel a prophet. b. The Septuagint (LXX, a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek) places Daniel among the prophets. c. Josephus (ca. AD 100) includes Daniel among the prophets. d. The people at Qumran considered Daniel to belong to the prophets. 4Q Florilegium, 2.3.20 refers to “the book of Daniel, the prophet.” e. Even among Jews the tradition is not unanimous. Moshe Ben Asher, the author of the Codex Cairensis, which does not place Daniel among the prophets, wrote “all the prophets from Moses... to Daniel and Malachi number 117.” f. A Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek canon list (ca second century AD) lists Daniel after the three other Major Prophets.  Historical Background of the Book of Daniel The Assyrians Ashurbanipal (669-633) – The Assyrian Empire came to an end in the 7th century BC. Ashurbanipal was the last great king of Assyria. He conquered Egypt, Elam and all the territories in between. Ashurbanipal is especially well known as the founder of the great library of Nineveh which was discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in the middle of the 19th century. Among the tablets found were the Babylonian account of creation and the flood. After Ashurbanipal's death the power of Assyria declined rapidly. His sons were unable to prevent Nabopolassar, a Chaldean army commander, from taking Babylon and making himself king (626 BC). In 614 BC the Medes captured Assur one of the Assyrian capitals, and the Median king Cyaxares concluded an alliance with Nabopolassar. This political alliance decided the fate of Assyria, and after a siege of three months Nineveh fell to the united Medes and Babylonians in 612 BC. Sin-shar-ishkun, one of Ashurbanipal's sons and last ruler of Nineveh, died with his family in the flames of his palace. Like Calah, Nineveh was destroyed so thoroughly that later generations did not even know of its location.  The Babylonians Nabopolassar (626-605) – The years after the fall of Nineveh were used to consolidate the newly acquired territory and to crush the resistance of the remnants of the Assyrian kingdom that fought for an existence under their king Ashur-uballit II in the region of (Biblical) Haran, aided by Egyptian forces. For several years the Babylonian king gained no decisive victory, although Assyrian strength must have been weakened by these continual battles. The first battle at Carchemish, in 609 BC, still brought no victory over the Assyrian and Egyptian armies, which apparently gave a good account of themselves. In subsequent years, however, the last Assyrian remnants were eliminated. Nabopolassar then turned his attention upon Egypt. He decided to punish Egypt for its opposition to Babylon. The Egyptian campaign was entrusted to the crown prince Nebuchadnezzar, who in 605 BC fought the decisive battle against Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish, which shattered all Egyptian hopes of re-establishing Egypt's former Asiatic empire. In the summer of that year Nebuchadnezzar stood at the borders of Egypt, ready for the invasion, when news of his father's death led to his immediate return to Babylon and accession to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC) -- In Nebuchadnezzar II, Nabopolassar had a worthy successor and Babylon a successful and illustrious king. Nebuchadnezzar carried out a number of military expeditions during his reign, especially against Judah and Tyre. He made three trips to Jerusalem, inflicting a stricter punishment each time: 605 First Deportation: Nebuchadnezzar compelled king Jehoiakim to break with Egypt and sign a treaty with Babylon. Amongst the hostages taken back to Babylon were Daniel and his three friends. Not long afterwards, however, Jehoiakim renewed his special relationship with Egypt (2 Kgs 24:1; Dan 1:3-4). 597 Second Deportation: Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin who ruled only for three months surrendered to the Babylonian forces. Nebuchadnezzar confiscated a large quantity of temple utensils and took 10 000 captives, among them Ezekiel (2 Kgs 24:10-16; Ezek 1:1). 586 Third Deportation: Because of Zedekiah's revolt, Nebuchadnezzar levelled the city and the temple. He also took many of the remaining residents of Judea into captivity, leaving behind only the “poorest of the land” (2 Kgs 24:25). Nebuchadnezzar's chief ambition, however, was to make his capital the most glorious metropolis of the world. Tremendous sums of money were spent in building palaces, temples, and fortifications; and Babylon became a city concerning which Nebuchadnezzar could say, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?”(Dan 4:30). Amel-Marduk (562-560) This was the weak and inefficient son of Nebuchadnezzar. Nergal-sharusur (560-556) A son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. Labashi-Marduk (556) This king reigned for only a few months. Nabonidus (556-539) A son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. His chief interest seemed to be in archaeology and the services of the gods. During a large part of his reign he was absent from his capital while he made his residence at Tema in northern Arabia. During this time his son Belshazzar, whom he had made co-regent in 550 BC, ruled at Babylon. During this period the Medes and Persians were forging to the front, and it was before their combined armies that Babylon finally fell in 539 BC. Media and Persia At about 1000 BC the Medes were a loosely organized, pastoral people living to the east of Assyria. About the eighth century they were consolidated into a kingdom. Closely related to them were the Persians. The Persians had a king of their own, but during the early period the king of Media was lord over both the Medes and the Persians. From the time of Cyrus on the Persians were in control. MEDIA Cyaxares I (625-585) – During the latter part of the 7th century BC, Cyaxares made Media one of the dominant powers in the East. He made vigorous assaults against Assyria, and captured the city of Assur in 614 BC. At that time he entered into an alliance with Nabopolassar of Babylon. He made extensive conquests to the Northwest, extending his dominion all the way to the Halys River in Asia Minor. Astyages (585-550) – This is the last king of Media of whom there are available records. During the long reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Media maintained friendly relations with Babylon, but when Nebuchadnezzar died, Astyages began extending his kingdom at the expense of his former ally. Meanwhile the Medes and Persians were closely allied, with Media up till this time holding the dominant position. The situation was quickly reversed, however, under the ambitious Cyrus who subdued Astyages. The Median line of kings quickly came to its end, while the kings of Persia continued to rule the East.  PERSIA Cyrus II (539-530) – Up till this time the kings of Persia were subservient to the Medes. In 550 BC Cyrus defeated his grandfather Astyages, and from that time onward the Persians held the lordship over the Medes. It was an army composed of both Persians and Medes that captured Babylon in 539 BC. From that year onward Cyrus was ruler over the East. He made Babylon the chief capital of his kingdom. Cyrus was noted for his friendly, conciliatory policies. He issued the first decree allowing the Jewish exiles to return to their homes from the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 1:1-4). Cambyses II (530-522) – Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525 BC. From 525-332 the kings of Persia ruled as the Pharaohs of Egypt, though sometimes they appointed local kings.  Judah After the outstanding reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, the Hebrew monarchy was divided and continued its history under the kings of Judah and Israel. These Kingdoms had frequent contacts with the nations around them. There were frequent wars which finally resulted in the complete overthrow of both Israel and Judah. The last kings of Judah were: ---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------- Josiah Jehoahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin Zedekiah 639-609 609 609-597 597 597-586 Josiah (639-609 BC) – The last of the good kings of Judah (2 Chron 34:2). For unknown reasons he attempted at Megiddo to stop Pharaoh Necho II who was marching northward to aid the Assyrians against the Babylonians. In the battle of Megiddo (609 BC), however, Josiah was badly wounded and died soon after his return to Jerusalem (2 Chron 35:20-24). His army was so badly beaten that Judah was forced to submit to Egypt. Jehoahaz (609 BC) – Jehoahaz, the 23 year old son of Josiah, was crowned in Jerusalem by popular demand, though he was not the oldest son (2 Kgs 23:30-32). He was probably pro-Babylonian as his father had been. Pharaoh Necho II, therefore, when he returned from the first battle of Carchemish (609 BC) removed Jehoahaz from his throne after he had reigned for only three months and appointed Jehoiakim, an older brother, in his stead (2 Kgs 23:33-34). Jehoiakim (609-598 BC) – In character he was the exact opposite of his pious father, and distinguished himself by various godless acts, even murdering a prophet (2 Kgs 23:35-37). Jehoiakim was probably an Egyptian vassal until his third/fourth regnal year, 605 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar came and forced him to become a vassal of Babylon. A few years later, however, Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:1). In December 598 the Babylonian army marched against Jerusalem. In that same month Jehoiakim died and his 18 year old son, Jehoiachin, was placed on the throne (2 Kgs 24:8). Jehoiachin (597 BC) – Within three months (on March 16, 597), Jerusalem surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin, with his mother and court officials, was taken to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:8-12). The king's uncle Zedekiah was installed as ruler in his place. Zedekiah (597-586 BC) – Zedekiah was a weakling unable to stand up to his nobles (Jer 38:5) and fearful of popular opinion (Jer 38:19). For a number of years Zedekiah remained loyal to Babylon, but under the constant pressure of his princes he made an alliance with the Egyptians (Jer 37:6-10). Nebuchadnezzar marched against Judah, systematically devastating the whole country (Jer 34:7). This was the time of the famous Lachish Letters, which were written on potsherds (ostraca) and found in the ruins of Lachish. They vividly describe the deplorable conditions prevailing in the country at that time. The siege of Jerusalem began on January 15, 588 BC (2 Kgs 25:1) and lasted until July 19, 586 BC (2 Kgs 25:2). When the break-through came, Zedekiah made an attempt to escape. In the confused fighting that followed the break-through he managed to leave the city and reach the plain of Jericho, but was overtaken there. Carried to Nebuchadnezzar's head-quarters at Riblah, Zedekiah saw his sons killed; then his eyes were put out, and he was sent to Babylon in chains. His chief ministers were executed, and all others were carried into captivity (2 Kgs 25:4-7,19-21; Jer 52:10). Jerusalem was systematically looted and then destroyed. The walls were torn down, and the Temple, the palaces, and all other houses were burned to the ground. The fire may have raged for three days in the unhappy city – August 15-18, 586 BC – as the two dates of 2 Kgs 25:8 and Jer 52:12,13, seem to indicate. Many of the Jews were carried as captives to Babylonia, but some of the poorest of the country were left behind. Nebuchadnezzar appointed over them as governor a Jew by the name of Gedaliah, who chose Mizpah as the seat of his administration (2 Kgs 25:22; 2 Chron 36:20). (Adapted from Nichol, A. Daniel, SDA Bible Commentary, 2:93-98, and Thiele, 13-18).  Literary Features The book of Daniel was composed in two languages: Hebrew (Dan 1:1- 2:4a; 8:1-12:13) and Aramaic (Dan 2:4b-7:28). The book contains both historical narratives and prophecies. Chapters 1-6 comprise the historical narrative section, though, in this section, some prophecies are found within the stories of court. The prophetic section (chaps. 7-12) mostly comprises visions received by Daniel, who, in most cases, is concerned about the future of God’s holy people. The prophecies in this book are commonly known as apocalyptic prophecies. In an apocalyptic prophecy, God reveals relevant future happenings that will affect His covenant people through visions or dreams involving otherworldly beings. While apocalyptic prophecies are predictive prophecies, not all predictive prophecies are apocalyptic (e.g., the prophecies of Elijah, Isaiah, Amos, etc.). Apocalyptic prophecies, such as found in the books of Daniel and 4 Revelation, (1) contain visions and dreams with multiples of imagery and symbolism, (2) have a universal focus with the visions giving a sweep of history relating to God’s people from the prophet’s time till the end time, and (3) portray a cosmic dualism that finds expression in resurrection and judgment. Scholars have recognized some extra-biblical texts as apocalyptic (e.g., Marduk prophecy, Kummaya’s dream vision, Prophecy of Neferti, Hesiod’s Works and Days, 1-2 Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles). However, only the prophecies in the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation are truly apocalyptic.  The Interpretation of the Book At this point we will only give a brief description of the major interpretational systems used for the understanding of the book of Daniel. 1. The Historicist School This is the oldest school of interpretation. It accepts the authorship of Daniel in the sixth century BC, and holds that the prophecies of Daniel cover the entire historical period from Daniel’s day to the second advent of Christ. It believes that the promises and predictions given by Old Testament prophets originally applied to the literal people of Israel, and that they would have seen their fulfillment if they had obeyed God and been faithful to him. The Bible records that Israel failed. Therefore, what God intended to do through Israel, He finally did through the church that He has in the world today, and many of the promises that were given to Israel will be fulfilled in the end-time remnant. 2. The Futurist-Dispensational School Interpreters of this school also accept Danielic authorship in the sixth century, but they believe that the little horn power in Daniel 7 is a future Antichrist rather than the papacy. This school can be divided into two groups: (a) Dispensationalists – who believe that there is a gap in the fulfilment of the prophecies of Daniel from the first century until seven years before the Second Advent, and (b) (b) Futurists -- who believe that from the destruction of the Roman Empire (the fourth beast) until the appearance of the Antichrist (the little horn) there will be a number of kingdoms (the ten horns) which are successors to the Roman Empire. Its first proponents were the Spanish Francisco Ribera (m.1591), and the Italian Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (m.1621). This system was later adopted by the Anglican Church, and then by Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren. It became famous thanks to the Scofield Bible., but mostly among laity in general, not among scholars. 3. The Historical Preterist School Like historicists and futurist-dispensationalists, historical preterists believe that Daniel wrote the book in the sixth century, but they limit the fulfilment of its prophecies to the time period which runs from the time of Daniel to the first coming of Christ, or to the end of the Roman Empire. Today, the name preterist is frequently used for the historical-critical school of interpretation, but recently new preterist organizations that advocate the historic preterist view have come into existence. Its first proponent was Porfirio (m.304), violent opponent of Christianity and defender of paganism. In times of the reform this proposal was revived by the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Alcazar (m.1613). After, it was accepted by the rationalist German J. G. Eichhorn (m.1827), which paved the way for its introduction in Protestantism. 4. The Historical-Critical or Modern Preterist School Adherents of this school hold that an unknown Jew in the second century BC wrote the book of Daniel. They believe that all the prophecies in the book refer to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BC, and that the book is a reflection of the political and religious situation of the Jewish people during the time of persecution under that Syrian king. 5. The Idealist School Generally, a sixth-century date of the book is accepted, but the fulfillment of the prophecies is not limited to one fulfillment in history, rather multiple fulfillments are seen throughout history. The “little horn,” for example, is seen as a “recurring historical phenomenon: the clever but ruthless world dictator, who stops at nothing in order to achieve his ambitions” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, TOTC, 162). These major schools of interpretation are not iron-clad systems which can in every single instance be neatly separated. At times there is some overlapping and some interpreters, although primarily following one school, may accept some interpretations from another school as part of their own expositions. Theology of the Book of Daniel As the books of Daniel and Revelation indicate, the basic purpose of apocalyptic prophecy is to encourage believers in times of national or religious crisis. In so doing, three themes stand out. First, the God of Israel is sovereign (Dan 4:34). He is the God of gods, Lord of lords, and King of kings (2:47). He is the Lord of history. He enthrones and dethrones kings (2:21). He works in human history to carry out His plan of salvation (2:17, 28; 6:27; 12:1-2). His kingdom is everlasting (2:44; 4:3; 6:26; 7:14, 27).  Second, the Messiah is the hope of humanity. It is He who effects salvation through His substitutionary, atoning sacrifice and intercessory ministry (7:13-14; 9:26-27; 10:5-5; 12:1-2). Finally, the God who saves is also the God who judges (e.g., 4:37; 5:26; 7:9-11, 26; 8:13-14). The principles of His kingdom require that He allows evil to a certain degree and that at the appointed time, He will bring an end to evil, suffering, and pain (7:25-27; 8:25; 11:40-45). He is the righteous Judge who will vindicate His people, those who remain loyal to Him throughout the conflict between good and evil (3:28; 6:27; 12:1-2).