an expository reading guide to daniel 8.docx

An Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 8 Loren Lineberry, 2016

Introduction

The purpose of the Guide is to help both the specialist and the non-specialist read Daniel 8 more closely. For the specialist, by whom I mean those with some skill in Hebrew and Aramaic, the Guide is intended to enrich the reading of the text. For the non-specialist, by whom I mean those with no acquaintance with Hebrew or Aramaic, the Guide intends to offer the benefits of a close reading of the text in language that is, hopefully, clear and accurate.

For both the specialist and the non-specialist, the Guide is especially intended for the preacher. It is hoped that the Guide will augment whatever helps the preacher already has at his or her disposal for expository preaching of the text. The Guide is especially geared for those preachers, teachers, and home Bible study leaders who crave exposition of the text of Daniel 8.

The grammatical analysis of the text will provide identifications of key terms and constructions: prepositional phrases, genitive constructions, verbal parsing, subordinating conjunctions, and other terms and forms as they arise. While not every form will be parsed, it is hoped that those that are chosen will aid in reading the text in an informed manner.

The syntactical matters addressed in the Guide are among the Guide’s more important benefits. This is on three levels.

First, there is the matter of the syntax in the sense of how the text fits together. This is the more or less traditional task of syntactical study and it is offered in the Guide. To this end, each paragraph or unit of text will be laid out in terms of the paragraph sense. This is a schematic of how the text fits together. It is intended to aid in the expository preaching of the text of Daniel by unpacking the sense of the context. Moreover, syntactical outlines will be provided for each paragraph.

Second, there is the matter of the syntactical-semantic thrust of the various stems in Hebrew and Aramaic. To make an extremely complicated matter simple is beyond the scope of the Guide; at the same time, the seven major stems signal nuances of transivity, causation, and reflexive or reciprocal relationships between the subject and the action or situation depicted in the verb. These nuances are often quite useful in understanding what a sentence is about. Accordingly, one of the significant uses of the Guide for the reader is this appreciation of verbal stems.

Third, there is the matter of paragraph identification and punctuation. While the Guide is fully aware that the punctuation and paragraph markings in the Masoretic text are not inspired, they are useful in demarcating the larger paragraph units and the sentences that make up the paragraphs.

The lexical section will offer word studies for the more important terms in a sentence. This feature of the Guide is intended to be of particular use to the non-specialist, who may not have access to lexical tools. To be sure, the preacher who would seek to deliver an expository sermon from a paragraph unit in Daniel 8 would do well to know what the key terms mean. To this end, the Guide makes available entries from the standard lexicons: Brown-Driver-Briggs, Kohler-Baumgartner, Holladay, the Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament and entries from The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis as well as the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

1


The paragraph sense, as noted above, will aid the reader in grasping the context for each individual utterance. This is another major effort of the Guide, since a word or a verse derives meaning from the immediate context in which it is found, the paragraph. As far as the preaching of the text goes, the paragraph sense is intended to help the preacher avoid taking a sentence out of context. Moreover, summaries are offered at the end of most verses.

The genre of the various units of the Daniel 8 will be considered. The paragraph units will be identified in terms of genre, which, in turn, helps the reader know what to expect content-wise from the paragraph. For example, it is useful to know that a paragraph contains history as opposed to, say, prophecy. In either case, the rules of the reading game differ; we expect to hear different kinds of messages from different genres.

Table of contents

Introduction 1-2Table of contents 2General introduction to Daniel 8 3-4

I. An introduction to a vision [Dan 8:1-2] 5-9

II. A vision report of a ram and a he-goat [Dan 8:3-14] 9-62A. The vision of the ram [Dan 8:3-4] 9-16B. The vision of the he-goat [Dan 8:5-12] 17-51C. Daniel overhears an angelic conversation [Dan 8:13-14] 52-62

III. A divine interpreter steps forward to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:15-19] 63-75A. Daniel’s confusion regarding the vision [Dan 8:15] 63-67B. An interpreter is enlisted to give Daniel understanding [Dan 8:16-17] 67-71C. Daniel’s response [Dan 8:18-19] 71-75

IV. The interpretation of the vision [Dan 8:20-26] 75-103A. The ram [Dan 8:20] 75-77B. The he-goat [Dan 8:21] 77C. The four horns [Dan 8:22] 78D. The small horn [Dan 8:23-25] 78-101E. The interpreter’s final word [Dan 8:26] 101-03

V. Daniel’s reaction [Dan 8:27] 103-06

2


General introduction to Daniel 8

Genre

The concept of genre recognition is crucial to reading Daniel, or any biblical book for that matter. John Barton puts the importance of genre this way: “It is not too much to say that it is impossible to understand any text without at least an implicit recognition of the genre to which it belongs.”1

Most seasoned readers of the Bible do this more or less intuitively. That is, we instinctively know that reading a wisdom book differs from reading a psalm differs from reading the prophets and differs from reading the Pentateuch. This differentiation comes down to different expectations, different kinds of information that is presented in different kinds of ways in each of the above genres.

So, with all of that, to what genre does Daniel 8 belong? John Collins writes that Daniel 8 is an example of the “symbolic dream vision.”2 As a symbolic dream vision, Daniel 8 is a mode of revelation, lifting the veil on some future event(s) and providing a sense of hope that these events are under divine control.

Furthermore, Collins notes that there is a more or less stable structure to the typical symbolic dream vision:3

Indication of circumstances [Dan 8:1-2]Description of the vision, introduced by “behold” [Dan 8:3-14]Request for interpretation [Dan 8:15-19]Interpretation [Dan 8:20-26]Concluding material [Dan 8:27]

Finally, reader should take careful note of the word “symbolic” in the genre. This tells us that much, if not most, of the language we shall encounter in Daniel 8 will be of the non-literal variety. This, in turn, means that the reader must not jump to conclusions based upon literal readings of these symbolic words. Rather, the reader will accept the fact that truth can be communicated in symbolic language, but the nature of the symbolism demands caution and no small degree of humility when it is interpreted.

Structure

The structure of Daniel 8 signals progression. As the outline provided above shows, the vision moves through various stages and ultimately arrives at the crucial point, the interpretation of the “small horn” in Dan 8:23-25. The reader may infer that the horrifying nature of the events in Dan 8:23-25 is offset by the ever so gentle hint that Yahweh has the final say [Dan 8:25b].

1 John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996; reprint edition), 16.

2 Rolf Knierim and Eugene Tucker, ed., The Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. XX, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 6 [hereafter abbreviated FOTL].

3 Ibid., 86.

3


Daniel 8 in the context of the book

It will be useful for the reader to appreciate the place of Daniel 8 in the structure of the book as a whole. To this end, Joyce Baldwin provides, with some additions, an excellent summary:4

Daniel 2 Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Interpretation in Daniel 8 Gold Lion (Babylon, presumably) Silver Bear Ram Medo-Persian Bronze Leopard He-goat Greece (key to vision in Dan 11)Iron/clay Horns of terror (Rome, presumably)

As the reader can see, the four components of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 are resumed and expanded in Daniel 7 into four beasts. Then, in Daniel 8, only two of the beasts are re-interpreted; these two, in turn, are identified by a heavenly spokesperson as Medo-Persia and Greece, respectively [Dan 8:20-21]. Ultimately, only the Grecian identity is elaborated in Daniel 10-12, especially Dan 11:20-12:1.

The chart helps us appreciate the place of Daniel 8 in the trajectory of Daniel as a whole. The reader can see that from the beginning the path of Daniel tends toward the Persian-Greek regimes as prime exemplars of totalitarian states throughout history. But, more to the point of the book of Daniel as a whole and Daniel 8 in particular, the reader will understand that this arc running through Daniel moves by Yahweh’s oversight and control. To put the same thing another way, the major player in Daniel is God, not the rogue nations that appear only to disfigure human history. Thus, we seriously misread Daniel if look for identification of regimes in history and miss the work of God in history.

4 D.J. Wiseman, ed., Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 161.

4


Text and translation

I. An introduction to a vision [Dan 8:1-2]

8:1a In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king;

8:1b a vision appeared to me, I, Daniel, after the one that appeared to me previously. 8:2a That is, I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I – in Susa the citadel, which – in Elam the province; 8:2b so, I looked in the vision, and I was beside the river Ulai.

Syntactical outline

8:1b A vision appeared to me, (appositional item) I Daniel 8:1a (temporal marker) in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king (temporal marker) after the one that appeared to me previously (Daniel 7)

8:2a (specification) that is, I looked in the vision (temporal specification) and while I was looking (background information) I [was] in Susa the citadel (clarification) which [is] in Elam the province

8:2b (resumption) and so I looked in the vision (background information) and I was beside the river Ulai

Paragraph sense

It is vital for the reader of the Bible not to become lost among the trees of exposition and thereby lose sight of the forest; that is, it is one thing to give attention to words and even sentences, but it is just as vital to keep the forest, the paragraph in mind. To this end, we offer the “paragraph sense” of Dan 8:1-2, where the sense of the paragraph “lies not merely in the individual propositions but in the relationships of those propositions to each other.”5 With that in mind, we may map out the paragraph sense of Dan 8:1-2

(i) [Opening truth claim] A vision appeared to me(ii) [When (i) occurred] in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar(iii) [When (i) and (ii) occurred] after the one that appeared to me previously(iv) [Specification of (i)] that is, I looked in the vision(v) [Temporal specification of (iv)] and while I was looking(vi) [Background information pertinent to (v)] I (was) in Susa the citadel(vii) [Specification of (vi)] which (is) in Elam the province(viii) [Resumption of (iv)] and so I looked in the vision(ix) [Background to (viii) and I was beside the river Ulai

5 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 79.

5


So, what does all of this tell us? The reader will note that vision figures prominently in the paragraph; so, we may infer that there is something important being conveyed in this event, “vision.” Moreover, the reader will observe the high level of temporal and background material; accordingly, we need to be alert for crucial information here.

Theme of the paragraph

From the above, we may affirm that the theme of Daniel 8:1-2 is his vision, especially in terms of the circumstances within which this vision occurs.

Genre of the paragraph

It seems that Dan 8:1-2 is a report that is a “brief, self-contained prose narrative, usually in third person style, about a single event or situation in the past.”6 Accordingly, the reader is entitled to read this brief paragraph as containing the facts that surrounded Daniel’s vision.

Dan 8:1 – In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king; a vision appeared to me, I, Daniel, after the one that appeared to me previously.

Daniel appears to be intent on locating his vision historically, that is, in terms of his immediate circumstances. Accordingly, Daniel locates his vision in time and in Daniel’s life.

In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar would date the vision about two years after the vision in Dan 7:1, that is, about 550/549 BC.

The reign of Belshazzar is significant. R. Campbell Thompson tells us why:7

Babylon was rapidly nearing her end. With continual internal dissensions barely kept in check, it is a matter for wonder that Nabonidus should have been able to retain his throne as long as seventeen years. Obviously, he was not a young man at his accession, for Belshazzar, his son, is mentioned on a contract of the fifth year of Nabonidus, whereon he is called ‘the son of the king,” and he may well have been, as has been computed, sixty years old when he came to the throne.

Accordingly, this vision would have come at a very critical time for Belshazzar’s regime, and we may assume that Daniel would have been well aware of Belshazzar’s shaky government. The point is that this vision came at a time ready for a realignment of nations in the region, thus adding to the trepidation associated with the circumstances surrounding the vision. Indeed, as we shall see in the vision, the political climate in which Daniel and his friends work goes from bad to worse, at least for the foreseeable future. These are among the facts that this report offers the reader; these are also among the momentous details of historical background that flavor the vision.

6 FOTL, Isaiah 1-39, vol. XVI by Marvin Sweeney, 536. 7 J.B. Bury, S.A. Cook, and F.E. Adcock, ed., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. III

The Assyrian Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929), 219 [hereafter abbreviated CAH].

6


A vision appeared to me [ ] is the key assertion in the paragraph; the truth claim in this part of the report may be assumed.

Vision [ (a vision associated with a prophecy/revelation, a dream/vision in the night, and the title of a prophetic book: revelatory word, inspired saying8)] is a Hebrew noun that appears more often in Daniel than any other book of the Hebrew Bible; indeed, no chapter in the Hebrew Bible uses more than Daniel 8; therefore, we must get a handle on what the noun means.

The noun comes from a semantic field of terms for perception.9 Two other terms populate this semantic field: [in the Niphal stem: to make oneself known to someone; in the Hiphil stem: to make something known to someone; and in the Hithpael: to make oneself known to someone10] and [primarily in the Niphal stem: to appear in a divine revelation, to be seen, to be visible; and also in the Hiphil stem: to cause to see, show, let see11].

One difference is immediately apparent when we consider these three “perception” terms: /“vision” is the one term that means that “the emphasis in the revelatory vision was on the revelation of the divine word, which endowed the prophet [emphasis mine] with special knowledge of divine things.”12 In other words, the /“vision” identifies Daniel as a prophet in the lineage of Isaiah [Isaiah 1:1], Amos [Amos 1:1], Micah [Micah 1:1] and Habakkuk [Habakkuk 1:1]. The significance of this observation is: for the foreseeable future, not only will matters deteriorate politically, but also, God still has the prophetic office on the scene to impart a revelatory word in the midst of the chaos.

The noun [] has two ranges of meaning: [1] a visionary revelation, (a) revealing the content of future events, a goal that will not fail (b) of false visions/revelations, (c) visions/revelations that are suspended, (d) visions as fulfilled, (e) as requiring explanation, (f) as populated by heavenly beings, (g) as sealed by the recipient, (h) vision/revelation as tantamount to a parable, and (i) as inscribed for future reading; [2] a word of revelation, in a book title.13

The upshot is this: when Daniel affirms that a /vision appeared to him, we may infer that [1] the recipient of this vision enjoys the status of a prophet, [2] the events depicted in this revelatory word are certain to unfold as revealed, for [3] this vision is the product of heaven [Dan 8:13].

8 David J.A. Clines, ed., The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 111 [hereafter abbreviated CDCH].

9 Willem VanGemeren, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000; CD-ROM), “Perception,” [hereafter abbreviated NIDOTTE].

10 CDCH, 147. 11 Ibid., 408. 12 Jackie A. Naud, “,” in NIDOTTE [H2600]. 13 See Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the

Old Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Stamm; translated and edited by M.E.J. Richardson, vol. I - (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 301-02 [hereafter abbreviated KB1 for vol. 1, -, and KB2 for vol. 2, -].

7


I, Daniel is an example of the personal pronoun, /I, added in apposition to “appeared to me.”14 The syntactical function of this apposition is for emphasis,15 possibly, given Daniel’s troubled reaction to this vision, Daniel’s humility. Perhaps Daniel realizes that he has joined an elite assembly: the prophets. What is more, given the historical circumstances – the exile and the fact that Babylon’s days seemed to be numbered – Daniel may be humbled to know that he, as a prophet, has a niche in the unfolding of human history as revealed to him by the Lord of history.

Dan 8:2 – That is, I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I – in Susa the citadel, which – in Elam the province.

Susa the citadel [ ] names a capital city of Elam.16 Susa was a winter residence of Persian kings.17 John Collins tells us that Susa “was one of the royal residences in the Achaemenid Empire,” and that according to Xenophon, “Cyrus divided the year between Babylon, Susa, and Ecbatana.”18 The fact that the vision occurs during Babylonian rule but seems to foreshadow Persian rule tells us that the mention of this capital city betokens dramatic changes for the Babylonian empire; Persia is on the march.

How was Daniel in Susa? Was he there physically and literally? Or, was he transported there somehow in spirit, as part of the visionary experience? The text before us is silent, but as Slotki points out, if Daniel were physically in Susa “it is difficult to explain how he came to be on the king’s business [see Dan 8:27a] so far from the capital in the last days of the Babylonian empire.”19

Summary.

Dan 8:1-2 serves to establish the credentials of Daniel as a prophet; if his prophetic calling had not been clear earlier, then it certainly is now. The key term, repeated three times in two verses, is vision, a term that seals Daniel’s position as a prophet.

What is more, Dan 8:1-2 serves to alert the reader to the tension that must have been surging within the empire. As noted above, the reign of Belshazzar was skating on thin ice; what is more, the reference to Susa hints at the emergence of the Persian threat to Babylon. Indeed, as Daniel 8 will make clear, beyond Persia is Greece. The political situation is fluid to say the least; but, as the book of Daniel avers, God is sovereign over national and international political currents in human history.

14 Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, translated and revised by T. Muraoka, 2 vols. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istotuto Biblico, 1996) § 146 d [hereafter abbreviated J-M].

15 Ibid., § 146 a. 16 KB2, 1455. 17 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius

Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979; reprint), 1004 [hereafter abbreviated BDB].

18 John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 329.

19 Judah J. Slotki, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah; revised by Rabbi Ephraim Oratz and Ravshalom Shahar (New York: The Soncino Press, 1993), 64; similarly, Louis Hartman and Alexander Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005; paperback), 233; Tremper Longman, The NIV Application Commentary: Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 202; and E.J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; reprint), 166.

8


II. A vision report of a ram and a he-goat [Dan 8:3-14]


A. The vision of the ram [Dan 8:3-4]

8:3a Then, I raised my eyes and looked, 8:3b and behold: a single ram, standing before the river, and on it – a pair of horns; 8:3c now, the pair of horns – high, but, the first horn – higher than the second, with the higher coming up last. 8:4a I beheld the ram, tossing and goring west and north and south, while no beast could stand before him, in fact, there was none who could deliver from

his power; 8:4b so he did exactly as he pleased, and thus, he magnified himself.

Syntactical outline

8:3a (continuation of report) Then, I raised my eyes and looked8:3b (detail of vision report) and behold: a single ram

(detail concerning the ram) standing before the river (second detail concerning the ram) and on it – a pair of horns

8:3c (detail concerning the horns) now, the pair of horns – high (second detail concerning the horns) but the first horn – higher than the second (detail concerning the higher horn) with the higher one coming up last

8:4a (continuation of report) I beheld the ram (detail concerning the ram) tossing and goring west and north and south (second detail concerning the ram) while no beast could stand before him (clarification) in fact, there was none who could deliver from his power

8:4b (result statement) so he did exactly as he pleased (further consequence) and thus, he magnified himself

The syntactical outline shows us several things. Obviously, the vision is dominated by the ram [Dan 8:3b, 4a]. However, in Dan 8:3, the emphasis is on the horns of this ram, the term being repeated three times. Then, in Dan 8:4, the ram is once more the subject of the vision, but this time the emphasis seems to be more on what the ram does with his horns. Thus, this paragraph introduces the ram in the vision and then provides rich detail concerning might. The closing result statements speak for themselves.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Next event in the vision] Then, I raised my eyes and looked

9


(ii) [Detail concerning (i)] and behold: a single ram(iii) [Detail concerning (ii)] standing before the river(iv) [Detail concerning (ii)] and on it – a pair of horns(v) [Detail concerning (iv)] now, the pair of horns – high(vi) [Detail concerning (v)] but, the first horn – higher than the second(vii) [Detail concerning (vi)] with the higher coming up last(viii) [Next event in the vision] I beheld the ram(ix) [Detail concerning (viii)] pushing west and north and south(x) [Detail concerning (ix)] while no beast could resist him(xi) [Clarification of (x)] in fact there was none who could deliver from his power(xii) [Consequence of (viii-xi)] so he did exactly as he pleased(xiii) [Result of (xii)] and thus he magnified himself

Obviously, the sense of the paragraph concerns the ram, but the way the author offers detail after detail suggests that the author was intent on our understanding the extent of the power this ram possessed and how he used it. As we shall see, the horn is a symbol of strength and power, thus the threefold repetition of “horn” drives this point home. Then, “tossing and goring” suggests the use to which this ram puts his considerable power, followed by his unassailability and his hubris.


The theme of Dan 8:3-4 could almost be communicated in a single idea: destructive and unstoppable power. This theme is embedded in the wealth of detail concerning the ram, details that all underscore his dominance and his supremacy. Indeed, his preeminence slides easily into his self-glorification. In a nutshell, Dan 8:3-4 is about power and pride.


Dan 8:3-4 is a vision, which is “a revelation in visual form. It involves a perception which is distinct from normal sight and is not available for public observation.”20 As a revelation, we can appreciate the rich detail given to us in the vision, details that constitute the revelation.

What is more, as a visionary experience, there is a plethora of symbolic language that should be considered with some caution.

Dan 8:3 – I raised my eyes and looked, and behold: a single ram, standing before the river, and on it – a pair of horns; now, the pair of horns – high, but the first horn – higher than the second, with the higher coming up last.

Ram [] is a metaphor for the kings of Media and Persia [Dan 8:20]. In other words, there is some overlap between this ram [] and these kings. Now a metaphor is a non-literal comparison between the ram and the political leaders mentioned in Dan 8:20.21 More to the point for the interpreter, in a metaphor “there is an intended point of comparison [emphasis mine] on which we are being asked to concentrate to the exclusion of all irrelevant fact.” Accordingly, what is the intended point of comparison between the ram and the political leaders identified in Dan 8:20? Owing to the emphasis on the results of this ram’s power in Dan 8:4, we might

20 Collins, FOTL, 120. 21 For the idea of a metaphor, see G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible

(London: Duckworth, 2002; reprint), 144-59.

10


conclude that the point of comparison is pragmatic: “in pragmatic comparisons, we compare the activity or result of one thing with that of another.”22 If this is the case, then the point of comparison is teased out with “pushing,” “no beast could stand before him,” “none who could deliver from his power,” and “he did exactly as he pleased.”

On it a pair of horns [ ] is a prepositional phrase that draws our attention to the power of this ram. The horn [] in the vision is obviously visualized as the horn of this ram; at the same time, the next verse warrants reading the reference to “horn” as “a symbol of strength and power.”23

The first horn – higher than the second [ ] is a verbless clause; the translations tend to insert “was,” but this insertion slides over an important function of the verbless clause. Ellen van Wolde tells us that, in a verbless clause written as this one is, the reader is asked to focus attention on the element in the second position,24 “higher than the second” in this case. But, focus to what end? Obviously, the vision intends to signal the exceptional power of the first horn relative to the second. But, the next line teases out this relative power more fully.

With the higher coming up last [ ] is a reference to Persia. The net effect is that “Persia entered the world stage later than Media but ultimately played a more major part.”25

These last two clauses point to the tenuousness of human political-military power; one nation dominates for a season only to be removed from the world stage by another, more powerful, regime. “Horns, and the human strength they symbolize, are strong yet strangely vulnerable.”26 They fail, or refuse, to recognize the truth of Zechariah 4:6, “Neither by might nor by raw power, but by My spirit” do men even hope to prevail in a fallen world.

Dan 8:4 – I beheld the ram, pushing west and north and south, while no beast could resist him, in fact, there was none who could deliver from his power; so, he did exactly as he pleased, and thus, he magnified himself.

This verse seems to be the focal point of the paragraph, alerting the reader to the violence and the expansionism of the ram/empire. Moreover, the ram/empire, for the time being, is invincible and unchallengeable; accordingly, he basks in the glory of his might.

Pushing [] translates the verb, , a Piel participle. We may attend to the import of the Piel stem. When a verb is transitive [takes a direct object] in the Qal stem, and this one is transitive in all three of its usages in the Qal, then the Piel stem is resultative; “it designates the bringing about of the outcome of the action designated by the base root.”27 So, what does actually mean?

22 Ibid., 147. 23 KB2, 1145. 24 Cynthia L. Miller, ed., The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches,

“The Verbless Clause and Its Textual Function,” by Ellen van Wolde (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 331.

25 John D.W. Watts, ed., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel by John Goldingay (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 208.

26 Ibid., 219. 27 Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 24.1h [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].

11


Since is such an important term in this paragraph, a more detailed analysis of it should be helpful. is from a semantic field of terms for “pushing, goring, thrusting” in the OT.28 There are six other verbs in this semantic field:

[1] [Qal = push, thrust; Niphal = be pushed, be thrust down; Pual = be thrust down29].[2] [Qal = beat/drive excessively (cattle); Hithpael = hurl oneself/beat at (a door)30].[3] [Qal = thrust/push someone; push away/drive out someone31].[4] [Qal = thrust someone into32].[5] [Poel = to sink (horn) into33 ].[6] [Qal = thrust/drive; pitch (a tent); fasten to; strike/clap (hands); give a blast/alarm;

be fastened; in Niphal = be struck; allow someone to be struck; be blown (ram’s horn)34].

When we analyze the range of meaning of , we note that it means: in the Qal, to gore (an ox); in the Piel, to gore or push; and in the Hithpael, to join in combat [Dan 11:40]. The question is: what distinguishes from the others terms in the semantic field?

First, and probably foremost, this is the only term in the semantic field associated with a beast, thus the author probably chose this term for the fact that it fit neatly with previous context in Daniel 7, where the protagonists were various beasts. In other words, the use of this term maintains the cohesion of Daniel 7-8.

Second, the usage of in Dan 8:4 means “pushing, driving, forcing, thrusting or ramming” the ram’s way forward. When has the meaning of “gore (to death),” the resultant state of death is explicitly stated in the context,35 so we may rule out in the sense of “gore (to death)” or “destruction.” There is more expansionism in , when used with “west and north and south,” than devastation.

While no beast could resist him [ ] is a clause that is introduced by a disjunctive waw [], which signals background or offline information and may be translated with “while.”36 The upshot is that this clause is the flipside of the previous one, depicting this ram as unchallengeable. More to the point, this clause is a categorical denial that any beast at any time was able to “resist” this ram; in logical terms, the “beast” is wholly excluded from the class of beings who could “resist” this ram.37

Resist him [ ] is a collocation that is used eight times in Daniel [Dan 1:5, 19; 2:2; 8:3, 4, 6, 7; 11:16] with basically three ranges of meaning: [1] to stand as a servant before one’s master (Dan 1:5, 19); [2] to stand in a fixed position before (Dan 8:3, 6); and [3] to stand

28 NIDOTTE, “Pushing, goring, thrusting.” 29 CDCH, 77. 30 Ibid., 82. 31 Ibid., 86. 32 Ibid., 165. 33 Ibid., 328. 34 Ibid., 494. 35 An ox “gores to death” [Exodus 21:28, 29, 31-32, 36]; and one human “gores” another

until that person is “consumed” [1 Kings 22:11; 2 Chronicles 18:10]. 36 IBHS, 39.2.3b. 37 See Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1982),

179.

12


firm before a foe (Dan 8:7; 11:16). H. Ringgren avers that this collocation [ ] means “stand firm, withstand.”38 The net effect is that the collocation implies resistance and resistance was futile when confronted by this regime. Baldwin writes, “The rapid progress of Cyrus during the ten years 549-539 suggested a ram goring every beast that withstood him.”39

In fact, there was none who could deliver from his power [ ] is a clarification of the previous line; that is, in addition to the fact that there is no resisting this regime, now we see that there is no rescue from this regime. As with the previous line, so also here, we have a categorical denial: “none” are wholly excluded from the class of persons who could “deliver.”

There was none [] is a “focus particle” that places “a particular focus on the entity or clause that follows them.”40 In this case, the focus is on the non-existence []41 of deliverance. To put it in a nutshell, the fact that none could resist this regime made deliverance null and void.

Deliver from [ ] is written in the Hiphil stem, which is a causative stem.42 In this case, there were no causes available that could rescue/deliver from the military clout of this regime.

Deliver from the hand/power [ ] is a collocation that is used sixteen times in the OT, all of them in the Hiphil stem and therefore causative.43 Basically, the collocation means to remove or separate someone from the dominion of another. In most passages, it is Yahweh who does the separating;44 twice, it is man who does the disengaging;45 and in two passages, no particular actor is identified.46 The nature of the dominion varies and is clarified by the context; thus the variety of dominion has no bearing on the sense of the collocation. The net effect is that all [“none”] are wholly excluded from the classes of humans who could separate his victims from this regime’s dominion.

So, he did exactly as he pleased [ (Qal, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a clause that teases out the consequence of this regime’s unchallengeable power. The verb in this clause is written as a waw consecutive perfect, a construction that signals a consequent situation when following a line with a participle as the main verb.47

Did [] in the Qal stem has the following ranges of meaning: [1] make or manufacture, [2] attach, [3] to make for, [4] to create, [5] to give effect to, do, [6] acquire, [7] prepare, [8] to carry out, perform, [9] to act, behave (toward another), and [10] to do, treat.48 The collocation –

38 G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H.-J. Fabry, ed., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. XI (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), “,” by H. Ringgren, 183 [hereafter abbreviated TDOT with the appropriate volume number].

39 Baldwin, 156. 40 Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew

Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000; reprint paperback), § 41.4. 41 KB1, 42. 42 Van der Merwe § 16.7.2. 43 Genesis 37:21; Exodus 2:19; 3:8; 18:9; 1 Samuel 4:8; 12:10; 17:37; 2 Samuel 12:7;

Psalm 31:15; 144:11; Jeremiah 15:21; Ezekiel 34:27; Hosea 2:10; Zechariah 11:6. 44 Exodus 3:8; 18:9; 1 Samuel 12:10; 17:37; 2 Samuel 12:7; Psalms 31:15; 144:11;

Jeremiah 15:21; Hosea 2:10; Zechariah 11:6. 45 Genesis 37:21; Exodus 2:19. 46 1 Samuel 4:8; Daniel 8:4. 47 IBHS 32.2.5a. 48 KB1, 890-92.

13


“do exactly as [ (verb + preposition prefixed to a noun)]” – may help us disambiguate the meaning of /“did.”

Do exactly as plus a noun is a collocation that appears forty four times in the OT. Interestingly, the collocation [“do exactly as he pleased ( )”] appears three times in Daniel [Dan 8:4; 11:3, 36] and once in Esther [Esther 1:8]. The Esther context is that of a royal banquet with feasting and drinking; accordingly, the meaning of the collocation would be a variant of meaning 7, above, in the sense of “to care for” the desires of the attendees.49 However, the context of each of the Daniel references is military power unilaterally employed; accordingly, the meaning of the collocation would be more along the lines of “act or behave,” number 9 above. What is more, H.M. Barstad affirms that “do exactly as one pleases [ ]” is an idiom for arbitrary conduct.50

Pleased [] is a noun that is used in two contexts in the OT: [1] in a non-religious context, and [2] in a religious context.51 Obviously, the usage in Dan 8:4 excludes meanings in the religious context. [pleased] is from a semantic field of terms for “Pleasing.”52 has the following ranges of meaning: [1] pleasing, [2] wish, longing, [3] capriciousness, maliciousness ().53

The net effect is that “did exactly as he pleased” suggests that this powerful regime “acted” or “behaved” in whatever manner suited the regime’s best interests. Since the difference between [2] and [3] above is blurry, there may be elements of both self-will and capriciousness in the use of the idiom. Joyce Baldwin notes that “nearly two hundred years of history and political aggrandizement, such as the world had not seen before, are summed up in this verse.”54

As a result of the peerless power of this regime, the result is this: “he magnified himself [ (Hiphil, was consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]. The use of the Hiphil stem of the verb communicates that the regime causes itself to be regarded as great;55 in other words, this regime is drugged with the narcotic of its own hubris.

This is as good a time as any to raise a key point: this Hiphil stem of , pointing to monumental self-aggrandizement, is used here of the Medo-Persian regime and then later in Daniel 8:25 of a Grecian regime. The point is that the ram and the he-goat, Medo-Persia and Greece, overlap or coincide in the modus operandi of their rapacity and violence; the larger point is this: there are common denominators among these rogue regimes throughout history as they seek to impose their will upon all who resist them and, thus, the attempt to pin down one specific regime as the one to which Daniel refers in this, or any other passage, is pointless. These regimes have had many successors; so, they illustrate the fact that there are patterns in history.

Magnify [] is found among a semantic field of terms for “great.”56 The other terms in the field are [“rapid growth,” “increase,” a “multitude” of something”57],

49 Ibid., 891. 50 H.M. Barstad, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIII, 628. 51 Ibid., 1282. 52 Se NIDOTTE, “Pleasing.” 53 KB2, 1282. 54 Baldwin, 156. 55 IBHS, 27.2f. 56 See “Great” in NIDOTTE. 57 Andrew Hill, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8045].

14


[“multiplication,” “numerous,” “multiply”58], and [“growth,” “increase,” “expansion”59]. The distinction between and these roots in the field seems to be that may be used more widely in an abstract sense, such as “magnificent,” “triumph,” or “magnify oneself.” In other words, the ideas of growth, development, increase and enlargement are less prominent in ; rather , as used in the Hiphil, focuses more on [1] splendor/glory or [2] triumph.

Magnify [] written in the Hiphil stem is used transitively [with a direct object] fifteen times, and intransitively [without a direct object] nineteen times. As the usage in the Daniel 8:4b passage is intransitive, we consider only the usages of the Hiphil of used intransitively. Of the uses of intransitive in the Hiphil, there are two constructions: [1] plus a preposition and [2] used alone. Both of these constructions are used in Daniel 8.

The uses of with a preposition tend to communicate triumph over someone or something, with the precise sense of triumph varying from context to context. The dominant construction is plus the preposition .60 A similar sense of triumph over is also signaled by the use of plus the preposition in Daniel 8:11.

There are only five uses of alone in the Hiphil, and of these, only three use the Hiphil of in the form of a finite verb.61 The 1 Samuel 20 passage requires inserting an infinitive from the previous line in order to get the sense: “David wept [infinitive] the most [].” The Lamentations 1 passage uses with a subject, “enemies [],” that triumph over [] Jerusalem. This sense is warranted for Lamentations 1:9 owing to the mention of the fall [] of Jerusalem. This leaves Daniel 8:4, which uses the Hiphil of in the sense of “magnify oneself;”62 “act mightily, act boastfully, magnify oneself.”63 E. Jenni notes that the Hiphil of may be an “inner-causative” usage of the root, implying “to make oneself great, to make oneself become great.”64 R. Mosis renders the Hiphil of in Daniel 8:4 in the sense of “to prove oneself to be great actually and effectively.”65

The net effect is that in Daniel 8:4 implies that this ram, the Medo-Persian regime, touted its impressiveness, flaunted its glory, ballyhooed its grandeur, and paraded it power. As D.S. Russell put it, this regime is “inflated with a sense of their own importance.”66

Summary

Daniel 8:3-4 is a vision report of a ram, later identified as Medo-Persia [Daniel 8:20]; in other words, this ram represents a nation state, an empire, an instantiation of human governance.

Daniel 8:3 opens with this regime being described with a metaphor: it is a ram. When all is said and done, the point of a metaphor is to tease out some comparison; and, in this case, the comparison is pragmatic. This regime gets results: it pushes [so far!]; it is beyond resisting [for

58 Andrew Hill, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8049]. 59 Gary Smith, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8434]. 60 Job 19:5; Psalm 35:26; 38:17; 41:10; 55:12; Jeremiah 48:26, 42; Ezekiel 35:13;

Zephaniah 2:8, 10. 61 1 Samuel 20:41; Lamentations 1:9; Daniel 8:4. 62 KB1, 179. 63 CDCH, 62. 64 E. Jenni, “,” TLOT I, 304. 65 R. Mosis, “,” in TDOT, vol. II, 404. 66 J.C.L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, Daniel by D.S. Russell (Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1981), 142.

15


the time being!]; it is invulnerable [for the moment!]; it is invincible [at least for now!]; and it is grand and glorious [for now!]. As John Goldingay notes concerning regimes such as this one, “Force and violence are of the essence of their lives. It is how they come into existence and how they stay in existence.”67 Whether Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome in ancient times or Germany or Russia in more modern times, the hallmark of human governance is its belief in the proposition that it is by might alone that men prevail.

Power is the watchword for this ram/regime. To begin with, the horns are a symbol of aggressive, forceful, and hard-hitting strength; this is a regime that, for the moment, prevails. At the same time, the visionary notes that one horn was higher than the second; human military-political power is relative, never absolute, and never permanent. As we shall presently see in the next paragraph, human governance established on the principle of overwhelming might is tenuous; the expansionist regime will be proven to be vulnerable; the irresistible empire will show itself to be fragile; the invulnerable kingdom will betray its feebleness; the invincible state will be exposed as precarious; and the magnificent, boasting, arrogant monarchy will bare its ricketiness.

Daniel 8:4 is chapter and verse on the results, the superficially unstoppable fallout that this ram/regime/Medo-Persia achieves. Like Hitler’s Blitzkrieg in World War II, this regime is relentless and irresistible, unyielding and uncontainable, overpowering and overwhelming.

This ram/regime pushes in virtually every direction: pushing, driving, forcing, shoving, ramming; this ram/regime prevails: no competing regime could successfully offer resistance; this ram/regime, for all appearances, was permanent: for there was no superpower on the horizon that could deliver from this regime’s political-military might.

Finally, the regime enjoys the spoils: it does exactly as it pleases and gloats and struts and swaggers. He does exactly as he pleases means that whatever is in Medo-Persia’s national interest is what needs to be done; self-will is mingled with capriciousness to yield a nation absorbed only in “Medo-Persia first”. He magnified himself means that this kind of regime labors and struggles and dreams and plans and propagandizes to make itself great in the world’s estimation, to celebrate and boast of one triumph after another, crowing about the pompous wonder of human political-military prowess.


B. The vision of the he-goat (and the small horn) [Dan 8:5-12] 8:5a While I was reflecting, 8:5b behold: a he-goat, was coming from the west, over the surface of all the earth, and without touching the ground; 8:5c now the he-goat – a conspicuous horn between

his eyes. 8:6a Then he came toward the two-horned ram, whom I saw standing beside the river; 8:6b so he charged him,

67 Goldingay, 219.

16


in his powerful rage. 8:7a That is, I saw him charging toward the ram, then, he showed his fury toward him, and so, he butted the ram, and smashed into fragments his two horns, indeed the ram did not have the strength to

stand against him; 8:7b then he threw him to the ground and trampled

him; while there was none who could deliver the

ram from his power. 8:8a So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; 8:8b but, as soon as he became powerful, the great

horn was shattered, and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up,

after it, toward the four winds of heaven. 8:9a While, from one of them, another horn came up from the smallest one; 8:9b then, he grew exceedingly powerful toward the

south and the east, and toward the most beautiful. 8:10a And he grew important, even as far as the host

of heaven; 8:10b and so, he threw to the ground some of the host

some of the stars, and he crushed them to pieces. 8:11a Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he

magnified himself; 8:11b for, from him, the daily offering was removed, and so, his sanctuary place was discarded. 8:12a That is, the host will be given over along with

sacrifice, iniquitously, 8:12b and so, it will cast truth to the ground, thus, he acted successfully. Syntactical outline

8:5a (Continuation of report) While I was reflecting8:5b [1](Main assertion) Behold: a he-goat was coming from the west

(Spatial locater) over the surface of all the earth,(Attendant circumstance) and without touching the ground;

8:5c (Clarification) now the he-goat – a conspicuous horn between his eyes.

8:6a [2] (Sequential event) Then he came toward the two-horned ram,(Clarification) whom I saw standing beside the river,

8:6b [3](Sequential event) so, he charged him,(Manner) in his powerful rage.

8:7a (Resumption with detail) That is, I saw him charging toward the ram,(Sequential) then, he showed his fury toward him,

(Logical consequence) and so, he butted the ram,

17


(Sequential) and smashed into fragments his two horns,(Attendant circumstance) indeed, the ram did not have the strength to standagainst him;

8:7b [4](Sequential) then he threw him to the ground and trampled him,(Attendant circumstance) while there was none who could deliver the ramfrom his power.

8:8a [5](Sequential) So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly;8:8b (Contrast) but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered, [6](Sequential) and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it,

(Spatial locater) toward the four winds of heaven.8:9a (Attendant circumstance) While, from one of them, another horn came up

from insignificance;8:9b [7](Sequential) then, he (the smallest one) grew exceedingly powerful

(Spatial locater) toward the south and the east, and toward themagnificent.

8:10a (Sequential/logical) And he grew important,(Spatial locater) even as far as the host of heaven;

8:10b (Sequence after 8:10a) and so, he threw to the ground some of the host of some of the stars,(Explanation of 8:10b) and he crushed them to pieces.

8:11a (Clarification) Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself;8:11b (Reason) for, from him, the daily sacrifice was removed,

(Summary) and so, his sanctuary place was discarded.8:12a (Clarification) That is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice

iniquitously,8:12b (Consequence) and so, it will cast truth to the ground,

(Consequence) thus, he acted successfully.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Next sighting in the vision] While I was reflecting, [the he-goat](ii) [First assertion in report] Behold: a he-goat was coming(iii) [Spatial locater of (ii)] from the west,(iv) [Spatial locater of (iii)] over the surface of all the earth,(v) [Attendant circumstance of (iv)] without touching the ground;(vi) [Clarification of (v)] now, the he-goat – a conspicuous horn between his eyes.

(vii) [Second event after (ii)] Then, he came toward the two-horned ram, [the ram](viii) [Clarification of (vii)] whom I saw standing beside the river,

(ix) [Third event after (ii, vii)] so, he charged him, [the ram engaged](x) [Manner of (ix)] in his powerful rage.(xi) [Detail of (x)] That is, I saw him charging toward the ram,(xii) [Sequential event after (xi)] then, he showed his fury toward him,

18


(xiii) [Logical consequence of (xii)] and so, he butted the ram,(xiv) [Sequential event after (xiii)] and smashed into fragments his two horns,(xv) [Attendant circumstance of (xiv)] indeed, the ram did not have the strength to stand

against him;

(xvi) [Final event] then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him; [defeat/desecration](xvii) [Attendant circumstance of (xvi)] while there was none who could deliver the ram from

his power.(xviii) [Attendant circumstance of (xvii)] So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly;(xix) [Contrast to (xviii)] but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered,(xx) [Sequential event after (xix)] and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it,(xxi) [Spatial locater of (xx)] toward the four winds of heaven.(xxii) [Attendant circumstance of (xx)] While from one of them, another horn came up from

insignificance;(xxiii) [Sequential event after (xxii)] then, he grew exceedingly powerful(xxiv) Spatial locater of (xxiii)] toward the south and the east, and toward the magnificent.(xxv) [Summary statement after (xxiii)] And, he grew important(xxvi) [Spatial locater of (xxv)] even as far as the host of heaven;(xxvii) [Sequential after (xxv)] and so, he threw to the ground some of the host, some

of the stars,(xxviii) [Epexegetical after (xxvii)] and he crushed them to pieces.(xxix) [Clarification of (xxviii)] Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified

himself;(xxx) [Clarification of (xxix)] for, from him, the daily offering was removed,(xxxi) [Summary statement of (xxix-xxx)] and so his sanctuary place was discarded.(xxxii) [Clarification of (xxxi)] That is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice

iniquitously;(xxxiii) [Consequence of (xxix-xxxii)] and so, it will cast truth to the ground,(xxxiv) [Consequence of (xxxiii)] thus, he acted successfully.

The reader can see that this paragraph, Dan 8:5-12, actually builds up to the final event in the report: the defeat of the ram and the aftermath of the defeat [Dan 8:7-12]. Indeed, in the paragraph, the bulk of its sense is dominated by the aftermath of the defeat of the ram, Medo-Persia. And, probably the key repercussion of the defeat of the ram is the emergence of “another horn” in Dan 8:9, which we go so far as to challenge Yahweh Himself, Dan 8:10-12. We might conclude that this paragraph is about defeat and desecration.


Dan 8:5-12 depicts the emergence of conflict between empires, Medo-Persia and Greece in this case, leading to the desecration of God and His sanctuary. Pride of place must go to the theme of desecration for the basic subject of this paragraph.


Once more in Dan 8:5-12, we have a vision, which is “a revelation in visual form. It involves a perception which is distinct from normal sight and is not available for public observation.”68 This vision originates from another world, a supernatural world, and offers a vision of future reality unavailable to the human mind.

68 Collins, FOTL, 120.

19


Dan 8:5 – “While I was reflecting, behold: a he-goat was coming from the west, over the surface of all the earth, and without touching the ground; now, the he-goat – a conspicuous horn between his eyes.”

While I was reflecting [ ] is a circumstantial clause, offering background information relative to the first main clause [“behold: a he-goat was coming”].69

Reflecting [] is a Hiphil participle from the root . The root is found among a semantic field of Hebrew terms for “discernment.”70 The usage of the participle in Dan 8:5 means “to consider;”71 “to give heed to,”72 or “to attend to.”73 Ultimately, Daniel’s attempt to discern the vision will require divine interpretation [Dan 8:16-17ff].

He-goat [] is an exceptionally fierce and powerful animal; accordingly, on the power scale, the he-goat outranks the ram.74

Over the surface of all the earth [ ] is actually a prepositional phrase. The preposition, , has as its direct object a construct chain: the surface of all of the earth. Overall, the prepositional phrase is spatial, probably comprehensive locational.75 With that said, the prepositional phrase is an example of hyperbole, a “conscious exaggeration for the sake of effect,” possibly in this case “emotional truth.”76 More than likely, the vision seems to intend to underline the worldwide pretensions of this Grecian leader.

And without touching the ground [ ] is another circumstantial clause that provides additional background information concerning the rapid movement of the he-goat.77 Clearly, this line is hyperbole, communicating extremely swift movement; the implication is that this he-goat rapidly overcomes his opposition, moving forward quite easily. Finally, similar language is used in Isaiah 41:3 of Cyrus, the ram in the previous paragraph. Cyrus is said to move “by a path his feet do not travel.” The point is made, once more, that most of these various beasts/regimes mimic each other in their modus operandi; it would be foolhardy to attempt to pin any given political-military behavior exclusively on a specific instantiation of these regimes, for there is overlap between them.

The he-goat – a conspicuous horn [ ] is a verbless clause. Furthermore, there is an accent on the he-goat/, pointing to a pause after reading . This punctuation adds to the focus on the predicate: a conspicuous horn [ ]. The verbless clause invites the reader to concentrate on a conspicuous horn [ ]. Obviously, there is something worth considering with this noun, conspicuous [].

69 IBHS 39.2.3b; see also J.C.L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), § 135, 137.

70 See “Discernment” in NIDOTTE. 71 KB1, 122. 72 CDCH, 45. 73 BDB, 107. 74 See Montgomery, 329-30; Goldingay, 209. 75 IBHS 11.2.13b. 76 Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1997), 177. 77 Gibson § 135, 137.

20


Conspicuous [] has two ranges of meaning: [1] revelation, [2] distinction, prominent.78 BDB opts for “conspicuousness in appearance” for in Dan 8:5;79 this usage is unique to Dan 8:5, 8. Holladay follows suit with “consequence, conspicuous.”80 Evidently, the conspicuousness [] of this regime’s power [horn/] is in view.

We should note that in Dan 8:21 this he-goat with the conspicuous horn is identified as Grecian. While we have made the point that the modus operandi of these various regimes overlaps, this does not prohibit the author of the vision from singling out one specific example: Greece. In the case of Greece, one example of such a leader would be Alexander the Great. Focusing on Alexander, D.S. Russell offers insight into the conspicuousness of his person and his power []:81

He (Alexander) was a man of boundless energy, at times merciless and cruel without a trace of conscience. Though a careful schemer and a skilled general, he sometimes acted on impulse, following resolutely the decision of the moment, prepared to slaughter without pity or remorse all who stood in his path or who in any way roused his suspicion. He was a military genius who inspired his troops with his own irrepressible enthusiasm and supreme confidence. His military tactics, in which the striking power of the cavalry [emphasis mine] was a prominent factor, made for easy and rapid movement [emphasis mine], and help to explain the remarkable progress of his campaigns.

Dan 8:6 – “Then he came toward the two-horned ram, whom I saw standing before the river; so he charged him in his powerful rage.”

To avoid misunderstanding, we may identify the actors in this line this way: he [the he-goat] came toward the two-horned ram, which I saw, standing before the river; so he [the he-goat] charged him [the ram] in his [the he-goat] powerful rage.

There is a slight difference in meaning between “came toward []” and “charged [].” Both imply motion toward, with the first, “came toward [],” suggesting approach82 and the second denoting speed.83 In other words, the “approach” is distinguished by its “speed.” This correlation dovetails with Professor Russell’s note, above; it also merges with Hitler’s Blitzkrieg in World War II [there are patterns in history; Alexander the Great was neither the first nor the last to employ in military campaigns].

78 KB1, 302. 79 BDB, 303. 80 Holladay, 99. 81 D.S. Russell, The Jews From Alexander to Herod (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1972; reprint), 2. 82 The root [] is from a semantic field of terms for “Coming, approaching, entering,”

NIDOTTE. 83 is from a semantic field of terms for “Hurry, speed,” NIDOTTE.

21


Charged [] denotes haste and swiftness. As noted above, is from a sematic field of terms for speed. P. Maiberger notes that “denotes rapid, purposeful running with an urgent motivation (‘run, hasten, charge’).”84 Among the military contexts in which is used, it is used both alone [Josh 8:19; 2 Sam 22:30; Ps 18:30] and with a preposition [ (Dan 8:6)] to denote a military battle charge. Maiberger writes, “Dan 8:6 uses the image of a goat charging a ram to represent the campaign of the Greek army under Alexander the Great against the empire of the Medes and the Persians.”85

In his powerful rage [ ] is a prepositional phrase, using the preposition in an instrumental sense: “with, by.”86 What is more, powerful rage is written in the construct state, probably an attributive genitive, which means that the “rage” is characterized as “powerful.”87 It is interesting to note that “powerful rage” is associated with a military campaign; see the note above from Russell.

Rage [] is from a sematic field of terms for “anger, rage, wrath.”88 The noun appears three times in the Hebrew of Daniel [Dan 8:6; 9:16; 11:44]. In Dan 8:6, the noun refers to Alexander the Great; in Dan 9:16, it refers to Yahweh; and in Dan 11:44, it seems to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes. Again, as far as military leaders are concerned, is not restricted to any single political-military leader.

Rage [] has the following range of meaning: [1] heat, [2] poison, venom, and [3] rage, wrath, of either men or Yahweh.89 When used of humans, /rage may be used in the following ways: [1] of the rage of one human directed toward others [Gen 27:44; Est 5:9; Isa 51:13; Ezek 23:25; Dan 8:6; 11:44], [2] of rage as a state of mind/emotion, without necessarily being directed anywhere,90 and [3] of human rage as somehow akin to Yahweh’s .91

When used in strictly human terms, as /rage is in Dan 8:6, the root means “being hot (from excitement), thus ‘boiling’ then ‘wrath.’”92 Sauer renders in Dan 8:6 with “excitement, agitation.”93 K.-D. Schunck concurs, “The notion of ‘being hot’ (through the action of poison, wine, or excitement) probably furnishes the point of departure for all three meanings.”94

When used of animals [Deuteronomy 32:24, 33; Psalm 58:5; 140:4; Daniel 8:6], is used of deadly poison or venom of a serpent. It seems that the author of Dan 8:6 has applied a human usage of to an animal; indeed, this application fits the imagery of a he-goat for the empire of Greece.

84 P. Maiberger, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIII, 416. 85 Ibid., 419. 86 IBHS 11.2.5d. 87 On this construction, see IBHS 9.5.3a; Gibson § 35 c; and Ronald Williams, Hebrew

Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996; reprint), § 41. 88 See “Anger, rage, wrath” in NIDOTTE. 89 KB1, 326. 90 2 Sam 11:20; 2 Kings 5:12; Est 1:12; 2:1; 3:5; 7:7, 10; Ps 37:8; 76:11; Prv 6:34; 15:1,

18; 16:14; 19:19; 21:14; 22:24; 27:4; 29:22. 91 Jer 6:11; Ezek 3:14. 92 G. Sauer, “,” in TLOT I, 435. 93 Ibid., 436. 94 K.-D. Schunck, “,” in TDOT, vol. IV, 462.

22


At the same time, the usage of /rage in Dan 11:16, being clarified with “exterminate []” and “destroy [],” denotes the abstract quality of deadly rage. Indeed, the usage of /rage in Ezekiel 23:25 [Ezekiel 23:25-27 is the larger context], cited above, denotes atrocities committed in war. We conclude, then, that /rage in Dan 8:6 denotes a much higher level of fury than mere excitement or agitation; rather, the usage of /rage suggests a level of rage with few restraints; indeed, the qualification of /rage with /powerful implies as much.

Powerful rage uses a noun, powerful [], to characterize the level of the /rage. The noun has the following range of meanings: [1] used of humans: (a) physical strength, (b) more inclusively: ability, efficiency, (c) power of a people, (d) power opposed to that of God, (e) power conferred by God; [2] strength of angels; [3] the power of God: (a) in creation, (b) in governing the world, and (c) in acts of deliverance and judgment; [4] the power of animals (Job 39:11, 21; 40:16; Prov 14:4; Dan 8:6-7); and [5] the strength of the soil; i.e., produce or wealth.95

The inclusive usage of in the sense of ability or efficiency may be seen to apply to the usage of in Dan 8:6b. It will be remembered that “in his powerful rage” uses /powerful more or less like an adjective to characterize “rage.” When we look to parallel constructions [Job 23:6; 30:18; 36:19; Ps 33:16; Isa 44:12; 63:1], ability or efficiency emerge in the usage of the collocation. For example, in Job 36:19, Elihu advises Job: “Will your opulence keep you from distress? Or, all your powerful [/efficient] efforts?” In this regard, H. Ringgren affirms that the basic meaning of is “vital energy,” including the “ability to perform a function.”96

So it is here in Dan 8:6b; this he-goat’s rage is effective, productive, and adept at overwhelming the ram/Medo Persia. This empire’s deadly rage [] is not chaotic, not frenzied, not helter-skelter, not merely feverish and undirected, but rather totally effectual and completely successful, as we shall see in Dan 8:7.

Summary of Dan 8:5-6

This is a convenient time to summarize the vision of the he-goat to this point. These two verses introduce the new actor in the vision [Dan 8:5] and what this new actor is up to [Dan 8:6].

Dan 8:5 introduces us to the new visionary specter, offering considerable detail about him. To begin with, he is introduced as a “he-goat,” which is an exceptionally fierce and powerful animal.

Moreover, this fierce protagonist seems to have world-wide pretensions to conquer “the surface of all the earth [Dan 8:5b].” That this regime fancies itself an empire-builder is clear. Moreover, as with the ram, so with the he-goat, “the horror of human evil is especially concentrated in the state.”97 And, as we have pointed out, the overlap in violent tactics between these beasts/regimes demonstrates that no one particular state is necessarily in view, rather Daniel is alerting us to the kinds of tyrannies that will arise in the future.

Additionally, the author of Dan 8:5b uses hyperbole to underline the exceptionally rapid advances this he-goat/Greece makes; the implication is that this he-goat rapidly overcomes his opposition, moving forward quite easily. Concerning the ram in the previous paragraph, Isaiah represents Cyrus moving just as rapidly and just as unhinderedly. The point is made, once more,

95 BDB, 470-71. 96 H. Ringgren, “,” in TDOT, vol. VII, 123. 97 Longman, 208.

23


that most of these various beasts/regimes mimic each other in their modus operandi. Similarly, military supremacy is not permanent, as Cyrus now finds out, compliments of Greece.

Also, this he-goat is identified as having a “conspicuous horn” between his eyes. This “conspicuous horn” is shorthand for conspicuous power. Now, since Dan 8:21 specifically identifies this he-goat as Greece, we are permitted to affirm that the one Grecian general that fills the bill descriptively is Alexander the Great. Most commentaries and some Bible footnotes so identify the he-goat as Alexander and this is permissible, with a caveat: Alexander the Great was not the first, nor the last, military-political conqueror who entertained world-wide ambitions, backed with the power to make the attempt. Alexander is a brief case study in Daniel 8; but, the reader should not assume that he or she is finished with men like Alexander; he has had many successors.

Dan 8:6 introduces us to the aggression of this Grecian empire-builder. Evidently, Greece wastes little time storming Persia. Charged denotes haste and swiftness; that is, rapid, purposeful forward motion with an urgent motivation (‘run, hasten, charge’). When we turn to Dan 8:7, the nature of this assault will be more fully teased out.

Finally, the author of Dan 8:6 underlines a major factor in this regime’s modus operandi: he advances “in his powerful rage.” As we noted, the lexeme “powerful” denotes efficient, effectiveness, adeptness, productivity; the “rage” is not haphazard, disorganized, or chaotic. Rather, this regime is adept, even expert, at deadly rage, possible including atrocities.

Dan 8:7 – “That is, I saw him charging toward the ram, then he showed his fury toward him, and so, he butted the ram, and smashed into fragments his two horns, indeed, the ram did not have the strength to stand against him; then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him, while there was none who could deliver the ram from his power.”

This verse is sufficiently complex to benefit from a syntactical outline:

8:7a – (1) First event: That is, I saw him charging toward the ram,

(2) Second event: then, he showed his fury toward him,

Logical consequence: and so, he butted the ram

(3) Third event: and smashed into fragments his two horns

Offline comment: indeed, the ram did not have the strength to stand against him

8:7b – (4) Fourth event: then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him

Offline comment: while there was none who could deliver the ram from his power

The reader will observe that there is a progression here with the climax coming in the third and fourth events, confirmed by their more complex structures.

24


First event: That is, I saw him charging toward the ram [Dan 8:7a1]. The English versions translate “charging toward” differently. Some prefer a variant of the more wooden translation: “come beside of;” others go with “attack,” “come close to,” or “confront.”

Charging toward [ (preposition) (Hiphil, ptc, ms, sg)] is a participial clause. The participle functions as a verb in this clause; accordingly, the participle indicates ongoing action in the context of the vision;98 the ram “was charging towards.” This verb-preposition combination appears only here in the Hebrew Bible. There is a punctuation mark after /charging, indicating a slight pause; the sentence reads: “I saw him charging (pause) toward the ram.”

Second event: Then, he showed his fury toward him [Dan 8:7a2]. The main verb is [Hithpalpel, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms]. The syntactical function of the waw consecutive imperfect is to signal chronological succession following the first event.99 The verb is written in the Hithpalpel stem, which is derived from the Hithpael stem.100 The nuance of the stem is probably an estimative-declarative reflexive, which means that the he-goat presented himself in a state of fury.101 The net effect is that the approach of this military colossus made quite a display of fury and terror.

Show fury [] is a verb found among a semantic field of terms for affliction or oppression.102 This verb, , is used with three ranges of meaning in the Qal: [1] to be bitter, in an emotional sense, [2] to be embittered in the sense of despairing, and [3] to taste bitter, as in strong drink. In sense 2, despairing seems to be a figurative extension of being embittered. The major point is the usage of in the Qal generally denotes either an emotional event or an event associated with bitter taste.

Show fury [] in the Piel stem communicates the causation of a state experienced by the subject; there seems to be two ranges of meaning, depending on context: [1] to become embittered, and [2] to act in a state of bitterness (Genesis 49:23 – to attack bitterly – in a military context).

Show fury [] in the Hiphil denotes causing an event that has the character of causing bitterness or grief.

Show fury [] in the Hithpalpel stem is, as we have noted, estimative/declarative/reflexive, which means to show oneself in a state as indicated by the verbal root. In this case, the range of meaning is to become furious or to show fury.

To summarize what we have learned, it seems that the usage of has a fairly stable sense of emotional involvement in the various stems and ranges of meaning within these stems. In terms of the Hithpalpel in Dan 8:7, the emotional surfaces in the violence or the fury of the attack of the ram by the he-goat. Accordingly, Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 8:7 with “to become furious.”103 BDB opts for “be enraged.”104 Slotki goes with “moved with choler

98 Van der Merwe § 20.3. 99 IBHS 33.2.1a. 100 Ibid., 26.1.1c. 101 Ibid., 26.2.f; see also J-M § 53 i. 102 See “Affliction, oppression” in NIDOTTE. 103 KB1, 638; similarly, Holladay, 216. 104 BDB, 600.

25


(bitterness/anger).”105 The Old Greek translation uses for , a Greek verb that means “to become angry” in the passive voice.106 Quite interestingly, Theodotion uses for , a Greek verb that means, in Dan 8:7, “to become savage.”107 This sense admirably fits the context.

And so, he butted the ram [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms] is the logical outcome of the savage fury with which the he-goat attacks the ram.

Butted [] is from a semantic field of terms for beating, crushing, and grinding.108 The verb appears 502 times in the OT, with 483 of them in the Hiphil stem, which we have in Dan 8:7. Accordingly, the ranges of meaning of in the Hiphil include: [1] to strike, beat, beat down (a) a person, as an act of violence, (b) thrust, (c) pin someone, (d) clap hands, (e) play, (f) strike roots, of a plant, (g) penetrate, of roots; [2] to strike fatally, kill (a) manslaughter, (b) in an act of vengeance or punishment, (c) in warfare or conquest; [3] to attack, defeat, rout, destroy, subdue; [4] to strike someone (a) with a plague, (b) causing an outbreak of tumors, (c) strike the land; and [5] of Yahweh (a) to strike in punishment, (b) to strike for correction.109 Of these, option [1] seems to fit the context the best in Dan 8:7. Beyond this, Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 8:7 with “strike, pierce, butt.”110 The net effect is that in Dan 8:7 points to an intentional act of violence in the form of the he-goat striking the ram.

Third event: smashed into fragments its two horns [ (Piel, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms)]. The syntactical function of this sentence is to continue the narrative with the next key event in the sequence.111

Smash [] is found within a semantic field of terms for shattering, breaking, destroying112 and occurs 148 times in the OT, with 36 of these in the Piel stem. Accordingly, we note the following ranges of meaning for in the Piel: [1] to shatter (a) by throwing to the ground, (b) to tear down completely, (c) of Yahweh, to break weapons; [2] to break or crush, [3] to shatter or tear apart as an act of nature, and [4] of Yahweh to cause to be wrecked.113 Furthermore, the sense of in the Piel is resultative; that is, the Piel stem signals that “breaking/smashing” is a state that is brought about by the actor, the he-goat in this case, as an end result.114 Accordingly, suggests that the state of shattering or smashing into fragments115 the two horns is completed, as an end result.

Horns [] is a symbol of power;116 thus, the ram’s heretofore unassailable power is utterly shattered to pieces. There is a pattern in history: great and powerful nations meet their Waterloo at the hands of other great and powerful nations. This pattern seems to put into perspective the very modern tendency for nations to place unquestioned trust in military-political power.

105 Slotki, 66. 106 BAGD, 365. 107 LSJ, 580. 108 See “Beating, crushing, grinding” in NIDOTTE. 109 CDCH, 273. 110 KB1, 698; similarly, BDB, 645; see also Holladay, 238. 111 IBHS 33.2.1a. 112 See “Shattering, breaking, destroying” in NIDOTTE. 113 CDCH, 447. 114 IBHS 24.3b,d. 115 KB2, 1404. 116 See the notes above on Dan 8:3, p. 11.

26


Offline comment: the ram did not have the strength to stand against him [ ]. The syntactical function of this sentence is signaled by the disjunctive waw [] prefixed to the negative particle []; this circumstantial clause provides background information relative to the preceding line.117 Now, the grammatical form of the sentence is a bit different from the translation above; literally, the sentence reads: there was no strength in/with the ram to stand against him. The upshot is that the ram did not have the strength [] to resist [ ] the he-goat.

Strength to stand against [ ] is the operative phrase in the line. The term “strength” [] is clarified by “stand against” [ ]. The lexeme /“strength” has the following ranges of meaning: [1] strength (a) human, (b) human ability, (c) power of a king or nation, (d) power/might of Yahweh or angels; [2] produce of the ground; and [3] wealth.118 Now, in the vision as observed, the referent of /“strength” is the ram; hence, the first option is probably the best. This means that /“strength” denotes the abstract quality of strength or power, more specifically “to stand against [ ].

The collocation [“stand before”] appears nine times in the OT,119 with the following ranges of meaning: [1] to physically stand in the presence of someone; [2] to stand before in order to serve or minister; [3] to stand so as to resist or hold one’s ground; [4] to stand so as to present oneself before Yahweh; and [5] to stand in the sense of representing the interests of someone before another. Clearly, in Dan 8:7, meaning [3] pertains; the upshot is that the ram’s strength is insufficient to allow him to resist or stand his ground against the he-goat. As a comparative matter, the force and might of the he-goat overwhelm that of the ram. Ironically, the same observation was made, once upon a time, of the ram in Dan 8:4a; that is, “No beast could stand before [ ] him.” As Joyce Baldwin notes, “great power, resulting in self-importance, invites a great reversal.”120

Fourth event: then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him [ ]. The syntactical function of this sentence is to present the reader with the next key event in the sequence of events.121 This sentence communicates the he-goat’s aggression toward the ram. “Throwing to the ground” in the vision is preparatory to “trampling” the ram.

Trample [] is from a semantic field of terms for trampling, treading, subjugation.122 The verb appears nineteen times in the OT, with 18 in the Qal stem and 1 in the Niphal stem. The ranges of meaning for the Qal include: [1] humans trampling: (a) another human, (b) the life of another human in a figure of death, (c) a wild animal in a figure of victory, (d) the divine court in a figure of disrespect, (e) a city in a figure of judgment, (f) clay, and (g) as a figure of oppressors; [2] animals trampling with the feet; and [3] Yahweh tramples in His wrath ().

117 Gibson § 135. 118 CDCH, 174. 119 Exodus 9:11; Numbers 16:9; Deuteronomy 10:8; Judges 2:14; 1 Samuel 6:20; 2

Chronicles 29:11; Ezra 9:15; Jeremiah 40:10. 120 Baldwin, 156. 121 See Van der Merwe § 21.2.1 (ii). 122 See “Trampling, treading, subjugation” in NIDOTTE.

27


Trample [] is clearly the event of an animal “trampling with its feet.”123 E.-J. Waschke affirms that in Dan 8:7, there is a sense of an invulnerable animal124 dragging its prey to death. Slotki reads as an act of a predator that “was not satisfied until he had utterly completed its (the ram’s) destruction.”125 S.R. Driver sees a connotation of “contempt” in the action.126

Offline remark/attendant circumstance: while there was none who could deliver the ram from his power [ ]. This sentence is introduced by a disjunctive waw [] on the first word of the line, indicating an offline, circumstantial sentence that provides background material to the storyline.127 The circumstances in which the ram now finds himself precisely mirror the circumstances of the ram’s adversaries when the ram had the power [see the notes on Dan 8:4a]. The point in all of this is that, whether it is Medo-Persia or Greece, rogue nations follow similar paths; there are patterns in history: retention of power on the world-stage is an illusion.

Summary.

Dan 8:7 extols the violence with which the he-goat attacks the ram; words for violent attack abound in the verse: “show fury,” “butted,” “smashed into fragments,” “threw to the ground,” and “trampled him.” What is more, as a corollary, Dan 8:7 underscores the ram’s powerlessness before the violent onslaught of the he-goat: “did not have strength to stand against him,” while “none could deliver from his power.” Accordingly, the verse underlines the fact that, provisionally at least, nations do prevail by might; but, the operative term is “provisionally.” The ram learns that his once invincible hold on power [Dan 8:4] is tentative; “some call upon chariots, some call upon horses [Ps 20:7],” ultimately to no avail.

Violence is the theme that carries the verse. There is “charging” in the sense of confrontation; there is the “display of fury” and the “butting” of the ram in the sense of striking violently; there is “smashing” in the sense of shattering into fragments; and there is “trampling,” with denotations of complete destruction and connotations of contempt for the enemy.

Naturally, powerlessness is the subtext. The ram was unable “to stand against” his attacker; that is, the ram was helpless to hold his ground before a superior force. Not only was the ram, Medo-Persia, internally defenseless, externally there were no allies to rescue the nation from the Grecian onslaught: “none could deliver from his power.”

Dan 8:8 – “So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered, and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it, toward the four winds of heaven.”

It is useful to outline the syntactical flow of this verse:

8:8a – (1) First event (attendant circumstance of 8:7): So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly;

123 KB2, 1245. 124 E.-J. Waschke, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIII, 511. 125 Slotki, 66. 126 Driver, Daniel, 114. 127 IBHS 39.2.3b; Gibson § 135, 137.

28


8:8b – (2) Second event (contrast): but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered,

(3) Third event (next even in sequence): and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it,

(spatial locater): toward the four winds of heaven

If, as we have noted above [see notes on page 21], this Grecian leader [Dan 8:21] is Alexander the Great, then the remarkable thing about Dan 8:5-8b is that eight years of Alexandrian history are summarized in four verses. The author, Daniel, seems to be a bit dismissive of what, arguably, was one of the world’s great political-military masterminds. Moreover, the author intends to hasten on to Dan 8:9, where a single horn will dominate the remainder of the paragraph.

As we have noted repeatedly, one must not over-interpret Dan 8:7 by restricting the referent exclusively to Alexander the Great. Indeed, even in Daniel 8, other leaders have “magnified themselves” [the ram in Dan 8:4], and other leaders have also subsequently “been shattered [again, the ram in Dan 8:7a]; while Alexander the Great is one instantiation of this pattern, he has predecessors and successors.

First event: he magnified himself exceedingly [ (Hiphil, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a clause that is essentially unique in Daniel. That is, while is used elsewhere in Daniel of leaders that “magnify themselves,” this is the only occurrence of the verb with the modifier “exceedingly.” Indeed, this is the only occurrence of this collocation [ /magnify exceedingly] in the entire Hebrew Bible.

Magnify himself [] has been dealt with above [see pages 15-16]; to recap, the Hiphil of means “to act boastfully; to make oneself great,” especially “to prove oneself to be great actually and effectively.”128 In this context, referring to a man like Alexander the Great, the reader may consider that has more the sense of a man who actually proves to be an exceptional leader and military strategist; in other words, it seems as if there is far more of consequence and substance to the man and his accomplishments than mere bravado.

Alexander the Great [356-323 BC] was indeed a remarkable man. At age thirteen, Alexander “became a pupil of the famous philosopher Aristotle, from whom he acquired an insatiable thirst for knowledge.”129 After growing to manhood, “he made himself master of an enormous empire, stretching from Macedonia in the west to India in the east, from Armenia and Bactria in the north to Egypt and Arabia in the south.”130 Russell recounts the events recorded in Dan 8:7-8 thus:131

In 334 BC, with a force of 35,000 men, he crossed the Hellespont and entered Asia Minor. There, on the banks of the River Granicus, near the ancient city of Troy, he defeated the Persian army sent against him by Darius III. This success opened the way to the conquest of the whole of Asia Minor, for

128 R. Mosis, “,” in TDOT, vol. II, 404. 129 Russell, Jews from Alexander to Herod, 1. 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid., 3.

29


the defeated army was the only sizable Persian force in the whole area. Alexander had little difficulty in overrunning and ‘liberating’ one city after another. Occasionally, he met with opposition, as at Halicarnassus, which he burned to the ground; but for the most part, his march southwards and eastwards was unimpeded until he came to the borders of Syria. There at the ‘Cilician Gate’ near Issus he met Darius, who had mustered his armies to halt Alexander’s perilous advance (333 BC). Darius was routed and fled for his life, leaving behind members of his own family and certain prominent Greek emissaries who were taken captive, together with much booty.

This accentuated point of history has a message: it is unwise for the reader of Daniel to ignore the realities behind the very real power and terror, competence and ability, of these assorted beastly regimes. The forces that organize themselves against God and man are not complete idiots, and they ought not to be regarded as such; these adversaries of the human race as well as God and His people are often impressive and formidable, relentless and unyielding foes.

Second event: but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered [

]. This sentence is a contrastive sentence vis-à-vis Dan 8:8a; the contrast is implied by the success-failure antithesis implied in Dan 8:8a-b.132 Moreover, the front-loaded infinitive clause with the preposition highlights the key event prior to the subsequent fall from power.133

Became powerful [ (Qal, infinitive construct)] is from a root [] that is within a semantic field of terms for power and strength.134 The verb appears eighteen times in the Hebrew Bible and three times in Daniel [Dan 8:8, 24; 11:23]; most of the occurrences are in the Qal stem [17] with one Hiphil usage. The verb in the Qal has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to be powerful, and [2] to be countless.135

The fact of the matter is that there are ranges of power, and it might be instructive to consider the various ways in which Alexander the Great manifested his “power;” that is, he demonstrated social power and economic power.

To be sure, the Greek culture brought to prominence by Alexander the Great created enormous benefits. One might consider the social aspects of this beneficence. To begin with, Alexander the Great initiated a move toward “a homogeneous population, speaking or at least understanding the Greek Language and enjoying a common culture.”136 The upshot is a kind of unification of culture. Furthermore, there was the establishment of new cities.137 Some of these cities functioned as administrative centers, complete with “magistrates, a council, an assembly,

132 IBHS 39.2.3b. 133 Van der Merwe § 20.1.5; IBHS 36.2.2b; GKC § 114 d; Williams § 505. 134 See “Power, strength” in NIDOTTE. 135 KB1, 868. 136 C. Bradford Welles, Alexander and the Hellenistic World (Toronto: A. M. Hakkert

Ltd., 1970), 153. 137 Ibid., 154.

30


courts, and other typical institutions of the polis.”138 This is certainly using power, but using it in a constructive manner.

Beyond the social progress attached to the beneficence of Alexander the Great, there are the economic aspects as well. The Greek skills in shipping aided the expansion of markets, which, in turn, brought more products onto the market. Owing to the shipping capabilities of the Greeks, wheat, grains, papyrus, wool, linens, clothing, dyes, silk, vessels made of precious metals and glass; all made an appearance in Greek economic culture.139 Moreover, with the conquests of Alexander the Great, the culture experienced the creation of a monetary economy. That is, “there can be no doubt that Alexander’s conquests put into circulation vast quantities of silver (and gold too, though gold was never important as a monetary metal in antiquity) accumulated by Persian kings and now paid out or spent or given to favorites.”140 War is often “good” for the economy!

This brief foray into the more beneficent value of Alexander the Great’s power has a lesson to teach us: if, as we have been affirming, the fall of Alexander the Great in Dan 8:8b is ultimately owing to the sovereignty of God over the national and international political affairs of mankind, then the reader should note that even the greatness of one’s civilization is no firewall against the intervention of God by way of the removal of both leader and nation from the world scene. In other words, there is a warning here for those nations that fancy themselves advanced civilizations and benefactors to mankind: even the world’s great civilizations come under the judgment of God! There are patterns in history.

The great horn was shattered [ (Niphal, perfect, 3rd, fs)] is the crux of the second event in this sequence; indeed, there is a compelling subtlety here. To begin with, the verb is written in the Niphal stem, which means that the “great horn” is being acted upon by an agent, who is not specified.141 Fair enough; but there is something else: “the great horn was shattered” sounds like military language wherein the “great horn is shattered” in battle. Now, this is where the subtlety comes in: Alexander the Great did not die in battle; rather he died within ten days of taking a fever.142 Later, in Dan 8:25, yet another political-military leader is “shattered” [], but this time we have this: “but not by human hands.” One wonders: could Alexander the Great have been shattered, “but not by human hands”?

Third event: and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it, toward the four winds of heaven [ ]. As noted in the syntactical outline, there are two components in this sentence: the main even – “four conspicuous [horns] grew up” – and a spatial locater relative to the four horns – “toward the four winds of heaven.” We tackle each in turn.

Four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it [ ] is the third main event. The rationale for inserting “horns” into the Hebrew text [/horn does not appear in this line] is grammatical. That is, the prepositional phrase – “after it” – is written with a 3rd, feminine, singular suffix [“it”]; and “horn” [] is also feminine; hence, we may insert “horns” into the line. What is more, the full phrase – “conspicuous horn [ ] – is used in Dan 8:5 of the he-goat. In Dan 8:5, “conspicuous” denotes the quality of the consequentialness of this regime’s, Alexander’s, power.

138 Ibid., 157. 139 Ibid., 167-68.140 Ibid., 173.

141 IBHS 23.2.2. 142 Russell, The Jews from Alexander to Herod, 7.

31


As a matter of historical fact, upon the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his single regime was divided among four of his generals. Macedonia was parceled out to Cassander; Asia Minor to Lysimachus; Syria to Seleucus; and Egypt to Ptolemy. Read with these four generals in mind, the drift of this sentence is that these four engaged in a power-grab at an opportune moment. Indeed, this is the reading attached to this line by most commentators.

At the same time, the reader might weigh and consider the following in addition to the above: these four are characteristic of a pattern in history; that is, a great nation falls and the remnants are the victims of a seizure of power. Alexander’s kingdom was not the first nor would it be the last to fall and then be divided into smaller political entities.

Toward the four winds of heaven [ ] is a figure of speech suggesting fragmentation of a once united and powerful empire under a single, dominant, leader.

Summary

Dan 8:8 is an exceptionally brief account of an exceptional empire in world history. On the surface of the text, the verse refers to Alexander the Great.

For openers, the verse affirms that this leader, Alexander the Great, “magnified himself.” In essence, this tells us that this leader showed himself to be an exceptionally gifted leader. The reader should note that principals on the world stage are quite often superbly talented men or women. The reader of Daniel should avoid underestimating the kinds of rulers, even the violent ones, who appear in the book.

Moreover, the verse tells us that power is fleeting; even the most gifted and successful of leaders may be undercut. In this case, the above ruler’s “horn was shattered.” In addition, there are indications that Dan 2:21 is in operation here [Yahweh deposes kings and He appoints them]. In the case of Alexander the Great, he did not die in battle but succumbed to a fever ten days after contracting it.

Finally, the single horn/kingdom fragments into four parts; “four conspicuous horns grew up after it toward the four winds of heaven.”

The brevity of this verse is understandable; that is, the author is about to turn to the focal character in the paragraph [Dan 8:5-12]; to this end, Dan 8:5-8 sets up the appearance of this most rapacious player on the regional scene.

Dan 8:9-12 – “While from one of them, another horn came up from insignificance; then he grew exceedingly powerful toward the south and the east, and toward the magnificent. And he grew important, even as far as the host of heaven; and so, he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars, and he crushed them to pieces. Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself; for, from him, the daily offering was removed, and so, his sanctuary place was discarded. That is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice with iniquity; and so, it will cast truth to the ground, thus, he acted successfully.”

32


I have placed the remainder of the paragraph together, since it is best understood as a unified field of thought. The subject of this section of the paragraph [Dan 8:9-12] is the single horn that emerges from the four conspicuous horns in Dan 8:9b. This section of the paragraph [Dan 8:9-12] details the aggression and the desecration of this single horn.

The commentators identify this single horn as Antiochus Epiphanes [175-164 BC].143 Indeed, it appears that Antiochus Epiphanes will become a referent of Daniel’s prophecy in Dan 8:23-25, and especially in Dan 11:21-45. While the Guide accepts this identification as factual, we doubt that Antiochus was the last ruler to pursue the twin goals of aggression and desecration. We propose that Daniel has a wider objective in mind: to alert the reader to the fact that human governance, in its more vicious and atheistic forms will combat and seek to eliminate God, the people of God, and the interests of God from human consideration.

This section of the paragraph is so important and so complex that an outline of the unit is warranted:

8:9a – Background information: “While from one of them,”

(1) First event: “another horn came up from insignificance;”

8:9b - (2) Second event: “he grew exceedingly powerful”

Spatial locater: “toward the south and the east and toward the magnificent”

8:10a - (3) Third event: “he grew important,”

Spatial locater: “even as far as the host of heaven;”

8:10b - (4) Fourth event (next event in sequence): “he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars,

(5) Fifth event (explanatory of 8:10b): “he crushed them to pieces.”

8:11a - (6) Sixth event (clarification of 8:10): “even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself;”

8:11b - (7) Seventh event (clarification of 8:11a): “for, from Him, the daily offering was removed,”

Summary statement (of 8:10a-11b): “and so His sanctuary place was discarded.”

8:12a - (8) Eighth event (clarification of 8:11): “that is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice with iniquity;”

8:12b - (9) Ninth event (first consequence of 8:10-11): “and so, it will cast truth to the ground,”

143 Young, 170; Slotki, 66; Driver, Daniel, 115; Russell, Daniel, 143; Goldingay, 209; Montgomery, 333; Collins, Daniel, 331; Keil, Daniel, 295.

33


(10) Tenth event (second consequence of 8:10-11): “he acted successfully.”

Dan 8:9 – “While from one of them, another horn came up from insignificance; then he grew exceedingly powerful toward the south and the east and toward the magnificent.”

While from one of them [ ] is a circumstantial clause, offering an attendant circumstance, or, what amounts to the same thing, a piece of background information on this single horn’s origin.144 Ultimately, the origin of this single horn is traced back to the “four conspicuous [horns]” in Dan 8:8b.

At a specific level, “while from one of them” probably refers to the Alexandrian general Seleucus who, after the death of Alexander the Great, become regent over Syria. Indeed, we noted above that the four Alexandrian generals probably engaged in a power grab as the Alexandrian empire was divided in four pieces. Dan 8:9 picks up the story with Antiochus Epiphanes’ ascent to power.

E.R. Bevan recites the path to the throne of Syria taken by Antiochus Epiphanes. First, the Syrian regent, Seleucus “was assassinated in 175 BC by his chief minister Heliodorus.”145 The assassination of the rightful ruler left three legitimate heirs to the throne: “the elder son of Seleucus, the boy Demetrius, detained as a hostage in Rome; there was a younger son, Antiochus, still a baby in Syria; and there was the late king’s brother, Antiochus, now probably about forty, living in Athens.”146

Second, it appears that the “plan of Heliodorus was apparently to proclaim the baby Antiochus as king, and rule himself in the child’s name.”147 Ultimately, as we shall see, this was the plan that Antiochus Epiphanes adopted.

Third, Antiochus had no military power with which to seize the throne by force, so he managed, for reasons that remain ambiguous, to forge an alliance of sorts with Eumenes II, the king of Pergamum.

Fourth, “when Antiochus appeared in Syria with a Pergamene force, the country soon rallied around him. Heliodorus probably had little support and disappeared.”148

Finally, it seems that not all of Syria supported Antiochus’ power grab; indeed, it looks as if many in Syria thought that either Demetrius or the baby Antiochus were the legitimate heirs to the throne. Bevan writes, “Our scrappy data indicate that it required a good deal of dexterity and intrigue on the part of Antiochus for him to establish his position in Syria, but that he did get the better of the opposing elements.”149 Ultimately, Antiochus “did not displace his nephew, the baby Antiochus, but assumed by his side the position of king-regent.”150

144 Williams § 322; IBHS 11.2.11b. 145 CAH, vol. VIII, 496. 146 Ibid., 497. 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid., 498. 150 Ibid.

34


However, this line need not be restricted to a specific referent, Antiochus Epiphanes, for the reader may glean a more general significance from the line. That is, Antiochus Epiphanes was not the first nor would he be the last political opportunist to make a grab for power when the opening presented itself. Antiochus’ ascent to power was marked by “a good deal of dexterity and intrigue;” in other words cunning, scheming, deception, deviousness, and more than likely no small degree of unscrupulousness. This small line, and the reality it denotes, is one of those lamentable patterns in political history.

With this picture of an ascent to power, we have the first event: “another horn came up from insignificance.”

From insignificance [ (preposition, , prefixed to adjective, fm, sg)] is a problematic prepositional phrase. The syntactical function of the phrase is to signal origin.151

Insignificance [] is an adjective found among a semantic field of terms for “little, trifle, insignificant.”152 When used as an adjective, /small means: [1] small or [2] insignificant, either socially or politically (depending on the context); when used as a noun, /small means: [3] an insignificant one (depending on context either socially, individually, or of a servant); [4] a small one (in size); and [4] young (as opposed to old); as well as [5] a little one, or a child.153

Given the context, a politician’s usurping a throne that is not his by right, the best sense of is insignificance. Perhaps the idea is that Antiochus’ rise to power may be described as “with insignificant or unpromising beginnings.”154 As E.J. Young puts it, “from small beginnings the horn grew to great power.”155 As an aside, this pattern – from insignificance to world power – shines forth with stunning clarity in the rise of Adolph Hitler to power in Germany in the last century. Here was an uneducated, unemployed, undisciplined, uncouth, uninspired political rabble-rouser with no experience of working in government whatsoever who would almost conquer the whole of Europe; from Antiochus to Adolph, there are patterns in history!156

151 For signaling origin, see Williams § 322. 152 See “Little, trifle, insignificant” in NIDOTTE. 153 CDCH, 382. 154 Most of the English translations have some form of “a little horn” or “a small horn.”

This translation follows the footnote in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which deletes the preposition [] and simply reads the adjective as a noun. The Guide is unwilling to change the text as written, hence, the difference in translation.

155 Young, 170. 156 One of this world’s great historians, Ian Kershaw, asks the pertinent question: “How

do we explain how someone with so few intellectual gifts and social attributes, someone no more than an empty vessel outside his political life, unapproachable and impenetrable even for those in his close company, incapable it seems of genuine friendship, without the background that bred high office, without even any experience of government before becoming Reich Chancellor, could nevertheless have such an immense historical impact, could make the entire world hold its breath?” [Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1889-1936 – Hubris (New York: Norton, 2000; paperback), xxiv] I bring that out in order to ask this: perhaps modern reader of Daniel 8:9 should begin to be alert to the pretenders to political power who display, at the beginning at least, little or no promise of becoming politically dominant.

35


Second event: “he grew exceedingly powerful [ (Qal, waw consecutive, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)].” The syntactical function of the waw consecutive imperfect in Dan 8:9b is to trace chronologically and sequentially the thread in the storyline.157

The collocation – “grow exceedingly powerful [ ]” – appears only in Dan 8:9b in the Hebrew Bible. The addition of the particle “exceedingly” [] is surely to contrast the exceptional outcome with the unexceptional beginning. How does this happen? As noted above, one exemplar of this pattern, Antiochus Epiphanes, did eventually enjoy the support of Syrian society; in other words, this tyrant, and others like him since, does not become exceptionally powerful without exceptional support, voluntary or otherwise, from their people.

He grew [] is written in the Qal stem; in the Qal stem, is a stative verb, essentially describing an attribute of this regime.158 Basically, a stative verb “is one that describes a circumstance or state, whether external and physical, or psychological, or perceptual.”159 With all of that, the ranges of meaning of in the Qal are: [1] to grow up or become strong, [2] to be great, [3] to become great or wealthy, and [4] to be great or important.160

Owing to the contextual emphasis on the beginning of this regime in Dan 8:9a, the best option for in Dan 8:9b is to become great or strong. The Guide attempts to capture this nascence with “he grew exceedingly powerful.” R. Mosis affirms that in the Qal in Dan 8:9b denotes “a great power that arbitrarily, unlawfully, and presumptuously demands recognition, and is successful in gaining superiority over others.”161

Toward the south and the east [ ] are, at the very least, compass points. Taken in general, these compass points suggest expansionism; in other words, this regime is successful in gaining military-political authority over a fairly widespread geographical area. This regime, characterized by the small horn [Dan 8:9a], is intent on empire-building. The reader is advised to keep this general perspective in mind, since the spirit of imperialism has not been confined to the 6th -2nd centuries BC. Now, to the extent that one particular exemplar of this expansionism is Antiochus Epiphanes, then “the south” refers to Egypt and “the east” refers to Elymais, east of Babylon.162

As far as the Egyptian campaign goes, evidently, there were two such campaigns, one in 169 B.C., and another a year later in 168 BC.163 The first campaign was a success; the second was marked by Antiochus’ rebuff by Rome. The campaign in the east is a bit fuzzy as far as the details go; as Russell notes, “Little is known about this Parthian campaign, in which, apparently, Antiochus won a number of victories before dying, it is said, of consumption in 163 B.C. (cf. 1 Macc. 6:1-16).”164 Apparently, in terms of the great power of Antiochus Epiphanes, there are limits to and reversals in expansionism. This is yet another broad-spectrum perspective the reader should keep in mind.

157 IBHS 33.2.1a. 158 J-M § 41 b, f. 159 IBHS 22.2.1c. 160 KB1, 179. 161 R. Mosis, “,” in TDOT, vol. II, 402. 162 Driver, Daniel, 115; Slotki, 67; Montgomery, 333. 163 Russell, The Jews form Alexander to Herod, 33. 164 Ibid., 34.

36


Toward the magnificent [] is another direction of colonialism. The noun [] appears 18 times in the Hebrew Bible, four of them in Daniel [Dan 8:9; 11:16, 41, 45]. Since the noun is used in parallel with the two previous directional/geographical references, we may assume a similar directional/geographical use here. Furthermore, the use of with an article [] is used five times in the Hebrew Bible [Deuteronomy 12:22; 2 Samuel 1:19; Daniel 8:9; 11:16, 41]. The 2 Samuel reference is specified as a reference to Israel. The last two uses in Daniel are found in a genitive relation: “in the beautiful land [ ].”

is found within a semantic field of terms for glory, honor, and majesty.165 The noun has shades of meaning: [1] ornament/decoration, [2] splendor, [3] glory, [4] magnificence.166 The noun is used of directional/geographical references eleven times in the Hebrew Bible.167 The usages of with the article and referring to a location all occur in Daniel [Dan 8:9; 11:16, 41].

does have ancient Near Eastern cognates. The Akkadian cognate [tsibtu] means “wish, need, intention, purpose;” the Syriac cognate [tsebt] means “will, thing]; another Syriac cognate [tsebyn] means “favor, delightfulness.”168 Finally, there may be a Ugaritic root [tsb] that means to “covet or to desire;” leading Collins to propose that has some such sense as “object of desire.” The net effect is that has a geographical location as its referent, probably Israel, yielding the sense “the magnificent (land).”

Summary

Dan 8:9 opens the crux of the paragraph; the flow of the paragraph has been building up to this player on the Grecian scene. The theme of Dan 8:9 is this leader’s emergence from “insignificance []” to exceptional regional power [].

The beginning of this regime was inauspicious, to say the least. “Insignificance” means that he came on the regional scene with unpromising beginnings. In a general sense, then, the reader is informed or reminded that an inconsequential leader may not remain not worth mentioning. Moreover, if, as we noted above, one of the examples of this kind of leader is Antiochus Epiphanes, then his ascendency to the throne that was not his by right also denotes his “insignificance.”

The regime hit the ground running; the would-be empire builder consolidated his power and then embarked on his expansionistic agenda. The sense of “he grew exceedingly powerful” is that this regime became a great power that successfully gained superiority over others in the region.

Finally, this regime was expansionistic, just like all of the other regimes in Daniel 7-8, and antagonistic. The two compass points, “east and south,” underline this regime’s empire-building proclivities. Then, the muted reference to Israel, “the magnificent (land),” hints at the antagonism between the regime and the interests of God, which will be unpacked later in the paragraph [Dan 8:10-12].

165 See “Glory, honor, majesty” in NIDOTTE. 166 KB2, 998. 167 Isaiah 13:19 [clearly Babylon]; 28:1 [clearly Samaria], 4 [Samaria]; Jeremiah 3:19

[Israel]; Ezekiel 20:6 [Promised land], 15 [Promised land]; 25:9 [clearly Moab]; Daniel 8:9; 11:16, 41, 45 [clearly Holy Mountain/Jerusalem].

168 KB2, 998.

37


Dan 8:10 – “And he grew important, even as far as the host of heaven; and so, he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the some of the stars, and he crushed them to pieces.”

We may depict the syntactical organization of Dan 8:10 this way:

8:10a - (3) Third event: “he grew important,”

Spatial locater: “even as far as the host of heaven;”

8:10b - (4) Fourth event (next event in sequence): “(furthermore) he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars,

(5) Fifth event (explanation of 8:10b): “(that is) he crushed them to pieces.”

The third event: “he grew important, even as far as the host of heaven” [ (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, fs)]. The syntactical function of this sentence is to trace the progression of the thread of the discourse;169 the author moves the storyline further to depict this regime’s attempt to place itself on an equal footing with God.

He grew important [] is the same verb we had in Dan 8:9 [“he grew exceedingly powerful”]; the sense is pretty much the same – to presumptuously demand recognition and successfully gain superiority – this time in a heavenly direction. This verb is used in the Hiphil stem of nations that sought to magnify themselves over Yahweh [Psalm 35:26; Jeremiah 48:26, 42; Ezekiel 35:13; Daniel 8:25].

Even as far as the host of heaven [ ] is a spatial locater, plotting the direction of this heavenly expansionism. “As far as the host of heaven” is a prepositional phrase. The preposition used here, , marks spatial positioning, “a point up to which a movement occurs.”170 In other words, the direction of this regime’s magnificent recognition is aimed at God.

The host of heaven [ ] is a genitive phrase that appears sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible.171 The phrase is used in two ways: [1] heavenly bodies, especially the stars, and [2] the heavenly entourage of Yahweh.172 When is used of heavenly bodies, the following connections are made: [1] the refers to the heavenly bodies and is an object of forbidden worship/idolatry,173 [2] the refers to the heavenly bodies and is a metaphor for what is beyond counting,174 [3] the refers to the heavenly bodies as a comprehensive designation of the universe.175 Then, the refers to Yahweh and His heavenly consorts.176

169 Van der Merwe § 21.2.1 (ii). 170 Ibid., § 39.18. 171 Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; 2 Chronicles

18:18; 33:3, 5; Isaiah 34:4; Jeremiah 8:3; 19:13; 33:22; Daniel 8:10. 172 KB2, 995. 173 Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; Jeremiah 8:12; 19:13. 174 Jeremiah 33:22. 175 Isaiah 34:4. 176 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18.

38


The host of heaven [ ] as used in the Hebrew Bible in the second sense above, “the heavenly entourage of Yahweh,” points in Dan 8:10a to the regime’s arrogant assault upon God. Baldwin writes in this regard that this regime [and its leader] “is claiming equality with God.”177 Montgomery, citing the phrase’s reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, notes that this is an example of “God-defying arrogance.”178 In a nutshell, then, the “importance” of this regime and its leader grows well beyond the merely human plane; rather, this is a man and a regime that intend to replace the heavenly entourage of God with the mighty entourage of a human, man-made, political-military powerhouse.

Most commentators, and some Bible footnotes, mention Antiochus Epiphanes as the referent in Dan 8:10a. As we have argued previously, Antiochus is a single instance of a much more recurrent phenomenon. Having said that, it is the case that Antiochus Epiphanes is indeed a referent for “he grew important, as far as the host of heaven.” To be sure, his name, “Epiphanes,” means “God present.” What is more, not only does Antiochus defy the God of heaven in Dan 8:10, he also defies pagan deities of his own culture [Dan 11:37]. Beyond a doubt, this man, indeed this kind of leader, is intent on elbowing any kind of deity out of the way and consigning influence only to himself.

Fourth event: “and so, he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)].” The syntactical function of this line is epexegetical, that is the major fact is presented first, 8:10a, and then 8:10b fills in a detail.179 Hence, we translate, “furthermore, he threw to the ground.”

Some of the host and some of the stars [ ] is a tricky proposition.

For openers, the partitive use of the preposition translated “some” [] indicates an attack on part of a greater whole.180 The partitive use of the preposition suggests some selectivity on the part of this leader’s attack on the host and the stars. Fair enough; but just what are “the host” and “the stars.” Whatever they are, we would expect some overlap in meaning since both are part of the selection process, and both he “threw to the ground.”

Host [] has the following ranges of meaning: [1] military service, [2] military men, troops, [3] an assembly, group, [4] heavenly bodies, stars, [5] the heavenly entourage of Yahweh, [6] service in the cult, and [7] compulsory labor.181

Stars [] have two ranges of meaning in the Hebrew Bible: [1] the stars of the sky, the constellations,182 and [2] various personified uses.183 Obviously, then, / overlap in the sense of heavenly bodies, stars, or constellations. The question is: is there any further overlap between the two terms within this specific range of meaning?

177 Baldwin, 137. 178 Montgomery, 334. 179 IBHS 33.2.2a; Gibson § 78; Van der Merwe § 21.2.3 (ii).

180 For this use of the preposition, see IBHS 11.2.11e; Gibson § 118; Van der Merwe § [indicates part of a greater whole].

181 KB2, 995; see also CDCH, 373. 182 Genesis 1:16; 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; 37:9; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 1:10; 4:19; 13:22;

28:62; 1 Chronicles 27:23; Nehemiah 4:5; 9:23; Job 3:9; 9:7; 22:12; 25:5; 38:7; Psalm 8:3; 136:9; 147:4; Ecclesiastes 12:2; Isaiah 13:10; 14:13; 47:13; Jeremiah 31:35; Ezekiel 32:7; Daniel 8:10; 12:3; Joel 2:10; 4:15; Obadiah 1:4; Nahum 3:16.

183 Numbers 24:17; Judges 5:20; Psalm 148:3; Amos 5:26.

39


It turns out that both and share a common usage: both are objects of worship184 and both are used in that sense in Deuteronomy 4:19. The upshot is that when Daniel reports that this leader “threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars,” the author is claiming that this regime not only sought to replace Yahweh [Dan 8:10a], he also sought to destroy the gods of the people.

In a general sense then, this kind of leader/regime intends to annul each and every form, divine or idolatrous, of transcendent commitment wherever he finds it among conquered peoples. The reader may consider the elimination of the transcendent as a prime objective of this kind of regime.

In a more specific sense, our old friend Antiochus Epiphanes did try to do just that. Montgomery reports that, indeed, Antiochus Epiphanes did endeavor to desecrate the temple of Nanaea in Elymais.185 George Foote Moore has written on the sacrilege of this pagan temple. Professor Moore writes concerning Antiochus, “He makes war, not only on kingdoms and nations, but on their religions, and actually overthrows some of their gods.”186 An account of this particular attempt to overthrow and plunder a pagan temple and deity is recorded by Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities:187

About the same time, King Antiochus, as he was entering the upper country, heard of a city in Persia of surpassing wealth, named Elymais, and that there was in it a rich temple of Artemis, which was full of all kinds of dedicatory offerings, as well as of arms and breastplates, which he had learned had been left behind by Alexander, the son of Philip, king of Macedon. And so, being excited by these reports, he set out for Elymais, and assaulted it and began a siege.

The upshot is that the reader may infer that some of the host, that is, some of the stars is a reference to the willingness of this leader to plunder even a pagan religion for his own purposes.

The reader is reminded, in a chapter largely devoted to the abuse of human political power, that any challenge to the supremacy of an arrogant and self-serving political leader must be destroyed. This includes the annihilation of any and all religious forces in the culture. What Antiochus Epiphanes did in order to bolster his own hold on power has had many successors. There are patterns in history.

184 For /host as an object of worship, see Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; for /star as an object of worship, see Deuteronomy 4:19; Isaiah 47:13; Amos 5:26.

185 Montgomery, 334.186 George Foote Moore, “Daniel 8:9-14,” The Journal of Biblical Literature 15 (1896),

194. 187 The Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV, translated by Ralph Marcus (Harvard: Harvard

University Press, 1966; reprint), 185.

40


He threw to the ground [ ] is what this regime does with the idolatrous objects of worship mentioned above. The verb is written in the Hiphil stem, which suggests the causation of an event,188 the initiative of this leader/regime to “throw to the ground []” these idols/gods.

When used in the Hiphil stem, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to cause to fall, to cause to drop, to cause to fall down, to cause to descend, to cause to collapse, to demolish; [2] to cause to bring down; [3] to cause to fall away, to cause to waste away; [4] to let fall (to the ground), to let fail; [5] to drop, abandon, [6] to give birth to; [7] to cast a stone; [8] to cast a lot; [9] to cause to fall upon; [10] to cause to fall before (supplication); [11] to cause someone to lie down; and [12] to debase, disgrace (oneself).189 Of these meanings, numbers [1] and [2] seem to be closest in sense in this context. Obviously, whichever sense is chosen, the question is: is the use of literal or non-literal?

If these words are taken literally, then Young’s remark is on point, “If one contemplates the details of casting down the stars and trampling upon them, the vision becomes extremely grotesque.”190

At the same time, a literal sense is found within the genre of myth. Collins explains that “casting down the stars” was a common motif, “The motif of knocking down the stars was known in the ancient eastern Mediterranean world apart from Daniel, and although we cannot identify a source from which Daniel might have adapted it, it is likely to have been a traditional motif [emphasis mine].”191 Now, this is not to say that Daniel is writing myth; rather, it is to say that he borrows a common motif from his environment to communicate a pagan reaching for the stars as a figure of replacing the deity. If this borrowing is what Daniel, as the author of this account, is doing, then sense [2] above fits best: to cause to bring down. The upshot is that we might translate: he displaced, he ousted, he supplanted, or he deposed some of the idols/gods [“host” and “stars”] used by the people whom he conquered. When leaders of this sort ascend to the throne, they brook no rivals, either earthly of heavenly.

Fifth event: and he crushed them to pieces [ (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is a sentence, that if nothing else, confirms the conclusion reached above. Once more, the waw consecutive imperfect is epexegetical, meaning that “and he crushed them to pieces” adds detail and color to “he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars.”192 The upshot is that this kind of leader, fronting for this kind of regime, utterly crushes any would-be pretender, including those from the divine realm, to his throne.

One interesting feature of “crushing [] is that “crushing” may reveal contempt for that which is trampled underfoot [Psalm 9:6; Isaiah 1:12; 26:6 (humiliation); 28:3; 63:13; Ezekiel 34:18].

Summary

The gist of Dan 8:10 is the characterization of this “small/insignificant horn” [Dan 8:9] as a leader epitomizing a regime that intends to replace the divine with his regime and his person in the lives of those peoples whom he subjugated [Dan 8:9]. Not only would his power be

188 IBHS 27.2b. 189 CDCH, 278-79. 190 Young, 171. 191 Collins, Daniel, 333. 192 See IBHS 33.2.2a; Gibson § 78; and Van der Merwe § 21.2.3 (ii).

41


consolidated terrestrially [Dan 8:9], it would also be fused spiritually around the leader and his regime [Dan 8:10].

The Dan 8:10 passage also reveals two motives that drive this kind of leader: hubris and contempt. In the first place, Daniel reports that this visionary regime “grew important.” At the time we noted that this leader and his regime presumptuously demanded recognition and successfully gained superiority – this time in a heavenly direction. The upshot is that haughtiness, self-importance, and self-conceit are the hallmarks of this kind of regime; it has no room for any authority above it, including God Himself.

Finally, Dan 8:10 depicts the contempt with which this leader and his regime look upon those around them, especially disdain for God. Disregard and aloofness are the marks of this sort of governance; there is neither respect for nor submission to God, His will, and His Word.

Dan 8:11-12 – “Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself; for, from him the daily offering was removed, and so his sanctuary place was discarded. That is, the host was given over along with the daily sacrifice with iniquity; and so, it will cast truth to the ground, thus he acted successfully.”

I have placed these two verses together, since Dan 8:12 clarifies the sense of Dan 8:11; we may outline the two verses thus:

8:11a - (6) Sixth event (clarification of 8:10a): “he magnified himself;”

(spatial locater) even as far as the prince of the host,

8:11b - (7) Seventh event (clarification of 8:11a): “for, from Him, the daily offering was removed,”

Summary statement (of 8:11a-b): “and so His sanctuary place was discarded.”

8:12a - (8) Eighth event (clarification of 8:11): “that is, the host was given over along with the daily sacrifice

(manner) with iniquity;

8:12b - (9) Ninth event (first consequence of 8:10-11): “and so, it will cast truth to the ground,”

(10) Tenth event (second consequence of 8:10-11): “thus, he acted successfully.”

Sixth event: “Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself” [ ] is a sentence that functions syntactically to clarify Dan 8:10a, the leader/regime’s penchant for displacing Yahweh.193 The clarification vis-à-vis Yahweh is warranted on the basis of the back reference in Dan 8:11a – [“magnified himself”] – to the same verb, – “he grew important” – in Dan 8:10a.

193 See Gibson §§ 135, 137.

42


Even as far as the prince of the host [ ] is a prepositional phrase that indicates a spatial goal: “even as far as the prince of the host.”194 The preposition suggests that the object of interest, the focus in this event is “the prince of the host.”

The prince of the host [] is shorthand for Yahweh. The noun, , has the following ranges of meaning: [1] a commander (of an army), [2] a national leader, ruler, official, [3] a royal domestic master, a courtier, steward, [4] a tribal chief, leader of a clan, [5] ruler of a district, provincial governor, [6] principle city governor, [7] a magistrate, arbiter, [8] religious leader, cultic overseer, [9] a notable (person), [10] a person of authority, an elder, [11] a warden, [12] a chief herdsman, [13] a taskmaster, [14] music master, [15] a leader of itinerants, [16] messianic ruler (Prince of Peace), [17] angelic prince, [18] Yahweh.195 That Yahweh is the referent of is supported by the use of this noun in Dan 8:25, where Yahweh is referred to as the , the “Prince of princes.” BDB reads as a reference to God.196 On all of this, Joyce Baldwin comments that “pride showed its ultimate goal in defying the Prince of both stars and monarchs, their Creator and God.”197

He magnified himself [] has been dealt with in Dan 8:9-10. Here in Dan 8:11 there is no small amount of hubris connoted in the term. The Hiphil stem of this verb implies that this leader set out to cause himself to be regarded as great among men, attempting to supersede the greatness of Yahweh.

As we shall note presently [Dan 8:11b-12], one of these proto-typical leaders is Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet, as we have repeatedly noted in the book of Daniel, these various exemplars of a specific leader are representative of the kinds of leaders and their pretensions that mark patterns in history. So it is here.

Accordingly, this head of state acts in such a way as to set in motion those processes that insure his preeminence [Dan 8:11b-12]. To be sure, this politician is aiming high, seeking to supplant the influence of God in the affairs of mankind. As Tremper Longman notes, “With the god-like pretensions of Antiochus, we also see how readily he can become a symbol [emphasis mine] for all those who in overweening pride seek to replace God on the throne of the universe.”198

To the extent that one can speak of the evil that government brings with it, such evil is certainly characterized by the government of a nation acting as if God did not exist. At the same time, such a condition does not continue apart from the consent of the governed.

Seventh event: “for from Him [the Prince of the host], the daily offering was removed [ ]” is introduced with a disjunctive waw [] prefixed to the first term in the sentence, thus identifying some attendant circumstance, or more exactly, a clarification of the steps the pretender took to insure his preeminence.199 Furthermore, “from him” is a prepositional phrase that uses a 3rd, person, masculine, singular suffix. The pronominal suffix – “him” – is a back reference to the masculine, singular noun – “Prince”.

194 For used to signal a goal, see BDB, 724; IBHS 11.2.12d. 195 CDCH, 440. 196 BDB, 978; similarly KB2, 1353. 197 Baldwin, 157. 198 Longman, 209. 199 For this use of the disjunctive waw, see IBHS 39.2.3b; Gibson § 137.

43


The daily offering was removed [ ] is one of the events by which this usurper of divine authority set out to ensure his preeminence.

The daily offering [] is a regularly occurring offering;200 furthermore, denotes “the daily burnt offering that was presented every evening and every morning in the post-exilic temple.”201 The practice recollects Exodus 29:42 and Numbers 28-29.

The Exodus passage will help us understand the purpose of the Tmd/daily offering. As noted the Tmd was a twice daily offering; a one year old lamb offered twice each day [Exodus 29:38]. One lamb was to be offered in the morning and the other in the evening [Exodus 29:39]. Flour, oil, and wine were also part of the offerings [Exodus 29:40]. Exodus 29:42 teases out the function of the Tmd for the worshipers: “where I shall let Myself be met [or “reveal Myself to you,” Niphal, imperfect, 1st, cs] to speak [ (Piel, infinitive construct)] with you there.” The same promise of the Divine Presence is made in Exodus 29:43. Commenting on the suspension of the Tmd in Daniel, Jacob Milgrom notes, “The unbroken continuity of the Tmd in the Temple was reassuring to Israel and its cessation a traumatic calamity (Dan 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11).”202

In Dan 8:11a, the pretender sought to supersede the supremacy of Yahweh; in this sentence [Dan 8:11b], the presumptuous seizure of Divine authority is clarified in terms of attempting to bar His Presence in the worship lives of His people. Russell summarizes the import of the Tmd this way: “its very continuity was a sacred symbol expressing the very soul of the people, except to the Jews it was much more besides. It was a visible expression of their religion and a sign of their unbreakable loyalty to their God [emphasis mine].”203

Was removed [ (Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the Hiphil stem but should be read in the Hophal stem. The Hophal represents the subject, the Tmd in this case, as the undergoer of a causative situation involving an event, removal in this case.204 The meaning of in the Hophal is: “to be lifted away, to be taken away,” or “to be skimmed off in the sense of to be selected.”205 Firmage, Milgrom, and Dahmen write concerning the Hophal of in Dan 8:11, “the meaning ‘lift, take,’ gave rise to the meaning ‘take away, remove.’”206

The upshot is this: “the daily offering was removed” meant that this regime made a concerted effort to eliminate the presence of God among His people by denying access to an age old liturgical practice. Evidently, there are regimes that emerge in the course of human history that are militantly opposed to God’s presence in the lives of citizens. Interrupting the daily services that celebrated His Presence would be a way of disrupting His sanctification of them and of suspending their consecration to Him. What this political leader intended to do, therefore, was to dissolve the communion between Yahweh and His people. There is an example at hand of this kind of desecration.

200 KB2, 1748. 201 Ibid. 202 W.F. Albright, D.N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible, Leviticus 1-16 by Jacob

Milgrom (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 457. 203 Russell, Daniel, 145. 204 IBHS 28.1b. 205 KB2, 1205. 206 E. Firmage, J. Milgrom, U. Dahmen, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIII, 407.

44


In 1 Maccabees 1, we read about a case of withdrawal of daily offerings by Antiochus Epiphanes. As we read, we can easily appreciate the political aim this man had in abolishing various forms of worship. We read from 1 Maccabees 1:41-46:

(1:41) Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, (1:42) and that all should give up their particular customs. (1:43) All of the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath. (1:44) And the king sent letters by messenger to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, (1:45) to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, (1:46) to defile the sanctuary and the priests.

1 Maccabees 1:41 makes the political aim clear: to unify the nation around a religious faith of this king’s choosing. Indeed, all of the Gentiles and many of the Jews adopted his religion. The point is that this example from the life of Antiochus Epiphanes gives the rationale for such deprivation among regimes that are threatened by citizens who believe in and diligently follow after God: politics!

Summary statement: and so, his sanctuary place was discarded [ (simple waw, Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a summary statement for Dan 8:11.207

His sanctuary place [ ] is a genitive construction. The genitive is probably an attributive genitive, communicating that the “place” is characterized by “His sanctuary.”208

Place [] is used in the construct form thirteen times in the Hebrew Bible to refer to: [1] the fixed abode of Yahweh, [2] the house of God, and [3] Mount Zion. In seven of these occurrences, /“place” is used in construct with /“dwelling” to refer to Yahweh’s fixed or established dwelling place in heaven.209 Additionally, is used once with a first person suffix to refer to Yahweh’s dwelling place.210 Finally, once is used in construct with /“sanctuary” to refer to the dwelling place of Yahweh.211 Twice, is used in construct with /“throne” to refer to the “support/foundation” of Yahweh’s throne,212 and once for the foundations of the earth.213 Once each, is used in the construct with a pronominal suffix to refer to the house of God,214 and Mount Zion.215 The upshot is that “His sanctuary place” [ ] refers to the sanctuary of God, or the Temple, the rebuilding of which would be completed about 515 BC.

207 For the simple waw prefixed to a perfect aspect verb used to signal a summary statement, see Gibson § 84 c.

208 IBHS 9.5.3a; GKC § 128 p; Gibson § 35 c. 209 1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chronicles 6:30, 33, 39; Psalm 33:14. 210 Isaiah 18:4. 211 Daniel 8:11. 212 Psalms 89:14; 97:2. 213 Psalm 104:5. 214 Ezra 2:68. 215 Isaiah 4:5.

45


Was discarded [ (Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is another Hophal stem that represents the subject, the “sanctuary place”/Temple in this case, as the undergoer of a causative situation involving an event, “violation.” Obviously, the sense of the line is that the insignificant horn discarded in some sense Yahweh’s sanctuary place.

Discard [] in the Hophal stem has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to physically throw an object, [2] to dispose of a corpse, [3] to be cast upon (as a figure of dependence), [4] to be cast away (in abhorrence), and [5] to be cast down (in disposal). Kohler-Baumgartner go with “to be overthrown (meaning to be violated).”216 Holladay opts for “to be overturned, tumbled down.”217 The net effect is that suggests that the “sanctuary place” was cast down in a metaphorical act of disposal, drawing upon sense [5], above.

Eighth event: “that is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice by iniquity [ ] is a line that clarifies the discarding of the sanctuary place in the previous line.218

Admittedly, this eighth event is difficult to translate from the Hebrew. The reader who consults more than one English translation will immediately sense the confusion this sentence presents to the translator. The confusion concerns the meaning of , the noun, and , the verb.

The noun, , is translated as [1] army, [2] host (heavenly), and [3] the Lord’s people. The verb, , is translated with [1] was arrayed, [2] will be given over, and [3] were given over.219

As we have noted previously, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] military service, [2] military men, troops, [3] an assembly, group, [4] heavenly bodies, stars, [5] the heavenly entourage of Yahweh, [6] service in the cult, and [7] compulsory labor. Meaning [6] draws attention, since the “daily sacrifice” is mentioned in Dan 8:12a. Thus, when the visionary affirms that “the host will be given over,” he is claiming little more than that those who labor in the service of the cult, those responsible for administering the daily sacrifice, “will be given over.” The sense of the line is that those who serve in sacred places will be given over to hostile military-governmental forces along with the daily sacrifice. On this point as it relates to Antiochus Epiphanes, 2 Maccabees 6:11 tells us that those who sought to serve and worship in the prescribed manner, secretly in caves, were found in the caves and burnt alive there.

Will be given over [ (Niphal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is written in the Niphal stem, a stem that may assume a purely passive nuance.220 Waltke and O’Connor note that the passive Niphal implies that the subject, the “host”/cultic servants in this case, suffer the effects of the action, “being given over,” by some agent, implicit or explicit.221 As no explicit agent is named in the action, we may infer that the agency is implicitly Yahweh. We have noted previously in our study of Daniel that the theme of the book is God’s sovereignty over national and international political power-players; His sovereignty would include His authority to submit his

216 KB2, 1530. 217 Holladay, 373. 218 For this use of the disjunctive waw, see IBHS 39.2.4a; Gibson § 137; GKC § 142d. 219 For a survey of the options, see Collins, Daniel, 334-35. 220 J-M § 51 c 221 IBHS 23.2.2a.

46


“host”/servants to a time of subjugation prior to the vindication of His sanctuary and His will for that matter.

Be given [] in the Niphal has two ranges of meaning: [1] to be given, and [2] to be sacrificed.222 In this case, the sense of is “to be handed over” followed by two prepositional phrases: /“along with”223 the daily sacrifice and /“by means of”224 iniquity.

Iniquity [] is from a semantic field of Hebrew terms for disobedience.225 At the very least, the direct means of this “giving over” is human disobedience.

Iniquity [] has the following ranges of meaning: [1] an offense concerning property or persons, and [2] crime in general: (a) criminal action, (b) acts that break relationships either within the community or with God), (c) misdemeanor, (d) wantonness, (e) wrongdoing.226 G.H. Livingston notes that the “fundamental idea of the root is a breach of relationships, civil or religious, between two parties.”227 R. Knierim also notes the breach of relationship motif in-built within ; he writes, “Whoever commits does not merely rebel or protest against Yahweh but breaks with him, takes what is his, robs, embezzles, misappropriates it.”228 So it is here in Dan 8:12; the proximate cause of “giving over,” even if permitted by Yahweh as the Niphal implies, does not absolve this regime from personal responsibility; rather, this “small horn,” this upstart Grecian political power-player is, on his own initiative and completely unaware, acting as if a relationship with God is immaterial. The relationship between this leader and God is thoroughly breached and the leader of Greece is content to leave it that way. Ludwig Kohler puts the matter this way: in the final analysis, “is revolt of the human will against the divine will: men are (haters of God), Rom. 1:30.”229 Thus, in light of the severity of , there are only two options: forgiveness or judgment.

Ninth event: “and so, it [feminine = “horn” (Dan 8:9)] will cast truth to the ground” [ (simple waw, Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg, jussive)]. There are several syntactical matters of import in this sentence. First, the simple waw [] relates this line to the previous lines [probably back to Dan 8:11] logically, teasing out a consequence.230 Second, the feminine gender written in the verb has /“horn” as its feminine antecedent. Third, the verb is written as a jussive form, one of the volitional/directive forms. Both Gesenius231 and Joon-Muraoka232 affirm that the jussive should be read here as a simple imperfect. So it should be. Fourth, the Hiphil stem of the verb is causative;233 if nothing else, pinning direct responsibility for “casting truth to the ground” directly upon the regime.

222 KB1, 735. 223 For in the sense of “together with,” see BDB, 755. 224 For in the sense of “by means of,” see BDB, 89-90. 225 See “Disobedience” in NIDOTTE. 226 KB2, 981. 227 G.H. Livingston, “,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols, ed.

R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, and B. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981); hereafter abbreviated TWOT.

228 R. Knierim, “,” in TLOT II, 1036. 229 Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957),

170. 230 IBHS 33.4 231 GKC § 109 k. 232 J-M § 114 l. 233 IBHS 27.3a.

47


The ranges of meaning of /“cast” have been discussed above [page 46]. For this sentence, we adopt option [5] to be cast down (in disposal). The verb carries the idea of rejection, even elimination of /“truth.” This activity on the part of a political power-player vis-à-vis “truth” obviously places a fair amount of attention on what is meant by “truth.”

While we have argued that this kind of behavior is endemic to many political regimes in general, the evidence from one specific instance of this sort of behavior, Antiochus Epiphanes, helps to explain what casting truth to the ground may include. In roughly 167 B.C., 1 Maccabees 1:56-57 tells us this:

The books of the Law that they found, they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone who adhered to the Law, was condemned to death by decree of the king.

Sadly, in many places in this world, the second sentence in the citation is all too common and all too terrible, but, there are patterns in history. The destruction of Torah was an attempt to terminate the influence of Israel’s founding document. The aim behind this termination was the elimination, probably with no small degree of contempt, of any point of view that would challenge the dominant political-religious perspective of Antiochus. “Antiochus understood perfectly well that the heart of the opposition to him was religious.”234 As we noted in connection with the purging of the daily sacrifices in Daniel 8:11, the political motive behind Antiochus’ opposition to Judaism was the unification of his country on his terms. There are patterns in history, for this archetype has had many successors.

Truth [] is a noun from a semantic field of terms in the Hebrew Bible for trust.235 The noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] reliability, dependability, trustworthiness, faithfulness, constancy, [2] stability (of political conditions), [3] truth, correctness (of words and statements), [4] sincerity, honesty (of motives), and [5] genuineness or reality (of a thing).236 BDB further subdivides as “truth”(meaning [3]) in this way: [1] truth as spoken, [2] truth of testimony and judgment, [3] truth in the sense of divine instruction, and [4] truth as a body of ethical and religious knowledge (Dan 8:12).237 Commenting on Dan 8:12, H. Wildberger affirms that in Dan 8:12 means “the truth of Judaism, with its individual legal regulations.”238

The reader may assume that the denotation of is as BDB has identified it: this regime rejects and seeks to eliminate God’s truth, that body of revealed divine ethical and religious knowledge, something spiritually dependable, from the national consciousness. This is a leader of a regime that intends to eradicate and jettison objective truth in the sense of “a body of true principles, i.e. true religion”239 from the public square.

The reader is advised to keep in mind the portrait of this kind of leader/regime, for in one way or another, this kind of human governance, power that fully intends to nullify anything even

234 George Foote Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 1, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 52.

235 See “Trust” in NIDOTTE. 236 CDCH, 26. 237 BDB, 54. 238 H. Wildberger, “,” in TLOT I, 156. 239 Driver, Daniel, 117.

48


remotely divine and spiritual and biblical from the public consciousness, is the very stuff of human governance in this hour. At the same time, we must take due note of human exemplars of this kind of anti-God, atheistic behavior when we see it, and we see one of them in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes [note well the block quote above]. In his regime, anyone caught even possessing the Torah was worthy only to be eliminated; this Philistine has had many successors!

Tenth event: “thus, he acted successfully” [ ] is a sentence that closes out the final consequence of Dan 8:11-12a.240 The Hebrew text has two verbs separated by a conjunction; thus many translations read “perform and prosper” or words to that effect. However, the second verb [] uses a copulative waw prefixed to a perfect aspect verb. To make a long story short, this construction may form a hendiadys, which means representing a single complex situation [“acted successfully”] with two verbs [“perform and prosper”].241 The hendiadys has the net effect of making the translation more forceful.

Successful [] is written in the Hiphil stem with two ranges of meaning: [1] intransitively, to be successful, and [2] transitively, to make something a success.242 When / “successful” is used intransitively, more often than not the passage stipulates that Yahweh is the power behind the success.243 In four cases, the matter is stated negatively; that is, without Yahweh’s presence, there is no hope of success.244 On two occasions, both in Daniel, the presence of Yahweh is hinted at but not quite stated.245 Finally, in two cases again both in Daniel, /“success” is presented as a strictly human accomplishment.246 The net effect is that, beginning with the anti-God campaign in Dan 8:11, including anti-sanctuary interference, this small horn with all of his antagonism and persecution succeeds admirably in what he does.

Summary

Dan 8:11-12 are clearly the climax of the paragraph [Dan 8:5-12]. The climactic point is uniformly bad news for the people of God. Not only are there no reversals in the paragraph, quite the contrary, the paragraph depicts unhindered success in an atheistic campaign. We noted at the outset that this paragraph may be summarized in terms of destruction and decadence; and so it is.

Moreover, Dan 8:11-12 is a clarification of Dan 8:10, a verse that declares in no uncertain terms the anti-God mania with this regime and its leader. The key point in all of this is this: Dan 8:10, 11-12 portray a kind of regime that the author of the vision intends that Daniel, and we the readers, understand. This kind of regime is a model of untold numbers of regimes that will follow until the end of human history. Fair enough; but an even larger matter is this: by authoring this vision, heaven is telling Daniel, and us as well, that God is sovereign over even these kinds of political thuggery, appearances to the contrary. While, in the exposition, we have alluded to Antiochus Epiphanes as an exemplar of this kind of regime, this thug has had many successors! There are patterns in history.

240 For this use of the waw consecutive imperfect, see IBHS 32.2.2a; GKC § 112 p. 241 IBHS 32.3b. 242 KB2, 1026. 243 Genesis 39:2; 1 Kings 22:12, 15; 1 Chronicles 22:11, 13; 29:23; 2 Chronicles 7:11;

14:7; 18:11, 14; 20:20; 31:21; 32:30; Psalm 1:3. 244 2 Chronicles 13:12; 24:20; Jeremiah 2:37; 32:5. 245 Daniel 8:24; 11:36. 246 Daniel 8:12, 25.

49


Dan 8:11a describes the main element in the pattern: remove God from the scene and replace Him; this pretender “magnified himself as far as the Prince of the host.” As we noted at the time, this head of state acts in such a way as to set in motion those processes that insure his preeminence [Dan 8:11b-12]. To be sure, this politician is aiming high, seeking to supplant the influence of God in the affairs of mankind. However, the end game for this kind of regime, including that of the exemplar in Dan 8:1-12 Antiochus Epiphanes, is to replace God with the worship of the state and its leader.

Dan 8:11b reveals another aspect of the pattern: dissolve the Presence of God among His people; this aspirant to God’s throne “removed the daily offering.” As we noted, the Tmd was intended to enhance the Presence of God in the lives of His people; interrupting the daily services that celebrated His Presence would be a way of disrupting His sanctification of them and of suspending their consecration to Him. What this political leader intended to do, therefore, was to dissolve the communion between Yahweh and His people.

Dan 8:12a displays a third component of the pattern: prevent God’s servants from representing His interests; this claimant to God’s position in the minds and souls of men that “the host (of servants) was given over along with the daily offering.” The prime exemplar of this kind of regime in Dan 8:10-12, Antiochus Epiphanes, actually burned alive those who sought to honor the Sabbath in the traditional way. But, the reader is advised that the principle in Dan 8:12a may be adhered to in ways other than cremation. As we noted in Daniel 3 and 6, the state may simply pass a law that effectively prevents God’s servants from representing His interests.

Dan 8:12b discloses the final piece of the pattern: deny at all costs that there is a revealed Word from God; this candidate for divine status “casts truth to the ground.” In a nutshell, truth, , is the body of revealed moral and ethical guidance in God’s Word. For the Jews in Daniel’s entourage, this would have been Torah. The destruction of Torah was an attempt to terminate the influence of Israel’s founding document. The aim behind this termination was the elimination, probably with no small degree of contempt, of any point of view that would challenge the dominant political-religious perspective of the regime.

Reflection

In the western democracies, the United States in particular, that piece of the pattern adhered to by all of those who idolize politics, those who seek to purge society from any divine, transcendent word from God, is alive and well. It is a cultural and legal given in the United States these days that the Word of God must be severed from any contact with cultural norms or government policy. Our culture has more or less determined that it is better off without the interference of the demands of God’s Word. But, there is a price to pay here.

Richard John Neuhaus argued several decades ago that the vacuum created by the removal of the Judeo-Christian consensus will be filled by something else; the idea is that cultures abhor a vacuum. Neuhaus’ argument has bloomed to full flower: “When the democratically affirmed institutions that generate and transmit values are excluded, the vacuum will be filled by the agent left in control of the public square, the state. In this manner, a perverse notion of the disestablishment of religion leads to the establishment of the state as church [emphasis mine].”247

247 Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997; reprint), 86.

50


This is where we are today in the democracies, certainly in the United States; government has become a bootlegged religion. One wonders just when the dark shades of totalitarianism will be pulled down. The right to vote, living in a democracy, is no guarantee whatsoever against the perversions of even soft totalitarianism. Never forget that Germans voted and elected Adolph Hitler! The myth that “It can’t happen here” is just so much whistling in the graveyard! Text and translation

C. Daniel overhears an angelic conversation [Dan 8:13-14]

8:13a Then I heard a holy one speaking; 8:13b then, another holy one said to that certain one

who had been speaking: 8:13c “How long – the vision concerning the daily

sacrifice and the appalling iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to pieces?” 8:14a Then, he said to me: 8:14b “For evening-morning, two thousand and three hundred; then, the sanctuary will be vindicated.”

Syntactical outline

Dan 8:13a-b First event [chronological succession after 8:10-12]: “Then, I heard a holy one speaking; then another holy one said to that certain one who had been speaking:

Dan 8:13c The question: “How long – the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the appalling iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to pieces?”

Dan 8:14a The response: Then, he said to me:

Dan 8:14b The answer: “For evening-morning, two thousand three hundred; then the sanctuary will be vindicated.”

Paragraph sense

(i) [Next event in the sequence of events in the vision] Then, I heard a holy one speaking;(ii) [Next event after (i)] then, another holy one said to that certain one who had been speaking:(iii) [Opening of the heavenly dialogue] “How long – the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the appalling iniquity,(iv) [Clarification of (iii)] displacing both the sanctuary and the host,(v) [Further clarification of (iv)] a crushing to pieces?”(vi) [Closing of the heavenly dialogue] Then, he said to me:(vii) [Answer to (iii)] “For evening-morning, two thousand and three hundred;(viii) [Consequence of (iii-vii)] then the sanctuary will be vindicated.”


We noted above that from Dan 8:5-12 the picture in the vision is uninterruptedly bleak; there are no reversals for the “small horn,” indeed he succeeds unhinderedly; until we get to Dan

51


8:13-14. For in this brief paragraph, the theme is that God vindicates Himself. We see here a complete reversal of fortune, thanks to the sovereign Lordship of Yahweh. The sanctuary was treated by the regime in Dan 8:10-12 pretty much as it has been handled by its many successors – with contempt; regarded as a tool to be used in the furtherance of power politics. But, the days are numbered for those kinds of desecrations. The sanctuary will be restored to its rightful place and God’s purpose vindicated.


The paragraph centers on the angelic dialogue [Dan 8:13c-14c]; accordingly, we may read this dialogue as a “revelation delivered in a speech by an angel” or angels in this case.248

As revelation, the paragraph permits us to conclude the following: from the standpoint of earthly history, it often seems as if evil is simply having its way. To be sure, the events to which Daniel has just referred have the appearance of being irreversibly successful. But, the appearances of history are tempered by the certainties of heaven. The expectation of divine supervision now comes to the fore.

Dan 8:13-14 – “Then I heard a holy one speaking; then another holy one said to that certain one who had been speaking: “How long – the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the appalling iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to pieces?” Then, he said to me: “For evening-morning, two thousand three hundred; then the sanctuary will be vindicated.”

Dan 8:13a is not presented as some sort of interruption in the flow of the paragraph; rather the syntactical function of the waw consecutive imperfect verb – “then I heard” – is to signal the next event, chronologically, in the paragraph.249

A holy one [] features a cardinal numeral [] attached to an adjective []. The cardinal numeral is used in this phrase to make the adjective expressly indeterminate in the sense of the indefinite article “a.”250

Holy one [] is an adjective functioning as a substantive or an abstract noun. is from a semantic field of terms for consecration.251 Dan 8:13 is the first appearance of the adjective in Daniel.

Holy one [] is derived from the root ; the etymology of this root is still up in the air. W. Kornfeld concedes that “most interpreters concur with Baudissin’s thesis that the likely presence of biconsonantal root forms prompts us to understand the qd [] in qd [] as having the basic meaning ‘separate, sunder.’”252 Kohler-Baumgartner share in the tenuousness of the etymological data, but concede that if the etymology of is as Baudissin claims, then the basic idea of the root is “to set apart.”253 The upshot is that setting apart may be taken as a working definition of .

248 For this genre, see Collins, FOTL, Daniel, 104. 249 IBHS 33.2.1a. 250 GKC § 125 b. 251 See “Consecration” in NIDOTTE. 252 W. Kornfeld, “,” in TDOT, vol. XII, 523. 253 KB2, 1072.

52


Holy one [], in the adjective form, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] holy, commanding respect, awesome, treated with respect, removed from what is profane (used of both things and persons), [2] holy, singled out, consecrated for (priests and times/occasions), and [3] holy ones (heavenly beings).254 It is obviously the case that sense [3], “holy ones” in the sense of heavenly beings,” is in play in Dan 8:13. It is clear, then, that Dan 8:13a puts us in the world of angels.

The question is raised by one of the angels: “How long – the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the appalling iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to pieces?” [ ]. It might be useful to break this question down into smaller bites by taking advantage of the punctuation in the Masoretic text. Thus, we have:

– “how long” – “the vision concerning the daily sacrifice [Tmd]” – “and the appalling iniquity” – “displacing both the sanctuary and the host” – “a crushing to pieces”

With these parts isolated, let’s put the question back together, respecting the syntax of the line:

– “How long – the vision” (the main clause, a verbless clause) – “concerning the daily sacrifice and the appalling iniquity” (a

clarification of the above) – “displacing both the sanctuary and the host” (another clarification of the

preceding line) – “a crushing to pieces” (the final clarification of the whole)

How long – the vision [ ] is, as noted, a verbless clause. The reader is advised to appreciate this fact, to read the text as it was written in order to value the punch, the attention-grabbing import of these densely written words. As written, the reader is almost compelled to think about the words for a moment.

This interrogative verbless clause contains new and given information. The given information is “the vision” [ (Dan 8:1, 2)]; the new information is the question “how long?” []. The thrust of the verbless clause is the front-loaded interrogative, . The interrogative subtly implies that the unhindered successes of the regime in Dan 8: 9-12 are tethered to definite limitations. Indeed, “enquires about the duration of a state of affairs,”255 and a request for information into duration implies limits.

The daily sacrifice [] has already been discussed above [see Tmd]. In Dan 8:13, the heavenly being is probing for insight into the duration of the displacement of the Tmd.

The appalling iniquity [ ] must back reference the phrase “by means of iniquity []” in Dan 8:12a. Evidently, /“appalling” is a qualification of “iniquity” []. /“appalling” appears in Daniel here in Dan 8:13 for the first time; this initial appearance is not unintentional, for it gives a hint of the fuller picture of /“appalling” events later in the book

254 Ibid., 1066-67. 255 Van der Merwe § 43.3.2 (iii).

53


[Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. At this point, rather than focusing on the gory details of /“appalling” to come later, let’s simply grapple with the word itself.

Appalling [] is found within a semantic field of terms for desolation.256 in the Qal stem has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to be uninhabited, be deserted (of settlements), [2] to be removed from contact (with other people), and [3] to shudder, be appalled (in the face of persecution or conviction of a crime).257 The texts in this last range of meaning offer some interesting parallels to .

Appalling [] is linked with “hissing” [] in 1 Kings 9:8.258 “Hissing” is this passage is associated with warding off evil, where the “hissing” or “whistling” is an expression of “mockery”.259 In this case, the appalling character of what is witnessed motivates passersby to ward off evil by mockery.

Appalling [] is used in antithesis to “exaltation” [] in 2 Chronicles 7:21. “Exaltation” [] in this case means “something that is higher.”260 The nature of the polarity between “appalling” and “exaltation” is probably of the overlapping variety; that is overlapping opposites “all have an evaluative [emphasis mine] polarity as part of their meaning: one term is commendatory [“exaltation” in this case] and the other is deprecatory [“appalling” in this case].”261

Appalling [] is used in Job 17:8 in parallel with “excite oneself” []. The verb, , is written in the Hithpoel stem, which means “to be aroused.”262 The verb seems to imply excitement, agitation, and being disturbed.263

Appalling [] is used in Jeremiah 2:12 in parallel with two verbs, “horrify” [] and “be devastated” []. The first term, , means in Jeremiah 2:12 “to have bristling hair, to shudder.”264 CDCH adds “to shudder with horror.”265 “Be devastated” [] in Jeremiah 2:12 probably means something like “be amazed, be astounded.”266 JPS translates “be utterly dazed.”267

256 See “Desolation” in NIDOTTE. 257 For the sense of “appall,” see Leviticus 26:32; 1 Kings 9:8; 2 Chronicles 7:21; Job

17:8; Isaiah 52:14; Jeremiah 2:12; 18:16; 19:8; 49:17; 50:13; Ezekiel 26:16; 27:35; 28:19; Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11.

258 The collocation of with is also found in Jeremiah 19:8; 49:17; 50:13. 259 KB2, 1656. 260 KB1, 832. 261 D.A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995;

reprint), 208. 262 CDCH, 316. 263 KB1, 802. 264 KB2, 1343. 265 CDCH, 439. 266 BDB, 351. 267 JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999).

54


Appalling [] is used in Jeremiah 18:16 in parallel with “shaking the head” [ ]. H. Ringgren affirms that “shaking the head” is a figure of speech for “showing pity.”268 The juxtaposition of with makes perfectly good sense: that which is “appalling” is the occasion for the emotional response of “pity.”

Appalling [] is used in Jeremiah 18:16 with the noun derivative of , . This noun means a “horrific, atrocious event.”269 The noun connotes the subjective sensation of horror; there is shock, dismay, and deep consternation in the noun; thus it is a fitting comment on the verb, .

Appalling [] is associated with “trembling” [] in Ezekiel 26:16. Obviously, denotes an intense emotional experience as manifested by “trembling.” The cause of the trembling is made clear in the context; in the case of Ezekiel 26:16, the appalling and trembling emotions are the consequence of Yahweh’s judgment.

So, where does all of this leave us? The parallel terms are most instructive for adding flavor and sense to “appalling.” Most of the links conjure up the emotional component in . That is, an appalling circumstance may be accompanied by agitation []; one would expect that an appalling event would arouse feelings of distress and tension. Moreover, an appalling event may be associated with being horrified [] and dazed []; again, it would be in the nature of an appalling incident that it should provoke sensations of revulsion and alarm, as well as the sense of being psychologically stunned and bewildered. Beyond that, an appalling affair would almost naturally stimulate a sense of sorrow, of mournfulness [ ]. Furthermore, an appalling episode would be, by nature, an atrocity, an outrage, a vicious barbarism []. Finally, one would not be surprised to expect physical manifestations [] of the emotional trauma of some appalling circumstance.

Appalling [] events are distressful and worrisome; they are horrifying and shocking, stunning and bewildering; they leave one mournful and grieved; finally, the appalling experience is a barbarity, an atrocity.

The appalling iniquity [ ] is, as we noted above, a back reference to the assault on God, the will of God, and the servants of God detailed in Dan 8:10-12. The “iniquity” [] that was explicated in Dan 8:12a amounted to a breach of relationship, a thorough breaking with God. So it is here, this “small horn,” this upstart Grecian political power-player is, on his own initiative and whether aware or not, acting as if a relationship with God is immaterial. is revolt of the human will against the divine will: this man is a hater of God; and its effects are appalling: distressful, worrisome, horrifying, shocking, stunning, bewildering, mournful, grieving, barbarous and atrocious.

The appalling iniquity [ ] is an sortie against God and everything God represents; it is an onslaught against God’s sovereignty in human history, an elbowing out of the way the Lord of history, a denial and an utter rejection of His will for mankind as well as His presence within it. Moreover, the point should not be missed by the reader of Dan 8:13 that the designer of this outrage against God is a head of state; a man intent on defining his regime’s and his nation’s ultimacies, its moral legitimations, its meaning, its purposes, its point of moral and ethical reference, its values and its community in terms of the state, the counterfeit worshiping assemblage of his day. The appalling iniquity is philosophically grounded in the following:

268 H. Ringgren, “,” in TDOT, vol. IX, 272. 269 KB2, 1553.

55


everything within the government; nothing outside the government; and nothing against the government.

This appalling iniquity is the thrust of this verse and the reader should note well its characterization of atheistic regimes; this Grecian forerunner has had many successors. One specific example is hinted at in the book of Daniel, our old friend Antiochus Epiphanes. His contribution to the appalling iniquity is justifiably infamous.

To begin with, 1 Maccabees 1:54 sets the time and the date for us of his appalling iniquity:

Then, on the 15th day of Kislev [December], of the one hundred forty fifth year [167 B.C.], they erected an appalling sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering.

The nature of his appalling iniquity is related in 2 Maccabees 6:2:

Not long after this, the king [Antiochus Epiphanes] sent an Antiochian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their ancestors and no longer live by the laws of God; also to pollute the temple and to call it the temple of the Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-the-Friend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that place.

Displacing both the sanctuary and the host [ (Qal, infinitive construct)] recalls the report contained in Dan 8:11b-12a [see the notes there]. The clause is essentially a clarification of “the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the appalling iniquity.”

Crushing to pieces [ (noun, ms, sg)] is a final clarifying or possibly summarizing statement attached to recap the entire, sad, affair [Dan 8:11-12, 13]. The noun, , is from a semantic field of terms for subjugation.270 The noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] a trampling place, or [2] trampled ground.271 Sense [1] best fits the use of in Dan 8:13c. Still, there are nuances of that should be noted.

The noun is used by Yahweh in a judgment speech concerning Israel, His “vineyard” in Isaiah 5:5. Specifically, after Yahweh’s judgment, the once fertile vineyard will be reduced to , “trampled ground.” In this passage, takes the form of being reduced to uselessness.272

The noun is used once more by Isaiah in another judgment setting. Assyria is the rod of Yahweh’s wrath sent to “trample [] like mud in the streets.” In this passage, is linked with terminology that suggests contempt [“mud in the streets”].

Enough has been said about the nuances of /“crushing” to make one further point: words not only refer to things, they also evoke emotional reaction.273 It seems that in this

270 See “Trampling, treading, subjugation” in NIDOTTE. 271 CDCH, 245. 272 See also Isaiah 28:18 for a similar usage of . 273 On these points, see Eugene Nida, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden:

E.J. Brill; published for the United Bible Societies, 1974), 56-98.

56


instance, the contextual environment in which is used warrants appreciating the connotative meaning of . That is, this Grecian kingpin is hell-bent on eradicating each and every vestige of God from his regime [see Dan 8:9-12]. Thus, the contextual environment suggests that means a bit more than “a trampling place” or “trampled ground.” Accordingly, implies eradication into uselessness.

Crushing [] is an eliminationist summary term categorizing this regime’s agenda: it intends to eradicate [] God from His place of sovereignty over history [Dan 8:10a, 11a], from His presence among the His people [Dan 8:11b], from His servants [Dan 8:12a], and from the impact of His word [Dan 8:12b]. In this regime, and in many since up to the present hour, the public square is cut off from any association with transcendence, with any Yahwistic point of reference, with any transcendent truth to which the regime and its citizens are accountable. But, as noted previously, cultures abhor a vacuum; and the vacuum in Greece, and other places as well, will be filled by the regime, effecting crushing [] competing worldviews.

Summary

Dan 8:13c is the pivotal utterance in Dan 8:13, asking the crucial question: “How long?” The question, however, veils a premise: this appalling regime’s time is limited, and it is limited by the regions of heaven, by Yahweh and His entourage. In asking “How long?” the heavenly speaker is implying that term limits are superimposed on this regime! As we noted in Dan 2:21, so it is here: Yahweh deposes kings and Yahweh appoints them; Dan 8:13 is a footnote on that premise. Regimes ascend and regimes fall; the very summit of worldly power, be it military power, technological power, economic power, human power, the very pinnacle of human might simply means that the descent has already begun. What this regime with all of its grand plans for expansion and conquest and power, what this regime ignored was that human history does not move from the bottom, up; but rather from the top, down; this regime was oblivious to the crucial question: “How long?”

A second decisive matter emerges in Dan 8:13: the political elite’s maniacal drive to supplant God. In this case, this Grecian regime sets out to abolish both “sanctuary and host;” it sets its sights on an “appalling iniquity;” and all of this in the name of the regime, in the name of casting aside the ignorant and impractical mythology of Yahweh and His host and His word, and birthing the religion of the state. In other words, this Grecian forerunner was establishing a totalitarian regime; he has had many successors. For our purposes in the 21st century, all we need do is strike out the old names and replace them with the names we read in the paper every day; it all comes down to the same thing: “If the state ordering of society is to exclude those institutions that generate and bear values, then that state must be prepared to assume the burden of meeting the human yearning for a life that is not value-less. The totalitarian welcomes the burden.”274 Judging by how the rest of the story pans out in the rest of the chapter, the regime is not up to bearing the burden of giving meaning to life.

Dan 8:14 – “Then, he said to me: “For evening-morning, two thousand three and hundred; then, the sanctuary will be vindicated.”

The question was: “How long?” The answer is: “For evening-morning, two thousand and three hundred.” The consequence of the answer is: “then, the sanctuary will be vindicated.”

274 Neuhaus, 157.

57


As the reader surely knows, this verse is problematic to say the least. For the sake of honoring the text as we have it, it may be advantageous to lay out the verse respecting the punctuation in the Masoretic text.275

8:14a – : “Then he said to me:” (pause)8:14b – : “for evening-morning,” (pause) : “two thousand and three hundred;” (midpoint)8:14c – : “then the sanctuary will be vindicated.” (end)

The translation I have provided is very wooden; but it has the advantage of presenting the text in all its maddening ambiguity. At the same time, there are some translation quibbles that we must point out, for, some English versions insert words into the text that simply are not there.

First, some translations render Dan 8:14b with “evening and morning;” there is no coordinating conjunction [] in the passage. For those versions that insert the conjunction, not every translation signals the insertion by italicizing “and.”

Second, some translations render Dan 8:14b with “two thousand three hundred days.” Again, those English Bibles that insert “days” refrain from signaling the insertion by italicizing “days.”

Then, he said to me [ ] is a clause that signals an answer to “How long?” The interesting point here is that the interpreter directs his answer not to the heavenly being who asked the question, but rather to Daniel. Baldwin notes that Daniel “was asking the same question.”276

The time limit, implied in the original question [“How long?”], is offered thus: [1] : “for evening-morning,” and [2] : “two thousand and three hundred.”

For evening-morning [ ] is a prepositional phrase introduced by a temporal use of the preposition, . The prepositional phrase is temporal, but it is a temporal phrase with a nuance. That is, the preposition used here and translated “for” implies a period of time up to a limit. The prepositional phrase thus demarcates a fixed time period.277 The reader is advised to note this nuance very carefully. That is, whatever the rest of the sentence may imply, the drift is to point to a fixed period of time up to which these events occur. They go no further; there are divinely fixed limits on this regime’s reign of terror.

Evening-morning [ ] translated two nouns in sequence with nothing between them; thus, we have woodenly translated “evening-morning.”

Evening-morning surely refers to the “daily offering” in Dan 8:11. If “evening-morning” is read in a comprehensive sense, then the two nouns signify one day; if, however, they are read in an individual sense, then the two nouns signify half days. On the first reading, we have 2300

275 As noted in the “Introduction,” the Masoretic punctuation marks are not inspired in the way the text itself is inspired. Yet, these accents do present the reader with an early tradition of how the verse was divided into units.

276 Baldwin, 158. 277 For this use of the preposition, , see IBHS 11.2.12b and note 102 on the same page;

see also Van der Merwe § 39.18.2.

58


days and on the second, 1150 days. The sad fact of the matter is that, as written, we simply cannot determine which.278 Tremper Longman advises caution in date fixing; Longman observes279:

In the final analysis, we cannot be dogmatic. The number is given not so much so that those who read Daniel’s sixth-century prognostications in the second century could compute when the suffering would stop as much as to assure them that God had things under control. Furthermore, the number indicates with certainty that there would be a stopping point to the persecution, even if that number could not be computed into a definite date in the calendar as they knew it.

We have noted often the fact that there are patterns in history. Indeed, Daniel 8, with its attack-rise-become great-be exceedingly powerful-fall-face ruin pattern makes this clear. But the reader should note that with Daniel 8:14a, we see patterns in history viewed, not from the bottom up, but from the top down. The meta-pattern is the sovereignty of God, an authority that will allow political power-players of every age to go just so far in pursuing their lust for dominance and no further.

Then, the sanctuary will be vindicated [ (Niphal, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is syntactically the next event [temporal succession] in the sequence of events, an event that is subordinate to Dan 8:13.280 However, both the words in the sentence and its form seem to express a consequence;281 it is thoroughly reasonable to infer that in a passage that sets limits the consequence attendant upon those limits should be announced.

Will be vindicated [] is written in the Niphal stem; the Niphal stem is probably passive; that is, the subject – the sanctuary – is in the state of experiencing the effects of vindication by an implicit agent.282 Dan 8:14c is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where we find these terms – /“sanctuary is/will be vindicated.” Furthermore, Dan 8:14c is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where we have /“vindicate” in the Niphal followed by any noun; and Dan 8:14c is the only use of /“vindicate” in the Niphal stem in the Hebrew Bible. What this suggests is that “the sanctuary will be vindicated” [ ] is somewhat unique to the Hebrew Bible.

Vindicated [] in the Niphal stem means: “to be brought to justice, justified.”283 The sense of the verb is “to be brought into its right state.”284 B. Johnson concurs, noting that in Dan 8:14 means “shall be restored to its rightful state.”285 Some English versions seem to follow the Septuagint and translate “cleanse.” Both the Old Greek and Theodotion render with , a Greek verb that denotes “moral and religious cleansing.”286 This reading may be an

278 Commentators are divided on this point; for a fair overview of the positions, see Young, 173-75. 279 Longman, 209.

280 For the subordination implicit in the waw consecutive imperfect, see IBHS 33.2a. 281 Ibid., 33.2.1b. 282 Ibid., 23.2.2a. 283 KB2, 1003. 284 CDCH, 374. 285 B. Johnson, “,” in TDOT, vol. XII, 250.

59


over-refinement; the passage seems more clearly to point to restoration rather than ritual cleansing. Come what may, the sovereign God vindicates Himself!

Summary

We noted on Dan 8:13c that this verse presents the crucial question; if so, then Dan 8:14 provides a perplexing, ambiguous answer. The haziness in Dan 8:14 cannot, indeed must not, be resolved by inserting words into the text that are not there. The sum of the matter is that this may well be one of those occasions in the Old Testament where a speaker is intentionally vague.

G.B. Caird makes a compelling case for biblical writers making use of deliberate ambiguity.287 Caird cites Jesus’ use of deliberate ambiguity “to provoke his hearers into thought about ultimate questions.”288 So it is in Dan 8:14; that is, the speaker does not intend that the listener/reader use the answer to set dates; rather, the speaker is deliberately vague on the timing of this regime’s blight upon human governance in order to force the listener/reader to grasp the larger truth: this regime’s time on earth is limited by God. In a nutshell, this meta-perspective is what is vital in Dan 8:14.

The fact of deliberate ambiguity in Old Testament and New Testament literature leads us to another issue that we might as well face: misusing numbers in biblical apocalyptic, such as Daniel and Revelation, to set precise dates or to approximate the timing of future events. The reader is advised to be extremely cautious in this matter of date setting or predicting the timing of future events. There are reasons for caution.

First, we have already mentioned the fact of deliberate ambiguity. In the case of Dan 8:14, we insist that the intentional ambiguity is in the service of making a far more important topic sharp and well-defined: this regime is on a tether, a divine restraint to be sure, but a tether all the same. We have noted that biblical apocalyptic has two functions: [1] to engender hope and [2] to pinpoint the behavior of the faithful in trying times. In Dan 8:14, hope is created with the information, ambiguous as it may be, that this regime is tethered to divine term limits.

Second, we have specific kinds of literary devices in apocalyptic. Accordingly, we do not read apocalyptic, like Daniel or Revelation, as we would read the Wall Street Journal; the latter communicates with precision, with names and dates and places and events; the former communicates metaphorically, in symbols, in ambiguities, in figures, and with all manner of imagery. There are outcomes here.

There are two kinds of word usages in the Bible: literal and non-literal. The reader is advised to always keep this simple distinction in mind, especially when reading apocalyptic. This principle is particularly valuable when reading numbers in apocalyptic literature. The principle is this: in apocalyptic literature, expect that numbers are symbolic, not literal. For example, when we read “time, times, or half times” in Daniel 7 surely we should expect some form of symbolism is being communicated in these maddeningly imprecise words!

286 W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; second edition, revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 387 [hereafter abbreviated BAGD].

287 Caird, 102-08. 288 Ibid., 106.

60


Accordingly, there are two cautions to keep in mind when reading the numbers in biblical apocalyptic: [1] these numbers are not intended to be used as a calendar;289 and [2] these numbers are not intended to be used to pinpoint the end of human history within our lifetime.290 This second caveat is especially vital. We are, in 2016, living through very turbulent times: the economy of China is weakening, thus sending Wall Street into a frenzy; North Korea conveys the impression of testing nuclear weapons; Iran has been moving toward joining the world’s nuclear club for about a decade; the moral climate in the United States continues to nosedive; natural disasters are visited upon the planet somewhere almost weekly. To put matters bluntly, it is mouthwatering to read the tealeaves and see that the end of human history is near, even within our lifetime.

Such doomsday hoopla fleeces many believers into spending money to survive the end of days by purchasing survival programs of one sort or another. Recently, one such program, pushed on the internet, came to my attention. The author of this scheme affirms that “our church and government are engaged in a massive cover up.” The cover up involves keeping a warning hidden in the book of Revelation from seeing the light of day. [As an aside, if I am any judge of it, many of Revelation’s modern expositors and teachers are doing a masterful job of seeing to it that the message of Revelation doesn’t see the light of day!] So, here’s the prediction, based upon Revelation 18 [as best as I can determine just what this author is claiming]: a single Russian super-EMP [electromagnetic pulse] bomb will destroy 293 million Americans before January 1, 2017. Now, there is a way out: for $49.99 one can purchase a program called “Survive the End Days.” I am not making this up!

The message of Dan 8:14 is not for the purpose of creating calendars or setting dates or preparing for the doom-filled signs of the end of human history. Point blank: that stuff is for the naïve, the gullible, for the biblically ignorant, for persons who want nothing to do with the survival plan that God does offer! Never forget, and weigh and consider this carefully, when a stone hewn from a mountain without human help crushed Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in Daniel 2, the only survival plan endorsed by God was offered free of charge: membership in the kingdom of God. Dan 8:14 tells us that along the way to the full realization of the kingdom of God, many repressive, violent, enslaving, malignant forms of human governance will emerge in the course of human history; but, each and every one of them fulfills some purpose of God and each and every one of them is tethered to the divine term limits. As we shall see in Daniel 9, the time will come when [1] the covenant betrayal is ended, [2] sins are sealed up, [3] the guilt of iniquity is wiped away, [4] everlasting righteousness is brought near, [5] the vision is sealed with approval, and [6] a Most Holy one is anointed [Dan 9:24]. As we shall see when we get to Dan 9, Dan 9:24 is the only survival program that really matters, for, it’s the only survival program that really survives!


III. A divine interpreter steps forward to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:15-19]

A. Daniel’s confusion regarding the vision [Dan 8:15]

8:15a While I, Daniel, was watching the vision; 8:15b I was searching for understanding, and behold: standing before me, someone with an appearance of a male.

289 Longman, 212. 290 Ibid., 213.

61


B. An interpreter is enlisted to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:16-17]

8:16a Then, I heard the voice of a man between[the banks of the river] Ulai;

8:16b and he spoke up and said: “Gabriel, explain to this man the vision.” 8:17a Then, he approached beside my standing place, and as he approached, I was seized by a sudden

fear, and so I fell upon my face; 8:17b then, he said to me: “Understand son of man, that the vision concerns an end of a period of

time.”

C. Daniel’s response [Dan 8:18-19]

8:18a Now, while he was speaking to me, I became stunned with my face to the ground; 8:18b and yet, he touched me, and helped me stand upon my feet. 8:19a Then he said: “I am here to make known to you, that which will happen in the repercussions of

the indignation; 8:19b to be sure, after an appointed time – an end.”

Syntactical outline

8:15a – Circumstantial information: “while I, Daniel, was watching the vision”

8:15b – Event one: “I was searching for understanding”

8:15c – Event two: “and behold: standing before me”

Clarification: “someone with an appearance of a male.”

8:16a – Event three: “Then I heard the voice of a man”

62


Spatial locator: “between [the banks of the river] Ulai;”

8:16b – Event four: “and he spoke up and said:”

Directive: ‘Gabriel, explain to this man the vision’”

8:17a – Event five: “Then he approached beside my standing place,”

Circumstantial information: “and as he approached I was seized by a sudden fear”

Event six: “and so I fell upon my face”

8:17b – Event seven: “Then, he said to me:”

Directive: “Understand son of man”

Content of understanding: “that the vision concerns an end of a period of time” 8:18a – Circumstantial information: “Now, while he was speaking to me”

Event eight: “I became stunned with my face to the ground”

8:18b – Event nine: “and yet, he touched me”“and helped me stand upon my feet”

8:19a – Event ten: “Then he said:

Gabriel’s speech: “I am here to make known to youContent: that which will happen in the repercussions of the indignation;Clarification: to be sure, after an appointed time – an end.”

Paragraph sense

(i) [Background information for (ii)]: “While I, Daniel, was watching the vision”(ii) [First event in sequence]: “I was searching for understanding [](iii) [Next sequential event after (ii)]: “and behold: standing before me”(iv) [Clarification of (iii)]: “someone with an appearance of a male”(v) [Next event after (iii)]: “Then I heard the voice of a man”(vi) [Spatial locator of (v)]: “between [the banks of the river] Ulai”(vii) [Next event after (v)]: “and he spoke up and said:”(viii) [Speech/directive of (vii)]: “Gabriel, explain [] to this man the vision”(ix) [Next event after (vii)]: “Then he approached”(x) [Spatial locater of (ix)]: “beside my standing place”

63


(xi) [Background information for (ix-x)]: “as he approached”(xii) [Clarification of (xi)]: “I was seized by a sudden fear”(xiii) [Next event after (ix)]: “and so I fell upon my face”(xiv) [Next event in sequence after (xiii)]: “then, he said to me”(xv) [Speech/directive of (xiv)]: “Understand [] son of man”(xvi) [Content of (xv)]: “that the vision concerns an end [] of a period of time”(xvii) [Background on (xvi)]: “Now, while he was speaking to me”(xviii) [Next event after (xiv)]: “I became stunned”(xix) [Spatial locator]: “with my face to the ground”(xx) [Next event after (xviii); contrast]: “and yet, he touched me”(xxi) [Next event after (xx)]; “and helped me stand upon my feet”(xxii) [Next event after (xxi)]: “Then he said:(xxiii) [Speech/content of (xxii)]: “I am here to make known [] to you”(xxiv) [Content of speech (xxiii)]: “that which will happen in the repercussions of the

indignation”(xxv) [Clarification of (xxiv)]: “to be sure, after an appointed time – an end []”

The reader will observe the four verbs for understanding that are highlighted in the paragraph summary. This tells us that the paragraph sense is about understanding. Indeed, words for understanding [/] basically frame the paragraph from beginning [Dan 8:15b] to end [Dan 8:19a]. Additionally, another term figures prominently in the paragraph, end []. Presumably, the paragraph is about understanding something about what is referred to as end. In this regard, we must insist that neither appearance of /end has a definite article; therefore we must be cautious about over-reading the paragraph as discussing the end in the sense of the end of human history. Both the grammar and the context force us to read understand an end in terms of the regime that is the focus of Dan 8, beginning with Dan 8:10, not the end of human history, a regime with divinely imposed term limits within human history.

The first major section of the paragraph concerns Daniel’s confusion regarding the vision thus far.

Dan 8:15 – “While I, Daniel, was watching the vision; I was searching for understanding, and behold: standing before me someone with an appearance of a male.”

I, Daniel [ ] appears six times in the Hebrew text of the book of Daniel.291 In each of these, the use of the first person personal pronoun seems to involve a kind of psychological focus, conveying an element of strong emotional heightening with deep self-consciousness.292 Montgomery observes that the use of the name is emphatic, signaling a return

291 Daniel 8:1, 15; 9:2; 10:2, 7; 12:5. 292 IBHS 16.3.2e.

64


to self-consciousness.293 While experiencing the vision, Daniel was deeply aware of his perplexity, his bewilderment, his confusion over what he was experiencing in the vision. The reader must appreciate this almost universal response of Daniel to the visions he receives in his book: they muddy the waters rather than clearing them for him.

Event one: searching for understanding [ (Piel, waw consecutive imperfect, 1st, cs)] is the only appearance of this collocation of verb and noun as direct object in the Hebrew Bible.

Searching [] is written in the Piel stem, the stem in which most often appears in the Hebrew Bible. In the Piel stem, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to discover, to find, to search for [with ], to seek; [2] to attempt to do something; [3] to try to possess, to demand, to require, to request, to endeavor, to strive for; [4] to search for, to call on, to consult.294 G. Gerleman affirms that in Dan 8:15 has “an emotional nuance: ‘to strive after something, be busy, be concerned.’”295 S. Wagner reads in Dan 8:15 in a more figurative sense, noting that Dan 8:15 “can be translated ‘to meditate about the meaning (of a vision).’”296 “Meditate” sounds a bit benign for a context that includes such emotional reactions as being “stunned with my face to the ground [Dan 8:18a].” Gerleman’s observation concerning the emotional component in the usage of here is to the point: there does seem to be contextual warrant for imparting a sense of disquiet in Daniel’s bewilderment as he searches for understanding.

Understanding [] is from a semantic field of terms for comprehension and understanding.297 The ranges of meaning for are: [1] the act of understanding, [2] the faculty of understanding, [3] the object of understanding, and [4] understanding personified.298 Obviously, the use of in Dan 8:15 involves the act of understanding. Michael Fox notes that refers to the exercise of the “faculty of intellectual discernment and interpretation” in Dan 8:15.299

Searching for understanding [ ], then, means that Daniel’s emotional turmoil, brought on by the images in the vision, compel him to intellectually discern the meaning of the vision to this point.

Event two: and behold: standing before me, someone with an appearance of a male [ ].

And behold [] translates a Hebrew expression that underlines the immediacy of the experience.300 The juxtaposition of 8:15c with 8:15b shows that Yahweh does move to relieve the bewilderment that the vision has brought to Daniel.

293 Montgomery, 346. 294 KB1, 152. 295 G. Gerleman, “,” in TLOT I, 252. 296 S. Wagner, “,” in TDOT, vol. II, 234. 297 See “Comprehension, understanding” in NIDOTTE. 298 BDB, 108. 299 W.F. Albright, D.N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible, vol. 18A , Proverbs 1-9, Michael

V. Fox (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 30. 300 See IBHS 40.2.1b; Lambdin § 135.

65


Someone with the appearance of a male [] is a simile that may be woodenly translated “the like of (=as it were) an appearance of a man.”301 A simile functions in Biblical Hebrew to present a point of comparison between one thing and another. Furthermore, “when two things are compared, they are not to be considered alike in all respects.”302 Fair enough; so what is the point of comparison here? The use of the noun “appearance” [] suggests that the point of comparison is perceptual;303 appealing to Daniel’s sense of sight, the heavenly being reminded Daniel of a human male. At the same time, as Slotki points out, “he recognizes that it was not a real human being.”304

The second major section of the paragraph involves the enlistment of an interpreter to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:16-17].

Dan 8:16-17 – “Then, I heard the voice of a man between [the banks of the river] Ulai; and he spoke up and said: ‘Gabriel, explain to this man the vision.’ Then, he appeared beside my standing place, and as he approached, I was seized by sudden fear, and so I fell upon my face; then he said to me: ‘Understand son of man, that the vision concerns an end of a period of time.’”

Gabriel [] is a proper noun that appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, here and in Dan 9:21. The name means “man of God.”305 An angel of the same name appears in the New Testament, announcing the birth of John the Baptist [Luke 1:19] and Jesus [Luke 1:26]. The common denominator in the work of Gabriel in both testaments is instruction. “Gabriel” is the first time in the Bible that an angel is mentioned by name.

Explain [ (Hiphil, imperative)] is written in the Hiphil stem. The Hiphil stem in this instance is surely causative,306 with the following ranges of meaning: [1] to make someone understand something, [2] to explain something to someone, and [3] to teach something to someone.307 The meaning of the imperative in Dan 8:16 is explain something not understood at the moment.

Event five: “then he approached beside my standing place, and as he approached, I was

seized by a sudden fear” [ ] is an event that singles out Daniel’s immediate reaction: terror.

I was seized by sudden fear [ (Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)] is written in the Niphal stem. This stem in this case is surely passive in nuance;308 furthermore, the Niphal may also convey a resultative nuance, where the Niphal describes the state in which the subject – Daniel in this case – finds himself produced by the action of the verbal root.309 The agent of this panic attack was the approach of Gabriel.

301 For this translation, see BDB, 453. 302 Caird, 145. 303 Ibid., 145-46. 304 Slotki, 68. 305 KB1, 176. 306 IBHS 27.1e. 307 KB1, 122. 308 J-M § 51; Lambdin, 177. 309 Lambdin, 177.

66


The main verb, , is used in only the Niphal and Piel stems in the Hebrew Bible. The verb is found in a semantic field of terms for terror.310 In the Niphal, the verb, , means “to be gripped by a sudden fear.”311 Holladay follows suit with “to be overtaken by sudden terror.”312 Van Pelt and Kaiser note that is used “to express the terror of a lesser individual who stands in the presence of a greater individual—often times a human being before a numinous being.”313 Driver simply notes that “at the approach of the celestial being Daniel is terrified.”314

Event six: “and so I fell upon my face” [ (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 1st, cs)] is a sentence that teases out the net effect of Daniel’s terror.315

Fall upon the face [ ] is a phrase that is used eighteen times in the Hebrew Bible, all in the Qal stem. For the most part, the collocation communicates: [1] reverence and awe in the presence of Yahweh,316 [2] humility or respect before another human,317 [3] reverence and awe before the ark,318 [4] humility/terror before an angel of Yahweh,319 and [5] a figure of human death.320 It would certainly seem that when the collocation is used in reference to either Yahweh or an angel, there are elements of profound humility, acute and sincere wonder, deep self-effacement, overpowering self-contempt, in other words, no small amount of sheer awe and unworthiness. There is certainly nothing casual or familiar about Daniel’s response to being in the presence of deity.

Event seven is the final event in this paragraph: “then he said to me, ‘understand son of man, that the vision concerns an end of a period of time’” [ ].

Understand [ (Hiphil, imperative)] is written in the imperative mode; it is less a command and more an invitation to Daniel to come to grips with what has so far baffled him.321 That an invitation is given from a superior to a subordinate suggests some graciousness and respect on the part of Gabriel toward Daniel.

Son of man [] is a phrase that ought not to be over-read; the phrase simply points to Gabriel’s recognition of Daniel as a mere mortal.322

310 See “Terror” in NIDOTTE. 311 KB1, 147. 312 Holladay, 45. 313 Miles Van Pelt and Walter Kaiser, Jr., “,” in NIDOTTE. 314 Driver, Daniel, 121. 315 For this use of the waw consecutive imperfect, see IBHS 33.2.1a. 316 Leviticus 9:24; Numbers 16:22, 45; 20:6; 1 Kings 18:39; Ezekiel 1:28; 3:23; 9:8;

11:13. 317 Numbers 16:4; Joshua 7:10; Ruth 2:10; 2 Samuel 9:6; 1 Kings 18:7. 318 Joshua 7:6. 319 Judges 13:20; Daniel 8:17. 320 1 Samuel 17:49. 321 For the Hebrew imperative as invitation, see Van der Merwe § 19.4.2.d. 322 BDB, 9.

67


Concerns an end of a period of time [] is a prepositional phrase consisting of the preposition, , prefixed to a genitive construction, (noun, ms, sg) (noun, ms, sg). The reader will note that there are no definite articles to be found in the prepositional phrase. Accordingly, those English versions that translate “the time of the end” should at least place “the” in italics, thereby indicating that “the” is not in the original text. Montgomery notes that literally the phrase reads “the vision (is) for time of end.”323 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion also translates literally: , “for time of end.”

The problem with placing articles in the phrase is illustrated by the translation of Pter-Contesse and Ellington: “Frequently ‘the end of the world’ will be the most natural equivalent” for .324 We suspect that reading as “the end of the world” does violence to the context, which focuses more upon the time limits placed upon the small horn [Dan 8:13-14] in real time.

In Biblical Hebrew, definiteness is normally signaled by prefixing an article [] to the noun. It is the case, however, that a noun may be read as definite if the use of that noun has acquired the value of a proper noun.325 Waltke and O’Connor comment more fully on this last point, discussing a noun that is intrinsically definite, noting that “intrinsically definite nouns tend to have a unique referent.”326 Among the unique referents are: [1] terms for God, [2] cosmological elements, [3] earthly institutions, [4] earthly place names, and [5] certain titles given to humans.327 My point is that it is difficult to conceive of /“end” as a noun identifying a unique referent; but one must assume that this is exactly what a major number of English translators actually do. The Guide doubts that /“end” qualifies as a noun with a unique determinate. Therefore, we translate “an end of a period of time.”

A period of time [] translates a noun that is found within a semantic field of terms for time, and is the most common word for time in the Hebrew Bible. E. Jenni affirms that has a limited range of meaning: “does not refer to temporal duration or to an extended period of time, but to some definite point in time or period of time.”328 Furthermore, when used with a preposition as it is here, locates an event “at a definite point in time.”329 Indeed, in the case of used with the preposition , the construction “indicates the moment of an activity.”330 T. Kronholm concurs on this point, noting that the construction “defines the time or period of an action or event.”331 The upshot is that in this construction signals a period time.

End [] is a noun that is from a semantic field of terms for end, cessation, outcome.332 The noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] end, limit, cessation, [2] time, era, age, period, moment; appointed time, due season, and [3] end, extremity, utmost border, boundary.333

323 Montgomery, 346. 324 Rene Pter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel (New

York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 220. 325 Van der Merwe § 24.4.1 (ii). 326 IBHS 13.4a 327 Ibid., 13.4b. 328 E. Jenni, “,” in TLOT II, 953. 329 Ibid. 330 Ibid., 954. 331 T. Kronholm, “,” in TDOT, vol. XI, 440. 332 See “End, cessation, outcome” in NIDOTTE. 333 CDCH, 399.

68


Kohler-Baumgartner render the phrase “time of the end.”334 We conclude that /“end,” in Dan 8:17c carries the sense of end or cessation: “cessation of a period of time.”

Finally, is a construct relationship; in essence, in a construct chain, the second term, /“end,” “modifies or restricts”335 the first noun, /“time,” in some way. More specifically, /“time” may be characterized in terms of an /“end.”336 More woodenly, this attributive genitive would usually be translated “end-time;” but to the modern English reader, this translation may have eschatological implications that I doubt the Hebrew of Dan 8:17 has in mind. It is better to translate more clearly with: “an end/cessation of a period of time.” This reading fits the context, since in Dan 8:19b, Gabriel will point to “an appointed time – an end [].”

Summary

In some ways, Dan 8:16-17 serve to provide an introduction to the full interpretation of the vision in Dan 8:20-26. That is, we are introduced to a representative of the real power behind the ram, the he-goat, and the small horn in the person of a heavenly being, Gabriel. Moreover, we are introduced to the fact that the time limits indicated in Dan 8:14 [“evening-morning 2300”] do indeed portend “an end of a period of time,” that is the time of 2300 evening-mornings, which come to cessation. Along the way, we get an insight into the depth of Daniel’s spiritual poverty when he falls before Gabriel in terror.

Gabriel is the first heavenly being named in the Bible; Gabriel is among those heavenly beings who speak for the overseer, Yahweh, and explain what Yahweh’s sovereignty over national and international political power-players means to these tyrants. Indeed, Gabriel will come on the scene in Dan 9:21 and explain the future of human history and the place of the Messiah within that history. Thus, the introduction of Gabriel is a prelude to a deeper and more mysterious account we get in Dan 10:13, 21 of Michael, a kind of guardian of the people of God. To make a long story short, all of this angelology tells us this: “the key to earthly history is to be found in heavenly events. The meaning of history is to be found beyond history and above history in the realm of spiritual being.”337

In one way or another, the heavenly spokesperson is intent on telling Daniel that the havoc that this “small horn” imposes upon people is restricted. That is, in Dan 8:14, the speaker tells Daniel that this regime’s mayhem will last “evening-morning two thousand and three hundred.” Whatever that really refers to, this much is plain: this terrible regime’s moment in the sun is finite and limited. Then, in Dan 8:17c, the speaker reinforces the limitations heaven places on this regime by affirming that the “vision” depicting its vileness “concerns an end of a period of time.” Here, “period of time” is code for “evening-morning two thousand three hundred.” Finally, in the next paragraph, both “evening-morning two thousand three hundred” and “a period of time” are clarified as “an appointed time.” The upshot is that God’s sovereignty over these political thugs means that they are on a leash; they are tethered; they are restrained by the power and forces of heaven; i.e., Yahweh!

Moreover, this brief paragraph gives us a glimpse into Daniel’s spirituality; Daniel is deeply moved to sincere humility, acute and heartfelt wonder, deep self-effacement, in other

334 KB2, 1119. 335 Lambdin § 71. 336 IBHS 9.5.3b. 337 Russell, Daniel, 200.

69


words, no small amount of sheer awe and unworthiness. There is certainly nothing casual or familiar about Daniel’s response to being in the presence of deity.

Finally, before the interpretation proper, we are presented with Daniel’s response to all of this heavenly speaking thus far [Dan 8:18-19].

Dan 8:18-19 – “Now, while he was speaking to me, I became stunned with my face to the ground; and yet, he touched me, and help me stand upon my feet. Then, he said: “ I am here to make known to you that which will happen in the repercussions of the indignation ; to be sure, after an appointed time – an end.”

These two verses depict the prophet’s state of mind, his emotional reaction to the vision as well as the promise of further insight into the vision. Again, we notice the striking and dramatic effect of the visionary experience on Daniel.

Event eight: I became stunned [ (Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)] is written in the Niphal stem in the perfect aspect; the verb appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible, all in the Niphal stem. The verb is found within a semantic field of terms for sleep.338

Stunned [] has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to sleep deeply and [2] to be dazed, stunned.339 The verb is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q424 [ (“recounting to one who slumbers, one who is stupefied [] in spirit”]. In this instance, is used in sense [2] above: dazed, stunned, stupefied. What is more, since the verb occurs only seven times in the OT and always in the Niphal, any conclusions about the stem should be tentative. That said, given the meaning of the term in Dan 8:18, the reader might cautiously understand the Niphal of in the sense of an ingressive-stative Niphal, describing Daniel coming to be a particular state,340 virtual stupefaction in this case; in other words, Daniel seems to have lost consciousness.

With my face to the ground [ ] is a prepositional phrase functioning as a spatial locator. This precise collocation [ (noun, fm, sg, directional ) (noun, pl, construct, 1st, cs, suffix)] is found only in Daniel in the Hebrew Bible [Dan 8:18; 10:9, 15]. The directional indicates “the direction toward which an action is aimed.”341 Overall, the entire phrase is used to signal respect and awe as indicated in similar terms in Dan 8:17a.

Event nine: and yet he touched me [ (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is translated with a contrastive nuance.342 The sense of 8:18a-b is that Daniel expressed reverent awe [Dan 8:18a] and yet Gabriel touched him [Dan 8:18b]. The verb implies simply that Gabriel physically touched Daniel in order to raise him to his feet. Evidently, it is the touching and the raising that restore consciousness to Daniel.

Event ten is the final event in this sequence of events in the paragraph; event ten is Gabriel’s initial speech to Daniel, declaring just what Gabriel intends to do.

338 See “Sleep” in NIDOTTE. 339 KB2, 1191. 340 IBHS 23.3c. 341 IBHS 10.5b. 342 For the waw consecutive imperfect used to signal contrast, see Van der Merwe §

21.1(ii); see also IBHS 33.2.1d.

70


I am here to make known to you [ (Hiphil, ptc, ms, sg, construct, 2nd, ms, suffix) (particle/interjection, 1st, cs, suffix)] is a collocation [particle () + participle ()] that appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, here and Jeremiah 16:21. In both cases, the collocation announces the speaker’s intention to instruct. Indeed, the particle, , serves to “focus attention on the utterance that follows it,”343 in this case Dan 8:19-26. The upshot is this: the use of the interjection with the participle points to the immediacy of the situation.344 The net effect is that Gabriel’s immediate purpose is to let Daniel know the significance of the vision. The participle that is used is in the Hiphil stem, indicating that Gabriel will cause Daniel to grasp the relevance of the vision.

The gist of what Gabriel intends to communicate to Daniel is unpacked in the remainder of Dan 8:19.

That which will happen [ ] is punctuated with a tipchh, suggesting a slight pause. The verb, , means “take place, happen.”345

In the repercussions of the indignation [ ] is a prepositional phrase; this is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where this precise phrase occurs.

The repercussions of the indignation [ ] is a genitive construction. The lead word, , has either a spatial meaning: “hind part, most remote,” or a temporal meaning: “end, outcome, final end, result,” or “following period, future.”346 Kohler-Baumgartner opt for “end, outcome” in Dan 8:19.347 Among the time nuances, CDCH adds, “consequence, end, result, future.”348 BDB also renders in terms of time: [1] “latter part” or “actual close,” [2] “the end or ultimate issue of a course of action.”349 Andrew Hill offers “aftereffects” for .350 It seems best to read in the sense of “the aftereffects of the indignation,” or “the outcomes/repercussions of the indignation.” Indeed, teasing out the “outcomes/repercussions” of the indignation is exactly what Gabriel does beginning in Dan 8:23; furthermore, Gabriel once again uses in Dan 8:23, suggesting that in Dan 8:19 anticipates / “aftereffects” in Dan 8:23.

The indignation [] does have a definite article, “the indignation.” While it is difficult to be dogmatic about the article, we may reasonably infer that, in this case, the article is used generically, that is “the indignation [] classifies the aftereffects in Dan 8:23ff.351 GKC connects this use of the article with “the expression of abstract ideas of every kind, since they are likewise used to represent whole classes of attributes or states [emphasis mine], physical or moral defects, etc.”352

343 Van der Merwe § 44.4. 344 For the use of the interjection – – with a participle to stress the here-and-nowness

of the situation being depicted with these forms, see Lambdin § 135. 345 Holladay, 79. 346 KB1, 36-37. 347 Ibid., 36. 348 CDCH, 13. 349 BDB, 31. 350 Andrew Hill, “,” in NIDOTTE [H344]. 351 For the generic use of the article, see Gibson § 31. 352 GKC § 126 n.

71


Indignation [] is used as an abstract term to classify the aftereffects teased out in Dan 8:23ff. It may be best to sort out the ancient Near Eastern cognates of : [1] the Syriac cognate is za`m which means “attack verbally, scold;” [2] the Arabic cognate is zagama which means “speak angrily;” and the Old South Arabic cognate is z`m which means “quarrel.”353

Indignation [] is used twenty two times in the Hebrew Bible, almost exclusively of Yahweh. When used in reference to Yahweh, appears with several terms in parallel.354 All of this, including the term’s cognates, suggests that and its parallels belong in a semantic field of terms for anger, rage, or wrath.355 Furthermore, used in Dan 8:19a as an abstract noun to characterize the aftereffects alluded to in Dan 8:23ff, depicts these repercussions as furious, incensed, wrathful, and indignant. This interpretation is borne out by the use of in its verbal form in Dan 11:30.356 The verb, , has the nuance of “hurl imprecations at” in Dan 11:30.357

Indignation [], therefore, is used to characterize the spirit, the frenzy, the feverishness, the ferocity and vehemence with which the “defiant king” [Dan 8:23b] will carry out his vendetta against the covenant community of God. This “defiant king’s” warfare against the holy ones is an all-out, uncompromising, frantic rage against God [Dan 8:25b] and the people of God [Dan 8:24b].

Many commentators affirm that Yahweh is behind the /“indignation.” Ultimately, of course, He is; but, in the case of Dan 8:19 and 11:30, it seems that the emphasis falls more upon what a single man/regime can do to denigrate God and maltreat His people. There is less of divine curse here and much more of humanly generated scorn triggered by the kingdom of the “defiant king [Dan 8:23].”358 To be sure, human antagonism has been the point in the preceding context [8:10-12, 13-14] and will be the point in the succeeding context [8:23-25a]. Indeed, human fury and wrath are what the vision is about.

To be sure, after an appointed time – an end [ ] is a clause that syntactically signals a divine confirmation [].359 GKC affirms that can signal “the absolute certainty [my emphasis] with which a result is to be expected.”360 Thus, the translation – “to be sure.”

After an appointed time – an end [ ] is a verbless clause; we prefer not to flatten out the clause by inserting a verb in order to preserve the attention-grabbing force of the sentence. At the outset, we must remember just what Gabriel is referring to here: the aftereffects of the human fury and wrath instigated by the “defiant king [Dan 8:23].” On contextual grounds, the reader is cautioned about reading into “an end” a reference the “the end of human history.” One thing at a time; Daniel intends to tell us about our antagonists throughout history, before he tells us about history’s end.

353 B. Wiklander, “,” in TDOT, vol. IV, 107. 354 /“burning anger” [Psalm 69:24; 78:49; Nahum 1:6; Zephaniah 3:8]; /“rage”

[Psalm 102:10]; /“anger” [Isaiah 10:5, 25; Lamentations 2:6; Habakkuk 3:12]; /“burning anger” [Isaiah 30:27]; /“devouring fire” [Isaiah 30:27]; /“fire of My fury” [Ezekiel 21:31; 22:31].

355 See “Anger, rage, wrath” in NIDOTTE. 356 [“he will become enraged at the holy covenant”]. 357 KB1, 276-77. 358 For this thought, see Collins, Daniel, 339. 359 For the use of to signal a confirmatory statement, see Van der Merwe § 41.3.9. 360 GKC § 159 ee.

72


After an appointed time [] is a prepositional phrase. The use of the preposition, , signals a temporal in syntactical function. Indeed, the preposition that is used here may signal a terminal point in time of some process.361 This process – the human aggression mentioned above – has a terminal point, after it has run its course.

Appointed time [] is the depiction of a terminal point for the situation in the context. has the following ranges of meaning: [1] a place for meeting, an assembly point, [2] a meeting, assembly, [3] agreed time, appointed time, and [4] a festival time, time of festivity.362 Provisionally, sense [3] seems to fit best in Dan 8:19. BDB concurs, translating in Dan 8:19 with “appointed time.”363 We may conclude that points to a time fixed by God, not necessarily a fixed date.364 Goldingay translates, “at a set moment, an end will come;”365 he further notes concerning that “it is the notion of designating [emphasis mine] rather than that of time which is essential to .”366 Joyce Baldwin summarizes the thrust of Dan 8:19, “the question was how long God would allow His earthly sanctuary to be trampled on, and Daniel could be sure there was a time appointed for the end.”367

Summary

Dan 8:18-19 serve to pave the way for the fuller interpretation of the vision [Dan 8:20-26] by Gabriel. These verses focus on [1] the effect of the vision on Daniel and [2] the time limit imposed upon the “indignation.”

The effect of the vision, to this point at least, has been debilitating; Daniel is both stunned and deeply humbled. In the first case, the effect of the vision was to render him near to a state of unconsciousness; in the second case, he was deeply disturbed with awe and reverential terror. We have noted previously in these studies this consistent force of the numinous on Daniel. Evidently, the gulf that exists between fallen men, like Daniel, and the perfections of heaven generate this unique conflict; imperfect men simply cannot approach the perfections of heaven without being stunned into terror-saturated awe.

Why does the author juxtapose Daniel’s stunned reaction with Gabriel’s no nonsense announcement? We may only hazard a guess; but it would seem that the holy and perfect and mighty power that could impose time limits on a political regime [Dan 8:19] spills over into Daniel’s life as well. He too is circumscribed, is confined and restrained within his own human limits in the presence of such holy and heavenly power.

Finally, Dan 8:19 is the introductory and prevailing song of grace that introduces the melancholy and distressing events of Dan 8:20-25. In this longer passage, human political history marches on, covering hundreds of years; but, ultimately the political and human regression yields a most dangerous and onerous harvest: a “defiant king” who will not rest until he has toppled God and God’s people. The political thug will attack God and subvert the lives of His people; he will destroy and deceive; but, his time of rapacity is limited: “after an appointed

361 For this use of the preposition, , see Van der Merwe § 39.11.1; IBHS 11.2.10c. 362 KB1, 557-58. 363 BDB, 417. 364 On this last point, see Michael V. Fox, A Time To Tear Down and A Time To Build Up

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 197n12. 365 Goldingay, 195. 366 Ibid., 216. 367 Baldwin, 159.

73


time – and end [Dan 8:19].” This note of grace, of God’s overruling and superseding power, drapes the horror of Dan 8:20-25 with mercy in the form of restraint.

IV. The interpretation of the vision [Dan 8:20-26]


A. The ram [Dan 8:20]

8:20a “The ram which you saw, the double-horned one; 8:20b kings of Media and Persia.

B. The he-goat [Dan 8:21]

8:21a The shaggy goat – the king of Greece; 8:21b indeed, the great horn between his eyes, he – the first king.

C. The four horns [Dan 8:22]

8:22a Now, the shattered one, and the four that came on the scene after it

[means that] 8:22b four kingdoms from his nation will come on the

scene, but not with his power.

D. The small horn [Dan 8:23-25]

8:23a Then, in the latter part of their rule, just before those who act as criminals reach

full measure; 8:23b a defiant king will come on the scene, skilled in double-dealing. 8:24a And so, his might will be strong, but not by means of his own strength, seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin, and so, he will be successful and will act with

effect; 8:24b he will destroy the mighty, and holy people. 8:25a Furthermore, owing to his cunning, he will cause treachery to succeed by his power, while in his own mind he will magnify himself, and in the midst of careless security, he will

destroy many;

74


8:25b indeed, he will rise up as a foe of the Prince ofprinces,

but without human power he will be shattered.

E. The interpreter’s final word [Dan 8:26]

8:26a Now, the vision concerning the morning and theevening,

which was told, it [is] true; 8:26b but you, keep the vision secret, for [it] concerns many days.”

We shall postpone our syntactical outline for what is obviously the dénouement of Dan 8:20-26, that is Dan 8:23-25, the “small horn” or “defiant king” paragraph.

The genre of Dan 8:20-26 carries forward the interpretation phase of the symbolic dream vision that constitutes the genre of Daniel 8 as a whole. Here in the interpretation we seem to have Gabriel announcing what amounts to a periodization of history in Dan 8:20-25. That is, Gabriel divides a portion of history into a set number of periods.368 This genre conveys a sense of the sovereignty of God over national and international governments. We have pointed out in our study of Daniel 2 that Dan 2:21 is probably the theme of the entire book: Yahweh deposes kings and Yahweh appoints kings; this periodization of history in Dan 8:20-25 is simply commentary on the book’s overall theme.

The theme of Dan 8:20-26 would appear to be God’s sovereign rule over the comings and goings of specific political regimes in human history. As Psalm 72:11 says, “All kings will bow before Him and all nations will serve Him;” Dan 8:20-26 is human, historical, political commentary on God’s sovereign rule. God is at work in human history, prevailing according to His divine and perfect will in governmental history; none can thwart His plans and it is pointless, if not tragic, for men and nations to attempt to do so; for Yahweh is king over all the earth [Psalm 47:2], indeed God reigns over the nations [Psalm 47:8]. So it is here in Dan 8:20-26.

The period of history signified by the “ram” opens the periodization. As we shall see, Gabriel identifies this regime as “kings of Media and Persia.”

Dan 8:20 –“The ram which you saw, the double-horned one – kings of Media and Persia.”

If the Media-Persian Empire is meant here, as it surely is, then about 200 years of human history are represented by eight words in the Hebrew text of this verse.

This interpretation looks back to Daniel 8:3-4. In that unit, the ram is a symbol of both power and royalty in the ancient Near East. There is both force and authority carried with the symbol.

At the same time, we also noted the change in animal symbolism from Daniel 7 to Daniel 8. In Daniel 7, this same kingdom is symbolized by a bear; in Daniel 8, it is symbolized by a ram. There is a reduction in the force in the symbol. Perhaps this redefinition in power is captured with a mere eight words for 200 years of history.

368 See Collins, FOTL, 115-16.

75


Dan 8:21 – “The shaggy goat – the king of Greece; indeed, the great horn between his eyes, that – the first king.”

Shaggy goat [] appears in Dan 8:5, 8 and is an exceptionally fierce and powerful animal; accordingly, on the power scale, the he-goat outranks the ram.369 Still, there is a caveat. As with the ram, so with the he-goat, we have a fading in the symbolism of power. In Daniel 7, this nation-king was represented by the leopard, here, by a he-goat. While the imagery of the he-goat still carries power and viciousness, this is not the level of speed and strength implied in the symbol of the leopard. Perhaps the regression in the symbolism of power reflects the distinction between how earth looks upon power [leopard] as opposed to heaven’s view of earthly power [he-goat].

The great horn between his eyes [ ] in Dan 8:21 is the conspicuous horn [] between his eyes in Dan 8:5. We inferred previously that conspicuousness implied that this leader had managed to concentrate his power in one way or another. To the extent that the horn is a symbol of power, in this case, the horn may be a symbol of power concentrated in a specific leader.370

Dan 8:22 – “Now, the shattered one, and the four that come on the scene after it [means that] four kingdoms from his nation will come on the scene, but not with his power.”

The punctuation of Dan 8:22 is as follows: there is a major line break [atnach] following “after it.” In other words, “Now, the shattered one, and the four that came on the scene after it” is a single unit of thought; this, in turn, implies that the rest of the line, “four kingdoms from his nation will come on the scene, but not with his power,” teases out the meaning of the single unit of thought that opens the line.

The general drift of Dan 8:22 represents the fall of the unified Grecian empire followed by its division into four smaller and less powerful monarchies. While this verse does depict what happened to the empire of Alexander the great, the reader is reminded that this pattern – the division of a single empire into smaller domains – is a staple in human political history, including that of Israel. There may be a larger lesson here: power that is concentrated in the hands of a single leader [Dan 8:21] may be destined for dispersal among several leaders.

But not with its power [ ] is a line that back references the concentrated power in Dan 8:21. The noun translated power signifies the kind of military power that can successfully impose the will of a victor upon one who is vanquished.371 Daniel uses this noun to depict native ability [1:8], as well as of destructive military power [8:6-7], and even of political power [11:6].

369 See Montgomery, 329-30; Goldingay, 209. 370 At the time, we suggested Alexander the Great as a leading candidate. But the reader

is cautioned, again, not to leave the imagery of 8:21 with Alexander; he has had many successors and will continue to be emulated.

371 See the notes on /power in Daniel 8:6.

76


If the back reference in Daniel 8:21-22 is to a man like Alexander the Great, then any of these three nuances of would apply.

The reader is advised to appreciate what is said about power [] in this phrase: power is shaky. About the time an empire thinks it has a handle on power, power fades. Indeed, this is the storyline of power – – later in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 11:6, a political leader fashions /power on the basis of building international alliances, but it fails. In Daniel 11:15, a politician does not have enough /power to maintain his hold on his government. Then, finally, in Daniel 11:25, a politician does not have the /power to withstand internal scheming against him. Power in the hands of men is unstable; it deserts a leader or a nation for that matter just when it is needed the most. There are patterns in history.

We now come to the crucial section of Dan 8:20-26, the account of the “defiant king” in Dan 8:23-25.

Dan 8:23-25 – “Then, in the latter part of their rule, just before those who rebel reach full measure; a defiant king will come on the scene, skilled in double-dealing. And so, his might will be strong, but not by means of his own strength, seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin, and so he will be successful and act with effect; he will destroy mighty ones and holy people. Furthermore, owing to his cunning, he will cause treachery to succeed aided by his power, while in his own mind, he will magnify himself, and in the midst of careless security, he will destroy many; indeed, he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of the princes, but, without human power, he will be shattered.”

Syntactical outline

8:23 Event one – future prediction: “A defiant king will come on the scene [ip]”

Temporal marker – “in the latter part of their rule” Temporal marker – “just before those who rebel reach full measure” Descriptive marker – “skilled in double-dealing”

8:24-25 Events two-four – backbone of a predictive discourse:

8:24 Event two – prediction – “And so, his might will be strong [w/cons/pf]” Caveat/contrast – “but not by means of his own strength” Description of “might” – “seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin”

Event three – prediction – a series of three consequences of his “might [w/cons/pf]” Consequence one – “and so, he will be successful” Consequence two – “he will act with effect” Consequence three – “he will destroy mighty ones and holy people”

8:25 Event four – prediction – “he will cause treachery to succeed [w/cons/pf]” Means – “owing to his cunning” Means – “aided by his power” Background note – “while in his own mind he will magnify himself”

77


Event five – prediction – “he will destroy many [ip]” Circumstantial note – “in the midst of careless security”

Event six – prediction – “he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes [ip]”

Event seven – prediction – “he will be shattered [ip]” Means – “but without human power”

The reader will note that both the imperfect [ip] aspect verbs and the waw consecutive perfect [w/cons/pf] aspect verbs are all future and predictive. As speech acts, therefore, all seven events are commissive speech acts which means, and this is significant, that their point is to commit the speaker, Gabriel, to these seven courses of action.372

Theme

The theme of this paragraph [Dan 8:23-25] is power, for “power” terms dominate the entire paragraph; one might read the paragraph with this theme in mind: the consequences of power in human hands.

In event two, the “might []” of this defiant king “will be strong [],” but, strangely, this is not “by means of his own strength [].”

In events three and four, Gabriel teases out the consequences of this regime’s use of power. To be sure, “he will be successful []” and “act with effect [].” Then he “will destroy [] the mighty [] as well as the holy people. Finally, “he will cause treachery to succeed [], aided by his power [].”

In event five, “he will destroy [] many;” and in event six, he will “rise up as foe []” against Yahweh.

Finally, the defiant king’s power meets its match; Gabriel assures his listener, and the reader as well, that regimes like this one are shattered, but “without human power [].” With this seventh event, the paragraph [Dan 8:23-25] acknowledges the overall theme of Dan 8:20-26: this maniacal political thug, the worst of the worst in Daniel 8, must also answer to God’s sovereign rule over the comings and goings of human governance.

The reader might weigh and consider the theme of this paragraph in light of its predictive structure. It would seem that this paragraph, as a series of commissives, commits Gabriel to the truth value of the proposition that these kinds of regimes will arise throughout the course of human history. In other words, when power is in the hands of the wrong kind of leader, the “defiant” brand of leader [Dan 8:23b], then Gabriel seems to be saying that when this kind of power is in the hands of this kind of man then these kinds of consequences will occur.

Moreover, as we go through this paragraph, we shall reference Antiochus Epiphanes as one instantiation of this breed of the barbarous use of power. The references to Antiochus are exemplary; Antiochus is background noise for the book of Daniel; he is a prototypical antagonist

372 John Searle, Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; reprint), 14.

78


of both God and God’s people. Indeed, the consequences of the abuse of power did not begin with Antiochus nor did it end with him; he has had many successors.

Genre

Dan 8:23-25 is prophecy; it is promissory and predictive, envisaging the character of many, but by no means all, forms of human governance. In the shorter term, this prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes; but in the longer term, it was also fulfilled by Nero, by Domitian, by Hitler, by Stalin and by other notable tyrants who blight human governance to this hour.

Dan 8:23 – “Then, in the latter part of their rule, just before those who rebel reach full measure, a defiant king will come on the scene, skilled in double-dealing.”

To begin with, we are told in Dan 8:23 that “a defiant king will come on the scene.” Then, we are given two time frames: [1] “in the latter part of their rule (that is the four kingdoms mentioned in Dan 8:22)” and [2] “just before those who rebel reach full measure.” Finally, Gabriel gives us a description of this defiant king: “skilled in double-dealing.”

Event one in this paragraph is this: “a defiant king will come on the scene [ (Qal, imperfect 3rd, ms)]. More literally, the sentence may be translated: “a king will come on the scene strong/defiant of face.”

Will come on the scene is written in the imperfect aspect, signaling simple futurity; the statement is prophetic and is a commissive, that is, Gabriel commits himself to the truth of this promise; in other words, in matters of prophecy, heaven itself stands as underwriter of the promise.

Defiant king [ ] describes this head of state. The descriptive phrase – – appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, here and Deuteronomy 28:50.

The Deuteronomy passage is part of a larger context of blessings and curses announced by Moses in Moab [Deuteronomy 28:1-29:1]. Deuteronomy 28:50 falls within the context of curses that will fall upon the people of God for not listening to the voice of the Lord their God. In Deuteronomy 28:47-57, the subject is the curse of political servitude to foreign nations, with no specific nations identified. Being besieged in this servitude includes falling victim to “a nation, fierce of appearance” or simply a “defiant nation.” There may be some borrowing going on here, especially owing to the ruin [Dan 8:24a], the destruction of the holy people [Dan 8:24b], and finally his defiant antagonism toward Yahweh [Dan 8:25b]. In a nutshell, the Deuteronomy passage portrays a military-political head of a nation-state that is “unyielding, unmoved by considerations of equity or pity, defiant.”373 Finally, there is nothing in the context of Dan 8 that suggests retribution for breaking the covenant; “it is sufficient the he is a king sent against Israel.”374

373 S.R. Driver, A. Plummer, C.A. Briggs, ed., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Deuteronomy by S.R. Driver (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1896; reprinted by HardPress Publishing, no date), 315.

374 Collins, Daniel, 339.

79


Defiant [] is an adjective that comes from a semantic field of terms for power or strength;375 it is used twenty three times in the Hebrew Bible. The range of meanings for the verbal form, , may help the reader appreciate the sense of the adjective; the verb’s ranges of meaning are: [1] in the Qal, to be strong, show oneself strong, to prevail, [2] in the Piel, to make firm, establish, [3] in the Hiphil, to make bold, cause to show impudence, show boldness or impudence, and [4] in the Hophal, be impudent, defiant.376 Robin Wakely offers the following ranges of meaning for the adjective: [1] strong, [2] fierce/cruel, [3] defiant, shameless, [4] hard, stern, grim, brazen, severe, and [5] turbulent.377 A.S. van der Woude notes that the Akkadian cognate, ezzu, connotes “wrathfulness, rage, and frightfulness.”378 He further notes that the adjective, , in Dan 8:23 connotes “the overpowering nature and vehemence of the emotions as well as the harshness of behavior.”379 S. Wagner affirms that the meaning of the root “is essentially constant: be/become/make strong, powerful, strength, power;”380 he relates the sense of in Dan 8:23 with “powerful in a menacing sense.”381 Slotki says that means that this kind of leader is “unyielding, merciless;”382 Goldingay assesses in the sense of “ruthless boldness;”383 Baldwin notes that the adjective, , “means both ‘hard’ and ‘insolent.’”384

Enough has been said to draw some conclusions about the meaning of . To begin with, this idiom has both denotative and connotative meaning. That is, the denotative meaning of a word means that it may refer to [1] an object, [2] an abstract, [3] an event, or [4] a relationship.385 In this case, is an idiom that is used to denote an abstract quality of strength, of dominance, and of defiance on this leader’s part. Moreover, the connotative meaning of a word or idiom refers to the kinds of emotional reactions the word or idiom may conjure up;386 in this case, seems to signal impudence, cruelty, fierceness and rage on the king’s part, and trigger feelings of terror or frightfulness on the part of his victims.

Either way, Gabriel gives Daniel a forewarning on what to expect, and the angel also gives the current reader of Daniel a tipoff: what we have here is a more or less standard characteristic of a tyrant. As we shall soon note, Antiochus Epiphanes was indeed such a tyrant; at the same time, this portrayal is a depiction of tyrants and totalitarian regimes for all time.

When this tyrant comes on the scene is depicted in two ways, first: “in the latter part of their rule [Dan 8:23a].” This clause is a prepositional phrase [ ]. The phrase is written with a disjunctive waw [], suggesting background material germane to the first event.387 The drift of the background information is to temporally position the arrival of this fierce ruler

375 See “Power, strength” in NIDOTTE. 376 CDCH, 318-19. 377 Robin Wakely, “,” in NIDOTTE. 378 A.S. van der Woude, “,” TLOT II, 868-69. 379 Ibid., 870. 380 S. Wagner, “,” in TDOT, vol. XI, 1. 381 Ibid., 3. 382 Slotki, 70. 383 Goldingay, 217. 384 Baldwin, 160. 385 Nida, 56. 386 Ibid. 387 For the disjunctive waw [] signaling offline, background material, see IBHS 39.2.3b

and Gibson § 135.

80


during the close of the governmental activity of the four kingdoms mentioned in 8:22b. This temporal information is further elucidated with another bit of background information in the next clause.

Before turning to the next clause, we may, tentatively, suggest that Yahweh’s sovereignty is being hinted at here. The interest on the temporality of the defiant one’s appearance suggests that the timing of his appearance was less than accidental; it was coordinated at the beginning as it would be at the end [Dan 8:19b, 25b] by Yahweh.

When this tyrant comes on the scene is depicted in a second way: “just before those who rebel reach full measure.” This clause is an infinitive clause that temporally positions the action in 8:23a before that in 8:23b [the arrival of the defiant king].388 The grammar of this clause features the infinitive – just before … reach full measure – followed by the subject of the infinitive clause, the articular participle – those who rebel. The upshot is this: the defiant king will emerge onto the scene just before the rebellious activities of those leaders mentioned in Dan 8:22b reach full measure. Here also, the reader may reasonably infer that Yahweh once more is acting behind the scenes. Additionally, the temporal line may imply that the defiant king is cut out of the same cloth, ethically, morally, spiritually, as the leaders mentioned in Dan 8:22b. In other words, the defiant king is in the lineage of these impious heathen leaders.

Those who rebel [ (definite article, Qal, participle, ms, pl)] is written as an articular Qal participle of the root ; this precise construction appears four times in the Hebrew Bible [Isaiah 53:12; 66:24; Ezekiel 20:38; Daniel 8:23]. In the case of Dan 8:23, the plural participle seems to comprise all in the class of ; thus, the article is generic in function, pointing to a general class of persons/activities.389

The root, , comes from a semantic field of terms for disobedience.390 The range of meaning for is as follows: [1] in the Qal stem: (a) to break with, either God or one another, (b) to break away from, (c) to behave as a criminal, to be disloyal; and [2] in the Niphal stem: (a) to suffer revolt, to endure a break up.391 CDCH offers a similar range of meaning for : [1] in the Qal stem: to rebel against, to break away; [2] to sin against; [3] in the Niphal stem: to be offended.392 Alex Luc affirms that “normally implies willful violations by an inferior against a superior. In biblical theology, the term refers to an open and brazen defiance of God by humans.”393

Those who rebel [], then, are those from whom the defiant king emerges in Dan 8:22b, those who break with God, wittingly or unwittingly, in their administration of governance and their use of political-military power.

Finally, Dan 8:23 is concluded with a descriptive marker of the defiant king: “skilled in double-dealing [ (noun, fm, pl) (Hiphil, participle)].” The participial clause functions as a relative clause – “one who is skilled in double-dealing.”394

388 For the prefix – – on an infinitive used to signal an event just before the action in the main verb, 8:23b in this case, see Van der Merwe § 20.1.5(ii).

389 See J-M § 137 i. 390 See “Disobedience” in NIDOTTE. 391 KB2, 981. 392 CDCH, 370. 393 Alex Luc, “,” in NIDOTTE [H7321]. 394 Williams § 218.

81


Skilled [] is written in the Hiphil stem appearing with a single direct object, , “double-dealing.” In this construction [Hiphil + direct object], the collocation signals the causation of a stative event;395 in other words, this defiant king was in a position of being “well-informed”396 about /“double-dealing.”

Double-dealing [] is from a semantic field of terms for proverb or riddle;397 in this context, probably tends more toward the sense of “riddle.” Kohler-Baumgartner notes that means the “designation of something by enigmatic allusions.”398 Accordingly, the range of meaning for is: [1] a riddle or [2] ambiguous saying (“intrigue” in Dan 8:23).399 Obviously, due to the context, /“double-dealing” is used in a derogatory sense; so we are well beyond simple “riddles” or merely “ambiguous sayings.” V. Hamp notes “in Dan 8:23, must be taken in a pejorative sense as ‘wily, tricky’; even so, a kind of intellectual superiority of the upstart king is expressed.”400 Accordingly, BDB translates with “double-dealing.”401 As we have noted previously [see page 35], one of the political leaders in history who has exhibited this trait was Antiochus Epiphanes; specifically his rise to the throne in Syria was on the basis of “a good deal of dexterity and intrigue on the part of Antiochus for him to get his position in Syria, but that he did get the better of the opposing elements.”402

Even in light of the above, the reader is once more reminded that leaders like Antiochus have surely preceded him and most assuredly have followed him; leaders who lay hold of power, and retain it as well, by means of craft, cunning, guile, shrewdness; men and women who are masters of trickery, of maneuvering, of manipulating and finessing those around them. The reader is encouraged not to become fixated on the 6th century BC, for Antiochus has had many successors.

Summary

Dan 8:23 is remarkable in the paragraph for introducing the key player in the paragraph: the “defiant king.” Indeed, Dan 8:23functions to tease out the notable traits of this kind of leader.

First, he is in the tradition of his predecessors: “just before those who rebel reach full measure.” We noted at the time that this infinitive construction was temporal, delineating the state of affairs just before this defiant king comes on the scene. Indeed, we concluded that this temporal phrase serves to depict the defiant king as “more of the same;” he is cut out of the same piece of rebellious cloth; he is in the spiritual and moral lineage of the rebellious and impious leaders who preceded him. The modern reader of Dan 8:23 should not wonder at the monotonous moral sameness of leaders that emerge from the same political, spiritual, ethical, and philosophical culture; it is an utter waste of time to expect to change men by changing culture; rather, we are better served by changing culture through the grueling and laborious process of changing men, one person at a time.

395 IBHS 27.3 c. 396 KB1, 122. 397 See “Proverb, riddle” in NIDOTTE [H2648]. 398 KB1, 309. 399 Ibid. 400 V. Hamp, “,” in TDOT, vol. IV, 322. 401 BDB, 295. 402 CAH, vol. VIII, 498.

82


Second, this leader is characterized as “defiant;” that is, this is the kind of leader that fully expects to prevail; he doesn’t merely reign, he overwhelms; he doesn’t simply administrate, he subjugates; he doesn’t purely lead, he vanquishes; he may pretend to serve, but in reality this kind of leader subjugates. If need be, cruelty and viciousness are in his repertoire, as well as cunning and guile; either way, these “defiant ones” are the power-players of the 6 th century BC and the 21st century AD. The modern reader of Dan 8:23 must not lose sight of the fact that “defiant” is a power term, a strength term; and, when all is said and done, the kind of leader described in Dan 8:23 is alive and well in our midst to this hour: leaders who are obsessed with power, preoccupied with gaining power, consumed with using power, passionate about maintaining power and expanding power. Indeed, every system of human government, no matter what the label, is a system in which some people have power over other people. Now, if Romans 13 is taken at face value, this arrangement has divine sanction; fair enough, but there is a caveat: both the ruled and the ruler must remember what Paul said about this arrangement in Romans 13:1, “There is no authority to rule except from God,” and “those that do exist are assigned by God.” The modern reader of Dan 8:23 will doubtless note that modern leaders are more like the “defiant king” in Daniel than they are like “ministers of God” in Romans.

Third, this leader in Dan 8:23 is what we would call today “slick;” he is wily, tricky, artful, slippery, deceitful and crafty; he is highly skilled in intrigue; he can plot with the best of them; he is a dexterous double-dealer; in a nutshell, he is a typical power politician of any age. Now lest we overreact and say, “Surely, not all people in political life are like that,” we must confess, no, not all are. But Daniel is describing the kind of leader to be wary of, the kind of leader to expect the worst out of; and as we have seen, the kind of leader to firmly but gently resist when Scripture calls upon one to do so.

Dan 8:24 – “And so, his might will be strong, but not by means of his own strength, seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin, and so, he will be successful and act with effect; he will destroy mighty ones and holy people.”

This verse is sufficiently complex and important to warrant recalling its outline:

Event two – prediction – “And so, his might will be strong” Caveat/contrast – “but not by means of his own strength” Description of “might” – “seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin”

Obviously, the thrust of Dan 8:24 is the main event in the verse: “his might will be strong.” Then, we have two qualifying clauses that tease out this might a bit more fully: [1] “not by means of his own strength” and [2] “seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin.”

Moreover, Dan 8:24 has the first of five waw consecutive perfect aspect verbs that signal the backbone of a predictive discourse:403

(1) “His might will be strong” [Dan 8:24a](2-3) “He will be successful and act with effect” [Dan 8:24a](4) “He will destroy mighty ones and holy people” [Dan 8:24b](5) “He will cause treachery to succeed” [Dan 8:25a]

Strength, success, destruction, and treachery are the hallmarks of this kind of leader; these traits, furthermore, are the centerpiece of the paragraph and should be attended to carefully

403 For this use of the waw consecutive perfect, see Van der Merwe § 23.2.2 (i).

83


by the reader. Additionally, it is wise not to get bogged down in identifying specific human referents to these traits; there have been innumerable instantiations of this kind of ruler-tyrant; rather, the trick is to recognize them when we see them and act accordingly.

His might will be strong [ ] is predictive discourse; the sentence is a commissive, which means that Gabriel, and heaven for that matter, stand behind the truth and the eventuality of this prediction. What is more, the waw consecutive perfect [/“will be strong”] is syntactically linked to the imperfect aspect verb in Dan 8:23b [/“will come on the scene”]; both point to futurity.

Might [] is a term we have seen previously in Daniel 8 [see Dan 8:6-7, 22]; the term is from a semantic field of terms for power or strength.404 Robin Wakely notes that is used of the “strength of an individual” in Dan 8:24.405 A.S. van der Woude affirms that the chief meaning of “may be defined as ‘vital power,’” including such refinements as [1] “physical power,” [2] “mental power,” and [3] “competence, suitability, capability” in later literature.406 The reader should weigh and consider in the sense of physical power, to be sure, but owing to the references to mental acuity in the context [“double-dealing” ( , 8:23b), “treachery” ( in 8:25) and “his own mind” ( in 8:25)], the reader might also be open to power including the sense of competence for in Dan 8:24a; therefore, the sense might be: strength, vital power, yielding competence.

While the sense of noted above applies to all of the instantiations of this kind of political ruler that would come down the pike, we must not ignore the Syrian incarnation suggested repeatedly in the context: Antiochus Epiphanes. Bevan notes that he was a man with considerable intellectual gifts; for, Antiochus was a man with “a ready interest in intellectual discussion.”407

Will be strong [] is a verb from the same semantic field as . The ranges of meaning for are the following: [1] in the Qal to be powerful and [2] to be countless, and [3] in the Hiphil to make powerful.408 The net effect is that this kind of leader prospers in government precisely because his vital power/competence [] proves to be overpowering [] when faced with conflict.

Now, we have a caveat, a contrast, almost a condition: “but not by his own strength [ ].” The question is: to what does this caveat refer? The waters are muddy: [1] there are those who affirm that the phrase means that behind the power of this kind of ruler is the power of God; hence the sense becomes: “but not only by his own power”; while [2] Driver affirms that the preferable sense is: “not by his own power (but rather by intrigues);”409 and finally, [3] there are those who avow that the repetition of “not by his own power ( ) here and in Dan 8:22b indicates that this leader’s power is less than that of the leader in Dan 8:22.

Of these three, Driver’s is the weakest since “power [],” as we have noted, does include mental power; and one who is a master of intrigue does expend a considerable amount of mental power on his/her scheming.

404 See “Power, strength” in NIDOTTE. 405 Robin Wakely, “,” in NIDOTTE. 406 A.S. van der Woude, “,” in TLOT II, 610. 407 CAH, VIII, 498. 408 KB1, 868. 409 Driver, Daniel, 123.

84


What is more, of these three, the third option is the strongest for the simple reason that it is supported by the context. There is no getting around the fact that this phrase – – appears only in Dan 8:22, 24 in the Hebrew Bible. But, if this phrase is a back reference to Dan 8:22, then the question is: to what effect?

Regarding Dan 8:22b, we have already noted [see page 78] that “but not with his power” discloses a reduction in power from the single predecessor of the four kingdoms; we noted that power is shaky; so, the four kingdoms, and by implication the four leaders, were not the powerhouses that their predecessor was. That being the case in Dan 8:22, the phrase in Dan 8:24a tracks the further decline in power, if not leadership. Daniel may be suggesting here what is all too patently obvious: human history, including especially the powerful leaders that populate history, do not improve in quality over time; rather more often than not, the opposite seems to be the case.

Finally, we have a description of the “might []” mentioned in the opening line: “seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin [ ].” There are two components to this sentence: [1] the main event – “he will bring about ruin” – and [2] the direct object of the ruin: “dreadful.”

He will bring about ruin [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is from a semantic field of terms for destruction and ruin.410 appears most often in the Hebrew Bible in the Hiphil stem; the ranges of meaning for in the Hiphil are: [1] to destroy places, annihilate people, [2] to ruin a person, [3] to destroy oneself, of desires that destroy or consume, [4] to overthrow a kingdom, [5] impair one’s estate, [6] to mar, to trim, [7] to spoil (of Yahweh), [8] to make a deep corrupt, [9] to behave in a corrupt way, [10] of beasts that devour, harm, [11] of wind that is destructive, and [12] as a noun: a destroyer, raider.411

There are two senses in which /“ruin” may apply in the context of Dan 8:23-25. First, and obviously, the Hiphil of may imply physical destruction, as evidenced in destruction language in Dan 8:24b [“he will destroy”]. Second, and perhaps more speculatively, the Hiphil of may imply moral corruption, as evidenced by this kind of leader’s “double-dealing” [Dan 8:23b], his “cunning” [Dan 8:25a], and his “treachery” [Dan 8:25a]. The net effect is that the scales are tipped in the direction of physical destruction, including the taking of human life, for the chief meaning of in Dan 8:24a; at the same time, the reader should not ignore the possibility, if not the likelihood that may also consist of this kind of leader’s skill in spreading moral corruption.

Dreadful [ (Niphal, participle, fm, pl)] is the direct object of this kind of leader’s ruinous blight. The use of the participle in the accusative frame describes more precisely the manner in which the “ruin” takes place.412

Kohler-Baumgartner affirms that the basic meaning of this root [] is “to be different, conspicuous, curious; denotes the moment when something initiated by, or linked with, the performer of an action becomes effective.”413 The root is used predominately in the Hebrew Bible in the Niphal stem; accordingly, the ranges of meaning for in the Niphal are: [1] to be treated as unusual, inappropriate, meaning to be too difficult, [2] to be unusual, wonderful, and

410 See “Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin” in NIDOTTE. 411 CDCH, 457. 412 GKC § 118 l, q. 413 KB2, 927.

85


[3] miraculous acts.414 In the case of the use of in Dan 8:24a, the use of with the verb /“bring about ruin” yields the sense: “to cause unheard of [] destruction.”415 Victor Hamilton notes that can have a negative meaning in Dan 8:24 denoting “unbelievable, incredible, suprarational.”416 Driver more or less concurs, noting that signals “destruction in an extraordinary degree.”417

The net effect of this description of this tyrant’s might [Dan 8:24a] is fairly open-ended; that is, “he will bring about dreadful ruin” is rather general. In the context, however, death figures prominently [Dan 8:24b], including pagan rulers and the people of God. Moreover, deceit in the form of “double-dealing” [Dan 8:23b] and “treachery” [Dan 8:25a] must also be included in the inventory of this tyrant’s unheard of ruin.

The second component in the backbone of this predictive discourse is: “he will be successful [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)].” Once more, the sentence is a commissive; the speaker is committing himself to the truth value of this prediction; civilization can count on this kind of despot disfiguring human history.

Successful [] is written in the Hiphil stem without a direct object; in other words, the Hiphil is intransitive and, in this case, an internal Hiphil. The internal Hiphil retains the causative nuance of the stem, but, as an internal Hiphil, the subject [the “defiant king”] works in connection with himself as the causer of the action.418 The syntactical point is important: this “defiant king” draws upon his own, considerable and malevolent, resources to spawn his ruinous exploits. We might weigh and consider being chary of pining all malevolencies on either Satan or even, ultimately Yahweh’s permissive will; Scripture goes out of its way here by using the internal Hiphil to pin the malevolent tail squarely on the free moral agency of the defiant king.

Successful [] is from a semantic field of terms for success and skill.419 The verb is used 40 times in the Hiphil in the Hebrew Bible with the following ranges of meaning: [1] intransitively, to be successful and [2] transitively, to make something a success.420 Alex Luc notes that usually refers to “accomplishing successfully what is intended.”421 This element of intention dovetails nicely with the internal Hiphil noted above. Hausmann notes that in Dan 8:24 does mean that even though the defiant king “does indeed ‘succeed’ at some things, God will certainly impose limitations [Dan 11:36].”422 The limitations imposed by Yahweh are indeed upon malevolent resources and intentions of the defiant king.

The third component in the backbone of the predictive discourse is: “he will act with effect [ (Qal, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)].” This sentence is also a commissive, promising the certitude of the outcome as vouchsafed by Gabriel, the speaker.

414 Ibid. 415 Ibid. 416 Victor P. Hamilton, “,” in TWOT. 417 Driver, Daniel, 123. 418 On this point, see IBHS 27.2f. 419 See “Success and skill” in NIDOTTE. 420 KB2, 1026-27. 421 Alex Luc, “,” in NIDOTTE [H7502]. 422 J. Hausmann, “,” in TDOT, vol. XII, 384.

86


Act with effect [] is from a semantic field of terms for “act”.423 The verb is very prominent in the Hebrew Bible, appearing 2527 times in the Qal stem alone. The ranges of meaning in the Qal are these: [1] to make, manufacture, [2] to attach, [3] to make for, with, or from, [4] to create, of Yahweh, [5] to give effect to, to do, to accomplish, [6] to acquire, obtain for oneself, [7] to prepare, [8] to make in a wide sense, [9] to carry out, perform, [10] to perform labor, work or toil, [11] to act, behave, and [12] to do or treat.424 Used in juxtaposition with /“succeed,” the usage of in Dan 8:24 is best seen in the light of sense [5] above: “to act with effect.” In other words, the “defiant king” carries through [] on his purposes, and for all intents and purposes, carries the day [for the time being].

The fourth stage in the predictive discourse is: “he will destroy the mighty and the holy people [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)].” The sentence opens with the finite verb signaling another commissive, promising that the truth claim in this line will come to pass. There are two direct objects of destruction []: [1] “mighty ones []” and [2] “holy people [].”

There is a line of thought that reads the two direct objects as referring to one and the same referent: “the mighty ones that is the holy people.”425 I doubt this for two reasons: [1] the verbal counterpart of the adjective used here – mighty ones – is used in 8:24a of the might of this leader himself; this suggests that the adjective also refers to one of his caste, those who are politically and militarily powerful; and [2] this adjective is used thirty one times in the Hebrew Bible, with only one clear reference to the people of God.

He will destroy [] is a verb we have already seen in Dan 8:24a [“he will bring about dreadful ruin” (see the notes on pages 86-87)]. I see no reason to change the use of here from that in Dan 8:24a: [1] physical destruction, including death, and [2] possibly moral corruption. However, here, as in Dan 8:24, the scales must be tipped in the direction of physical destruction for both objects: the mighty [who are the defiant king’s foes] and holy people, who are also his enemies. Interestingly, the Septuagint tradition translates with Greek verbs that contain both of these ranges of meaning. The Old Greek uses for , which means “destroy, ruin, corrupt, spoil.”426 Theodotion uses for , which means [1] “spoil or destroy”, or [2] “ruin in a moral sense”.427

Mighty ones [] is the masculine, plural, adjectival form of the verb [] used in Dan 8:24a; the adjective is from a semantic field of terms for power and strength. When this form of the adjective is used in the Hebrew Bible, it often refers to “mighty nations,”428 or simply kings.429 BDB reads in terms of “mighty people.”430 N. Lohfink makes an interesting point regarding in Dan 8:24: “describes mighty kings and nations” that are “enemies” of the defiant king [whom Lohfink identifies as Antiochus Epiphanes].431 The net effect is that these “mighty ones” are the politically-militarily powerful adversaries of the defiant king. Furthermore, to the extent that he “destroys” them, the “defiant king” liquidates his political and military foes.

423 See “Act” in NIDOTTE. 424 KB1, 890-91. 425 For this reading, see Goldingay, 199. 426 BAGD, 857. 427 Ibid., 190. 428 Deuteronomy 4:38; 7:1; 9:1; 11:23; Joshua 23:9; Micah 4:3; Zechariah 8:22. 429 Psalm 135:10. 430 BDB, 783; see also Isaiah 53:12; Proverbs 18:18. 431 N. Lohfink, “,” in TDOT, vol. XI, 303.

87


Holy people [] is a phrase that is used six times in the Hebrew Bible, five of them in Deuteronomy [Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9]. It would seem that this fact must be kept in mind as we evaluate the meaning of “holy people” [].

Deuteronomy 7:6 is a motive clause: “for, a holy people – you, to the Lord your God” [ ]. The “holy people” are clarified in the following line: “the Lord your God has chosen you to be His personal possession” [ ]. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 7:6 is written as a motive for these people to utterly destroy every vestige of idolatry when they march into the Promised Land [Deuteronomy 7:4-5]. The upshot is that /“holy people” denotes a chosen people, a people reserved for Yahweh’s possession, and a people utterly separate from idolatry.

Deuteronomy 14:2 is also a motive clause that repeats the language of Deuteronomy 7:6, and does so for essentially the same reason: be separate from idolatry [Deuteronomy 14:1]. Thus, the thrust of Deuteronomy 14:1-2 is precisely that of Deuteronomy 7:4-6.

Deuteronomy 14:21 is within a context that concerns dietary laws [Deuteronomy 14:3-21]. The argument of the context is that the people of God maintain their position as people wholly consecrated to Yahweh by avoiding what Yahweh has declared to be impure. In Deuteronomy 14:21, avoiding eating meat that dies naturally, thus avoiding the blood that is still in it, is a way of showing wholehearted consecration to Yahweh, remaining a /“holy people.”

Deuteronomy 26:19 is part of a larger context, Deuteronomy 26:16-19, that depicts the mutual relationship between Yahweh and His people. In Deuteronomy 26:19, Yahweh has “set” [] His people above all nations [ ], essentially for His praise [], for His fame [], and for His glory []; thus His people will be a /“holy people.” The emphasis in Deuteronomy 26:19 is that to be a is to reflect the praise, fame, and glory of Yahweh.

Finally, Deuteronomy 28:9 is in a context of blessings and curses, Deuteronomy 28:7-10 enlarges upon the blessedness of faithfully following Yahweh. Deuteronomy 28:9 promises Yahweh will establish you [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] for Himself [] as a / “holy people.” The operative term is the causative Hiphil, “will establish;” Yahweh’s people, His /“holy people,” will enjoy the blessing of Yahweh’s aid in establishing them as His “holy people.”

So, what does all of this tell us? Essentially, there are traits unique to the /“holy people.” First, /“holy people” denotes a chosen people, a people reserved for Yahweh’s possession, and a people utterly separate from idolatry [Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2]; second, the /“holy people” are wholly consecrated to Yahweh, avoiding what Yahweh regards as impure [Deuteronomy 14:21]; third, the /“holy people” are intended by Yahweh to reflect His praise, fame, and glory [Deuteronomy 26:19]; and fourth to be one of the /“holy people” is a blessing insofar as Yahweh establishes His people as /“holy people” [Deuteronomy 28:9].

To the extent that Scripture is inspired, we may plausibly infer that Yahweh intends that we read /“holy people” in Dan 8:24b in light of the Deuteronomy passages; the fact that this precise phrase – (adjective)/“holy people” – occurs only in the Deuteronomy and Daniel passages is either strangely accidental or typically intentional.

The upshot is this: the /“holy people” are [1] reserved for Yahweh’s possession, [2] utterly separate from idolatry, [3] wholly consecrated to Yahweh’s revealed will, [4] called to

88


reflect Yahweh’s glory to the world, and [5] blessed to be established as His /“holy people.” The reader of Dan 8:24 can readily understand how these traits would place the /“holy people” in the crosshairs of tyrants like the defiant king in Dan 8:24b.

Summary

Dan 8:24 is a portrait of a tyrant: “mighty,” “strong,” “ruinous,” “successful,” and “destructive.” This kind of ruler is a poster child for what passes as the successful or dynamic leader: all mighty, all powerful, and unstoppable.

The angel calls attention to his might, using language that suggests the kind of vital strength that combines skill and competence; this man is surely good at what he does. Indeed, his strength is of the overpowering variety; we may infer that strength means military strength, economic strength, political strength, and intellectual strength.

Gabriel also calls attention to what this kind of leader does with his considerable gifts and aptitudes: he ruins, he destroys, and he is successful at both. This kind of leader seems to have the knack for ruining everything he/she comes in contact with; he ruins physically in terms of destruction of lands and property and he ruins morally, corrupting with his highly skilled double-dealing. In a nutshell, this kind of leader destroys, leveling cities, towns, nations, and peoples; nothing is immune from the devastating mania of this kind of political leader. Finally, this type of leader is routinely successful; at the outset at least, he seems to be unstoppable because he is unrelenting and relentless in his/her pursuit of power and expansion. Rabbi Heschel summarizes the legacy of men such as these who ascend, all too often and all too sadly, to leadership in the world: “What is the ultimate profit of all the arms, alliances, and victories? Destruction, agony, death.”432

Dan 8:25 – “Furthermore, owing to his cunning, he will cause treachery to succeed aided by his power, while in his own mind he will magnify himself, and in the midst of careless security, he will destroy many; indeed, he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes, but without human power he will be shattered.”

Dan 8:25 contains the fifth component in the predictive discourse: “he will cause treachery to succeed” [ ]. This verse is sufficiently complex to recall its structure:

Final prediction in predictive discourse – “he will cause treachery to succeed” Means – “owing to his cunning” Means – “aided by his power” Background note – “while in his own mind he will magnify himself”

(a) Additional background prediction – “he will destroy many” Circumstantial note – “in the midst of careless security”

(b) Another background prediction – “he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes”

(c) Final background prediction – “he will be shattered” Means – “but without human power”

432 Heschel, Prophets, vol. 1, 160.

89


The reader will note that the main event in this verse of predictive discourse is the final prediction; everything else in the verse is background information on the net effects of his successful treachery: [1] “he will destroy,” [2] “he will rise up,” and [3] “he will be shattered.” As we have noted from the outset of this study on Daniel, the theme is the book is God’s sovereignty over national and international political power players; this theme is teased out in vivid detail in this verse; Yahweh has the final say as Dan 2:21, and now Dan 8:25, strikingly point out.

The final link in the chain of the predictive discourse is this: “he will cause treachery to succeed” [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]. The verb is written in the Hiphil stem with an object – “treachery [].” In this kind of construction, the Hiphil underscores the subject [“defiant king”] causing a process [“succeed”] directed toward an objective [“treachery”].433

Succeed [] has been discussed in Dan 8:24a [see the notes on page 88].

Treachery [] comes from a semantic field of terms for fraud.434 The ranges of meaning for are: [1] trick, fraud, and [2] disillusionment.435 Carpenter and Grisanti affirm that means “deceit or treachery” in Dan 8:25.436 BDB claims that means “treachery, craftiness” in Dan 8:25.437 M. Kartveit notes that “refers to a situation in which reality differs from appearance. Such situations involve interpersonal transactions in which someone acts or speaks consciously and deliberately to conceal or cover up certain facts. The purpose is often to gain personal advantage.”438

Collocations using a verb + are informative, breaking down into three categories: [1] cognitive, [2] verbal, and [3] practical modes of deception.

Job 15:35 uses a verb + collocation cognitively. In this passage, “preparing/considering” [] “deception” [] is disambiguated with [1] “conceiving” [] “disaster/evil” [] and [2] “bringing forth” [] “iniquity/evil/disaster” []. What this passage tells us is that the mind is the birth place of as evil and disaster.

Proverbs 26:24 also uses a verb + collocation cognitively. The proverb equates “disguising” [] “hate” [] with “laying up” [] “deceit” [] internally. What this suggests is that may cognitively take on aspects of “hate.”

Psalm 34:14 uses a verb + collocation verbally. In this passage, lips “speaking” [] “deceit” [] is disambiguated with “guarding” [] the tongue from “evil/wickedness” []. What this suggests is that , when spoken, is tantamount to wickedness. A similar relationship between and is made in Psalm 50:19.

433 IBHS 27.2 d. 434 See “Fraud” in NIDOTTE. 435 KB1, 636. 436 Eugene Carpenter and Michael Grisanti, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8228]. 437 BDB, 941. 438 M. Kartveit, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIII, 501.

90


The practical modes of deception [] are in Dan 8:25; 11:23. As we noted above, the practical mode features the defiant king causing the process of deception [] to succeed. In this case, is tantamount to deceit, trickery, fraud, or treachery. It is clear that the various modes of /“deception” involve evil, hatred, and disaster all in the service of the defiant king’s personal advantage. There are two means by which the defiant king succeeds in his sham existence: [1] “cunning” and [2] “power.”

Owing to his cunning [] is a prepositional phrase that uses in a causative sense.439 What is more, the prepositional phrase – “owing to his cunning” – is front loaded in the line suggesting some intentional emphasis on this trait. The reader is encouraged to weigh and consider this trait carefully.

Cunning [] is from a semantic field of terms for “understanding.”440 Kohler-Baumgartner note that reflects “different meanings of the verb: on the one hand to understand, and on the other, to be successful. The first of these meanings is by far the most important.”441 Accordingly, the ranges of meaning for are: [1] “insight, understanding,” and [2] “success.”442 Regarding in Dan 8:25a, Kohler-Baumgartner translate in the sense of “striving, planning.”443 In usage, however, shows some flexibility.

, the singular, masculine, noun occurs sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible.444 is used to denote: [1] intelligence or wisdom (1 Samuel 25:3), [2] discretion or insight (1 Chronicles 22:12), [3] cunning, craftiness, shrewdness (1 Chronicles 26:14), [4] meaning, sense (Nehemiah 8:8), [5] success, approval (Proverbs 3:4). Nuance [3], a negative sense, appears to be the best option for in Dan 8:25a. Driver reads in a negative sense, “astuteness.”445 Fox observes that denotes “the ability to grasp the meanings or implications of a situation or message.”446

Thus, is a trait whereby a man can understand and interpret practical matters and make decisions, which in this case, reflect the best interests of the defiant king. In other words, describes a crafty, calculating, shrewd, scheming, and wily political-military operative. To the extent that “treachery” in the sense of distorting appearance and reality, making the sham seem like the authentic, succeeds in the hands of this defiant king, it does so owing to his cunningness, his craftiness, his underhandedness.

By his power [] is another means by which this kind of political-military operative eases the way for treachery to seem to be honesty. Again, we have a prepositional phrase. The use of the preposition, , is probably an instrumental signaling the personal agency of the

439 Van der Merwe § 39.20.5; IBHS 11.2.13e; Williams § 291. 440 See “Understanding” in NIDOTTE. 441 KB2, 1329. 442 Ibid. 443 Ibid., 1330. 444 1 Samuel 25:3; 1 Chronicles 22:12; 26:14; 2 Chronicles 2:11; 30:22; Ezra 8:18;

Nehemiah 8:8; Job 17:4; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 3:4; 12:8; 13:15; 16:22; 19:11; 23:9; Daniel 8:25.

445 Driver, 125. 446 Fox, Proverbs 1-9, 36.

91


defiant king in supplementing “power” with “cunning” in order to promote his treacherous political-military wheeling and dealing.447

Power [] is obviously a figurative use of /“hand.” Among the figurative uses are: [1] the sphere of power, rule, control, [2] authority, [3] charge, custody, command, and [4] power, strength, force.448 One of two senses seems to apply in this case: [1] the defiant king supplements “cunning” with force in order to advance his treacheries, or [2] he supplements “cunning” with his authority to promote his agenda. At the end of the day, there may not be much difference.

At this point, the heavenly speaker lifts out some background information, some circumstances that flow out of this final link in the chain of predictive discourse – “he will cause treachery to succeed.” One of these circumstances involves the defiant king’s hubris – “in his own mind he will magnify himself;” another situation comprises the destructive outcome of his deceits – “he will destroy many;” while a further episode involves the ruler’s hostility to Yahweh – “he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes.” When all is said and done, a completely unforeseen circumstance, from the tyrant’s point of view, overtakes him – “without human power, he will be shattered.” Hubris, destruction, and anti-God hostility are the aftershocks of politically-militarily sanctioned treachery; these are the repercussions the reader should learn to expect from those whose solitary aim in life is to acquire and exploit power.

Successfully fomenting treachery leads to hubris: “while in his own mind he will magnify himself [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms) ].” Syntactically, the line is a circumstantial clause, signaled by the disjunctive waw []. The disjunctive waw signals off-line, background material concerning the personal outlook of this man associated with his initial successes.449

In his own mind [] is a prepositional phrase, marking the state or condition in which the action of the verb takes place.450

It is best to translate as “mind” rather than “heart,” since the latter has connotations of emotion that tend to oust, for the modern reader, the cerebral component in . According to Kohler-Baumgartner, has the following ranges of meaning when applied to humans: [1] the physical organ within the human body, [2] the seat of vital force; life, [3] one’s inner self, the seat of feelings and emotions, [4] inclination, disposition, [5] determination, courage, [6] will, intention, [7] attention, consideration, reason, [8] mind in general and as a whole, [9] conscience, [10] inside or middle of something, [11] the organized strength of life/person.451 Of these, options [4] and [7] best fit the context, especially when associated with “magnify himself” []. Moreover, as noted above, the prepositional phrase identifies the state or condition in which the self-magnification occurs. In other words, the state of affairs in which the defiant king magnifies himself consists of his inclination or disposition to do so, or his consideration or reasons for doing so. BDB has a category of meanings for that includes “moral character,” specifically “the seat of pride.”452 Perhaps we can narrow things down a bit.

447 On this use of , see IBHS 11.2.5d; Williams § 245; Van der Merwe §39.6.3. 448 CDCH, 145. 449 For the disjunctive waw implying off-line, background circumstances, see IBHS

39.2.3b; Gibson § 135. 450 BDB, 88. 451 KB1, 514-15. 452 BDB, 523-24.

92


He will magnify himself [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is an internal Hiphil; in other words, the internal Hiphil represents the defiant king causing himself to be regarded as magnificent.453 This “self-causation” must occur in the /“mind.” Accordingly, the internal Hiphil of in concert with /“mind” signals that the defiant king in the realm of his / “consideration/reason” succeeds in convincing himself of his great magnitude.

This is not the first use of in the Hiphil in the sense of “magnify himself.”454 As noted in conjunction with Dan 8:4, as an internal Hiphil means “act mightily, act boastfully, magnify oneself.”455 E. Jenni notes that the Hiphil of may be an “inner-causative” usage of the root, implying “to make oneself great, to make oneself become great.”456 R. Mosis renders the Hiphil of in the sense of “to prove oneself to be great actually and effectively.”457 The reader should note the distinction in these meanings between greatness as built up in the mind and greatness as proving oneself to be great in the real world. In light of the context of Dan 8:25a – “he will destroy many” – that which began in the defiant king’s mind takes shape, destructive shape to be sure but this is a deviant perception of “greatness,” in the real world. Surely, the words of Solomon in Proverbs 23:7 fit well here: “as a man calculates [] within himself, so is he.”

Another of the circumstances that follow close upon the heels of the final link in the predictive chain – “he will cause treachery to succeed” – is a destructive circumstance, pure and simple: “in the midst of careless security, he will destroy many.” Let’s review the syntax of these two clauses:

Additional background prediction – “he will destroy many”Circumstantial note – “in the midst of careless security”

In the midst of careless security [] introduces another off-line bit of background information further teasing out what the political governance in the regnal prophecy [8:23-25b] looks like. The grammar of the sentence utilizes a disjunctive waw [] prefixed to a prepositional phrase – and, in the midst of careless security – followed by the finite verb – he will destroy – and its direct object – many.

In the midst of careless security [] is a bit of a misnomer; for, the preposition, , is probably a temporal use of , signaling “at a time when.” Thus the prepositional phrase when translated temporally marks a time in which the events in the sentence occur.458 The sense of the prepositional phrase indicates during a time of or in the midst of. Obviously, the operative term is the object of the preposition – careless security.

Careless security [] is from a semantic field of terms for “quiet.”459 This feminine noun occurs eight times in the Hebrew Bible,460 three of them in Daniel. Kohler-Baumgartner offer the following ranges of meaning for : [1] ease, rest, carefree rest, and [2] security in the

453 IBHS 27.2f. 454 See Daniel 8:4, 8, 11. 455 CDCH, 62. 456 E. Jenni, “,” TLOT I, 304. 457 R. Mosis, “,” in TDOT, vol. II, 404. 458 IBHS 11.2.5c.459 See “Quiet” in NIDOTTE. 460 Psalm 122:7; Proverbs 1:32; 17:1; Jeremiah 22:21; Ezekiel 16:49; Daniel 8:25; 11:21,

24.

93


sense of self-confidence.461 Kohler-Baumgartner read in Dan 8:25 in the sense of “while they were at ease,”462 option [1]. Holladay opts for “while they were relaxed.”463

Philip Nel translates in Dan 8:25 in the sense of unpreparedness: “heedless” or

“unconcerned.”464 K. Grnwaldt cites an Akkadian cognate, el, which means “be(come) negligent.”465 Grnwaldt further affirms that should be translated “unexpectedly, without warning.”466

Interestingly, both the Old Greek and Theodotion translate in Dan 8:25 with the Greek noun , a noun that means “by cunning” or “by stealth.”467 This sense dovetails with Grnwaldt’s note above. However, the Old Greek and Theodotion translate in Dan 11:21, 24 with the adverb, , which means “suddenly” or “unexpectedly.”468 The interesting point is this: the author of 1 Maccabees also uses when he relates the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes in 1 Maccabees 1:29-30, the summer of 168 BC. The account is this:

Two years later, the king sent the chief collector of tribute into the cities of Judah and he came to Jerusalem with a savage force. Then, he [the collector] spoke words of peace, but with guile; and they [the inhabitants of Jerusalem] believed him; but he fell upon the city unexpectedly [], and he struck it with great blows, and so he destroyed many people of Israel.

We have noted repeatedly that Antiochus Epiphanes is one of many exemplars of the kind of rogue political regimes one finds in human history. Dan 8:25 as well as 11:21, 25 more than likely do have reference to Antiochus Epiphanes and his treacherous exploits as outlined in 1 Maccabees. So, how does all of this fit together?

It would seem that the negligent, unprepared, unconcerned attitude among the people of Judah [] in the example above paves the way for their enemy falling upon them unexpectedly []. In other words, the lack of vigilance in Dan 8:25 primes people for destruction unawares [Dan 11:21, 25]. The larger principle is this: a political platform that promises peace may be mere subterfuge, yielding more destruction than tranquility. The linkage between Dan 8 and Antiochus is merely proof of the principle.

He will destroy many [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is the outcome of all the treachery and deceit. This is the same verb [] that we have twice in Dan 8:24. When all is said and done, I see no reason to change the use of here from that in Dan 8:24a-b: [1] physical destruction, including death, and [2] possibly moral corruption. However, here, as in Dan 8:24, the scales must be tipped in the direction of physical destruction.

Yet another of the circumstances that follow close upon the heels of the final link in the predictive chain – “he will cause treachery to succeed” – is an anti-God hostility: “he will rise up

461 KB2, 1505. 462 Ibid. 463 Holladay, 371. 464 Philip J. Nel, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8922]. 465 K. Grnwaldt, “,” in TDOT, vol. XV, 9. 466 Ibid., 10. 467 BAGD, 203. 468 Ibid., 273.

94


as a foe of the Prince of princes. The grammar of 8:25b opens with a disjunctive waw prefixed to a prepositional phrase – indeed, as a foe of the Prince of princes – followed by the finite verb – he will rise up. We begin by considering the opening prepositional phrase.

As a foe of the Prince of princes [] is a prepositional phrase; the preposition is and the object of the preposition is . The preposition – – is used metaphorically to mark an adversary;469 hence the translation “as a foe of.”

Prince of princes [] appears only here in the Hebrew Bible. The noun, , appears eighteen times in Daniel.470 The referents of in Daniel are: [1] humans in the sense of a military commander or a tribal leader (Dan 1:7-11, 18; 9:6, 8; 11:5), [2] Yahweh (Dan 8:11), and [3] various angels (Dan 10:13, 20-21; 12:1). We may conjecture that denotes Yahweh/Prince [] over angels/princes []. Slotki concurs, identifying as “God, the princes being the archangels.”471

In terms of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, has the following ranges of meaning: [1]

outside of Israel: (a) a representative of the king, an official, (b) a person of note, a commander, (c) a leader of a group or district; [2] within Israel: (a) a person of note, head, first, (b) a higher being.472 We can see that is used in Daniel in both ways.

The upshot is that Prince of princes entails Yahweh and the heavenly host of angelic servants; in other words, Gabriel is emphasizing the scope of the defiant king’s hostility toward Yahweh. The king is storming heaven from top to bottom.

Rise up [] is from a semantic field of terms for “stand, station.”473 When used with the preposition, , one sense of the collocation is “stand (against), rise up (against), withstand.”474 BDB concurs, translating the collocation with “rise up as a foe against.”475

Finally, when all is said and done, a completely unforeseen circumstance, from the tyrant’s point of view, overtakes him – “but, without human power, he will be shattered.” In this case, the disjunctive waw [] that opens this line signals a contrast [“but”] to the above [Dan 8:23-25a].476 Then the final background prediction – “he will be shattered” – is supplemented by the means – “but without human power.”

But without human power [ ] is a prepositional phrase that is front-loaded in the line, probably for emphasis. This is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where /“without

469 The preposition – – may be used in a metaphorical sense to signal disadvantage [IBHS, 11.2.13c] or an adversative nuance [Williams § 288]; see also GKC § 119 dd; J-M § 133 f.

470 Daniel 1:7-11, 18; 8:11, 252; 9:6, 8; 10:132, 202-21; 11:5; 12:1. 471 Slotki, 71. 472 KB2, 1351-52. 473 See “Stand, station” in NIDOTTE. 474 CDCH, 330. 475 BDB, 763. 476 For the disjunctive waw signaling a contrast with a previous sentence, see IBHS

39.2.3b.

95


human power” appears. The preposition functions to signal instrumentality; literally “not by means of human hands.”477

Without [] is a masculine noun that comes from a semantic field of terms for “end.”478

The noun appears twenty nine times in the Hebrew Bible, only here in Daniel. The ranges of meaning for are as follows: [1] extremity, end, [2] end, nothing, nothingness, and [3] a limitative use: notwithstanding.479 Kohler-Baumgartner locate in option [2], “not by human hand.”480 BDB reads as a particle of negation, expressing non-existence, signaling “the cessation of.”481

When combined with the instrumental use of the preposition, , signals the non-existence of any human instrumentality in the demise of the defiant king. As we have pointed out often, the theme of the book of Daniel is the God’s sovereignty over national and international political power-players; this clause is evidence of God’s sovereignty [see Dan 2:21].

He will be shattered [ (Niphal, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] comes from a semantic field of terms for “destruction.”482 The verb is written in the Niphal stem, which is used in this instance to signal passivity; the subject – the defiant king – is in the state of suffering the effects of destruction by an implicit agent.483 In concert with the note in the previous paragraph, the implicit agent is surely Yahweh. Regarding the imperfect aspect of the main verb, Waltke and O’Connor argue that the imperfect aspect in a context relating to future time basically points to a situation that is dependent on some other situation in the context [A gives rise to B (imperfect aspect verb)].484 In this context, the situation that gives rise to the shattering of the defiant king is the intervention of Yahweh – “without human power.”

Shattered [] in the Niphal has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to be smashed, break, including people, animals, inanimate objects, [2] to be broken, be shattered, [3] to be broken, be destroyed, meaning oppressed, humbled.485 The sense of in Dan 8:25 seems to be option [2], to be broken down or ruined.486 B. Knipping has an interesting point regarding the use of the Niphal with an implicit agent, Yahweh: “you are broken (and God initiated it).”487 Proverbs 6:15 puts the same thing this way: “Therefore, suddenly calamity will come; in an instant, he [the wicked man] will be shattered [] with no remedy.” The proverb takes Knipping’s point one step further: not only does God initiate the brokenness, there is no antidote available.

Summary

477 For the instrumental , see IBHS 11.2.5d. 478 See “End, cessation, outcome” in NIDOTTE. 479 KB1, 79. 480 Ibid. 481 BDB, 67. 482 See “Shattering, breaking, destroying” in NIDOTTE. 483 IBHS 23.2.2a. 484 Ibid., 31.6.2a. 485 KB2, 1403. 486 CDCH, 447. 487 B. Knipping, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIV, 374.

96


Dan 8:25 is the climax of Gabriel’s interpretive work begun in Dan 8:16. The interpretation breezes through Medio-Persia [Dan 8:20], and hastens through Greece [Dan 8:21-22]. But, when Gabriel comes to the defiant king in Dan 8:23b, he lingers and teases out disastrous details [Dan 8:23-25]. These details explored in Dan 8:25 survey the consequences of virtually unlimited power in human hands; the picture is a dismal one; for it is politically dismal, socially dismal, and spiritually dismal.

First, the portrait in Dan 8:25 is politically grim when one appreciates the reflection of the leader in the verse: he is a cunning, treacherous politician, who majors in self-glorification, in his own mind at least. What is more, he is destructive in just about every way a leader can be toxic. In terms of summarizing Dan 8:25, the reader should acknowledge the pervasiveness, if not the inescapability of such leaders in a fallen world, through history down to the present moment. Joyce Baldwin’s observation on Dan 8:25 is noteworthy: “This fact is an indication that we are being introduced to a recurring historical phenomenon [emphasis mine]: the clever but ruthless world dictator, who stops at nothing in order to achieve his ends.”488

In Dan 8:25, we perceive the likeness of a cunning and treacherous leader. Cunning means that this sort of political-military power-player can understand and interpret practical matters and make decisions, which in this case, reflect the best interests of the defiant king; he is highly skilled at playing means off against ends, where the ends are always tilted in his political-military favor. Cunning describes a crafty, calculating, shrewd, scheming, and wily political-military operative. To the extent that “treachery,” in the sense of confusing appearance and reality, succeeds in the hands of this kind of leader, it does so owing to his cunning, his slyness, his underhandedness.

Treacherous means that this sort of major player on the world scene is essentially and to his very core a fraud. Deceit and treachery are his stock and trade; this is the kind of leader who is skillfully adept at upending reality and appearance. Indeed, this sort of leader has an irrefutable gift for acting or speaking in such a way as to conceal the facts or, what is worse, make truth seem other than what it really is; the purpose is always for personal advantage. If we were to sum up, in a motto, what personal advantage looks like to this kind of leader, one could not improve upon Mussolini’s motto: “Everything within the state, noting outside the state, nothing against the state.” Every filament of this leader’s cunning and treachery grovels to this axiom. Any people who encourage the belief in the “everythingness” of the state, as opposed to, say, the immediacy and finality of God, then such people, whether they know it or not, live in a totalitarian regime.

Second, the sketch in Dan 8:25 is socially gruesome on two counts: this sort of man actually facilitates treachery succeeding in the social order, moreover, this leadership is a leadership of destruction.

We have already noted what treachery is, at least as far as Gabriel is concerned in his interpretation in Dan 8:25. Treachery means making the true appear false and the false appear true; treachery means adjusting what is real to accommodate a façade of what is sham; treachery means obfuscating, muddying the waters with innuendo; treachery means appealing to fear or to populism or to character assassination or to flattery or to pity or to anger in order to make good. But, with all of that, this sort of leader expedites making treachery succeed, popularizing a kind of perverse expertise; the gruesome legacy of this sort of leader is his model, his moral template that endorses accomplishing one’s objective through treachery if necessary. The repugnant truth

488 Baldwin, 162.

97


is that this kind of leader signals that “success” in the social realm must stoop to duplicity and deceit whenever necessary in order to carry the day; his obscene example advances the fraudulent notion that “this is the way things get done!” Sadly but ever so truly, men buy into this fraud, into this moral fiction that rulers have “expertise” in managing the social realm: “the notion of social control embodied in the notion of expertise is indeed a masquerade. Our social order is in a very literal sense out of our, and indeed, anyone’s control. No one is or could be in charge.”489 Of course, Professor MacIntyre is quick to point out that this masquerade is, at this moment in time, a substitute for God.490 However, what Dan 8:25 implies is that when men like the defiant king govern, then “the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontier; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.”491 In the final analysis, portrayal of barbarians that govern is, to a large extent, what the book of Daniel is all about!

Beyond treachery, Gabriel goes out of his way in Daniel 8 to underline the destructiveness of this kind of sham leader; he “brings about dreadful ruin” [Dan 8:24a]; he “will destroy the mighty as well as holy people” [Dan 8:24b]; ultimately, “he will destroy many” [Dan 8:25]. What would we expect? A cunning, double-dealing, idolater of power is not morally equipped to do much of anything else but spoil and decay and crush. To be sure, his spoilage comes in two forms, as we noted: he ends life and he corrupts life. Regarding this man’s penchant for corrupting what he touches, there are four points, points that emerged in our study of Dan 8:24 [“he will destroy … the holy people”].

To begin with, God’s people are reserved for Yahweh’s possession; but leaders like this one have a knack for contaminating Yahweh’s possession. Their perverse role model communicates a kind of pluralism in the matter of one’s ultimate allegiances. That is, one can indeed serve God and mammon; or one surely must render to Caesar first and foremost, leaving the crumbs for God.

Moreover, God’s people must always and in every way be separate from idolatry; but leaders like this one have a positive gift for comporting themselves as worthy of Godlike status. Let’s not be naïve or engage in evasions; for many in the western democracies, politics and those who serve in the political realm have de facto nudged out God from His rightful place of final and ultimate allegiance. We have made an idol out of the state and those who serve the ends of the state; with our lips we draw near to God, but our hearts seem to be far from Him.

Additionally, God’s people must be wholly consecrated to God’s revealed will; but leaders like this one stake their public lives on the proposition that one can, indeed must, navigate life on purely secular terms. Indeed, in the western democracies, the cry is shrill and stubborn to the effect that ultimate Biblical values have no place whatsoever in public policy considerations. On the contrary, leaders like this shepherd civil discourse through a torturous commitment to the relativization of all values. At this hour in the western democracies, including especially the United States, the social order, including far too many “religious” people, has sold its birthright to moral confusion and moral relativism, suspended over a spiritual vacuum. The sad fact of the matter is that God is virtually silent in our social order; a state of affairs that surely goes a long way to explain our social disorder.

489 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007; third edition), 107.

490 Ibid. 491 Ibid., 263.

98


Finally on this point, God’s people have been created to reflect God’s glory; but leaders like this one, owing especially to their role as social prototype, are endlessly bombarding us with pseudo-glory, that is a glory that basks in merely human attainment: the latest victory on the battlefield; the latest nation annexed into the realm; the latest deity defied before all the realm; the latest piece of legislation for the “benefit” of the citizenry. It is virtually pointless to remind this kind of leader that man was created as the image of God [Genesis 1:26], which among other things means that mankind was created to reflect God’s interests. David Clines puts the matter this way, “Man is created not in God's image, since God has no image of His own, but as God's image, or rather to be God's image, that is to deputize in the created world for the transcendent God who remains outside the world order.”492 At this hour, man’s deputation has been rescinded before the court of public opinion; God has become a cultural unmentionable, especially among the cultural elites. But, Daniel has given us fair warning!

Third, the portrayal in Dan 8:25 is spiritually dismal, for this kind of leader intentionally attacks God; he sets himself up as the foe of the divine. As we have seen earlier in Daniel 8, this kind of leader violates the sanctuary [Dan 8:11b], intrudes into the relationship between God and His people [Dan 8:12a], and succeeds in removing divine truth from public consciousness [Dan 8:12b]. This kind of leader with the consent of those whom he governs manages to maintain the hoax that “politics is everything,” that only what is political and governmental and of the state is ultimately important and deserving of notice. In modern terms, this kind of leader is fully abetted by the media, “which helps to assure that only what is political gets noticed.”493 So it is; but all of this has spiritual consequences: as noted above, man is created for higher things than idolizing the political realm of the state; but, when a new religion – the state and its politics – arrests the attention and the worship of man, man becomes less than he was created to be; man is diminished, devalued, cheapened. The net effect is rampant secularism, unbridled greed, uncontrolled sexuality, unchecked substance abuse, widespread death. When God is dismissed from the public consciousness, virtually anything becomes the norm. So, Daniel gives us fair warning about this too!

We now come to the conclusion of Gabriel’s presentation, Dan 8:26, a conclusion that back references Dan 8:14, a verse that depicts the desolation of the sanctuary for “evening-morning, two thousand and three hundred.” There would appear to be some encouragement implied in this back reference: the desolation, though reprehensible, is both finite in duration and limited by the sovereignty of God; this is the point of the numbers and little else.

Dan 8:26 – “Now, the vision concerning the morning and the evening, which was told, it [is] true; but you keep the vision secret, for [it] concerns many days.”

Dan 8:26 has two simple components: the truth value of the vision concerning morning and evening and a directive to keep the vision secret.

The vision concerning the morning and the evening [ ] is a back reference to Dan 8:14.494 At the time, we noted the following: [1] the prepositional phrase in Dan 8:14 – “for [] evening-morning two thousand three hundred” – indicates a period of time up to a limit; [2] whatever the rest of the sentence may imply, the drift is to point to a fixed period of time up to which these events occur. They go no further; there are divinely fixed limits on this regime’s reign of terror; [3] evening-morning [ ] translates two nouns in sequence with nothing

492 David J.A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 101. 493 Neuhaus, 156. 494 See the full notes on page 60.

99


between them; thus, we woodenly translate “evening-morning;” [4] as a time reference, “evening-morning” is ambiguous; evening-morning surely refers to the daily offering in Dan 8:11. If “evening-morning” is read in a comprehensive sense, then the two nouns signify one day; if, however, they are read individually, then the two nouns signify half days; [5] as far as reading 2300 days or 2300 half days [or 1150 full days], we cannot be dogmatic; [6] we concluded that the time reference is immaterial; the larger point is that, whenever this kind of thing begins and whatever time it takes, God has placed such sacrilegious goings-on within limits. There is no reason to modify this reading for Dan 8:26.

It [is] true [ ] is a verbless clause, literally “true – it.” The “it” refers to the vision concerning “the morning and the evening.” “True” [] is found among a semantic field of terms for trust.495 This feminine noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] reliability, dependability, trustworthiness, faithfulness, constancy, as attributes of either Yahweh or humans; [2] stability, of political conditions; [3] truth, correctness of words or statements; [4] sincerity, honesty of motives; [5] genuineness, reality of something.496 Kohler-Baumgartner translate with “truth.”497 R.W.L. Moberly reads in Dan 8:26 in the sense of that which may be acknowledged as the truth.498

But you, keep the vision secret [ (Qal, imperative, ms) ] is obviously a directive from Gabriel to Daniel. The reason or motive is unpacked in the next line.

The sentence opens with psychological focus on Daniel – but you. The use of the second person pronoun is a way of emphasizing Daniel’s personal and exclusive role in the action, keeping the vision secret.499

Keep secret [] is an imperative; Daniel is directed by Gabriel to keep the vision secret. is from a semantic field of terms for closing or shutting.500 The word has the following ranges of meaning: [1] in the Qal: (a) to stop up, (b) to disguise, (c) to shut up words, be aloof, keep secret; [2] in the Niphal: (a) to be blocked or shut; [3] in the Piel: to block or obstruct.501 In the Hebrew Bible, is written in the imperative mode only in Daniel [Dan 8:26; 12:4]. In the latter passage, is used in parallel with in the imperative [“seal up”]. B. Arnold affirms that in Dan 8:26 denotes “closing off of words, visions, or wisdom, thereby making them hidden and secret.”502 Baldwin notes that implies that Daniel is to “guard from use” the contents of the vision.503

For [it] concerns many days [ ] may be read as a motive clause, spelling out the reason for keeping the vision from public view.504 The substance of the motive clause [ ] is a prepositional phrase, which appears in this precise form only one other time in the Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel 12:27. In the Ezekiel passage, is disambiguated with “a time far

495 See “Trust” in NIDOTTE. 496 CDCH, 26. 497 KB1, 69. 498 R.W.L. Moberly, “,” in NIDOTTE [H586]. 499 On this point, see Van der Merwe § 36.3. 500 See “Closing, shutting” in NIDOTTE. 501 KB1, 771. 502 Bill T. Arnold, “,” in NIDOTTE [H6258]. 503 Baldwin, 161. 504 For this use of the particle – – see BDB, 437; Gibson § 125 Rem.2.

100


off” [ ]. Thus, there may be some warrant for reading the phrase in a similar manner, as most English versions actually do. At least, we may understand the phrase to refer to many days in some unknown future. The upshot is that the vision is to be kept hidden until needed at some point in the future.505

The reader may encounter commentators who dispute the prophetic nature of what Gabriel reveals and Daniel writes for us to read. Collins is typical: “the sealing of the book here and in Dan 12:4, 9 is necessitated by the convention of pseudepigraphy. Daniel supposedly [emphasis mine] received his vision in the Babylonian period, but it remains unknown until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The secrecy of the book for the intervening period is declared after the fact [emphasis mine].”506

If taken at face value, this position renders this passage, if not the book as a whole, a fraud. Collins’ reading, along with others, presumes that the book of Daniel as we have it was written during the Maccabean age by an unknown author who lived through the obscene era of Antiochus Epiphanes. This unknown author wrote during the Maccabean era and then back-dated the book to the Babylonian era [chapters 1-6]. If this is true, and I for one do not accept it for a minute, then the Maccabean author was being disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst. No, the book of Daniel is prophecy with all of the supernatural weight that attends the word. We leave the matter there!

V. Daniel’s reaction [Dan 8:27]


8:27a Now, I, Daniel, became exhausted and wasovercome with grief for days,

and yet, I arose and carried on the business ofthe king;

8:27b so, I was overcome with horror concerning thevision,

but there was none who could explain.

Syntactical outline

Offline/background material: “Now, I, Daniel, (a) became exhausted and (b) was overcome with grief for days”

Contrast to preceding: “and yet, I arose and carried out the business of the king”

Summary statement: “so, I was overcome with horror concerning the vision”

Contrast to preceding: “but, there was none who could explain”

Theme of paragraph

Obviously, Dan 8:27 is about Daniel’s state of mind and body; once more, a divine revelation has left him physically sapped and emotionally terror-stricken.

505 Thus, Montgomery, 352. 506 Collins, Daniel, 341-42.

101


Genre

The genre of this brief paragraph has the look of simple narrative, detailing the actual effects of the vision on Daniel. The reader may read this brief unit as a truthful statement from Daniel’s actual personal history. The reader is reminded, once more, that contact with divine revelation again leaves Daniel devastated.

Dan 8:27 – “Now, I, Daniel, became exhausted and was overcome with sickness for days, and yet, I arose and carried out the business of the king; so, I was overcome with horror concerning the vision, but, there was no one who could explain.”

I, Daniel [ ] is front-loaded to signal psychological focus conveying the emotional heightening attached to the impact of the vision and its interpretation.507 Indeed, Daniel often makes this psychological focus [ ] in reference to his visionary experiences.508 The immediate effects of the vision are communicated with two perfect aspect verbs: “exhausted” [] and “overcome with grief” [].

Exhausted and overcome with sickness [ (simple waw, Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs) (Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)] are written as two Niphal perfects, which should be read in unison. The simple waw “represents two situations as coordinate with one another.”509 What is more, both of these verbs seem to be stative verbs, that is verbs “that capture the subject in a state of being [my emphasis] rather than a state of activity [my emphasis].”510 In this case, these two stative verbs signal [1] a durative state of affairs, [2] from the standpoint of both inception and continuation (constative perfective).511 The upshot is that both of these verbs describe Daniel’s condition as a whole; this where the vision left him, physically.

Exhausted [] is one of the most used verbs in the Hebrew Bible, occurring over 3500 times. Normally, is written in the Qal stem and means either [1] be or become or [2] happen or come to pass. When written in the Niphal stem, as it is here in Dan 8:27, the verb can mean “to be finished, exhausted.”512 Holladay translates in Dan 8:27 with “I am done for.”513 This exhaustion nuance of may be related to the Arabic form, wahiya, which means “to grow weak.”514 This is the only appearance of in the Niphal, 1st, person perfect in the Hebrew Bible or Qumran. Driver translates “I was done with, exhausted.”515 The reader should weigh and consider carefully reading this expression as “depression,” since this sense seems to be an over-refinement. Rather, the expression seems to say that Daniel was physically washed-out.

Overcome with sickness [] is from a semantic field of terms for “sickness.”516 There really are not too many surprises here; the verb in the Niphal means: [1] to be exhausted or [2] to

507 See IBHS 16.3.2e; J-M § 146 a. 508 Daniel 8:1, 15, 27; 10:7; 12:5. 509 IBHS, 32.3a. 510 Ibid., 30.2.3a. 511 Ibid. 512 CDCH, 88. 513 Holladay, 79. 514 KB1, 244. 515 Driver, Daniel, 125; similarly Young, 182; Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 227. 516 See “Sickness” in NIDOTTE.

102


be overcome with sickness.517 These two verbs ( and ) mean that Daniel was physically depleted and physically ill owing to the vision and its interpretation. One can only wonder at the origin of this devastating effect upon Daniel. A plausible guess would suppose that the spiritual effects of this kind of regime, effects as depicted in Dan 8:23-25, completely overwhelm Daniel.

And yet, I arose and carried on the business [ (Qal waw consecutive imperfect, 1st, cs) (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 1st, cs)] is another pair of verbs that should be read in tandem. To begin with, the first verb, “I arose [],” signals temporal succession vis-à-vis the first pair of verbs [“exhausted and overcome with sickness”].518 Moreover, we have chosen to read the verbs in this line in contrast to the verbs in the preceding line: in spite of his physical weakening, Daniel carried on anyway.519 Finally, the second verb in the pair in this line temporally succeeds the first: first, Daniel arose, and second, he carried on business. So, why does the author belabor this point? In spite of what Daniel knows or doesn’t know, in spite of the fact that spiritual disaster is on someone’s horizon, Daniel still gets on with his day-to-day duties. It never occurs to him to abandon his post; he deliberately remains and does his duty.

Business [] is a noun from a semantic field of terms for deed or work.520 It appears only here in Daniel. The noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] a trade mission or business journey, [2] business, work, occupation, task, service, [3] handiwork, craftsmanship, [4] objects or wares of all types, [5] service, and [6] service in the cult.521 In all likelihood, is a general term for the normal business routine in the royal court. CDCH simply notes that means “serving the king.”522

So, I was overcome with horror [ (Hithpolel, waw consecutive imperfect, 1st, cs)] functions syntactically as a summary statement.523 When all is said and done, this line summarizes where the vision has left Daniel. The Hithpolel stem is a variant of the Hithpael, which in this case indicates that Daniel is transformed into the effected state signified by the root.524 Again, Daniel’s state of mind is summarized in the sense of being overcome with horror.

Overcome with horror [] is from a semantic field of terms for horror, shuddering, terror.525 Daniel uses the term eight times.526 The ancient Near Eastern cognates of are interesting. In Ugaritic, mm means “to be astonished, to tremble;” in Punic in the Hithpael imperfect means “to be filled with consternation, to be confused.”527 Otherwise, in the Hithpolel stem, means “to show oneself overcome with [1] amazement, [2] horror, or [3] numbness.528 CDCH offers “to be appalled, horrified.”529 Holladay offers the following for in Dan 8:27: “to

517 KB1, 317. 518 IBHS 33.2.1a. 519 Ibid., 33.2.1d. 520 See “Deed, misdeed, work” in NIDOTTE. 521 KB1, 586. 522 CDCH, 222. 523 For the waw consecutive imperfect signaling a summary statement, see IBHS 33.2.1d;

Gibson § 78. 524 IBHS 26.2a. 525 See “Horror, shuddering, terror” in NIDOTTE. 526 8:13, 27; 9:18, 25, 272; 11:31; 12:11. 527 KB2, 1563. 528 Ibid., 1565-66. 529 CDCH, 468.

103


prove oneself driven to consternation.”530 Tyler Williams affirms that there is an element of “confusion” mingled with the horror in ;531 this observation is certainly borne out by the final clause in Dan 8:27: “there was none to explain.”

One final point regarding should be made: this is the term that appears later in Daniel to describe the abomination of desolation [Dan 11:31; 12:11]. There is surely a linkage intended here: Daniel’s unspecified sense of horror is an intimation of things yet to come.

But, there was none who could explain [ ] is read as an antithetical sentence owing to the negative particle []. The line is a verbless clause.

Explain [] is a Hiphil participle. The verbal root [] in the Hiphil is causative.532 Accordingly, the ranges of meaning for in the Hiphil are: [1] to have/get understanding, intelligence, [2] to make someone understand, [3] to explain something to someone, and [4] to teach.533 The net effect is that, as far as Daniel is concerned, he still seems to have questions concerning the vision that none, as yet, has explained to him.

Summary

Dan 8:27 is a brief yet emotionally powerful statement concerning the effects of the vision and interpretation upon him. Once more, we find a man of God in direct communication with God via a vision and the net effect is to thoroughly discombobulate the recipient; no praising God here, rather the man is completely flummoxed by the vision. He is left with more questions than the interpretation provided.

530 Holladay, 376. 531 Tyler Williams, “,” in NIDOTTE [H9037]. 532 IBHS 27.3a. 533 KB1, 122.

104

an expository reading guide to daniel 8.docx

Documents