Boy, do I understand what you mean. (Different place, different topics, different people.)
Have you ever considered setting up a site where you publish your answers to such queries?
Simply put, there is not the slightest indication in the text that the king's identity changes in v. 36 or later.
The text is best explained as a pseudo-prophecy (prophecy ex eventu, history disguised as prophecy) down to v. 39 and as a failed futuristic prophecy (for the immediate future, from a 160's BC perspective) from v. 40 on.
Consider, that& AFTER Jesus`s presence the wars between two "main-counterparts" went always on and on. Dan 11:40, 45 its fulfilling in our epoch. The "king of the north" has changed within 1991 and 2001. It is now the United States plus allied countries.
LOL, at what time in history were there not wars between "two main counterparts"?
Juxtaposition of all kinds of idea is the rule of the Internet I guess.
Leolaia, I really hope you don't give up your "big post" project on Daniel.
Hey, What the writer didn't take into account is that Dan. 11 goes right into the great tribulation when Michael stands up in Dan. 12:1. So I think, that Dan. 11 would have to run into our day.
I don't think that necessarily means anything, beyond the fact that Michael (an archangel - not Jesus, IMO) stands up for his "people" or Isreal. Michael is in charge or oversees the isrealites, just as Enoch eludes to God setting the watchers over other nations on earth (which goes along with gabriel fighting the prince of persia and later greece). So I don't see how Daniel 11 really goes beyond the the time frame that the author of the article shows. I know there is some question on whether Daniel was written after the fact. Regardless, I do not see where anyone is trying to link the events of the time to the last days. Am I missing something? When you look at Revelation, which I think Daniel mirrors to some extent, you don't see a pushing between the KOTN and KOTS.
Thanks Narkissos for filling in for me for a bit.... I still have the post I'm working on, but it's turning out to be a book.... daystar....I have thought of doing a website/blog thing, but I'm not that websavvy on how to import the formatting style I like so much here to someplace else.
I actually like the webpage for some reason; maybe because it presents a novel hypothesis that I haven't encountered before. There are other speculative theories that are unsatisfactory but interesting, like Buchanan's idea that v. 40-45 is a summary of the career of Antiochus III, dislocated by the Maccabean-era redactor to serve as a conclusion for Antiochus IV. Interesting, but not likely.
Now, there are examples of apocalyptic surveys of history that originally referred to Antiochus IV but came to later refer to King Herod. Nickelsburg demonstrates that the apocalyptic section of the Testament of Moses was originally Maccabean but was adapted to refer to King Herod. There are also evidence of a Herodian interpretation of the "70 Weeks" survey of history in Daniel 9. But these have SPECIFIC details that clearly point to Herod, (such as that he follows the Hasmoneans in Testament of Moses 6:2, that he is "not of priestly stock" in v. 2, that he rules for 34 years in v. 6, that his rule was followed by that of his sons in v. 7 who rule for shorter periods of time, etc.), and in the Testament of Moses Herod is clearly introduced as a new figure after a clearly demarcated Hasmonean period.
This is not the case in Daniel 11. (1) The whole focus for the author of the Hebrew apocalypse is the restoration of the Temple (most especially in ch. 8, but also in 9:24-27), and the note about its defiling in 11:31 matches the similar reference in 9:27, so it would be remarkable that no mention is made of this event in ch. 11. (2) And not only would the author skip this pivotal event but would also skip past the whole century of Hasmonean rule. The author seems to interpret v. 34-35 as indicating Maccabean victory but this is not warranted by the text. The Maccabeans are only a "little help", the persecution and martyrdoms continue in v. 35 and will continue to the "time of the end" (cf. v. 40). (3) Nor is there a mention of "Kittim" bringing an end to the Hasmoneans and installing a new king. (4) In thrusting outside of Seleucid history, it would be odd to have "the king" of v. 36 continue from the "king of the North" when Herod was Idumean, which was southeast of Judah. (5) The lapse of a century and the rise of a king outside the Syrian-Egyptian paradigm makes it all the more remarkable that Herod is not introduced as a new figure (cp. "a spring from her roots will rise in his place" 11:7, "his sons will next be on the march" 11:9, "in his place there will rise a man" 11:20, "in his place there will rise a wretch" 11:21). (6) Verses 36-39 belong with the preceding for several reasons. As mentioned above, "the king" is not distinguished from Antiochus IV as a new figure. His arrogance in v. 36-37, in which he considers himself greater than all the gods, corresponds to Antiochus' actions in v. 22, 28, 30-32 in which he "crushes the prince of the covenant," he "has his heart set against the holy covenant," he abolishes daily worship to the "God of gods" and kills those who remain steadfast in their worship of God. The reference to "fortresses" in v. 38-39 also pertains to the resume of Antiochus' career in v. 24. (7) The arrogance in v. 36 corresponds closely to the arrogance of the "little horn" in 7:8, 24 and 8:10-12, 25, and in both cases we are dealing with a single king at the terminus of the vision. Chapter 8 is explicit about this king being Greek (cf. 8:8-9), and the arrogance against God is mentioned in the same passages as describing Antiochus' desecration of the Temple (cf. 8:9-12, 14, 25-26), so in parallel, the king of 11:36 is the same king of 11:31. (8) The self-divinization attributed to the king in v. 36 is also typical of the Seleucid kings, and Antiochus IV especially (who represented himself as Zeus Olympios and who turned the Temple into a shrine for this god), but not of King Herod. (9) Antiochus IV built the Akra on the Temple Mount, which better fits the reference to "fortresses" in 11:39. (10) The war in v. 40-45 really doesn't resemble the career of Herod in the specifics. The reference to "Edom and Moab" as escaping his hand implies an adversarial relationship with the Idumeans which seems to rule out Herod. (11) In order to establish parallels between the given passage and Herod, the author relies not on the historical notices of Josephus but on the midrashic birth narrative of Jesus in Matthew, which does not have a historical character but rather casts Herod into the role of Pharaoh. The similarities are also very general, somewhat forced, and not specific to Herod like the details in the Testament of Moses are.
There is probably more I could say, but I think that is sufficient for now. The references to the unsealing of the book at "the time of the end" is another problem for a Herodian (and any modern futurist) interpretation, for the book was widely known in Herodian times and of course widely known today.
, I can post a thorough analysis of the page, and explain why I have the opinion I have, but I'm tired of getting snide remarks from the likes of you and skyman. It actually does take some time to properly source and reference my posts, and I don't think its worth the time to be ridiculed for taking the effort to explain myself.
Please don`t stop posting those thorough, scholarly posts, just because of a few besserwissers. All the people (myself included) on this forum that enjoys reading scholarly posts by people who obviously know what they are talking about, enjoy your posts. So just never mind the critics, please.
I thoroughly enjoy your posts Leo! Dont let the jabs of the few get you down.
Juxtaposition of all kinds of idea is the rule of the Internet I guess.
Sorry, but that`s the sense of a democratic internet. I love to discuss with different people having different opinions. Has nothing to do whether somebody is a jw, or an exJW or nonJW.
Juxtaposition of all kinds of idea is the rule of the Internet I guess.Sorry, but that`s the sense of a democratic internet. I love to discuss with different people having different opinions. Has nothing to do whether somebody is a jw, or an exJW or nonJW.
That was not a negative comment on my part. By coming here to discuss we forsake a relative intellectual safety, be it that of religious orthodoxy or academic methodology. It is often interesting and mind-opening, sometimes irritating to any of us I guess.