A COMPARISON OF THE FOURTH BEAST OF DANIEL WITH THE SEA BEAST OF 2 ESDRAS
Here is something from my book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Second-Coming-Preterist-Examinatio...
Critical scholars, those who maintain that the book of Daniel culminates with Antiochus IV and the second century BC, argue that the first-century book of 2 Esdras (sometimes referred to as 4 Ezra) confirms their position. In 2 Esdras, the author is told of Daniel’s fourth kingdom in a way that is said to be different from how it was explained to Daniel (2 Esd. 12:10-12). The beast described to “Ezra” is an eagle, an obvious symbol of Rome. This eagle has three heads (2 Esd. 11:1; 12:17-26), corresponding to what the author supposed were the last three rulers of Rome (the Flavian Caesars: Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian).1 Those who view Daniel as a pseudo-prophecy related to Antiochus argue that the fact that Daniel’s fourth kingdom is clearly Rome in 2 Esdras, and that it is being explained differently than it was to Daniel, proves the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 was originally seen as a form of the Greek Empire, not Rome. Collins writes the following along these lines:
There is general agreement that the kings in question [in Dan. 7:17] correspond to the four kingdoms of chap. 2, which are identified in modern scholarship as Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek. The prevailing traditional interpretation identified the fourth kingdom as Rome. Yet in 4 Ezra [2 Esdras] 12:11-12, where the eagle that rises from the sea is identified as “the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel,” the interpreter adds, “But it was not explained to him as I now explain it to you.” 2
Goldingay also cites 2 Esdras and cites it as “explicit” evidence that the fourth kingdom originally referred to Greece, not Rome:
That the Roman interpretation [of Daniel’s fourth kingdom] is a novel one unknown to Daniel himself is explicit in 2 Esd 12:10-12 (c. A.D. 90). Here God explains a vision that “Ezra” has seen: “the eagle you saw rising from the sea represents the fourth kingdom in the vision seen by your brother Daniel. But he was not given the interpretation which I am now giving you or have given you . . .” (God goes on to describe the Romans). It is as certain an exegetical judgment as most that the contextual meaning of Dan. 7 is that the first empire is Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, the fourth is Greece. There is less certainty about the identity of the second and third kingdoms.3
Here are two respected scholars giving what sounds like compelling evidence. The fact that the author of 2 Esdras said his interpretation of Daniel’s fourth kingdom is different from Daniel’s original explanation is offered as definitive proof that the author of Daniel saw the fourth kingdom as a form of the Greek Empire, not Rome. While this is a possible interpretation, it is not the most likely one; it is definitely not the “certain” proof that critical scholars claim.
THE ADDITION OF A TWELFTH RULER TO DANIEL’S FOURTH KINGDOM
BY THE AUTHOR OF 2 ESDRAS
It is clear that the author of 2 Esdras sees Daniel’s fourth kingdom as Rome and that his explanation of this kingdom is different from Daniel’s. This does not mean, however, that he is making Daniel’s fourth kingdom represent a completely different empire (unless one is already assuming Greece was the original fourth empire). If one looks at the differences between Daniel’s fourth beast and the beast in 2 Esdras, they in no way necessitate different empires. Indeed, “Ezra” is told that it is the same fourth kingdom of Daniel being shown to him, not a different one (2 Esd. 12:11); the only disparity is that this kingdom is explained to him differently than it was to Daniel.
A quick examination of the two beasts reveals a simple difference that does not necessitate different empires. That difference is the fact that the author of 2 Esdras adds an extra ruler to his beast, turning Daniel’s beast with its eleven rulers into a beast with twelve rulers. Consider the descriptions of the two beasts. Daniel describes the fourth kingdom in the following manner:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and had ten horns. I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.
Daniel 7:7-8
In 2 Esdras, Daniel’s fourth kingdom is described thusly:
On the second night I had a dream: I saw rising from the sea an eagle that had twelve feathered wings and three heads . . . This is the interpretation of this vision that you have seen: The eagle that you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel. But it was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it. The days are coming when a kingdom shall rise on earth and it shall be more terrifying than all the kingdoms that have been before it. And twelve kings shall reign in it, one after another . . . As for your seeing three heads at rest, this is the interpretation: In its last days the Most High will raise up three kings, and they shall renew many things in it, and shall rule the earth and its inhabitants more oppressively than all who were before them. Therefore they are called the heads of the eagle, because it is they who shall sum up his wickedness and perform his last actions.
2 Esdras 11:1; 12:10-14, 22-25
Again “Ezra” is told he is being shown the fourth kingdom of Daniel, not a different kingdom. The kingdom is the same; it is just described differently. The key difference in the two descriptions is that the author of 2 Esdras is adding a twelfth ruler.
Looking at some of the differences between the two beasts, Daniel’s fourth beast is a terrifying but nondescript beast (not a specific animal). In contrast, the beast of 2 Esdras is a terrifying eagle. Three rulers are removed before the final ruler of Daniel’s beast. Three rulers are not removed from Ezra’s beast; rather three rulers form the final confederation of his beast. Again, the crucial difference lies in the fact that Daniel’s fourth beast is comprised of eleven rulers, while the beast of 2 Esdras is comprised of twelve rulers. If the author of 2 Esdras was describing a different kingdom, a more in-depth explanation would be required; indeed the addition of a fifth beast/empire would be appropriate if that were the case.
Despite the dissimilarities between the beast of Daniel and the beast of 2 Esdras, the differences are easily explained by the simple addition of Domitian, the twelfth Caesar. Notice that Daniel’s beast makes very good sense if it is referring to Rome and Titus is reckoned as the little eleventh horn (in AD 70 when he was a prince). Indeed, this is the traditional Jewish interpretation (see Rashi’s commentary on Daniel 7).4 On the other hand, most commentators agree that Ezra’s beast is referring to Rome and that Domitian is the final ruler. Bruce Longnecker writes the following along these lines:
The text may render a more precise dating by means of the imagery of chs. 11-12, which depicts a mighty eagle (symbolic of Rome) being crushed by a mighty lion (symbolic of the messiah). In the course of this long symbolic passage, we are shown three heads of the eagle that gain control of the whole earth through terrible power and oppress its people; the expectation of this passage is that the culmination of history will be within the reign of the third head. The behavior of the eagle’s three heads in 11.29-35 corresponds to what we know of the three Roman emperors, (Vespasian 69-79 CE), (Titus 79-81 CE), and Domitian (81-96 CE), allowing this part of the text to be dated to the end of Domitian’s reign.5
Thus, for all the differences between the beasts of Daniel and 2 Esdras, the crucial difference is the addition of a twelfth ruler (Domitian), not the substitution of an empire.
Daniel’s fourth beast has eleven rulers, which, starting with Julius, brings one to Titus, the eleventh Caesar. The reference to him being a “little horn” speaks of him in AD 70; it was when he was a general that he warred against Daniel’s people for “a time and times and half a time” (the three-and-a-half years of AD 67-70, Dan. 7:25; cf. Rev. 11:2; 13:4-5). The three rulers removed before the little horn (Dan. 7:7-8) refer to the three short-lived emperors of AD 68-69 (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) that Titus and Vespasian won out over in their quest for the Roman throne. The change of the times of religious observation and Jewish law (v. 25) was accomplished by the Flavians around this time when they set up the equivalent of a new Sanhedrin in Yavneh. For more on this see here http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/the-antichrist-revealed-the
Since Titus had died by the time 2 Esdras was likely written (around the end of the reign of Domitian, AD 81-96), and the kingdom of God had seemingly not come, the author of 2 Esdras felt the need to provide Daniel’s fourth beast with another ruler, so he added Domitian, the twelfth Caesar.6 He thus modified Daniel’s prediction of the coming of God’s kingdom to fit the reign of Domitian (or soon thereafter, 2 Esd. 12:13-29). The three rulers that are the final manifestation of Ezra’s beast are a thinly veiled reference to the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian). The Flavians renewed “many things” in the Roman Empire (2 Esd. 12:23) after its near collapse with the death of Nero in AD 68 (2 Esd. 12:17-18; cf. Rev. 13:1-3; 16:10). Some believed that Domitian killed Titus by having him poisoned; thus, one of the final two horns is said to slay the other (2 Esd. 12:26-28).
Again, while the interpretation of the fourth kingdom in 2 Esdras is different from that of Daniel’s, it can easily be explained by this simple addition of Domitian. Thus, the author of 2 Esdras was not changing Daniel’s fourth kingdom from Greece to Rome; he was merely adding a twelfth ruler to the fourth kingdom in an attempt to extend the time of the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy to better fit his day.
SCHOLARLY GROUP THINK?
There is a form of myopia on the part of modern critical scholarship when it comes to the book of Daniel. These scholars are so convinced the book culminates in the second-century BC events surrounding Antiochus IV that they see no need to explore other possibilities. In the mind of critical scholars, any question regarding the subject of Daniel has been settled. To them the book is clearly prophecy ex eventu dealing mainly with the second century BC.7 Adela Yarbro Collins summarizes the somewhat smug position of modern critical scholarship concerning Daniel in the following manner:
In the twentieth century, the great debates about universal history, the identification of the Antichrist, and millennial expectations are no longer taken seriously in academic biblical scholarship. The current debates are concerned with matters of lesser existential import. These include such matters as the unity of the book, its genre, its religio-historical background, and its social setting . . . Some scholars have lamented the decline in the importance attached to the book in recent times. In many respects, however, the loss is gain. Several major themes in the traditional understanding of Daniel are now recognized as invalid. The prophecies of Daniel can no longer serve as christological proof; nor can the chronological schemata serve to structure universal history . . . Daniel is not a reliable source of factual information about either the past or the future . . . The predictions of Daniel, like the stories about the past, are shaped by the literary conventions of the Hellenistic age, not by any deposit of revealed information. The time-bound character of the book cannot be evaded by vague statements that it is “a true witness to the end of the age” [Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 619] that fail to explain how its witness is true.8
While I strongly disagree with almost everything Collins says here, I do concur that one needs to give more than just vague statements about how Daniel is a true witness to history and the end of the age. The futurist attempts to manipulate the chronological indicators given by Daniel by inventing such fanciful ideas as that of a revived Roman Empire are indeed unfounded. I shall endeavor to show how the witness and “time-bound” prophecies of Daniel are indeed true. I will show how the historical endpoint for the prophecies of Daniel is not Antiochus IV and the second century BC but rather the first-century coming prince (Titus) and the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26-27). This was the time of the shattering of the Jewish nation at the end of the old covenant age (Dan. 12:1-7).
1. The family name of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian was Flavius. They are thus known as the Flavian dynasty.
2. J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 312.
3. Goldingay, Daniel, 175.
4. Rashi writes the following on the eleven horns of the fourth beast:
and… ten horns Aram. וְקַרְנַיִן עֲשַׂר. The angel explained to him that these are the ten kings who would ascend [the throne] of Rome before Vespasian, who would destroy the Temple…
[the little eleventh horn was] speaking arrogantly words of arrogance. That is Titus, about whom the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Gittin 56b) that he blasphemed and berated and entered the Heichal with brazenness. (emphasis in original)
Chabad.Org Library: Judaica Press Complete Tanach. See here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490/showrashi/true
5. Bruce W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 13-14.
6. That the author of 2 Esdras is starting his count of the rulers of Rome with Julius Caesar is made clear in 2 Esdras 11:13-17; 12:15. It is said that none of the rulers of this kingdom would rule as long, not even half as long, as the second ruler (2 Esdras 11:17). This only fits Augustus; thus, Julius was seen as the first ruler.
7. J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 55.
8. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament” in John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 122-123.
Critical scholars, those who maintain that the book of Daniel culminates with Antiochus IV and the second century BC, argue that the first-century book of 2 Esdras (sometimes referred to as 4 Ezra) confirms their position. In 2 Esdras, the author is told of Daniel’s fourth kingdom in a way that is said to be different from how it was explained to Daniel (2 Esd. 12:10-12). The beast described to “Ezra” is an eagle, an obvious symbol of Rome. This eagle has three heads (2 Esd. 11:1; 12:17-26), corresponding to what the author supposed were the last three rulers of Rome (the Flavian Caesars: Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian).1 Those who view Daniel as a pseudo-prophecy related to Antiochus argue that the fact that Daniel’s fourth kingdom is clearly Rome in 2 Esdras, and that it is being explained differently than it was to Daniel, proves the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 was originally seen as a form of the Greek Empire, not Rome. Collins writes the following along these lines:
There is general agreement that the kings in question [in Dan. 7:17] correspond to the four kingdoms of chap. 2, which are identified in modern scholarship as Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek. The prevailing traditional interpretation identified the fourth kingdom as Rome. Yet in 4 Ezra [2 Esdras] 12:11-12, where the eagle that rises from the sea is identified as “the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel,” the interpreter adds, “But it was not explained to him as I now explain it to you.” 2
Goldingay also cites 2 Esdras and cites it as “explicit” evidence that the fourth kingdom originally referred to Greece, not Rome:
That the Roman interpretation [of Daniel’s fourth kingdom] is a novel one unknown to Daniel himself is explicit in 2 Esd 12:10-12 (c. A.D. 90). Here God explains a vision that “Ezra” has seen: “the eagle you saw rising from the sea represents the fourth kingdom in the vision seen by your brother Daniel. But he was not given the interpretation which I am now giving you or have given you . . .” (God goes on to describe the Romans). It is as certain an exegetical judgment as most that the contextual meaning of Dan. 7 is that the first empire is Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, the fourth is Greece. There is less certainty about the identity of the second and third kingdoms.3
Here are two respected scholars giving what sounds like compelling evidence. The fact that the author of 2 Esdras said his interpretation of Daniel’s fourth kingdom is different from Daniel’s original explanation is offered as definitive proof that the author of Daniel saw the fourth kingdom as a form of the Greek Empire, not Rome. While this is a possible interpretation, it is not the most likely one; it is definitely not the “certain” proof that critical scholars claim.
THE ADDITION OF A TWELFTH RULER TO DANIEL’S FOURTH KINGDOM
BY THE AUTHOR OF 2 ESDRAS
It is clear that the author of 2 Esdras sees Daniel’s fourth kingdom as Rome and that his explanation of this kingdom is different from Daniel’s. This does not mean, however, that he is making Daniel’s fourth kingdom represent a completely different empire (unless one is already assuming Greece was the original fourth empire). If one looks at the differences between Daniel’s fourth beast and the beast in 2 Esdras, they in no way necessitate different empires. Indeed, “Ezra” is told that it is the same fourth kingdom of Daniel being shown to him, not a different one (2 Esd. 12:11); the only disparity is that this kingdom is explained to him differently than it was to Daniel.
A quick examination of the two beasts reveals a simple difference that does not necessitate different empires. That difference is the fact that the author of 2 Esdras adds an extra ruler to his beast, turning Daniel’s beast with its eleven rulers into a beast with twelve rulers. Consider the descriptions of the two beasts. Daniel describes the fourth kingdom in the following manner:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and had ten horns. I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.
Daniel 7:7-8
In 2 Esdras, Daniel’s fourth kingdom is described thusly:
On the second night I had a dream: I saw rising from the sea an eagle that had twelve feathered wings and three heads . . . This is the interpretation of this vision that you have seen: The eagle that you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel. But it was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it. The days are coming when a kingdom shall rise on earth and it shall be more terrifying than all the kingdoms that have been before it. And twelve kings shall reign in it, one after another . . . As for your seeing three heads at rest, this is the interpretation: In its last days the Most High will raise up three kings, and they shall renew many things in it, and shall rule the earth and its inhabitants more oppressively than all who were before them. Therefore they are called the heads of the eagle, because it is they who shall sum up his wickedness and perform his last actions.
2 Esdras 11:1; 12:10-14, 22-25
Again “Ezra” is told he is being shown the fourth kingdom of Daniel, not a different kingdom. The kingdom is the same; it is just described differently. The key difference in the two descriptions is that the author of 2 Esdras is adding a twelfth ruler.
Looking at some of the differences between the two beasts, Daniel’s fourth beast is a terrifying but nondescript beast (not a specific animal). In contrast, the beast of 2 Esdras is a terrifying eagle. Three rulers are removed before the final ruler of Daniel’s beast. Three rulers are not removed from Ezra’s beast; rather three rulers form the final confederation of his beast. Again, the crucial difference lies in the fact that Daniel’s fourth beast is comprised of eleven rulers, while the beast of 2 Esdras is comprised of twelve rulers. If the author of 2 Esdras was describing a different kingdom, a more in-depth explanation would be required; indeed the addition of a fifth beast/empire would be appropriate if that were the case.
Despite the dissimilarities between the beast of Daniel and the beast of 2 Esdras, the differences are easily explained by the simple addition of Domitian, the twelfth Caesar. Notice that Daniel’s beast makes very good sense if it is referring to Rome and Titus is reckoned as the little eleventh horn (in AD 70 when he was a prince). Indeed, this is the traditional Jewish interpretation (see Rashi’s commentary on Daniel 7).4 On the other hand, most commentators agree that Ezra’s beast is referring to Rome and that Domitian is the final ruler. Bruce Longnecker writes the following along these lines:
The text may render a more precise dating by means of the imagery of chs. 11-12, which depicts a mighty eagle (symbolic of Rome) being crushed by a mighty lion (symbolic of the messiah). In the course of this long symbolic passage, we are shown three heads of the eagle that gain control of the whole earth through terrible power and oppress its people; the expectation of this passage is that the culmination of history will be within the reign of the third head. The behavior of the eagle’s three heads in 11.29-35 corresponds to what we know of the three Roman emperors, (Vespasian 69-79 CE), (Titus 79-81 CE), and Domitian (81-96 CE), allowing this part of the text to be dated to the end of Domitian’s reign.5
Thus, for all the differences between the beasts of Daniel and 2 Esdras, the crucial difference is the addition of a twelfth ruler (Domitian), not the substitution of an empire.
Daniel’s fourth beast has eleven rulers, which, starting with Julius, brings one to Titus, the eleventh Caesar. The reference to him being a “little horn” speaks of him in AD 70; it was when he was a general that he warred against Daniel’s people for “a time and times and half a time” (the three-and-a-half years of AD 67-70, Dan. 7:25; cf. Rev. 11:2; 13:4-5). The three rulers removed before the little horn (Dan. 7:7-8) refer to the three short-lived emperors of AD 68-69 (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) that Titus and Vespasian won out over in their quest for the Roman throne. The change of the times of religious observation and Jewish law (v. 25) was accomplished by the Flavians around this time when they set up the equivalent of a new Sanhedrin in Yavneh. For more on this see here http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/the-antichrist-revealed-the
Since Titus had died by the time 2 Esdras was likely written (around the end of the reign of Domitian, AD 81-96), and the kingdom of God had seemingly not come, the author of 2 Esdras felt the need to provide Daniel’s fourth beast with another ruler, so he added Domitian, the twelfth Caesar.6 He thus modified Daniel’s prediction of the coming of God’s kingdom to fit the reign of Domitian (or soon thereafter, 2 Esd. 12:13-29). The three rulers that are the final manifestation of Ezra’s beast are a thinly veiled reference to the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian). The Flavians renewed “many things” in the Roman Empire (2 Esd. 12:23) after its near collapse with the death of Nero in AD 68 (2 Esd. 12:17-18; cf. Rev. 13:1-3; 16:10). Some believed that Domitian killed Titus by having him poisoned; thus, one of the final two horns is said to slay the other (2 Esd. 12:26-28).
Again, while the interpretation of the fourth kingdom in 2 Esdras is different from that of Daniel’s, it can easily be explained by this simple addition of Domitian. Thus, the author of 2 Esdras was not changing Daniel’s fourth kingdom from Greece to Rome; he was merely adding a twelfth ruler to the fourth kingdom in an attempt to extend the time of the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy to better fit his day.
SCHOLARLY GROUP THINK?
There is a form of myopia on the part of modern critical scholarship when it comes to the book of Daniel. These scholars are so convinced the book culminates in the second-century BC events surrounding Antiochus IV that they see no need to explore other possibilities. In the mind of critical scholars, any question regarding the subject of Daniel has been settled. To them the book is clearly prophecy ex eventu dealing mainly with the second century BC.7 Adela Yarbro Collins summarizes the somewhat smug position of modern critical scholarship concerning Daniel in the following manner:
In the twentieth century, the great debates about universal history, the identification of the Antichrist, and millennial expectations are no longer taken seriously in academic biblical scholarship. The current debates are concerned with matters of lesser existential import. These include such matters as the unity of the book, its genre, its religio-historical background, and its social setting . . . Some scholars have lamented the decline in the importance attached to the book in recent times. In many respects, however, the loss is gain. Several major themes in the traditional understanding of Daniel are now recognized as invalid. The prophecies of Daniel can no longer serve as christological proof; nor can the chronological schemata serve to structure universal history . . . Daniel is not a reliable source of factual information about either the past or the future . . . The predictions of Daniel, like the stories about the past, are shaped by the literary conventions of the Hellenistic age, not by any deposit of revealed information. The time-bound character of the book cannot be evaded by vague statements that it is “a true witness to the end of the age” [Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 619] that fail to explain how its witness is true.8
While I strongly disagree with almost everything Collins says here, I do concur that one needs to give more than just vague statements about how Daniel is a true witness to history and the end of the age. The futurist attempts to manipulate the chronological indicators given by Daniel by inventing such fanciful ideas as that of a revived Roman Empire are indeed unfounded. I shall endeavor to show how the witness and “time-bound” prophecies of Daniel are indeed true. I will show how the historical endpoint for the prophecies of Daniel is not Antiochus IV and the second century BC but rather the first-century coming prince (Titus) and the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26-27). This was the time of the shattering of the Jewish nation at the end of the old covenant age (Dan. 12:1-7).
1. The family name of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian was Flavius. They are thus known as the Flavian dynasty.
2. J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 312.
3. Goldingay, Daniel, 175.
4. Rashi writes the following on the eleven horns of the fourth beast:
and… ten horns Aram. וְקַרְנַיִן עֲשַׂר. The angel explained to him that these are the ten kings who would ascend [the throne] of Rome before Vespasian, who would destroy the Temple…
[the little eleventh horn was] speaking arrogantly words of arrogance. That is Titus, about whom the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Gittin 56b) that he blasphemed and berated and entered the Heichal with brazenness. (emphasis in original)
Chabad.Org Library: Judaica Press Complete Tanach. See here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490/showrashi/true
5. Bruce W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 13-14.
6. That the author of 2 Esdras is starting his count of the rulers of Rome with Julius Caesar is made clear in 2 Esdras 11:13-17; 12:15. It is said that none of the rulers of this kingdom would rule as long, not even half as long, as the second ruler (2 Esdras 11:17). This only fits Augustus; thus, Julius was seen as the first ruler.
7. J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 55.
8. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament” in John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 122-123.
Views: 214
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jason King on -
Great stuff, Duncan.
-
Permalink Reply by Duncan on -
Thanks Jason! Kind of scary the direction modern scholarship has gone on the book of Daniel (i.e., saying it is an ex eventu "prophecy" that culminates with the 2nd cent. BC.)
-
Permalink Reply by Jason King on
-
Exactly, Duncan. Jesus did not come in the Greek age and in fact he quoted Daniel saying the abomination that causes desolation was yet to come and that those hearing his message would see its day. The angel also told Daniel (chapter 12) that he and all believers would receive his inheritance when "the end" came. Jesus said "the end" would come after the gospel went out in to all the world. And Paul, in Romans 10:18 says that it has gone out into the world even in his time. Paul's statement means that the inheritance of Daniel and all believers was at hand.
I also like the work you've done in figuring out who the king of the north was. I just wish you agreed on my position that Vespasian/Titus is the Land Beast. It's all good though, I really enjoyed the free snippets from your book on why you disagree. :)
Duncan said:Thanks Jason! Kind of scary the direction modern scholarship has gone on the book of Daniel (i.e., saying it is an ex eventu "prophecy" that culminates with the 2nd cent. BC.)
© 2012 Created by Michael Bennett.
Powered by 
.
