Page 178 - Daniel

them.” 5
The author of the apocryphal book 2 Esdras, who lived near the close

of the first century A.D., clearly identified the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s
vision as the Roman Empire (2 Esd. 12:11–12). To these arguments may
be added the details of the second, third, and fourth empires throughout
the book of Daniel, which harmonize precisely with the Medo-Persian,
Greek, and Roman Empires. The alternate views of the critics can be

held only if Daniel’s prophecy be considered in factual error in several
places, since the details of the prophecies do not really coincide with the
critics’ theories. For these reasons, conservative scholars have held
firmly to the traditional identification of the four empires in chapter 7 of
Daniel, which mirror those of chapter 2.

The conservative interpretation, however, has been confronted with a
broadside of critical objections to the plausibility of such detailed
prophecy of future events. As noted previously, critics argue that the real
author of Daniel lived during the persecution of the Jews by the Seleucid

emperor Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), and from that viewpoint he
looked backward over the preceding four centuries, organized history in
a manner that was significant for him, and made this the basis for
anticipating a climax to the Maccabean persecution then under way.
Accordingly, the pseudo-Daniel considered Antiochus to be symbolic of
the evil powers of this world that the author believed were soon to be

judged by God, who was to intervene and replace the rule of tyranny
under Antiochus with that of the saints of the Most High. But this view
requires the interpretation of many statements in Daniel as less than
factual and actually not scriptural prophecy at all. This point of view as
a whole is an expansion of Porphyry’s unbelief rather than a product of a

reverent, believing study of the Scriptures.
Critics approach Daniel somewhat a priori, assuming that prediction of
particular events in the future is impossible and, therefore, requiring a
late date for the book of Daniel so that it is history rather than prophecy.

This is often denied, however, by such scholarly writers as H. H. Rowley
who states, “The conclusions we have reached have not been born of a
priori disbelief in accurate prophecy, but of a posteriori demonstration
6
that we have not accurate prophecy.” Nevertheless, it is quite plain, as
the critical view is unfolded, that the content of Daniel itself is quite