1 Introduction

The four kingdoms scheme plays a prominent role in the book of Daniel itself, and lies at the foundation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and Daniel’s vision in chapter 7. The motif of four earthly empires followed by a heavenly kingdom, whose roots can be traced to surrounding cultures, serves both chronological and ideological-theological functions within Daniel itself. In the current study, I want to focus on the former, and place it in the larger context of chronological conceptions throughout the book as a whole. At the same time, the discussion of the ideological worldview of the Danielic authors will be discussed as it relates to these chronological conceptions. All of the chronological schemes in Daniel to be discussed here share a number of basic features, although specific aspects and emphases vary from chapter to chapter. It will be suggested that one aspect, common to the chronological worldview of most early Jewish and Christian apocalypses, is in fact not present in all of the Daniel apocalypses, and this serves as a litmus test for the milieu and historical background in which they were composed.¹ The following five characteristics or features are common to some or all of the Daniel apocalypses.

2 Chronological Span

These characteristics relate to a chronological span of time, and not to an event at a specific moment. Within an apocalypse one finds allusions to individual incidents, but the apocalypse as a whole refers to a longer period that includes the individual event. This is common among contemporaneous apocalyptic compositions, such as Jubilees or the Apocalypse of Weeks. However, those are different in that their span of history begins from the creation of the world. In contrast, throughout Daniel the starting point for this span is a specific historical referent and, in particular, a point in time related to the rise and reign of a foreign empire. Thus, the four kingdoms dream in chapter 2 and vision in chapter 7 begin explicitly with the Babylonian kingdom and reach historically until the Hellenistic empire. The “70 weeks” vision in Daniel 9 covers a period of 490 years, generally assumed to start with the final years of the Babylonian empire. I have argued that it in fact begins with the rise of the Persians, and continues once again through the Hellenistic period.² Daniel 8 covers a similar period, from Media and Persia through Greece. Daniel 11 also begins with Persian kings and then offers a detailed description of the complex interactions between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

This short survey of the historical periods covered in the Daniel apocalypses leads to the unsurprising conclusion that the primary interest of their authors lay in their contemporary condition. In all of the passages, the current empire (Greece) is the focus of the apocalypse, but is always complemented or contrasted with the immediately prior empire (Persia, and sometimes Media). In the four kingdoms passages, the historical perspective is expanded back even further to include Babylonia.³

The expanded perspective to include at least one, but sometimes multiple, additional empires, including their rise and fall, is part of the internal logic and argument put forth—the current oppressive empire might have the upper hand, but they too will fall one day, just as previous empires did before them.⁴

3 Periodization

The succession of empires is at the same time inherently related to periodization, which has a chronological conception at its core. Many Second Temple apocalyptic texts can be characterized by their use of set divisions of times according to which the events of history occur, along the chronological span described above. Thus, the Apocalypse of Weeks divides all of universal history into ten weeks, and each of these can be further subdivided into “days.”⁵ Jubilees dates the events from the creation of the world to the return to the land of Israel according to a system of jubilees and weeks.⁶ The Apocryphon of Jeremiah dates the period between two blasphemous kings, presumably Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV, as ten jubilees.⁷

This final period is equal in length to the “seventy weeks”, or 490, years of Daniel 9. In that sense, one finds the notion of periodization in Daniel as well. However, the scheme in that chapter is different than what is found, for example, in the Apocalypse of Weeks, since, in the latter, the periods are of generally equal length and, therefore, divide history according to a predetermined schematic plan (see section on determinism below). In Daniel 9, the periods in question are not of equal lengths, but are rather divided into seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week (9:24–27). This uneven division is the result of an attempt by this author to fit the events of the Persian period (parallel to the seven weeks) and those of his immediate context (the final week) into a larger typological timeframe. In the context of this apocalypse, it is not the periodization itself which is ideologically or theologically significant, but rather the beginning and end of that longer period.⁸

The four kingdoms pattern is also based on a conception of periodization, although they are not of standard, unified length. Instead of a week or jubilee, or some multiple of these periods, the kingdoms are of varying lengths and characters. In this sense the divisions into periods loses some of its deterministic implications, according to which the periods were all part of a carefully devised divine plan. This, however, is achieved through a different approach, since the four kingdoms are predicted in both chapters as part of a divine revelation which is presented as having taken place before most of the chronological span in question, and thus it too is determined, although no more than any other ex eventu prophecy.

4 Determinism

Throughout the book, the span of history is presented in the context of prophetic revelations to Daniel (or in the case of chapter 2, to the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar). Based upon historical-critical analysis of these passages, and primarily based upon the argument that the time of their composition can be determined by the accuracy of their “predictions,” we can determine when each of these passages was composed. When the prophecy is correct across extensive details, then it is likely that it was written ex eventu of the events alluded to throughout. When the prophecy begins to diverge from what we know to actually have taken place, then we can safely conclude that it was composed at the point in the passage at which the divergence begins. The best example of this (in the entire Bible) is the detailed description of interactions between the Ptolemies and Seleucids in Daniel 11, which is accurate through v. 39, and then diverges at v. 40, demonstrating that it was authored right after the events presented up to that point.⁹ The correspondence to the events, which are presented as if they are predictions, has the result of significantly raising the predictive value of the revelation in the eyes of the reader. If the events that appear in the first part of the apocalypse, which reflect the author’s past, came to fruition, then there is a high probability that the truly future predictions will occur as well. When combined at times with the notion of periodization described above, they reflect a developed conception of the nature of the divine control of chronological history.

5 Geopolitical Transformation

An important, fundamental difference between the four kingdoms motif and standard periodization schemes is frequently overlooked.¹⁰ According to Daniel 2, the striking of a stone on the foot of the statue led to its destruction in one fell swoop, and to its replacement by a mountain that fills the whole earth. This mountain represents a theocracy in which the God of Heaven rules over the entire world, replacing the earthly empires:

All at once, the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were crushed, and became like chaff of the threshing floors of summer; a wind carried them off until no trace of them was left. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

Dan 2:35 NJPS

In contrast to earthly empires that rise and fall, according to Daniel 2, the Heavenly Kingdom will lead to a complete change in world order. Note that, in fact, according to this vision, the entire statue continues to stand until the appearance of the stone, and then comes crashing down in its entirety, indicating that the empires will continue to coexist until the rise of the heavenly kingdom. In this scheme, the periods do not mark the ends of each empire, since they continue even after the next one rises.

Like the destruction of the statue in chapter 2, which leads to the downfall of all of the earthly empires in one fell swoop, so too chapter 7 envisions a single universal heavenly judgment against all of the same political entities, with a similar result:

I looked on. Then, because of the arrogant words that the horn spoke, the beast was killed as I looked on; its body was destroyed and it was consigned to the flames. The dominion of the other beasts was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them for a time and season.

Dan 7:11–12 NJPS

The judgment of the empires is meted out to all of them together, and at a specific time. Their dominion was taken away at this time of collective judgment, and the fourth beast is consigned to fire before the other beasts are put to death. Ultimately, therefore, the emphasis in both the dream and the vision is first and foremost not on the appearance and disappearance of the empires in succession, but on the radical geopolitical transformation that will occur at the time of the heavenly judgment. While this does not negate the notion of periodization, the continued persistence of each of the kingdoms until that endpoint suggests that the most important division is not between the periods of each kingdom, but the overall difference between earthly, historical time and the eschatological period that follows.

The picture is different elsewhere in the Daniel apocalypses, and in particular in chapter 8. The depiction there is indeed of the rise and fall of successive empires, one at the hand of the next. The two-horned ram representing Media and Persia was unassailable by other beasts (8:4—“and there was none to deliver from his power”), but is ultimately toppled by the he-goat, representing Greece:

I saw him reach the ram and rage at him; he struck the ram and broke its two horns, and the ram was powerless to withstand him. He threw him to the ground and trampled him, and there was none to deliver the ram from his power.

Dan 8:7 NJPS

That vision does in fact describe the deposing of one empire by another, and I suggest that this later apocalypse has generally influenced the interpretation of chapters 2 and 7 to mean the same.¹¹ However, the vision in chapter 8 is fundamentally different in three ways from those earlier passages:

• (i) It does not reflect the four kingdoms motif. Media and Persia are presented as one kingdom in this vision, but even if they were to be counted separately, there would be only three, and not four, kingdoms. While they overlap in the identification of some of the empires, this is due to the significance of these specific kingdoms to the geopolitical reality, and not because of the dependence upon a specific literary genre or scheme.

• (ii) Unlike the four kingdoms motif, in which the kingdoms persist, here there is no doubt that the previous kingdom is removed from the world stage. As noted above, the second kingdom destroyed and deposed the first (that is, it “threw him to the ground and trampled him, and there was none to deliver the ram from his power”).

• (iii) Chapter 8 offers a fundamentally different perspective regarding the eschaton than chapter 2 and 7. While the latter place the global transformation and salvation from persecution at a far-off, indeterminate time (see below regarding the interpretation of 7:25), the former specifies a predetermined, relatively short, period of time until the salvation. This difference will be discussed in the following section.

6 Eschatology

In a number of apocalypses, history culminates in an eschatological moment or era, which is temporally beyond the historical span discussed above. However, the eschaton was not perceived of as a far-off event, but rather the authors of these apocalypses viewed themselves as standing at the cusp of their imminent arrival. This eschatological worldview is fundamental to the conception of Daniel 2, according to which the striking of a stone on the foot of the statue will lead to the transformation into a mountain that fills the whole earth. This mountain represents a theocracy in which the God of Heaven rules over the entire world, replacing the earthly empires:

And in the time of those kings, the God of Heaven will establish a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, a kingdom that shall not be transferred to another people. It will crush and wipe out all these kingdoms, but shall itself last forever.

Dan 2:44 NJPS

This major transformation of the world order is characteristic of the eschatological era as conceived in contemporaneous compositions. Note that there are no dates or precise chronological data regarding the eschaton in this dream and interpretation.

I have recently suggested a similar understanding of Daniel 7, based on a new interpretation of a key expression in 7:25.¹² This chapter is probably the most intricate in the entire book, including its mythic background and complex theological picture, as well as basic questions of interpretation. I have argued that this chapter should first be interpreted independent of the subsequent apocalypses, in chapters 8–12.¹³ This methodological approach is a result of the general consensus that Daniel 7 is the earliest of the apocalypses (preceded only by the composition of the dream in Daniel 2, dated according to its historical allusions; see especially the Old Greek version of 2:41–42),¹⁴ as can be demonstrated based upon both its historical allusions and its linguistic differentiation from the later chapters. In my opinion, these later chapters, which according to all scholars were composed subsequent to chapter 7, read and interpret this earlier chapter and, therefore, will at times change its original meaning and message.¹⁵ Analysis of the second half of Daniel frequently proceeds from the assumption that each of the four apocalypses (chs. 7; 8; 9; 10–12) reflects the same viewpoint, emanating from a single author, or else from a likeminded and interrelated “school” of authors. This assumption is then applied in a harmonistic fashion in the exegesis of the book, both by traditional interpreters and critical scholars, who interpret one apocalypse with the aid of the other.¹⁶ However, if the apocalyptic visions were not all composed by one author and at one time, then a later apocalypse might be based upon an earlier one.

This inner-Danielic interpretation has led to an almost absurd situation, in which the latest layers of the book are those that have determined how exegetes and scholars have interpreted the earlier stages of the book. This is perhaps an unavoidable result for any composition that has developed incrementally through a redactional process. But it is our responsibility to attempt to untangle these complex processes, and avoid the pitfalls of harmonistic, synchronic interpretation that does not distinguish between early and late, and between a source and its interpretation. I offer this pointed critique at many existing studies and commentaries to Daniel, because such an approach silences the voices of these earliest authors, and prevents us from appreciating their writings in a nuanced fashion.

I suggest that this methodological approach is crucial for understanding the chronological conception of Daniel 7, which shares a number of basic characteristics with Daniel 2 already mentioned above: the four kingdoms scheme and the radical geopolitical transformation of the world, culminating in the transfer of dominion from the empires to the ‫(עם) קדישי עליונין‬ ‎(7:18, 22, 27). As I have argued, contrary to the standard translation as “(the people of) the holy ones of the Most High,” this title should perhaps be translated as “(the people of) the Most High Holy one(s),” referring to God and His nation Israel. Therefore, chapter 7 presents a similar picture of cosmological transformation as in chapter 2.¹⁷ But beyond that, I suggest that chapter 7 shares the same eschatological conception as chapter 2 (and other apocalyptic texts).

Verse 25 is fundamental for recognizing this eschatological worldview in Daniel 7. Near the end of the apocalypse in Daniel 7, it is said that the final horn will speak words against the Most High and think of changing times and law:

וּמִלִּין לְצַד עליא(עִלָּאָה) יְמַלִּל וּלְקַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין יְבַלֵּא וְיִסְבַּר לְהַשְׁנָיָה זִמְנִין וְדָת וְיִתְיַהֲבוּן בִּידֵהּ עַד־עִדָּן וְעִדָּנִין וּפְלַג עִדָּן׃

He will speak words against the Most High, and will speak (against) קדישי עליונין (the Most High Holy One[s]), and will think to change times and law, and they will be delivered into his hands עַד־עִדָּן וְעִדָּנִין וּפְלַג עִדָּן.

Dan 7:25 MT

The final clause is often translated as “until a time, and times, and half a time” (7:25). The term עִדָּן is generally interpreted here as one year; the use of עדן to mean “year” is attested in Daniel 4, according to which Nebuchadnezzar lived like a beast in the field for שבעה עדנין (4:13, 20, 22, 29), which seemingly refers to a period of seven years.¹⁸ If עדן reflects a basic unit of one year, then the plural עדנין can be understood as two years. This can be accomplished either through revocalizing the Aramaic form as a dual עִדָּנַיִן‎,¹⁹ or by simply understanding the plural form here with dual meaning.²⁰ Finally, פלג עדן is taken to be another half-year, taking the Aramaic פלג, to mean “half,” which is its predominant meaning.²¹ This leads to the sum total of 3.5 years.

A synchronic reading of the book of Daniel seems to support this interpretation, because the length of time of the religious persecution is 3.5 years in other verses in the apocalyptic section of the book. Thus, for example, Dan 9:27 reads: וַחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ יַשְׁבִּית זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה (“for half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering”), corresponding to the period described in 7:25 during which the holy ones of the Most High were given into the hands of the little horn. In the context of the “seventy weeks” vision in Daniel 9, in which a week refers to seven years, then the “half a week” during which the sacrifices were stopped can be calculated as 3.5 years.

Returning to the methodological observation above, while this is the meaning of the expression when read in the context of chapters 8–12, I suggest that reading Daniel 7 on its own terms does not lead to the 3.5 years interpretation, and instead needs to be read in light of its apocalyptic and eschatological context.²²

An internal analysis of the apocalypse in Daniel 7 leads to a different understanding of the expression עדן (ו)עדנין. The noun עדן appears twice in the apocalypse, in 7:25 (the verse under discussion) and in 7:12:

‏וּשְׁאָר חֵיוָתָא הֶעְדִּיו שָׁלְטָנְהוֹן וְאַרְכָה בְחַיִּין יְהִיבַת לְהוֹן עַד־זְמַן וְעִדָּן׃

The dominion of the other beasts was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them until a time and season.

Within the context of the apocalypse, the other beasts, which reflect the heavenly representatives (or function as symbols) of the first three empires in the four kingdom scheme, were removed from their positions of authority, but remain until זמן ועדן. The terms זמן and עדן function as a word pair (cf., e.g., 2:21 והוא מהשנא עדניא וזמניא [“he changes times and seasons”]),²³ and their use here is not related to a yearlong period or any multiple thereof. Rather, they refer to a point in time, although that time is left unspecified. The use of the Aramaic preposition עד in this verse indicates that the extension will continue until a specific endpoint, and the use of the word pair serves as emphasis for this moment, which I suggest based on the context should be understood as the eschaton. Each of the three beasts was removed from dominion, and their empires fell from glory. However, they do not disappear completely until זמן ועדן, at which time all the empires will disappear and dominion will pass to the “one like a man” (vv. 13–14).

This seems to be the sense of v. 22 that uses the term זמן by itself:

‏עַד דִּי־אֲתָה עַתִּיק יוֹמַיָּא וְדִינָא יְהִב לְקַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין וְזִמְנָא מְטָה וּמַלְכוּתָא הֶחֱסִנוּ קַדִּישִׁין׃

(I looked on as that horn made war with the holy ones and overcame them,) until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High, for the time had come, and the holy ones took possession of the kingdom.

Dan 7:22 NJPS

This verse describes “the time,” following the horn’s struggle with the holy ones, when the Ancient of Days will rule against the horn, and the holy ones will receive dominion over the kingdom. The use of זמן here in v. 22 matches that of זמן ועדן in v. 12, and both refer to the moment at which the kingdoms of the world will disappear, and dominion will be given to קדישי עליונין. Neither case refers to a measurement of time, such as a year, but rather to a turning point when the world will undergo dramatic change.

The textual witnesses to 7:25bβ attest to two slightly different readings, although I suggest this discrepancy is crucial for its interpretation.

Reading 1:

MT עַד־עִדָּן וְעִדָּנִין וּפְלַג עִדָּן ≈ OG ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιρῶν καὶ ἕως ἡµίσους καιροῦ²⁴ (≈ Theod, Vulgate)

Reading 2:

4QDan^a (4Q112)‫[זמנין ודת ויתיהבון בידה עד עד]ן֯ עדני֯[ן ]ו֯פלג עדן ̇²⁵‬ = Pesh ܥܕ ܥܕܢ ܥܕ̈ܢܝܢ ܘܦܠܓܘܬ ܥܕܢ

The two versions are almost identical, with one minor difference: the presence of the copulative waw in between עדן and עדנין in Reading 1. I suggest that further evidence for Reading 2 can be adduced from the corresponding passage in Dan 12:7: כִּי לְמוֹעֵד מוֹעֲדִים וָחֵצִי. That expression is almost certainly a Hebrew translation of 7:25,²⁶ and it lacks a waw between מועד and מועדים‎.²⁷

The small divergence between the two readings could admittedly be a minor stylistic difference. If, however, we assess Reading 2 on its own merits, then we can offer an alternative, independent explanation of its meaning. Instead of taking the first two elements in Reading 2, עדן עדנין, as individual components in a list, they can be understood as two nouns in a construct relationship. This is, in fact, how both Theodotion and the Vulgate translate ‫(ל)מועד מועדים‬ in 12:7: Theod—(εἰς) καιρὸν καιρῶν; Vulgate—(in) tempus temporum, which as suggested above goes back to Reading 2 of 7:25. This reading, which can be translated as “time of times,” can be best understood as a superlative, “the ultimate/final time,” as in other instances of the use of a substantive followed by the same substantive in plural.²⁸ In light of the analysis above of 7:12 and 22, this “time of times” or “final time” would similarly refer to the eschaton. The use of the superlative is appropriate to the style and context of Daniel 7, which employs terminology and imagery such as אלף אלפים (אלפין) (v. 10); רבו רבון (רבבן) (v. 10); שלטנה שלטן עלם (v. 14); קדישי עליונין (vv. 18, 22, 25, 27); עד עלמא ועד עלם עלמיא (v. 18); עד סופא (v. 26); מלכותה מלכות עלם (v. 27).

Thus the first part of the expression in 7:25bβ, according to Reading 2, can be translated: “and they will be delivered into his power until the final time.” This matches perfectly the apocalyptic worldview of this chapter, which stands at the end of the Aramaic section of the book. I suggest that Reading 1 was created by a copyist who misunderstood עדן עדנין in Reading 2 as two separate items in a list and, therefore, added a waw, which is linguistically justifiable in such a case. However, it altered the text from its original meaning.

What remains to be explained is ופלג עדן. Most translators and commentators suggest that this term should be translated as “half a time/year,” in line with the general 3.5 years interpretation. The translation of פלג as “half” reflects its most common meaning, and this translation is even more tempting in light of the use of the Hebrew term ‫(ו)חצי‬ in the parallel Hebrew expression in 12:7.

However, I suggest that this Aramaic expression can be best understood in the light of what I believe is its equivalent Hebrew expression. The Aramaic verb פלג means “separate, divide,” and is cognate with the Hebrew root חל״ק‎,²⁹ with the verb carrying the meaning “divide,” and the substantive having the meaning “part, portion.” I propose that the noun פלג in Dan 7:25 corresponds to the Hebrew מַחֲלֹקֶת “division,”³⁰ and the construct expression פלג עדן to the Hebrew מחלקת (ה)עת. Note, for example, the parallelism between פלגה and מחלקה in Ezra 6:18:

View Full Size

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

They appointed the priests in their courses and the Levites in their divisions for the service of God in Jerusalem, according to the prescription in the Book of Moses.

Ezra 6:18 NJPS

Furthermore, the biblical Hebrew term מחלקת (in its different shades of meaning) is translated consistently in the Peshitta and in the Targumim, by nominal forms of פלג/ܦܠܓ‎.³¹ This formal equivalence becomes significant when we notice that the construct expression מחלקת העת “division/part of time” is attested in both singular (4Q228, see below), and in plural forms in Qumran manuscripts (the plural forms are attested primarily in Jubilees manuscripts from Qumran).³² These attestations are all found in apocalyptic contexts, according to which the events of history unfold according to clearly defined chronological periods and patterns, and occur according to set “divisions of times.”³³

The expression is especially prominent in the opening chapter of Jubilees (Prologue, 1:4, 26, 29) and at its conclusion (50:13), which emphasize that the “divisions of times” span from the time of creation all the way until the eschaton, at which time there will be a new creation. It also appears a number of times in a fragmentary scroll (4Q228), published in DJD 13. This scroll, dated paleographically to 50–25 BCE, was entitled “Text with a Citation of Jubilees,” but seems instead to be the remains of a previously unknown eschatological composition.³⁴ Fragment 1, col. i, is the best preserved of the scroll and is the passage relevant to our discussion:³⁵

While the precise details of this passage are not fully clear, it appears to describe the events of various periods of history, including those of the addressee (line 4). These periods include “times of wickedness” (line 5) to be accompanied by judgment, with burning and devouring of a “council of evil” (line 6). There appears to be a transition in line 8 from a time of judgment and destruction to a more positive reality, accompanied by “the angel of his peace” and “eternal (life?)” (line 9). These are recorded in “the division^s [of times]” (lines 9–10), either a reference to an actual literary composition or, more likely in my opinion, a heavenly register of the periods of history. Here too, the eschatological context of the expression מחלקת העת is palpable.

In light of this analysis, I suggest that it is preferable to translate פלג עדן in Dan 7:25 not as “half a year,” but rather, as “and the division of (the) time.” How does this phrase relate to the previous clause “and they will be delivered into his power until the final time”? The simplest approach is to posit that “the division of time” is synonymous to “the time of times,” and they both reflect objects of the preposition עד referring to the same final period of history. This repetition could then perhaps be seen as added for emphasis.³⁷ This proposed interpretation for Dan 7:25, without recourse to the later chapters of Daniel, offers a completely different perspective of the end of this apocalypse than the general interpretation of 3.5 years until the end of Antiochus’s decrees, and broadens its original chronological horizon to an unknown end-point, consistent with other apocalyptic visions. This supports the conclusion that the apocalypse in its current form was composed at some point in time after the beginning of Antiochus’s decrees in 167 BCE,³⁸ but prior to the rededication of the Temple in 164, at which time such a dramatic perspective was a matter of speculation and wild hope.³⁹

A similar situation obtains in Daniel 11, when one realizes (as scholars previously have) that the chronological data following this apocalypse, in 12:7, 11, 12, is secondary to the chapter. In fact, the original end of the apocalypse, and perhaps of the book of Daniel as a whole, was probably in 12:4 (“But you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will range far and wide and knowledge will increase”), followed by a secondary expansion or appendix in 12:5–13.⁴⁰ This leaves us with another apocalypse, Daniel 11, which in its original form did not include a specific date by which Antiochus’s decrees would end. Rather, it refers more generally to times using the terms ‪קץ‬ (11:27, 35, 40; 12:4, 9, 13) and ‪מועד‬ (11:27, 35).

Scholars have long noted that this apocalypse can be divided into 11:1–39, which refers to events that came to fruition, and 11:40ff., which does not match the historical reality.⁴¹ Therefore, the general scholarly consensus for dating the apocalypse in Daniel 11 is prior to Antiochus’s death in Persia in 164 BCE (since he perished under different circumstances than those described in 11:40–45), and consequently prior to the end of the decrees in December 164 BCE. We can, therefore, identify a common characteristic of Daniel 7 and 10:1–12:4, both of which were composed prior to the end of Antiochus’s decrees, and neither of which hazarded a guess to predict their end. Instead both spoke generally of a time, עדן and זמן in Daniel 7, and קץ and מועד in Daniel 11–12.

Before analyzing the other passages in the Daniel apocalypses that address the end of the persecution, it is important to briefly mention the extra-Danielic sources that describe for how long it continued, and in particular the desecration of the Temple and its cult. The most explicit chronological information about the length of this desecration, including the dates of both the desecration and rededication, is found in both First and Second Maccabees.⁴²

1 Macc 1:54, 59: (54) And on the 15th day of Chaseleu in the 145th year, he constructed an abomination of desolation on the altar, and in the cities around Iouda they built altars … (59) On the 25th of the month they were sacrificing on the altar that was on top of the sacrificial altar.

1 Macc 4:52–54: (52) And they arose on the morning of the 25th of the ninth month, this being the month Chaseleu, of the 148th year, (53) and they offered sacrifice according to the law on the new altar of whole burnt offerings that they made. (54) During the same time and on the same day on which the nations defiled it, on that day it was rededicated with songs and lyres and cinyras and cymbals.

2 Macc 10:5: It happened that on the same day on which the shrine had been profaned by allophyles the purification of the shrine took place, that is, on the 25th day of the same month, which was Chaseleu.⁴³

According to 1 Maccabees, the profanation of the altar lasted for precisely three years from the 25th of Kislev in the 145th year of the Seleucid count (= 167 BCE) until the same date three years later in 164 BCE.⁴⁴ Whether or not this information reflects historical reality,⁴⁵ it is highly significant that the same (or a similar) tradition, and emphasis of that tradition, appears in both of these books.⁴⁶ At a minimum, we can conclude that following the rededication of the Temple, there was a widespread understanding that the profanation lasted for precisely three years. At a maximum, this indeed reflected the reality behind the events.

Three passages in Daniel provide precise periods of time for the length of the persecution, although they are not identical to the three-year period of 1 Maccabees. I suggest that this discrepancy is the result of an attempt to conform the reference to the eschaton in Dan 7:25 to the historical reality, following the cessation of the religious persecution and desolation of the Temple.