Daniel's vision by the Tigris in the third year of Cyrus (Dan 10:1–11:1)

Archaeological evidence

None recorded for this event.

Scientific findings

None recorded for this event.

Ancient documents

• Darius: "the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of countries" (Livius translation).[4]Bears on: challenging — “"King of Persia" was not a title borne by the Persian kings while thei…”
• xšâyathiya Pârsaiy — "king in/of Persia" (Livius renders "of").[4]Bears on: context — “"King of Persia" was not a title borne by the Persian kings while thei…”

Modern news and announcements

None recorded for this event.

Reference works and summaries

• "King of Persia": a title not borne by the Persian kings while the empire lasted, though often given them afterwards.[2]Bears on: supporting — “"King of Persia" was not a title borne by the Persian kings while thei…”
• 1 Nisan of Cyrus's year 3 = 30 Mar 536 BC.[1]Bears on: supporting — “The vision's date (24th of the first month, Cyrus's third year) fell j…”

The vision by the Tigris (Dan 10–12) (Daniel 10:4–12:13)

The last vision of Daniel, received by the Tigris in Cyrus's third year. Chapter 10 is the frame: a heavenly figure and a conflict of heavenly "princes". The revelation proper (11:2–12:4) and the closing dialogue (12:5–13) are recorded with chapters 11 and 12.

The ten horns and the little horn: time, times and half a time (Dan 7:8, 20–26) (Daniel 7:20–26)

Ten kings arise from the fourth kingdom; another king subdues three, blasphemes, persecutes the saints and attempts to change times and law for a time, times and half a time, until the judgment removes his dominion.

In the text: Horns = kings (7:24). The duration is "a time and times and half a time" (7:25). No king is named.

• Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucid kings

  PreteristHistorical-critical (also Porphyry)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Porphyry (via Jerome); Delitzsch, Ewald, Bevan (via Driver); S. R. Driver (1900); A.-J. Levine (2010), via Wikipedia

  The ten horns are Seleucid kings (several reconstructions; the three uprooted are e.g. Heliodorus, Demetrius and Ptolemy VI, or alternatives); the little horn is Antiochus IV, whose suppression of Temple worship (1 Macc 1:41–64) lasted about three and a half years. Objections: the identity and number of the ten and the three are uncertain (Driver concedes "our knowledge … does not … enable us to decide"); Jerome objects that Porphyry's three kings do not fit; conservative readers object that the everlasting kingdom did not follow Antiochus's death.[2, 15, 16, 17]

  Ten horns → Seleucid kings · Little horn → Antiochus IV · Time, times and half a time → c. 3½ years of persecution, 167–164 BC

• A future Antichrist from a ten-fold division of the Roman world

  FuturistPatristic; later dispensational/premillennialProponents: Hippolytus (via Driver); Jerome; D. Guzik (restored Roman empire)

  At the end of the age ten kings partition the Roman world; an eleventh overthrows three and persecutes the saints for three and a half literal years before Christ's return (Jerome; Guzik links Rev 11–13). Objection (Driver): the kingdoms must arise from the fourth empire, which no longer exists. Not a claim of historical fulfillment.[2, 15, 18]

  Little horn → A future individual Antichrist · Time, times and half a time → 3½ years

• The papacy (historicist)

  HistoricistProtestant historicistMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: I. Newton (1733); W. H. Rule (1869), via Driver; Seventh-day Adventist interpretation (noted by Guzik)

  The ten horns are the kingdoms into which the Western Empire broke; the little horn is the Church of Rome as a temporal power, which subdued three of them; "time, times and half a time" is 1260 years on a day-for-a-year reckoning (Newton). Objection (Driver): the scheme is "non-natural" and depends on choosing ten kingdoms and a starting date.[2, 9, 18]

  Ten horns → Kingdoms of the Western Roman Empire · Little horn → The papacy / Church of Rome · Time, times and half a time → 1260 years

• Julius Caesar and the Caesars

  PreteristReformationMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: J. Calvin (as reported by Guzik; not read directly)

  The little horn is the line of Roman Caesars beginning with Julius Caesar. Recorded as reported by Enduring Word, which rejects it.[18]

  Little horn → Julius Caesar and his successors

The little horn and the king of fierce face (Dan 8:9–12, 23–25) (Daniel 8:23–25)

From one of the four kingdoms a fierce, cunning king arises who destroys the holy people, removes the continual offering, opposes the prince of princes, and is broken without human hand.

In the text: The little horn is a king arising "in the latter time of their kingdom" (8:23) — i.e. of the four kingdoms of Greece. He is not named.

• Antiochus IV Epiphanes

  PreteristAncient Jewish, patristic and criticalMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Josephus (Ant. 12.7.6: the desolation "according to the prophecy of Daniel"); Jerome (on 8:23); S. R. Driver (1900): "admitted on all hands"; J. A. Montgomery (1927); D. Guzik (near fulfillment)

  Textual reasoning: the horn comes from one of the four Greek kingdoms; it removes the continual offering and desolates the sanctuary, which 1 Maccabees records under Antiochus (1:54) until the rededication (4:52). Objection (Newton): a horn signifies a kingdom, not one man, and Antiochus's kingdom was not "exceedingly great". Acceptance: Driver says it is "admitted on all hands"; even Jerome, who resists Antiochus for ch. 7, accepts him here.[2, 5, 13, 16, 19, 20]

  Little horn / king of fierce face → Antiochus IV Epiphanes · Removal of the continual offering → Desecration of 15 Chislev 145 SE (1 Macc 1:54)

• Antiochus as a type of the future Antichrist (dual fulfillment)

  MixedPatristic majority (per Jerome); modern dispensationalProponents: "Most of our commentators" (reported by Jerome); D. Guzik

  Because the vision concerns "the time of the end" (8:17, 19), the near fulfillment in Antiochus prefigures a final Antichrist. The future part is not a claim of historical fulfillment; the Antiochus part is recorded separately.[19, 20]

  King of fierce face → Antiochus as type; the Antichrist as antitype

• Rome (historicist)

  HistoricistProtestant historicistMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: I. Newton (1733)

  The little horn of the goat is a new kingdom that arose out of one of the four — Rome, which conquered Macedonia and the East and later continued as the Greek empire. Newton rejects Antiochus "not very judiciously" identified. Objection (Driver): the horn grows "out of one of them", i.e. from a Greek kingdom, and its deeds match Antiochus's.[2, 9]

  Little horn → Rome

The seventy weeks (Dan 9:24–27) (Daniel 9:24–27)

Seventy weeks are decreed on Daniel's people and city: seven weeks from a word to rebuild Jerusalem to an anointed prince; sixty-two weeks of rebuilding in troubled times; then an anointed one is cut off, a coming prince's people destroy city and sanctuary, a covenant is made for one week, and in its middle sacrifice ceases and an abomination makes desolate. Jerome already found the passage argued "in various ways by men of greatest learning"; Driver calls it the most discussed passage of the Old Testament. Origen (as reported by Jerome) only urged that the years from Darius's first year to Christ be ascertained.

In the text: The text gives the divisions 7 + 62 + 1 (= 70) weeks and the events attached to them. It does not define a "week", name the decree, the anointed one(s), the prince who comes, or the subject of "he will make a firm covenant", and gives no calendar.

• Maccabean: 587 BC to Cyrus, to the murder of Onias III (171), to Antiochus IV (164)

  PreteristHistorical-criticalMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: S. R. Driver (1900); J. A. Montgomery (1927); Bevan, Cornill, Schürer (cited by Driver)

  Textual reasoning: the "word" is Jeremiah's promise of rebuilding (Jer 30–31, c. 587); seven weeks (49 years) bring "an anointed one, a prince" — Cyrus (Isa 45:1), 538 (Graetz and Bevan: Jeshua); the "anointed one cut off" after 62 more weeks is the high priest Onias III (2 Macc 4:33–35, c. 171); the coming prince is Antiochus IV, whose suspension of sacrifice for half a week matches 167–164. Historical evidence: 1–2 Maccabees. Objections: 538 to 171 is 367 years, not 434 — "too large by 67" (Driver); defenders explain it as a mistaken chronology, citing similar over-estimates by Demetrius and Josephus (Schürer). Acceptance: Driver adopts it as the principal alternative to the traditional view; Montgomery says no period "so neatly fits".[2, 5, 21]

  Anointed one, a prince (9:25) → Cyrus (or Jeshua) · Anointed one cut off (9:26) → Onias III · Prince who comes; he who causes sacrifice to cease → Antiochus IV · Last week → 171–164 BC

• Maccabean variant: overlapping weeks from Jer 25 (605 BC)

  PreteristHistorical-criticalMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: A. Hilgenfeld; G. Behrmann (both as reported by Driver)

  The word is Jer 25 (606/605); the seven weeks end c. 558 while the 62 weeks run concurrently from the same point to 171; the last week ends 164. Objection (Driver): Jer 25 contains a rebuilding promise only implicitly, and the text gives no hint that the 62 weeks do not follow the 7.[2]

  Seventy weeks → Overlapping periods from 605 to 164 BC

• Messianic, continuous: from Artaxerxes' seventh year (Ezra 7) to Christ

  HistoricistTraditional Protestant; historicistMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: I. Newton (1733); W. Miller (1842); Auberlen and Pusey (as reported by Driver)

  Textual reasoning: 490 years run from Ezra's commission (Artaxerxes I year 7; Newton: Julian Period 4257, 458/457 BC) to Christ's death, which "made reconciliation"; Newton counts the 62 weeks separately from Nehemiah's wall (28th year? — Newton) to Christ's birth and applies the seven weeks to the second coming; Miller counts 457 BC + 490 = AD 33. Objections (Driver): Ezra 7 says nothing of rebuilding Jerusalem; the RV punctuation separates the 7 and 62 weeks; Christ's ministry lasted about 3½ years, not a week; the destruction of AD 70 falls outside the 490 years.[2, 9, 22]

  Going out of the word → Artaxerxes I's decree to Ezra (Ezra 7) · Anointed one cut off → The crucifixion of Jesus · People of the prince who comes → The Roman army (AD 70)

• Messianic with a gap: 69 weeks from Artaxerxes' twentieth year to the triumphal entry; the 70th week future

  FuturistDispensational premillennialMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (1881); D. Guzik (also citing Walvoord and Ironside)

  Textual reasoning: only Neh 2 commands the city and wall to be built; 69 weeks of 360-day "prophetic years" (173,880 days) run from 1 Nisan of Artaxerxes' 20th year, which Anderson fixes at 14 March 445 BC from an astronomical new moon supplied by the Astronomer Royal, to 6 April AD 32, Jesus' entry into Jerusalem; after the 69th week comes "a gap or parenthesis" and the 70th week is future, with the coming prince as Antichrist. Objections: Guzik himself notes AD 32 is controversial (most chronologists prefer AD 30 or 33); Driver insists the weeks run consecutively and have the same value; Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian table puts 1 Nisan of Artaxerxes' 20th year on 13 April, not 14 March, 445 (operator comparison — the Judean calendar may have differed). Acceptance: widely held in dispensational circles (not quantified in sources read). Arithmetic (operator check): in Julian reckoning the stated dates are 173,882 days apart; Anderson's 173,880 applies a Gregorian leap-year correction to Julian dates (his own note).[1, 2, 23, 24]

  Going out of the word → Artaxerxes I's commission to Nehemiah (Neh 2) · Anointed one, the prince → Jesus at the triumphal entry · He who makes a firm covenant → A future Antichrist · 70th week → A future seven years

• Africanus: Artaxerxes' 20th year to Christ in lunar years (reported by Jerome)

  PreteristPatristic (3rd century)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Julius Africanus, Chronographiae book 5 (quoted by Jerome)

  Counts from Artaxerxes' 20th year (Ol. 83.4) to the 15th year of Tiberius (Ol. 202.2): 475 solar years, which, reckoned in Hebrew lunar years with intercalation, make 490. Reckoning from Cyrus or from Daniel's vision falls short; from the start of the captivity it overshoots.[25]

  Seventy weeks → From Nehemiah's commission to Christ's passion

• Eusebius (1): the anointed are the high priests from Jeshua to Alexander Jannaeus (reported by Jerome)

  PreteristPatristic (4th century)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Eusebius of Caesarea (quoted by Jerome)

  From Cyrus, 7 weeks cover the long-delayed rebuilding of the Temple; 62 weeks (483 years in all) run through the succession of anointed high priests to the death of Alexander Jannaeus, after which civil strife, Pompey and Herod ended the legitimate line.[25]

  Anointed one(s) → The high priests · Going out of the word → Cyrus's decree

• Eusebius (2): from Darius's sixth year to Herod; the half-week is Christ's ministry (reported by Jerome)

  PreteristPatristic (4th century)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Eusebius of Caesarea (Chronicle; reported by Jerome)

  69 weeks run from the completion of the Temple in Darius's sixth year to Herod's seizure of Judaea and the murder of Hyrcanus; Christ preached 3½ years and after his passion sacrifice ceased "in the middle of the week". Eusebius also reports a view that the last week was seventy years (Nero to Trajan), which Jerome finds inconsistent.[25]

  Anointed one cut off → Hyrcanus II · Middle of the week → Christ's passion

• Hippolytus: 62 weeks to Christ's birth; the last week at the end of the world (reported by Jerome)

  FuturistPatristic (3rd century)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Hippolytus (reported by Jerome)

  Seven weeks precede the return from Babylon, sixty-two run to Christ's birth, and the final week is divided between Elijah and the Antichrist at the end of the age. Jerome objects that the Persian and Macedonian periods give about 560 years, not 483.[25]

  Last week → Elijah and the Antichrist at the end of the world

• Apollinaris of Laodicea: from Christ's birth; a future rebuilding and Antichrist (reported by Jerome)

  FuturistPatristic (4th century)Proponents: Apollinaris of Laodicea (quoted by Jerome)

  Counts from the "going forth of the Word" at Christ's birth: 7 weeks to the eighth year of Claudius, then 62 weeks (434 years), after which Jerusalem would be rebuilt in the last week, Elijah would come and the Antichrist sit in the Temple. Jerome warns that later generations would have to convict him of error if the dates failed; no historical fulfillment is claimed here.[25]

  Seventy weeks → Christ's birth to a future end

• Clement of Alexandria: Cyrus to Vespasian and Titus (reported by Jerome)

  PreteristPatristic (c. AD 200)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Clement of Alexandria (reported by Jerome)

  The seventy weeks span the Persian, Macedonian and Roman ages from Cyrus to the destruction of the Temple under Vespasian and Titus. Jerome objects that this interval is about 630 years.[25]

  Destruction of city and sanctuary → AD 70

• Tertullian: from Darius's first year to Christ's birth (62½ weeks) and to Vespasian (70 weeks) (reported by Jerome)

  PreteristPatristic (c. AD 200), Adversus IudaeosMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Tertullian, Against the Jews (quoted by Jerome)

  Begins at the first year of Darius, when the vision was given; Persian, Macedonian and Ptolemaic reigns total 437½ years to Christ's birth in Augustus's 41st year; adding the emperors to Vespasian's capture of Jerusalem completes the seventy weeks. The regnal figures are Tertullian's own and do not match modern chronology.[25]

  Anointed (Saint of saints) → Christ · End of the seventy weeks → The Roman capture of Jerusalem

• "The Hebrews": from Darius the Mede to the destructions under Vespasian and Hadrian (reported by Jerome)

  PreteristJewish interpretation of Jerome's day (as reported by a Christian author)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Jewish teachers reported by Jerome

  From the first year of Darius (who slew Belshazzar), the city and Temple are rebuilt; the 62 weeks run to the perpetual desolation under Vespasian, and the single week is split between Vespasian (3½ years of peace) and Hadrian's final war. Jerome objects that the interval is 696 years. This is a hostile witness's paraphrase; rabbinic sources were not read directly.[25]

  People of the prince who comes → The Romans under Vespasian · Last week → Vespasian and Hadrian

• Symbolic weeks: from Cyrus's word to Christ, the age of the church, and the last enemy

  MixedSymbolic (non-chronological) reading; conservative Lutheran, amillennial-type (Keil after Kliefoth and Leyrer)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: C. F. Keil (1872); Th. Kliefoth and Leyrer (as followed by Keil); J. Baldwin ("symbolic and not arithmetical", as quoted by Guzik)

  Textual reasoning: šābûaʿ means "a period of sevens" without fixing the unit, while Daniel elsewhere uses exact measures (8:14 evenings-mornings; 12:11 days); the answer to Daniel's question about seventy years is a divine measure, not a calendar. The seven sevens run from the word to rebuild (Isa 44:28, Cyrus) to the Messiah; the sixty-two are the building of God's city in troubled times; the last seven is the final enemy's rule and judgment. Every chronological reckoning, Keil argues, does violence to the text or fails arithmetically; the times of the end are reserved to God (Acts 1:7; Mark 13:32). Objections: Guzik criticises commentators who ignore the numbers; Driver requires weeks of equal value in order; preterist and dispensational readers both treat the numbers as calendrical.[2, 24, 26]

  Seven weeks → From Cyrus's word to the coming of Christ · Sixty-two weeks → The age of the Messiah's kingdom in troubled times · Last week → The final enemy and the consummation

The princes of Persia and Greece and Michael (Dan 10:13, 20–21) (Daniel 10:13–21)

A heavenly conflict: the prince of Persia resists, Michael helps, and the prince of Greece "will come". The chapter introduces the revelation of 11:2–12:4.

In the text: Michael is "your prince" — the prince of Daniel's people (10:21; 12:1). The princes of Persia and Greece are not otherwise identified.

• Patron (guardian) angels of the nations

  MixedPatristic and historical-criticalProponents: Jerome (citing Deut 32:8: "according to the number of the angels of God"); S. R. Driver (1900); J. A. Montgomery (1927)

  Each nation has an angelic prince in heaven whose success matches its own; Michael is Israel's. Textual reasoning: Deut 32:8 in the LXX (and a reading Driver notes some think original) divides the nations "according to the number of the sons/angels of God"; Sir 17:17; Isa 24:21. Driver: the doctrine of tutelary angels appears distinctly for the first time here, developed later into seventy angel-princes of the nations (Targum Ps.-Jonathan, as cited by Driver). This is a statement about the text's worldview, not a historical claim.[2, 5, 7]

  Prince of Persia → Persia's patron angel · Michael → Israel's patron angel

• Hostile spiritual powers (high-ranking demons) opposing God's purposes

  MixedConservative evangelicalProponents: D. Guzik (citing Walvoord, Wood and Baldwin)

  The prince of Persia is "a demon of high rank", not a human ruler; prayer is linked to unseen conflict (cf. Eph 6:12; John 12:31). Guzik rejects reading the prince as a human king.[6]

  Prince of Persia → An evil angelic power · Michael → Archangel guarding Israel (Jude 9; Rev 12:7)

• The coming of the prince of Greece = the Macedonian overthrow of Persia

  PreteristPatristicMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Jerome

  After the Jews were freed, Alexander slew Darius and overthrew the Persians and Medes, so that "the prince of the Greeks did overcome the prince of the Persians". Historical evidence: Arrian on Gaugamela (331) and Darius III's death (330). Objection: the text speaks of heavenly princes, and the link to a particular event is the interpreter's.[7, 27]

  Prince of Greece will come → The rise of Alexander's Macedon against Persia

The king who exalts himself (Dan 11:36–45) (Daniel 11:36–45)

The king does according to his will, magnifies himself above every god, honours a god of fortresses; at the time of the end he overruns the glorious land and Egypt, is troubled by news from east and north, plants his tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, and comes to his end with no one to help.

In the text: No name or date; "at the time of the end" (11:40).

• Antiochus IV continued; 11:40–45 an unfulfilled or idealised forecast of his end

  PreteristHistorical-criticalMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: S. R. Driver (1900); J. A. Montgomery (1927); Porphyry (per Jerome, with a fourth Egyptian campaign)

  Textual reasoning: "the king" continues the subject of 11:21–35; Antiochus's divine titles and Hellenising religious policy fit 11:36–39. But 11:40–45 (a final conquest of Egypt, death between the sea and the holy mountain) does not match the record: Antiochus went east in 166/165 and died at Tabae in Persia (Polybius 31.9; BM 35603, 164 BC). Driver: the prophecy correctly foretold his speedy doom, while the circumstances "do not correspond to what we know of the historical reality" — like details in earlier prophets. Porphyry's fourth Egyptian expedition is known only through Jerome and conflicts with Roman protection of Egypt (Bevan, via Driver).[2, 5, 8, 14, 28]

  The king → Antiochus IV · He will come to his end → Death of Antiochus IV (164 BC)

• A future Antichrist (transition at 11:36)

  FuturistPatristic; Jewish (per Jerome); modern dispensationalProponents: Jerome; Jewish teachers reported by Jerome; D. Guzik (Antiochus a "trailer", the Antichrist the "feature")

  The king of 11:36–45 is the end-time Antichrist who sits in the Temple as God (2 Thess 2:4); he dies between the seas at the holy mountain (Jerome: near the Mount of Olives, with Apedno = "his throne"). Guzik places the transition at 11:36 and speculates that the king of the north may be Russia. Future reference; not a claim of historical fulfilment. Objection (Driver): there is no break in the text at 11:36.[2, 8, 10]

  The king → The Antichrist

• The Byzantine "Greek" empire; king of the south = Saracens, king of the north = Turks (historicist)

  HistoricistProtestant historicistMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: I. Newton (1733)

  After the division of the Roman empire, "the king" is the empire of the Greeks, which honoured "Mahuzzims" (the saints and their relics) and forbade marriage to monks; at the time of the end the Saracens (south) and Turks (north) attacked it, and the Turkish empire took Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia. Objection: requires the subject to change several times without textual signal.[9]

  The king → The Byzantine empire · King of the south → The Saracens · King of the north → The Turks

The kings of the south and the north (Dan 11:5–20) (Daniel 11:5–20)

A sequence of wars and marriage alliances between the king of the south and the king of the north, ending with a raiser of taxes who is destroyed "not in anger, and not in battle".

In the text: The text calls them only "the king of the south" and "the king of the north"; it names Egypt (11:8) and "the glorious land" (11:16) and no persons.

• Ptolemies and Seleucids from Ptolemy I to Seleucus IV

  PreteristAgreed by Porphyry and Jerome; followed by historicist, critical and evangelical commentatorsMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Porphyry (per Jerome: "no point of controversy" up to 11:20); Jerome; I. Newton; S. R. Driver; D. Guzik

  Textual reasoning: the sequence matches the Ptolemaic (south) and Seleucid (north) kings as seen from Judaea. 11:5 Ptolemy I and his former officer Seleucus I; 11:6 Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, married to Antiochus II and killed after his death; 11:7–9 her brother Ptolemy III invades and carries off gods and treasure; 11:10 the sons of Seleucus II — Seleucus III and Antiochus III; 11:11–12 Ptolemy IV wins at Raphia (Polybius 5.82–87) but does not follow up; 11:13–16 Antiochus III returns, defeats Scopas at Panium and takes Judaea (Polybius 16.18–19, 39); 11:17 Cleopatra I given to Ptolemy V; 11:18 Antiochus turns to the coastlands and is stopped by a Roman commander (Lucius Scipio, Magnesia); 11:19 he dies in his own land (BM 35603: "killed in Elam"); 11:20 Seleucus IV, whose minister Heliodorus was sent for the Temple money, killed by conspiracy (Appian, Syr. 45). Historical evidence: Polybius, Appian, the Babylonian king list. Objection: the correlations are made by the interpreters; Daniel names no one.[2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 28, 29, 30]

  King of the south (11:5) → Ptolemy I · One of his princes → Seleucus I · Daughter of the king of the south → Berenice · King of the north (11:6) → Antiochus II · Shoot from her roots → Ptolemy III · His sons (11:10) → Seleucus III and Antiochus III · King of the south (11:11) → Ptolemy IV · Daughter of women (11:17) → Cleopatra I · A commander (11:18) → Lucius Cornelius Scipio · Raiser of taxes (11:20) → Seleucus IV Philopator

• Variants at 11:20: Ptolemy V (Porphyry), Trypho ("the Hebrews"), Seleucus III (Guzik)

  PreteristMinority variants reported by Jerome; GuzikMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Porphyry (per Jerome); Jewish teachers reported by Jerome; D. Guzik

  Porphyry took the raiser of taxes to be Ptolemy V Epiphanes; "the Hebrews" took the vile one of 11:20–21 to be Trypho; Guzik names "Seleucus III, the eldest son of Antiochus III". Objections: Jerome answers that Ptolemy did not rise "in the place" of Antiochus III; the Babylonian king list makes Seleucus IV (not Seleucus III, who preceded Antiochus III) the son who succeeded Antiochus III and reigned 12 years.[8, 10, 28]

  Raiser of taxes (11:20) → Ptolemy V / Trypho / "Seleucus III"

• 11:14: the Onias temple at Leontopolis (Jerome)

  PreteristPatristicMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Jerome

  "The children of the violent among your people … to establish the vision" are the Jews who followed the high priest Onias to Egypt and built a rival temple (citing Isa 19:19); Driver instead refers the verse to Jews who sided with Antiochus III (not read in full). The dating of the Leontopolis temple (later than Antiochus III) is a problem for Jerome's reading.[8]

  Children of the violent → Onias's followers in Egypt

Four kings of Persia; the fourth stirs up all against Greece (Dan 11:2) (Daniel 11:2)

Three more kings will arise in Persia; the fourth, far richer, will stir up all against the realm of Greece.

In the text: The text names Persia and Greece (Yavan) but no king.

• Cambyses, (Pseudo-)Smerdis, Darius I, Xerxes

  PreteristPatristic and historical-criticalMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Jerome; S. R. Driver (counting Gaumata, or with Cyrus included)

  After Cyrus (10:1) come Cambyses, the Magian Smerdis/Gaumata and Darius I; the fourth is Xerxes, whose wealth and invasion of Greece match the verse (Herodotus 7). Driver prefers counting Cyrus as the first, so that Gaumata may be omitted and Xerxes is still the fourth. Jerome rejects identifying the fourth with Darius III, who was "the fourteenth" king after Cyrus.[2, 8]

  The fourth king → Xerxes I

• Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I; Xerxes the fourth

  HistoricistProtestant historicistMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: I. Newton (1733); D. Guzik (the count may omit Cyrus or Smerdis)

  Newton counts Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes as the three and Xerxes as the fourth. Guzik names only Xerxes and leaves the count open. Objection (all readings): Daniel then passes over the remaining Persian kings to Alexander — Jerome: Scripture "summarizes only the most important matters".[9, 10]

  The fourth king → Xerxes I

A mighty king and the fourfold division of his kingdom (Dan 11:3–4) (Daniel 11:3–4)

A mighty king rules with great dominion; at his height his kingdom is broken toward the four winds, not to his posterity.

In the text: The text does not name the king; it parallels the goat's great horn (8:8, 21–22), which the text calls "the first king" of Greece.

• Alexander the Great and the partition among his generals

  PreteristCommon to patristic, historicist, critical and evangelical interpretersMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Jerome; I. Newton; S. R. Driver; D. Guzik

  Alexander died young and his heirs did not inherit; the empire was divided among his generals (Jerome: Ptolemy, Philip Arrhidaeus, Seleucus, Antigonus; Newton: Ptolemy, Antigonus, Lysimachus, Cassander, with Seleucus later). "Others besides these" (11:4) = lesser kingdoms (Jerome). Acceptance: no dissent found among sources consulted.[2, 8, 9, 10, 27]

  Mighty king → Alexander the Great · Four winds → The successor kingdoms (lists differ)

The contemptible person (Dan 11:21–35) (Daniel 11:21–35)

A contemptible person takes the kingdom by flattery, breaks the prince of the covenant, invades the south twice, is turned back by ships of Kittim, profanes the sanctuary, removes the continual offering and sets up the abomination that makes desolate; the wise suffer and receive "a little help".

In the text: The text gives no name. "Kittim" (11:30) is a place-name (Cyprus/western coastlands, Driver); "the abomination that makes desolate" recurs in 9:27 and 12:11.

• Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 175–167 BC

  PreteristPorphyry; historical-critical; also the near fulfilment in evangelical readingsMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Porphyry (per Jerome); S. R. Driver (1900); J. A. Montgomery (1927); D. Guzik (to 11:35)

  Textual reasoning: the contemptible person replaces the raiser of taxes (Seleucus IV) without hereditary right (Antiochus IV replaced his brother's son); "the prince of the covenant" broken = Onias III deposed in 175 (Driver) or the young Ptolemy VI; two Egyptian campaigns (170–169, 168); "ships of Kittim" = the Roman envoys and Popillius Laenas at Eleusis (Polybius 29.27); the Temple plundered (1 Macc 1:20–24) and the abomination set up on 15 Chislev 145 (1 Macc 1:54); "a little help" = Mattathias and the Maccabees (Porphyry). Historical evidence: Polybius, Appian, 1–2 Maccabees, BM 35603. Acceptance: Jerome concedes "there is no doubt" Antiochus did several of these things while reading them as typological.[2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 21, 28]

  Contemptible person → Antiochus IV · Prince of the covenant → Onias III (or Ptolemy VI) · Ships of Kittim → Roman envoys under Popillius Laenas · Abomination that makes desolate → The pagan altar of 15 Chislev 145 SE · A little help → Mattathias and Judas Maccabaeus

• The Antichrist, with Antiochus as a type

  FuturistPatristic ("our school", per Jerome)Proponents: Jerome and the Christian writers he follows

  From 11:21 the prophecy speaks of the Antichrist at the end of the world; Antiochus's deeds are preliminary "types" (as Solomon prefigures Christ in Ps 72). Jerome nevertheless reports the Antiochus history verse by verse. Future reference; not a claim of historical fulfilment.[8]

  Contemptible person → The Antichrist (Antiochus as type)

• Jewish readings reported by Jerome: the Romans (11:31) and Julian (11:34)

  PreteristJewish interpretation of Jerome's day (hostile report)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Jewish teachers reported by Jerome

  The ships of Kittim are the Romans; Vespasian's son Titus profaned the sanctuary and removed the continual sacrifice; the "little help" was the emperor Julian (or Severus and Antoninus), who favoured the Jews. Known only through Jerome.[8]

  Forces that profane the sanctuary → Titus's army (AD 70) · A little help → Julian

• From 11:31 the Romans; the little help is Constantine (historicist)

  HistoricistProtestant historicistMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: I. Newton (1733)

  After the Roman conquest of Macedon, "arms" = the Romans, who polluted the sanctuary and placed the abomination (Hadrian's temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, AD 132; Matt 24:15 puts it after Christ); the persecuted Christians were helped "with a little help" by Constantine. Objection: Driver and Porphyry read 11:31 as continuing the same king's actions.[2, 9]

  Arms (11:31) → Rome · A little help → Constantine

Michael, the time of trouble and the resurrection (Dan 12:1–3) (Daniel 12:1–3)

Michael stands up for Daniel's people in an unequalled time of trouble; those written in the book are delivered; many who sleep in the dust awake, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt; the wise shine like the stars.

In the text: The text says "many" (not "all") will awake, in two groups; it names Michael "the great prince who stands for the children of your people" and gives no date beyond "at that time".

• Bodily resurrection of the dead at the end; two resurrections

  FuturistTraditional Christian (Jerome); dispensational premillennial (Guzik)Proponents: Jerome; D. Guzik (citing Baldwin: "many" can mean all)

  After the Antichrist is destroyed, the dead rise, some to life and some to shame (Jerome); Guzik adds that the resurrections to life and to condemnation are separated in time (John 5:29; Rev 20:4–6) and that the time of trouble is the Great Tribulation (Jer 30:7; Matt 24:21). Jerome argues the trouble cannot be Antiochus's, since the Babylonian destruction was worse. Future reference; not a claim of historical fulfilment.[31, 32]

  Time of trouble → The Great Tribulation / the Antichrist's persecution · Many who sleep … awake → Bodily resurrection

• A resurrection of prominent Israelites (martyrs and apostates) expected after Antiochus's fall

  PreteristHistorical-criticalProponents: S. R. Driver (1900); J. A. Montgomery (1927)

  Textual reasoning: the first Old Testament passage to teach a resurrection of the wicked as well as the righteous and differing destinies (cf. Isa 26:19, limited to Israel); "many" = those who had conspicuously helped or hindered God's kingdom under Antiochus. Driver: the writer expected the kingdom to follow the tyrant's fall, which it did not — like earlier prophets whose ideal hopes were not realised at once. Later developments: 1 Enoch, 2 Macc 7, the Targums. No historical fulfilment is claimed. The same hope appears in the martyr narrative of 2 Macc 7 ("the King of the world will raise us … up", 7:9; cf. 7:14).[2, 5, 33, 34]

  Many → Prominent martyrs and apostates of Antiochus's persecution

• Metaphorical: the Maccabean loyalists "rise" from caves to victory (Porphyry, via Jerome)

  PreteristAnti-Christian philosophical critique (3rd century), known through JeromeMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Porphyry (reported by Jerome)

  The persecution under Antiochus and Lysias was the unequalled trouble; after Antiochus died in Persia the faithful hidden in caves (1 Macc 2) rose "as if" from the dead to victory, while the apostates rose to disgrace. Jerome objects that Porphyry cannot say who "shone like the stars" and that the Babylonian catastrophe was greater.[31]

  Those who awake to life → The Maccabean loyalists after victory

A time, times and a half; 1,290 and 1,335 days (Dan 12:7, 11–12) (Daniel 12:7–12)

The man in linen swears it will be "a time, times and a half"; from the removal of the continual offering and the setting up of the abomination there will be 1,290 days; blessed is the one who reaches 1,335 days. Arithmetic recorded (operator): 1,290 − 1,260 = 30; 1,335 − 1,290 = 45; 3½ years of 360 days = 1,260; 8:14's 2,300 offerings = 1,150 days.

In the text: The text gives the starting point of the 1,290 days — the removal of the continual offering and the setting up of the abomination (cf. 11:31) — but not the end-point of either number; "a time, times and a half" also appears in 7:25.

• Day counts from the desecration of 15 Chislev 145 (Dec 168): 1,290 days to c. June 164, the death of Antiochus

  PreteristHistorical-criticalMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: S. R. Driver (1900); C. H. Cornill (as cited by Driver: 6 June 164)

  Textual reasoning: the starting point is the event of 11:31 (1 Macc 1:54). 1,290 days from Dec 168 end in June 164; Antiochus died in 164 (exact date unknown), and the writer may have pictured his death at that point; the further 45 days to 1,335 mark when blessedness would begin — "impossible to say with any certainty" (Driver). Objections: the Temple was rededicated after about 3 years and 10 days (1 Macc 4:52), not 1,290 days; the result depends on dating the desecration to 168 (disputed) and on an unknown date of death.[2, 16]

  Start of 1,290 days → Desecration, 15 Chislev 145 SE · End of 1,290 days → Death of Antiochus IV (c. 164)

• Successive glosses lengthening the 1,150 days as the end was delayed

  PreteristHistorical-critical (redactional)Proponents: J. A. Montgomery (1927)

  The 1,290 and the 1,335 days are "successive later insertions, due to the retardation of the term of 1150 days" (8:14); Montgomery notes general agreement on 168 and 165 for the desecration and rededication, and that Josephus's 3½ years (B.J.) accommodates Daniel while 1 Maccabees keeps three years. No fulfilment is claimed.[5]

• Porphyry: 1,290 days of the desolation under Antiochus; 45 more days of victory and cleansing (via Jerome)

  PreteristAnti-Christian philosophical critique (3rd century), known through JeromeMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: Porphyry (reported by Jerome)

  The 1,290 days were the desolation of the Temple under Antiochus; the extra 45 days were Judas Maccabaeus's victory over Antiochus's generals and the cleansing of the Temple. Jerome objects that 1 Maccabees and Josephus give three years, not three and a half.[13, 16, 31]

  1,335 days → The cleansing of the Temple

• The Antichrist's 3½ years; 45 more days to Christ's coming / to the judgment of the nations

  FuturistPatristic (Jerome); dispensational (Guzik)Proponents: Jerome; D. Guzik (tentative, citing Smith)

  Jerome: the Antichrist persecutes 1,290 days and dies; the Lord comes in glory within the further 45 days. Guzik: 1,260 days to Christ's return, 1,290 to the installation of his government, 1,335 to the judgment of the nations (Matt 25:31–46); he admits the relationship is difficult. Future reference; not a claim of historical fulfilment.[31, 32]

  Time, times and a half → The last 3½ years of the 70th week

• Year-day: 1,290 years from AD 508 to 1798; 1,335 years to AD 1843

  HistoricistMillerite (19th-century American Adventism)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: W. Miller (1842)

  A prophetic day is a year; the "daily" taken away is pagan worship, removed in AD 508; 1,290 years end in 1798 with the end of papal civil power; 1,335 years end in 1843 with Christ's return and the first resurrection. Objection: the expected return in 1843 did not occur; Guzik and Driver read the numbers as days.[22]

  1,290 days → AD 508–1798 · 1,335 days → AD 508–1843

• Symbolic numbers: a God-measured period of the affliction under Antiochus, not reckonable

  MixedSymbolic reading (Keil)Machine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: C. F. Keil (1872)

  The 1,290 days denote in general the sorest affliction of Israel by Antiochus — a moderate period exactly measured by God — and the extra 45 days a short further time until the oppression wholly ceases; neither number can be reckoned chronologically (both slightly exceed 3½ years of 360 days). Keil objects to the Antiochus-death reading: 2,300 evening-mornings are whole days, and no event 45 days after Antiochus's death began a better time — the war continued under Antiochus V (1 Macc 6:18–54) and the victory over Nicanor came two years later (1 Macc 7:26–50). Objection: Driver and Montgomery treat the numbers as calendar days (or glosses).[26]

  1,290 days → The God-measured time of affliction under Antiochus

Seal the book until the time of the end (Dan 12:4, 9) (Daniel 12:4)

Daniel is to close and seal the book to the time of the end; many will run to and fro and knowledge will increase.

In the text: 12:9 repeats that the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end, and 12:10 that the wise will understand.

• Many will read and search the obscure book

  IdealistPatristicProponents: Jerome

  "Many shall pass through" = many will read the book and disagree about its fulfilment because of its obscurity (cf. Isa 29:11; Rev 5).[31]

• End-time increase of prophetic knowledge (and, for some, travel and information)

  FuturistEvangelical futuristMachine-proposedIn owner review queueProponents: D. Guzik (citing Wood and Newell; quoting Adam Clarke)

  Guzik notes the common reading of modern travel and the information explosion, prefers "searching for knowledge", and suggests that the growth of prophetic study over the last 150 years indicates the period has begun. This is a tentative fulfilment claim about modern times.[32]

  Knowledge will increase → Modern study of prophecy