Into the Lions’ Den:

The Book of Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature

Rubens, Daniel in the Lions’ Den, 1615

“If I knew the world were going to end tomorrow,

I would plant a tree.”
Martin Luther

March 6, 2007
Biometric Hand Scanning: Religious Challenge Upheld By
Arbitrator

An arbitrator has reinstated three employees of a Toronto-area

company who were fired after they refused to enrol in a biometric
hand scanning system because of their religious belief that doing so
might encumber them with the "Mark of the Beast," and identify them
as followers of the Anti-Christ. Following the Supreme Court of
Canada's decision in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] S.C.J.
No. 46 (QL), the arbitrator ruled that the employer was obliged to
attempt to accommodate the employees, and that in order to engage
the employer's duty to accommodate, an employee's religious beliefs
need not be either objectively reasonable or generally accepted. The
only requirement is that the beliefs be sincerely held.
Lancaster House Labour Reports
What is “Apocalypse”?
In current usage, “Apocalypse” is a catch-all phrase
that refers to some catastrophic event that will mark
the end of the world and history (at least as we know
it.)
In its original usage, “Apocalypse” is from the Greek
Αποκαλυψις (Apokalypsis), which means
“revelation” – in the sense of “unveiling” or “pulling
back the curtain”.
In the context of the Bible, “Apocalypse” has a Scene from The Day After Tomorrow, a
more specific meaning. It describes a form (a type modern “environmental Apocalypse”
or genre) of literature.
This form is best known from the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the
Book of Revelation in the New Testament. Other Biblical books include apocalyptic sections, or
use elements of the apocalyptic genre. Examples include Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 1 (a favourite of
UFO-ologists), Zechariah 9-14, and Mark 13 (sometimes referred to as “The Little
Apocalypse”).
There are also important Apocalypses outside the Bible: the Book of Enoch and Testament of
Abraham are examples. The Dead Scrolls included literature with apocalyptic elements. In
general, Apocalypse has had a difficult time getting into the canon.
Scholars have defined the key characteristics of the genre:

• A narrative framework
• Within this narrative, there is a revelation
• The revelation is about a transcendent reality – that is, it goes beyond time to talk about
an eschatological salvation (salvation outside human history; eschatology = doctrine of
“last things”); and it goes beyond space insofar as it involves another, supernatural world
• The revelation is mediated and interpreted by an otherworldly being (like an angel) to a
human recipient

Apocalypse often involves fantastic, bizarre imagery, like the beasts that appear in both Daniel
and Revelation. This imagery often appears to be drawn from various mythologies, but also
appears to be allegorical (a “code”).

The Language Puzzle

Another interesting puzzle about Daniel is that is written in two languages:
• 1:1 – 2:4a and 8:1 – 12:13 is written in Hebrew
• 2:4b – 7:28 (beginning of the speech of the Chaldeans) is written in Aramaic
The division of the text between the two languages does not correspond to the structure of the
book:
• Chapters 1 – 6 are stories of Daniel and his companions
• Chapters 7 – 12 are the visions

Later Greek and Latin versions of Daniel also included additional material, now included in the
Apocrypha: Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon.
Placing Daniel in context
Daniel illustrates another common feature of apocalyptic (and other Biblical) literature: the text
is attributed to some ancient sage or legendary figure and claims to speak from that past to the
present.
Daniel claims to be the stories about and visions of a faithful Jew who lived at the time of the
Exile (6th century BCE) and became an important official at the courts of the Babylonian and
then the Median and Persian rulers. Daniel is apparently referenced in Ezekiel 14:14 and 28:3,
although (if it actually is the same “Daniel”) he appears to be more a legendary “wise man” than
a contemporary.
But Daniel doesn’t seem to be very well-informed about the period in which he was supposed to
live. For example, he refers to a “Darius the Mede” who doesn’t seem to have existed.

Problems with history in Daniel

Daniel takes us from “the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah” (1: 1) to “the
third year of Cyrus king of Persia” (10:1) – that is, from 605 BCE to 537 BCE. Four kings
are named.
Rulers in Daniel Actual succession of rulers
BABYLON MEDIA
NEBUCHADNEZZAR NEBUCHADNEZZAR Cyaxares (625-585)
(605-562)
Amel-marduk (562-560) Astyages (585-550)
Neriglissar (560-556)
Nabonidus (556-539)
BELSHAZZAR BELSHAZZAR
(co-regent 549-539)
DARIUS THE MEDE
PERSIA
CYRUS
CYRUS Defeated Astyages in 550 BCE

Captured Babylon in 539 BCE

• In Daniel 5, Belshazzar is described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But he was actually the
son of Nabonidus. He was regent for ten years but not actually King.
• “Darius the Mede” is unknown to history. Darius the Great ruled Persia from 522 to 486 BCE

But Daniel does fit very well with a much later period than the 6th century BCE. Its content can
be linked to a “time of troubles” in the 2nd century BCE, when Judea was ruled by the Seleucid
emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes (= “the god made manifest”). The most critical period is 167
BCE – 164 BCE, when the practice of Judaism is banned and the Temple desecrated. A revolt
begins under the leadership of the Maccabbees, which eventually leads to the establishment of an
independent Jewish state.
Also, Daniel 12:2 provides one of the first Biblical texts that express a belief in resurrection: And
many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some
to shame and everlasting contempt. Perhaps surprisingly, this appears to be a relatively late
development in Judaism and argues for a relatively late date for the text.
History
Throughout most of this “Second Temple” period, Judaism had to deal with several realities:
• Judaism was no longer master in its own house. The return to Jerusalem and the
rebuilding of the Temple were, historically, acts of the Persian state. Ezra arrived at
Jerusalem as a commissioner of the King; his authority depended on the King rather than
divine revelation. The High Priest was the intermediary between the Jews and the royal
government, but was also effectively an appointee of the King. The office of High Priest
was as much a political as a religious office.
• Judaism had spread far beyond the boundaries of its historical state. This Diaspora likely
pre-dated the Babylonian exile, but the Exile dramatically accelerated this process. Jews
also took refuge in Egypt. For example, a colony of Jewish mercenaries was found at
Elephantine in Egypt from the early 6th century.
• This Jewish Diaspora encountered the Hellenistic Diaspora. Hellenistic culture was
Greek culture. Greek influence in the Mediterranean world was felt – mainly through
trade (archaeological evidence of Greek coins and stamped jars from Rhodes and other
Greek cities) – long before the conquests of Alexander the Great. One result was that the
Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, traditionally in the 3rd century BC (the
“Septuagint” or LXX translation.)
• Unlike Judaism, Hellenistic culture was urban and cosmopolitan/supranational. Anyone
could (in theory) become “Hellenised”; in practice, Hellenisation was particularly
attractive to upper classes. Several features of Hellenistic culture were particularly
problematic for Judaism:
o Hellenistic culture emphasized the cultivation of the body as an essential part of
education. This meant, in practice, participation in a gymnasium, which involved
participation in cultic/worship activities and exercising/socializing while naked –
o Hellenistic culture did not demand that local gods be forgotten or replaced.
Rather, it identified local gods with the gods of Greek pantheon. A Greek could
reasonably assume that the Yahweh of Judaism was the same as Zeus.
While the Biblical texts may try to portray Judaism in the Second Temple period as orthodox and
monolithic, the reality appears to be that there is a diversity of “Judaisms” rather than a single,
normative, unified religion. Some scholars would even say that Judaism was not really
“monotheistic” in this era. Individuals and communities in effect negotiated their own
compromises with the outside world.
For example, in 407 BCE, the Elephantine community sent a letter to the Persian governor of
Judea asking for his help in restoring their temple. The community was apparently oblivious to
the “orthodox” view that the sacrificial rituals could only be conducted at the Temple in
Jerusalem:
We have (previously) sent letters to our lord when this catastrophe happened to us; and to the
high priest Yehochannan and his associates, the priests in Jerusalem; and to Ostan, the kinsman
of Anani; and the Judahite elites. They have never sent us a letter… Let a letter be sent from you
to them concerning the temple of the god Yahu to construct it in the fortress of Yeb as it was
before. And the grain-offering, incense, and burnt-offering will be offered in your name, and we
will pray for you continuously—we, our wives, and our children, and the Judahites who are here,
all of them—if you do this so that this temple is reconstructed.

In social terms, even as Judaism struggled to define its faith, its “boundaries”, and its identity,
powerful counter-forces were at work.
The Crisis: 167-164 BCE
The unity of Alexander the Great’s empire did not long
survive his death in 323 BCE. From the struggles
between his generals emerged a number of smaller
Hellenistic kingdoms/empires. (See Daniel 11: 4)
Two of these were the Seleucid and Ptolemaic
A silver coin of Antiochus IV
empires. Judea was part of the Ptolemaic kingdom,
The reverse shows Zeus with the inscription
but was incorporated into the Seleucid kingdom in BASILEUS ANTIOCHOU THEOU EPIPANOU
198 BCE under Antiochus III, after one of many (King Antiochus God manifest)
armed conflicts between the two kingdoms.
The Seleucid rulers initially followed the same basic policy as their Persian and Ptolemaic
predecessors – that is, they confirmed the rights of the Jews to practice their religion and did not
demand that Jews participate in worship of the King. However, they did promote and encourage
Hellenisation, notably through the building of Hellenistic cities.
The Seleucid rulers were mainly interested in Judea (and other parts of the empire) as a source of
revenue. They were involved in almost constant warfare with the Ptolemies (these conflicts
between the “kings of the North” and “kings of the South” are described in the “prophecies” of
Daniel 11) and were threatened from the east by the Parthians. In 190 BCE, Antiochus III’s
invasion of Asia Minor and Thrace was defeated by a new power, Rome, which was making its
first military intervention in that area.
Antiochus IV succeeded to the Seleucid throne in 176 BCE. He took the title “Epiphanes”, which
means “the god manifest”.
In 168 BCE, Antiochus IV invaded the Ptolemaic kingdom. He was on the verge of success
when forced to withdraw by the Romans. This is described in Daniel 11: 29-30 (the “Kittim” =
the “Romans”):
At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be
this time as it was before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall
be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action
against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake
the holy covenant.
The details and chronology of what followed are unclear, but it is clear that Antiochus, probably
acting with advice and support from Hellenizers including the High Priest, changed Seleucid
policy from tolerance to suppression. In 167 BCE, Antiochus prohibited the practice of Judaism.
Circumcision was forbidden. The Temple was converted into a temple to the god Zeus, and
unclean animals such as pigs were sacrificed on the altar.
Seleucid officials spread out through the towns of Judea and required people to participate in
sacrifices to the pagan gods. The events are described (from particular viewpoints) in 1 and 2
Maccabees. Daniel 11:31 says (also see Daniel 9: 26-27):
Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take
away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that
makes desolate.
It is difficult to provide a satisfactory explanation of the crisis. Perhaps the best that can be said
is that Antiochus IV’s decision was the result of an intersection of various crises:
• A crisis of empire. Antiochus IV had been thwarted by the Romans and faced
pressure from the Parthians in the east – in fact, he would die of illness while
campaigning in the east. Facing so many external threats, he may have concluded
that he could not afford to leave Judea in turmoil. From his perspective, Judaism
must have seemed a source of recurring trouble and a dangerous weak point in his
realm.
• A crisis within the ruling priestly class. When the High Priest Simon II died in 175 BCE,
conflict broke out between supporters of his sons Onias III and Jason (note the use of the
Greek name Jason rather than Joshua.) One year later, Antiochus IV replaced Onias III
with Jason – probably because Onias’ loyalty was suspect and he favoured the Ptolemies.
Jason pursued a policy of Hellenisation, building a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Further
scandal surrounded the High Priesthood in 171 BCE when Menelaus, perhaps a member
of a rival priestly family but also a Helleniser, effectively buys the office of High Priest
from Antiochus IV. Jason resisted being deposed and there was a civil war that was
ended by the intervention of a Seleucid army. At this time, the Seleucids constructed a
fortress (the Akra) on a hill that dominated Jerusalem.
• A crisis within Judaism. Resistance – even if only passive resistance – to the
Hellenisation policies favoured by a succession of High Priests was not just religious but
also, because of the nature of the High Priest’s office, political.
How did the Jews respond to the crisis? As Daniel 11: 32-35 summarizes, there were those who
acquiesced and those who risked martyrdom by offering (passive) resistance :
He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who
know their God shall stand firm and take action. And those among the people who
are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame,
by captivity and plunder, for some days. When they fall, they shall receive a little
help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery; and some of those who
are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the
time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.
The reference to “a little help” likely refers to the more active resistance led by the
Maccabbees. This resistance was ultimately successful, as the practice of Judaism was
restored in 164 BCE and the Temple cleansed and rededicated.

Rembrandt, The Feast of Belshazzar, ca. 1635

Timelines: The Book of Daniel

Events Empires and Judaism

Kingdoms
600 BCE Neo-
586 BCE – Destruction of Temple Babylonian
and beginning of Exile. Empire
539 BCE – Cyrus the Great decrees
the return of the exiles and the
rebuilding of the Temple.
500 BCE
Persian Empire
539 – 330 BCE

400 BCE

“Second Temple” period

330 BCE –
Alexander the
323 BCE –
Great conquers
300 BCE Persian empire.
Death of
Alexander Macedonian
followed by Empire
division of his 330 - 323 BCE
empire. and successor
kingdoms

200 BCE
198 BCE –
Ptolemies 175 BCE –
lose 167 to 164 Antiochus
Palestine BCE – “Time IV takes
throne of Hasmonean
to of Troubles” state
Antiochus and Seleucid
Empire. (Maccabees)
100 BCE III – Judea Rededication 164 BCE – 64
incorporat of the BCE
ed into Temple
Seleucid
Empire 63 BCE –
Romans conquer
1 CE Jerusalem

70 CE 70 CE – Destruction of the second

Temple by the Romans