The book of Daniel has become important to Christian theology because the gospel of Mark made constant reference to the book, calling Christ the son of man, and because Mark wrote an apocalypse borrowing the image of the Beast of Daniel's prophecy, which would appear again later in the Christian Apocalypse, the Book of Revelations. For this reason you often hear that Daniel predicted the rise of the Revived Roman empire, but an examination proves that the prophecy in the Book of Daniel can be dated to the time of Antiochus the Selucid Greek beast of Daniel's prophecy. The only reason there is a need to 'revive' someone is that prophecy turned out to be false in that the last few verses never came true.
No examination of false prophecy in the Bible would be complete without taking a brief tour through the doctrinal contradictions and obviously false prophecies of the book of Daniel. Anyone who reads Daniel's prophecies cannot help but experience the jarring dissonance and the confusing sense that comes from being led down a garden path and then abruptly dropped to the ground by the obviously unfulfilled and false nature of the prophecies the book relates.
For example, starting in chapter 11, the book describes the rise of Alexander the great, and then describes the fall of his Kingdom, and the division of his empire between his four generals. Wars between Egypt and what is now known as Syria are then described, and then the book deals with the intrigues and wars of the Selucid Greek empire. The book then relates the second century desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his insults against all gods and all religions. (This took place in the middle of the 2nd century B.C.E., and is the subject of the non-canonical books of Maccabees.) Everything is fine up to this point, as the book describes the history of the preceding centuries, but then the jarring false, and unfulfilled prophecy begins. At this time, in response to Antiochus' defilement of the temple and insults against religion, we are told at the beginning of chapter 12 that, Michael, the archangel, would bring about the end of the world and the raising of the dead. That the world never ended with Antiochus IV is rather obvious, since here we are today, still in the world, reading a prophecy that suddenly turns false, experiencing that jarring experience so unique to the book of Daniel, and wondering what went wrong.
You can experience the same jarring sensation by reading the false prophecies in chapter 9. An 'anointed prince' would be 'cut off' and then the end would come swiftly like a flood. You can well imagine the early church reading such prophecies, and feeling that the end was near at any moment. The evil prince who kills the Anointed one will enter into a 'seven year covenant' and wars and abominations were decreed, this being the end of the world after all. (By the way, if there was ever a time to consult every possible translation under the sun, it is when you are reading the 9th chapter of Daniel, which appears in an array of different wordings, depending on where you look. As I have noticed while comparing translations of different verses in the Bible, even the most literal translations can suddenly depart from literalism, perhaps visit the Greek Septuagint and abandon the Hebrew translation for a single verse, whenever some highly cherished doctrine might be threatened by a truly literal translation. Rule of thumb : you should never, ever rely exclusively on one single translation.)
None of these prophecies came to pass as described. This has led to the practice of some truly nimble interpretation in an attempt to salvage prophecy in Daniel. It will then be insisted that 'the prophetic clock stopped running' at the crucifixion. You see if you read Daniel's prophecy it states that 'an anointed prince' would be swept away and then the one who killed him would 'enter a seven year covenant' and practice all sorts of abominations, and, as it states in an even more jarring and incongruous fashion, 'the end of the world would come swiftly like a flood.' All this is rather 'jarring' to read, and does leave a person scratching their heads, wondering what is wrong with this picture. A doctrine of the 'revived Roman empire' was then concocted, and at the time this happens, the clock will start ticking again and that last bit of prophecy will finally be fulfilled. This might explain chapter nine, if you choose to accept such nimble interpretation, but another excuse would have to be cooked up for chapters 10 to 12, for it is self evident that in this source (written in the second century in response to Antiochus IV) the world did not end immediately after Antiochus despoiled Jerusalem and the temple, Michael was not outraged enough to promptly end the world. This 'clock' must have 'stopped ticking' as well, awaiting the awakening and the rise of the 'revived Selucid Greek empire' at which time it will finally be fulfilled. This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.' I have found that most interpreters focus on chapter nine, and, it would seem, just ignore chapter 11. It is, after all, a simpler solution to their problem here.) Harmonization usually requires one to endure laborious 'explanations' and sheer rationalizations, and even a few pure, one hundred per cent speculative inventions, and to prove something that never will and never can be proved - that the Bible is single source and that it is 'infallible.' The simple explanation is that the Bible is riddled with false prophecy, and that Daniel contains two different varieties is no big surprise.
In chapter 7 of the book, as in chapters 10 and 11, history is described up to the time of Maccabees. History is fine in Daniel until you reach the time of 2nd century, when suddenly the prophecies fall to pieces and become false (which is a pretty good indication of when the book was written). For example, in chapter 11, the historical description is accurate up to about 167 B.C.E. Verses 40 to 45 are prophetic, and rather than referring to past events (accurately) the author takes a plunge into future prophecy. According to the prophecy Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt at the time, would provoke a war and suffer heavy losses, at which time Antiochus would conquer Libya and Ethiopia and then die by the sea shore with no one to save him. Immediately follows the scripture describing the furious rise of Michael the enraged Archangel, who is obviously the one responsible for doing in Antiochus (it is suggested by the juxtaposition of this verse against the verse describing the destruction of Antiochus, and in earlier passage where it is hinted that 'the beast' will die, but not by human hands). Ptolemy did not begin another war with Antiochus, Antiochus did not proceed to conquer Libya or Ethiopia. Neither did he promptly drop dead at the sea shore, and, as is obvious, neither did the archangel Michael become so provoked by Antiochus defilement of the Jerusalem temple that the end of the world took place. Because the author was accurately describing history up to about 167 B.C.E. and then became a dismal failure from that point on we can be fairly certain that the author wrote the composition around 167.
Daniel Chapter 11 opens by describing Alexander the Great and the breakup and division of his empire after his death between his four generals. Verses 5 and 6 refer to Ptolemy and Selecus (who is the plotter behind the scenes). The passages then describe the alliance between Ptolemy II (the King of the South - Egypt) and Antiochus II (the King of the North - the Selucid Greeks). Ptolemy gave his daughter Bernice in marriage to Antiochus but they were all brought to ruin by the plotting of Laodice, the mother of Selecus II. Verses 7 and 8 describe the victorious war of Ptolemy III, as power continued to see saw between the two warring empires. In verse 9 , Selecus II, brought to power with the help of his scheming mother, attempted to pay back Egypt in 242 B.C.E. but suffered defeat. The sons described in verse 10 are Selecus III and Antiochus III. Verses 11 to 13 describe Antiochus' defeat at the hands of Ptolemy IV at Raphia and the subsequent triumph of Antiochus over the Egyptians at Banias. (It seems these two countries were always taking turns crushing each other on the battlefield.) Revolt in Egypt against Ptolemy V are then related in verse 14 , and then the next Egyptian campaign of Antiochus III is described, culminating in a peace treaty once again sealed by the marriage of Antiochus' daughter to Ptolemy. In verses 18 and 19 Antiochus is foiled by the Romans who thwart his plans to capture Asia Minor, and instead Antiochus was forced back, plundering as he went, and he died at Elymais. Selecus IV, his successor sent a tax man into Palestine to sack the treasury of the temple, without success (verse 20). And finally starting at verses 21 through 45 we arrive at the time of the Maccabees, and also the time of the notorious 'beast' of prophecy in Daniel, the notorious temple desecrator, the sacrilegious and insulting Antiochus IV . Verses 22 to 24 describe his conniving over the appointment to the office of high priest (and his toppling of Onias III, the high priest) and his campaign of plundering that followed. Verses 25 to 28 describe his campaign of 169 B.C.E. in which he invaded Egypt, and then on his return home to deal with intrigues brewing there, he stopped long enough to sack Jerusalem and plunder the treasury of the temple (a little like robbing the collection plate at a church - it wasn't for nothing that they started calling this guy 'the beast.'). Verses 29 to 31 describe his next campaign against Egypt and his forced withdrawal by intervention of ships from 'Kittim' (Cyprus). In a fury he attacked Jerusalem again in 167 B.C.E. (apparently being that type of sullen, bad tempered bully who kicks the dog when things don't turn out right. I suppose Jerusalem was easier to sack a second time than taking on those ships from Cyprus.) It was at this time that he set up 'the abomination that causes desolation' in the Jerusalem temple (an altar to heathen gods). This act so enraged the Jewish people that it led directly to the Maccabean revolt (the references to persecution and resistance in verses 32 to 35 refer to this movement). Verses 36 to 45 describe his coming doom, for being so downright miserable and godless in all his ways. We can thus date this section of the book pretty accurately to sometime around 167 B.C.E. (it was written during the resistance movement to inspire the resistance fighters). While the book is accurate up to 167 what follows is false prophecy, or perhaps you could say it was what they wished would happen (one could always expect the archangel Michael to get angrier and angrier about that disgusting abomination of desolation in the temple, not to mention all Antiochus other bullying conduct and so cause the end of the world to begin, which tells you just how disgusted those people were with the whole affair.)
The following verses contain the false prophecy in that none of this was ever fulfilled. My comments are enclosed in brackets, and are in italics and colored red.
"At the time of the end the king of the south (Ptolemy) shall attack him (Antiochus 'the beast'); but the king of the north (Antiochus) shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships (Ptolemy did not attack); and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through (great conquests that never took place). He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train (he never conquered these nations). But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many. And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him. At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." (Daniel Chapter 11 verse 40)
The prophecies found in the latter part of the book of Daniel concerned the time of the Maccabees, and in particular referred to that 'great beast,' Antiochus IV Epiphanes. A similar pattern of prophecy that narrows down to Epiphanes is found in chapter seven, and this only makes it even more certain that the latter half of the book of Daniel was composed in the mid second century and purported to describe events that were supposed to take place before the turn of the first century B.C.E.
Daniel Chapter 7 verses 4 to 8 describe first 'the winged lion' which refers to the Babylonian empire, followed by the bear (the Medes), a four headed leopard (the Persians) followed by a dragon (the Greeks, the arch enemies of the Jewish revolutionaries during the time of the Maccabees). It has been suggested that the 'ten horns' each represent the ten rulers who reigned over Greece from the time of Alexander. The final little horn represents Antiochus Epiphanes who came to power by over throwing others.
Once again we see the same pattern in chapter seven as we saw previously in chapters 11 and 12. After Antiochus, the boastful little horn comes to power, God arises in fierce judgment and causes the end of the world to begin as described in verses 9 to 14. After the Greek empire is destroyed (verse 12) the rulership is transferred to 'one in appearance like unto a son of humanity.' Note that the angel Gabriel is referred to as 'a man' in Daniel Daniel Chapter 9 verse 21. Given that the Archangel Michael is the great messianic hero of the book of Daniel, it is quite probable that this ruler was supposed to be Michael, and only later, through the process of theological interpretation, came to be associated with the messiah.
Verse 25 is similar to verses 40 through 45 in chapter 11. According to this verse the end of Antiochus was imminent in 'three and a half years.' According to the false prophecies at the end of chapter 11 there was supposed to be a war with Egypt, and then a great conquest, including Libya and Ethiopia with the beast rapidly conquering the area and spreading accross it in a great flood. In otherwords, the end was very near, shortly at hand, and in chapter seven the end was very near, only three and half years remained (the mid point of 'the seven years' was reached when Antiochus defiled the Jerusalem temple and put a stop to the rituals being practiced there.)
Daniel Chapter 8 also deals with events and situations peculiar to the time of the Maccabees, and narrows to focus on Antiochus IV once again, a pattern repeated throughout the book. Chapter 8 describes the destruction of the Medo-Persia empire at the hands of the 'shaggy goat' from Greece (Alexander). The chapter opens with a symbolic description of a ram being crushed by a goat, and then in verse 20 it is explained to Daniel that the ram is the Persians and the goat is Greece. In verse 8, Alexander's empire is divided upon his death between his four generals, Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and Lysimachus.
Verses 9 to 14 of chapter 8 describe the rise of Antiochus IV from the Seleucid line that rose from one part of Alexander's divided empire. In 167 B.C.E. 'the beast' (Antiochus) desecrated the Jerusalem Temple, and in 164 B.C.E. the temple worship was restored and the temple rededicated. The angel's prediction to Daniel that the desecration would last a little over three years corresponds to what actually happened.
Daniel Chapter 9 is the most significant part of the book for the purposes of traditional Christian interpretation. Every other chapter in the book concerns itself with the much hated Greeks, and with the Greeks being so blasphemous at the time, well certainly the end of the world was just at hand. In prophecy in Daniel a similar pattern emerges as you carefully study what is supposed to be prophecy in the book. After all the wicked things that Antiochus did surely the end of the world was about to come, indeed, as you can tell by reading the conclusion of chapter 11 and the beginning of chapter 12 the end of the world would coincide with the destruction of Antiochus at the hands of an enraged archangel Michael, a theme repeated earlier in the book, where we are told that Antiochus would be 'broken, but not by human hands.' (Daniel Chapter 8 verse 25) It would be the archangel Michael who would clean the clock of Antiochus the Greek beast, and this would usher in the end of the world.
Because the early churches were so caught up in apocalyptic fervor, and so fixated on the book of Daniel in particular, it has become necessary for many churches to find some way to do exactly the same thing. Therefore, while every other chapter is about the Greeks, and Antiochus Epiphanes is the beast, and while Michael is the Messiah of Daniel's book, for reasons of Christian apologetics, chapter nine becomes about the Romans two centuries later and the messiah becomes Christ. It is because Christians still insist on reading the book of Daniel as a 'stunningly accurate prophecy of Christ' (when it wasn't even a stunningly accurate prophecy of the Greeks) any reader cannot help but be confused, confused and subject to that dissonant feeling of prophecy failed that one gets when reading Daniel through the supplied lens of Christian eschatology. (This can only be 'fixed' if one ignores the fact that the book is about Greeks, not Romans, and if one is willing to accept that the reasons why those last few verses are always proven to be false prophecies is because we are awaiting 'the revived Roman empire' or something like that, which is an excellent example of the speculative nature of apologetic argumentation, not to mention an obvious way to dodge the obvious issue here, which is that the tail end of the prophecy is false, and thus requires that we either accept the facts outlined above, or we speculate widely and come up with a way to push those last few lines off into the far distant future, thus making false prophecy merely true prophecy yet unfulfilled.)
The key verses for Christian apologists begin at Daniel Chapter 9 verse 21. The angel Gabriel appears and informs Daniel that 'seventy weeks of years remains' to establish the Kingdom of righteousness. As Daniel was praying over the matter of 'Jeremiah's seventy years of exile' and mourning his nations sins (Daniel Chapter 9 verse 2), Gabriel appears, and clarifies matters. The 'seventy years' Jeremiah was referring to should be understood as 'seventy weeks of years.' Those who read the article on false prophecy in the Bible might recall that false prophecies were made concerning these seventy years. First, the exile lasted 47 years, and not 70 as predicted. After the 70 years were over Babylon was to be utterly destroyed and become a permanent uninhabited Sodom type wasteland. Did not happen. David's throne was to be established forever. Never again would the Jewish people be conquered. None of this happened, and so in the nimble style so characteristic of prophetic interpretation (when fortune telling prophecy proves false), the false prophecy found in Jeremiah is simply reinterpreted.
Before I continue, I thought I would mention one problem I have with the interpretation of this section of Daniel. Gabriel tells Daniel that 'seventy weeks' must be fulfilled to complete the purification of the people and the temple, and to bring in eternal righteousness. The Hebrew word translated 'weeks' here is the same term found at the beginning of chapter 10 where we are told that Daniel fasted for '3 weeks'. Now it has been the custom to assume that the angel was referring to 'weeks of years'. If Daniel fasted for 3 'weeks of years' then it means that Daniel fasted for 21 years, which seems unlikely. So I question the reasoning behind interpreting 'seventy weeks' to mean 'seventy weeks of years' (490 years). On the otherhand, we are told that after 'one half of one week' the temple desecrated by Antiochus would be restored, which works out to about three and a half years, and this is what happened.
Daniel's visions are dated to 554 B.C.E. according to the dates given by the book itself. The 'seventy weeks of years' are further subdivided into two parts, seven weeks (49 years) and 62 weeks (434 years) with one week assigned to the beast (for a total of 70 weeks). Obviously these subdivisions were important to the author, who otherwise would not have bothered dividing the weeks. The relevant passage follows, and I have to say that this troublesome passage (troublesome for Christian apologetics), is translated in so many different fashions that you really do need to consult multiple sources to get some sense of what it really says. The following translation is taken from the RSV, and is most likely correct, since this seems to be an honest translation, as judged by how they honestly translate other troublesome passages. The other translations I have consulted try to make it seem that the 'prince' will not come until you add up every week, and this is done for purposes of Christian apologetics. It also seems nonsensical to total the weeks, and then bring on the prince, because it makes nonsense out of dividing the weeks in the first place, but it does help apologists who try to make this passage into a 'prophecy of Christ.' The troublesome translation below is most likely the correct one out of all the possible choices (the translations that eliminate the division of weeks and thus make it seem that there is 'one anointed one' are highly suspect in my estimation). The RSV correctly translate the indefinite article as 'an anointed one, a prince' whereas some translations change to the definite article, 'the anointed one,' and some even substitute the term 'the Messiah.' Check a lot of translations, and do a little work researching the original language when you are researching troublesome passages like this one, and never, ever trust one single translation.)
"Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (Daniel Chapter 9 verse 24)
There are a couple of things you will notice about the above passage. First, there is no pause in the action. The 'revived Roman empire' concept is introduced (speculatively, in the interpreters mind) just before the last verse quoted above. This is incongruous, for a number of reasons. First, the rest of the book of Daniel is about Greeks, and one particularly nasty Greek in particular, and not Romans. Why this chapter should be any different must be explained. Second, the preceding verse specifically tells us that end will come rapidly, like an overwhelming flood. To then introduce 'a theological pause' (lasting thousands of years) before commencing with the next verse is incomprehensible. Third, it is obvious from the context that the one making these covenants and desecrating the temple is the same one who 'swept away an anointed one' in the previous verse. To introduce a thousands of year long pause, a long apologetic sleep between verses at this point, simply confuses matters more and solves nothing. As well, it is obvious that two different 'anointed ones' are referred to in the passage. They are separated by hundreds of years. The only possible way to meld these into one figure, which can then be said to be Christ, is to change the translation of the verses so that 'an anointed one' (or 'the anointed one' if one chooses to change to the definite article as well) appears after the division of 7 and 62 weeks has been discarded, through translation, by adding them back up again, and moving things around, thus making one wonder why a division was ever made in the first place, since apologists will refuse to acknowledge any difference or division in the weeks, and will translate the passage in such a way that such a distinction evaporates, and becomes pointless. (As I said, these passages are translated in all sorts of tricky ways.)
Let us do some math. There are a number of possible dates we could work with here. Let us try them all. Cyrus allowed the Jewish people to return in 538 B.C.E. Let us total up the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, which gives us 483 years. This would bring us up to 55 B.C.E. So if Christ was born in 55 B.C.E. (which would make all the gospel accounts wrong) then at least we have something we can work with in Daniel. Let us try another date. Zerubabbel led the people starting in 521 B.C.E. This brings us to 38 B.C.E. No good. Zerubabbel continued to lead until 485. If we use 485, that brings us to 2 B.C.E. That's better. Getting warm. How about we try this one out on Ezra-Nehemiah. (You should note that textual problems with these two manuscripts make dating the periods covered very problematic. For example we are first led to believe that Ezra preceded Nehemiah, and that they were separated by at least two decades, and thus were not contemporaries, while an alternate solution to the textual problems actually places Ezra after Nehemiah, which is a significant difference.) One possible date for Nehemiah's rebuilding of the walls is 445 B.C.E. This brings us to 38 C.E. (if we just ignore the division of weeks and total everything up). That's interesting. Another possible date for Nehemiah's work - 404 B.C.E. Even worse. Now we are up to 79 C.E. That can't be right. We could go on like this, just to demonstrate that the way it works is that first you translate the passage in such a way as to make the division of weeks into two periods meaningless, so you can just total them up, and in the process you eliminate the two anointedd ones' referred to, so you can total them up as well and get one anointed one, which is handy, because having those weeks divided up like that isn't going to work right, and neither is having two anointed ones. And then you start looking for some kind of date that will work. Personally, once I get myself involved this deep into apologetics and high jinks of various sorts, I just think maybe it is time to give it all a rest.
My solution to the 'Daniel problem' goes something like this. First you acknowledge that the book is about Greeks, not Romans, and you understand that in its present form it was a creation of the 2nd century B.C.E. You understand from chapter 12 that the end of the world was expected pretty quickly. You understand that the end was not coming as quickly as they thought it might, and then you recall just how nimble Biblical apologetics can be. You also keep in mind that the Bible is composed of sources. In the case of Daniel there is an older source, legendary stories of Daniel, which are spun around interpretations of history up to the second century. It would seem to me that chapter 9 is the last insertion, and forms a kind of 'apologetic explanation' first for the false prophecy of 'seventy years' found in Jeremiah, and then in keeping with this theme, a second apologetic explanation for the false prophecies found surrounding Antiochus in the Daniel manuscript itself.
If we begin with the logical choice (the decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C.E.) then the first anointed one could be expected sometime around 489 B.C.E. which, coincidentally, lands us in the time of Zerubabbel. If we then add on the 62 remaining weeks of years, we come to 55 B.C.E., the end of the world. Or then again, we could start with Cyrus' decree and first employ the 62 weeks, which would bring us to 104 B.C.E. Or, since we are talking about Jeremiah's '70 years' here, we could start when Jeremiah's clock started. In this case 'the anointed one' would be Cyrus himself, in keeping with the description of Cyrus in 2nd Isaiah. The command to 'rebuild Jerusalem' was given by Jeremiah's prophecy, and the other prophecies. In this case from Cyrus time we add on the other 62 weeks and arrive at 104 B.C.E. This seems like the most credible solution to me, as it does put off the end of the world for another 50 years or so for the Maccabeans, thus solving the problem of that embarrassing false prophecy in chapters 11 and 12. But to be quite honest, I don't know what to make out of this prophecy. If one harmonizes together the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks (so as to wind up with '69 weeks' assuming that the division was irrelevant to start with), and if at the same time one eliminates one of those anointed ones, so as to wind up with '69 weeks' and one anointed one (a more convenient total), and then if a person picks a convenient date, provided that such dates can be established, then one can come up with something that could be construed as 'a prophecy of Christ.' After that you need to add on highly speculative apologetic doctrine, put the Romans to sleep between two verses for a couple of thousand years, so it won't become a false prophecy, revive the Romans when convenient, and voila, you have a prophecy of Christ (just one Christ, not two, in '69 weeks' not 7 and then 62, which only makes sense when you have those two anointed ones mentioned, instead of just one, which is what you require here, if this is turn out as 'a prophecy of Christ.')
I am making myself tired just thinking about all this. (Apologetics is to much work for me, so thank God I don't bother with it myself.) It should be noted that the only reason why some churches even bother trying to harmonize that book of Daniel into Christian eschatology is because that early church did so. As you might recall above, if you add up all the numbers and then pick a certain date you can land somewhere around 30 or 40 B.C.E. No doubt this is just what those churches did, and then ignoring the fact that the book of Daniel contains false prophecies about the Greeks that were never fulfilled, and ignoring the fact that the Bible contains many examples of prophets playing fortune tellers who fell flat on their faces, that early church got themselves worked up into a state of eschatological frenzy over that book of Daniel.
There is no doubt that Mark and his church were on the edge of their seats, pouring over Daniel, no doubt getting confused by what it all meant, but certain in their own minds that it meant something. As Mark solemnly warns his readers in his 'mini-apocalypse' you had to watch out for that 'abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel-let the reader understand.' At that point Mark advises everyone to run for their lives and head for the hills. Don't even go back into the house to get anything.
Now the problem for churches in being to uncritical in their approach to prophecy, and to darn gullible, is that one false prophecy leads to another. Soon enough that church will be making false prophecies themselves, and humiliating themselves. Now I should point out to people that Mark's gospel is my favorite gospel, but let us face facts here. Nobody is perfect, and that is certainly true of Mark and his church. They were radical and they understood the radical stream of Jewish prophecy, but they were to gullible to understand that you just don't believe everything you read in some book by some prophet. For example, in Mark's gospel we read the following. First Mark has Joshua gather around all his disciples, and then includes the following prophecy.
"And he said to them (the disciples), "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." (Mark Chapter 9 verse 1)
So the end was near. Daniel's son of man would be coming before those disciples were dead. Well, how embarrassing. You can imagine Mark's church doing all kinds of math and getting all that figured out. The fact that the book of Daniel contained prophecies that had already proved false before that church came into existence seems to have gone past them. Scholars note that Mark's writing is pretty bad, with poor grammar and so on, so it could be the case that they simply were not well educated people. And things being what they are, with preachers always 'apologizing' for every false prophecy instead being straightforward, it was unlikely that Mark and his church would have found out the truth about those false prophecies, at least not in the synagogue.
Matthew's version is even worse, making explicit Mark's implicit reference to Daniel's 'son of Man.'
"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew Chapter 16 verse 28)
Or consider the following explicit references to Daniel's prophecy in the gospels (read the whole chapter-its all explicitly about Daniel's prophecy, those churches apparently having picked some date that worked for them):
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew Chapter 24 verse 34)
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." (Mark Chapter 13 verse 30)
This is really embarrassing stuff, and the church has been 'apologizing' for it ever since. I offer it for your examination to make the point that those churches should have been more critical, and that by swallowing a false prophecy they became false prophets themselves, which proves the point conclusively. Of course, there is an 'apology' for all this. What they meant to say was 'the generation that sees all these things will not pass away...' Unfortunately that is not what they said. It was clearly those disciples who were not going to pass away before the world ended. (This is another form of apologetics - force something to mean something else, and make someone say what they did not say, or rather, what you really wish they would have said, but didn't unfortunately - how embarrassing, but that is my point.)
While we are on the subject of Daniel, and talking about ten headed beasts and what not, it might be interesting to consider how prophecy in the Bible got recycled in the Book of Revelations. Daniel's four beasts reappear in Revelations in composite form. The author took the foot of one beast, the head of another, and so on, and blended it all into one beast. Daniel's beast had ten heads, but the one in Revelations had only seven heads. Similarly, Revelations picks up on the imagery in Zechariah, with the difference that in Zechariah there is one lamp stand with two oil spouts, and in Revelations there are two lamp stands with one spout for golden oil on each stand. The book of Revelations picks up on prophetic imagery throughout the Bible, there being hundreds of allusions to Jewish prophecy throughout the book. But these prophecies are never considered to be taken literally, and the author changed them as he wished, used them as symbols. And maybe there is a point to be taken into consideration here. People take prophecy far to literally (spending enormous amount of time, for example, focusing on each and everyone of the ten heads, looking for deep, secret meaning). I think it would be foolish for someone to start paying to close attention to the fact that the author of Revelations stitched the foot of on beast onto the hind quarters of another and then slapped the head of another beast onto that (surely there was some deep secret here, is there not? If there was then there must have been 'mistakes' in Daniel's beasts that needed to be 'corrected.') That the author of Revelations did not bother with this literal approach is obvious by the way he used symbols in whatever way he wanted (if each and everyone of those ten heads was vitally important mystery, then the book of Revelations certainly 'ruined prophecy' by changing so many details of previous prophecy).
As a final point I have to ask how, after those early churches embarrassed everyone by reading Daniel in an uncritical way and being gullible about the Bible, and prophecy in particular, you really have to wonder why any other modern church would want to do the same thing, repeat the same mistake, and embarrass themselves in the same way as those early churches did. It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.
A Unified Field Theory
The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip
Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.
