Antiochus IV and Daniel's Little Horn Reexamined Final Version

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 1
Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE
Draft 86
Revised March 12, 2014
2014
The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him [Antiochus IV Epiphanes]; for he

does not fulfill the specifications in one single particular.
Uriah Smith
There can be no doubt that Antiochus [IV] Epiphanes is denoted here. All the
circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him.
Albert Barnes
Foreword
The prophetic books, Daniel and Revelation, have been for a long time significant research and
interpretation arenas for theologians. This has been so much more the case with the SDA historicist
scholars in view of the fact that the SDA Church has placed an almost inordinate importance on these
books in order to salvage its central creed the doctrine of the sanctuary after the Millerite Second
Coming prediction fiasco. The most intense efforts the SDA historicist theologians have made to recover
from Millers nave and artless prophetic speculations, though, have been unsuccessful because the
hermeneutical arguments the SDA scholars have proposed are unbiblical and have no linguistic and
historical basis, although the SDA theologians take pride in their historicism, and claim to authenticate
their interpretations with hard historical facts. The inconvenient truth is that the SDA theologians have
failed to produce intelligent and reliable biblical and linguistic support for their interpretations, and seem
to have used fictitious or fabricated historical events in order to defend their unscriptural and
implausible prophetic interpretations. Such is the case, for instance, with the SDA interpretation for
Daniel 8 that ignores and even disdains indisputable factual evidence from reliable historical records that
demonstrate that the little horn in Chapter 8 represents the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and
instead attempts to advance ersatz data in order to support the view that Rome fulfills the prophetic
criteria. The little horn issue is claimed to have been settled once for all in the SDA historicist theological
circles, but nothing is further from the truth. The fact is that the dogmatic arguments the SDA theologians
have suggested are not supported with factual and dependable historical evidence that can stand serious
examination, but are promoted as indisputable and infallible truths among the SDA church members who
are told that their Christian obligation is to accept the SDA arguable claims with a docile faith, and to
never question the SDA established creeds. This document is written for those who want to decide for
themselves whether or not the SDA Churchs established position on Antiochus IV Epiphanes is based on
historical facts that can survive rigorous and thorough biblical and linguistic examination and historical
review or on questionable theological assumptions imposed on uncritical and submissive church members
who have become captive to an authoritarian and corrupt religious organization that discourages personal
Bible inquiries and punishes the SDA theologians and common church members who happen to depart
even in one point from the inflexible and intolerant SDA dogmas.
This foreword would not be complete without my thanks to Lynn Renee, my wife, who has continued to
be a dedicated supporter, adviser, and proofreader also during the research and writing of this document
on Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Eduard C. Hanganu
Eduard C. Hanganu, B. A., M. A.
E-mail: ecxhanganu@gmail.com
Evansville, March 12, 2014
Abstract
The SDA historicist theologians have shown an excessive and unnatural revulsion for the notion that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes might be the prophetic little horn in Daniel 8, while the official SDA apologetic
reactions against Antiochus IV Epiphanes have often been expressed in speculative, illogical, and
implausible arguments. Although the SDA historicists have often claimed to depend on historical
evidence in order to confirm their interpretations to Daniel 8, the simple fact is that the arguments against
Antiochus IV Epiphanes are based on nothing more than simplistic theological assumptions and historical
fact distortions while the actual historical events have been dismissed as immaterial and irrelevant. The
SDA prophetic interpretation seems to be in utter confusion at the present time. Smith, for instance,
argues that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails to fulfill the prophetic specifications even in one single
particular, and that Rome, claimed to derive from the one of the four notable horns in Daniel 8, is the
one that matches the prophetic description for the little horn and commits the vicious acts against Gods
people. His arguments, though, have no reliable biblical or linguistic support and are not based on factual
historical evidence. Current SDA theologians such as Gane, Pfandl, and Prbstle, though, have altered
these interpretation arguments, and argue that the little horn arises from an indistinct wind or cardinal
point, and base their tentative conclusions on an apparent gender discord that proves to be a natural and
common feature of diachronic Hebrew. The confusion about the origin of the vicious little horn in Daniel
chapter 8 extends further to the confusion between the prophetic little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 that some
SDA historicist theologians believe to be identical, and other SDA theologians see as distinct and
separate. The arguments suggested in the SDA theological circles against Antiochus IV Epiphanes are
theoretical and speculative, and cannot be supported with empirical evidence. The genuine and factual
historical records seem to show, instead, that it is Rome the proposed and preferred SDA historicist
agent that fails to meet the historical criteria for the little horn, and that the current SDA historicist
defense for Rome comes from distorted historical records and fabricated historical events. The
examination of relevant factual evidence shows that the SDA theologians have no serious case for Rome
as the little horn in Daniel 8. This document provides undeniable biblical, linguistic, and historical
evidence that demonstrates that the vicious little horn in Daniel 8 comes from one of the four notable
horns in verse 8, and that all the relevant and authentic historical records contain multiple and reliable
accounts that confirm the fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fits the prophetic expectations in Daniel 8 and
satisfies the identification criteria for that little horn.
Contents
I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................8
Three Different Interpretations .................................................................................................................... 8
The Two Contrastive Perspectives .............................................................................................................. 8
Punished for Dogma Refutation ................................................................................................................. 9
The Need to Reexamine the Issue ............................................................................................................. 10
II. True Historicism Characteristics .......................................................................................12

Unambiguous Language Expected ............................................................................................................ 12
(1) Historicism Defined .................................................................................................................. 12
(2) Historical Events Defined ......................................................................................................... 13
(3) Historical Fulfillment Defined .................................................................................................. 13
Exegetical Facts vs. True Events ........................................................................................................... 14
III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel ........................................................................................15

The Little Horns Appear Identical ............................................................................................................. 15
The Little Horns Are Not Identical ............................................................................................................ 17
Obvious Fundamental Differences ............................................................................................................ 19
IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn .......................................................................................21

The Little Horn without a Root ................................................................................................................. 21
Lost about Little Horns Origin ...................................................................................................... 21
The Little Horn from the Horn ....................................................................................................... 21
The Little Horn from the Wind ....................................................................................................... 22
Prophetic Beast Lost in Action .................................................................................................................. 25
Untrue and Unsound Arguments ............................................................................................................... 26
The Nearest Antecedent Trick ............................................................................................................... 26
Gender Discord and Diglossia ................................................................................................................... 28
Little Horn Anaphora Resolution ............................................................................................................. 29
False Claims about Horns Origin ............................................................................................................. 35
V. False Claims against Antiochus ..........................................................................................36

Biased SDA Historicist Theologians ......................................................................................................... 36
Roy Gane ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Martin Prbstle ............................................................................................................................... 36
Gerhard Pfandl ................................................................................................................................ 38
The SDABC Scholars .................................................................................................................... 40
Uriah Smith .................................................................................................................................... 40
The QOD Theologians.................................................................................................................... 42
William H. Shea ............................................................................................................................. 48
The Inspired KJV Translation ................................................................................................................ 55
Little Horn Larger Than He-Goat.............................................................................................................. 56
VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome .........................................................................................58

Smiths Broken Historicist Claims ............................................................................................................ 58
Hewitts Unarguable Refutation ..................................................................................................... 60
Millers Reckless Number Game .............................................................................................................. 61
Prbstles Revised Historical Data ............................................................................................................ 62
Fictitious Spins and Gremlin Tales................................................................................................. 63
VII. Hard Arguments against Rome .......................................................................................65

Authentic and Factual Historicism ............................................................................................................ 65
VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus...............................................................................67

SDA Historicist Credits Antiochus ........................................................................................................... 67
True and Solid Historical Evidence ........................................................................................................... 67
Not Confused With Genuine Facts ............................................................................................................ 69
Compelled to Admit the Evidence ............................................................................................................ 69
The Heretic and His Punishment ........................................................................................................... 70
An Authentic Historicist Perspective ........................................................................................................ 72
The Question about the Desolation ........................................................................................................... 74
The Verifiable Prophetic Fulfillment ........................................................................................................ 75
IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations ....................................................................................76

The Jewish Encyclopedia .......................................................................................................................... 76
Moses Stuart .............................................................................................................................................. 77
T. R. Birks ................................................................................................................................................. 79
Winston McHarg ....................................................................................................................................... 79
Robert D. Wilson....................................................................................................................................... 81
Flavius Josephus ........................................................................................................................................ 83
Edwin R. Bevan......................................................................................................................................... 85
Albert Barnes............................................................................................................................................. 87
Ernest Lucas .............................................................................................................................................. 87
X. Historicism and False Historicism ......................................................................................89

Historical Fact or Dogmatic Fiction .......................................................................................................... 89
Daniel 8:8
Verbatim English Translation ......................................................................................................... 89
True Historicist Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 89
Deductions and Speculations .......................................................................................................... 90
Daniel 8:9
Hewitts Sensible Refutation ............................................................................................ 93
Daniel 8:10
Daniel 8:11
Daniel 8:12
Daniel 8:13
Hewitts Sensible Refutation ............................................................................................... 99
Daniel 8:14
Verbatim English Translation ....................................................................................................... 100
True Historicist Interpretation ...................................................................................................... 100
Deductions and Speculations ........................................................................................................ 103
Daniel 8:23
Daniel 8:24
Daniel 8:25
XI. When Dogmas Replace Evidence ....................................................................................108

The Terms and Their Definitions ............................................................................................................ 108
(1) Historicism .............................................................................................................................. 108
(2) Historical Events ..................................................................................................................... 108
(3) Historical Fulfillment .............................................................................................................. 109
Historicism vs. Pseudo-Historicism ........................................................................................................ 109
Historical Truth vs. Dogmatic Truth ....................................................................................................... 109
Divine Truth vs. Human Deception......................................................................................................... 110
XII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................113

The Little Horn Comes From a Horn ...................................................................................................... 113
No Evidence for Rome as Little Horn ..................................................................................................... 113
Little Horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes ................................................................................................... 113
XIII. References ......................................................................................................................114
I. Introduction
Three Different Interpretations
The main traditional interpretations of Daniel 8 and its little horn have been based on the
perspectives of three main hermeneutical schools preterist, historicist, and futurist. These
schools take positions that show fundamental exegetical differences and contrastive historical
applications from school to school. Shea summarizes the basic distinctions and similarities
between the three hermeneutical schools as follows:
Crucial to the interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14 is the identification of this little horn [in Daniel 8] which
was to do all these things against God and His people [emphasis added]. In their attempt to identify the
little horn commentators have applied the methods advanced by the preterist, futurist, and historicist
schools of prophetic interpretation [emphasis added].
Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already
been fulfilled and, therefore, have no significance for the present day. Thus they hold that the little horn
rose from one of the divisions of Alexander's empire. They conclude that the activities of the little horn
unmistakably point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Futurists generally follow this line of interpretation
also [emphasis added]. In addition, they see Antiochus as a type of an end-time antichrist who is to arise in
the final years of earth's history before Christ's Second Advent.
Historicists, on the other hand, declare that the prophecies in Daniel portray an outline of human and
ecclesiastical history and the story of the struggle between good and evil down to the end of time
[emphasis added]. Since a flow of history appears to be involved here, especially when this chapter is
compared with the previous one, the historicist holds that the little horn represents Rome in its pagan
and papal phases [emphasis added].1
The above paragraphs indicate that there are in fact two dominant interpretations for the
prophetic little horn in Daniel 8: 1. The activities of the little horn unmistakably point to
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and 2. The little horn represents Rome in its pagan and papal
phases. Smith, a Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] historicist pioneer and dilettante
theologian appears more than certain that the biblical prophecies hold no secrets for him and that
the interpretation of Daniel 8 is simple and without hassle. That the SDA religionist is much too
confident in his exegetical abilities and too optimistic about the solution to the important issue
under discussion is a fact that needs no confirmation. He states:
There are two leading applications of the symbol new under consideration, which are all that need be
noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the little horn here introduced denotes the Syrian
king, Antiochus Epiphanes; the second, that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test
the claims of these two positions [emphasis added].2
The Two Contrastive Perspectives

There are, then, two hermeneutical camps in relation to the identification of the prophetic
little horn in Daniel 8. One camp claims that the little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, while the
other camp insists that the little horn is Rome. Barnes and Birks defend the first perspective:
There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here [in Daniel 8:9]. All the
circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him [emphasis added], and if it were supposed that
this was written after he had lived, and that it was the design of the writer to describe him by these
symbols, he could not have found symbols that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The
Syriac version has inserted here, in the Syriac text, the words Antiochus Epiphanes, and almost without
exception, expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to. 3
The facts [about Antiochus IV Epiphanes] which have been presented in a compressed form, and
almost entirely in the words of the original authorities, make a comment superfluous to prove the
accurate fulfillment of the prophecy, even in its minutest details [emphasis added]. There is not one
prediction, it may be safely asserted, in the inspired writings themselves, which approaches to this in the
number of distinct and connected particulars, manifestly accomplished in the same order not one which
yields such overwhelming evidence of the divine knowledge. 4
The two scholars make the categorical claim that all the circumstances of the prediction
find a fulfillment in him [Antiochus IV Epiphanes], that almost without exception, expositors
have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to, and that the divine prediction was fulfilled
with him even in its minutest details. Smith, on the other hand, makes the reverse claim, and
contends that he [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] does not fulfill the specifications in one single
particular [emphasis added]. He also assures his readers that the application of the prophetic
little horn in Daniel 8 to Antiochus IV Epiphanes is due to a pernicious deception that the
Romanists had devised and promoted in order to avoid the application of the prophecy to
themselves and to oppose the doctrine that the second advent of Christ is now at hand. That
Smith was dead wrong in his wild assumptions and prophetic speculations is evident from the
fact that the claimed imminent Second Advent he was so confident about remains at hand even
now. States the SDA dogmatist:
The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond
controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev. 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four
years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfil [sic!]
the specifications in one single particular [emphasis added]. The question may then be asked how any
one has ever come to apply it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view to avoid the application of the
prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that the
second advent of Christ is now at hand [emphasis added].5
That most theologians differ in their interpretations of the prophetic books, Daniel and
Revelation, is a known fact. Such differences are not hard to understand when disagreements
between scholars are due to different hermeneutics and concern exegetical details. How this
could happen when historical events are invoked to support altogether different and even
opposite interpretations is impossible to understand. It is obvious that two or more interpretation
schools cannot be true at the same time when each one promotes an opposed interpretation. One
school must be correct, while the other ones must be incorrect. One school must be historicist
and defend its interpretation with true, actual, and verifiable historical events, while the other
schools must be pseudo-historicist and defend their interpretations with distorted, fabricated,
and fictitious events. Smiths frivolous and reckless claim that Antiochus IV Epiphanes does
not fulfil the specifications in one single particular is more than evidence of flagrant ineptitude
on his side. It is the evidence of a retrograde egotism that denies true empirical facts and markets
fictional and fabricated narratives in order to defend a dogmatic position at all costs.
Persecuted for Dogma Refutation
The recent note from a local SDA pastor dismissed the idea that the little horn [in Daniel
8] refers to Antiochus [IV] Epiphanes and stated that this is an old accusation that has been
refuted many times, even in the old book Daniel and Revelation that was given to [him] before
[he] was baptized. The implication was that it would be a waste of time to restart the dialogue
on this issue and to reexamine the traditional SDA position on Antiochus IV Epiphanes because
the matter was settled long before and no further research or investigation was needed. The fact
is that the SDA Church has discouraged, censured, and punished the honest and critical
discussion of its fundamental beliefs [dogmas] and that those members or theologians who
dare to question the SDA dictates and prescriptions endanger their memberships and professional
positions in the church.
In a recent inquisitorial event with the Biblical Research Institute [further, BRI] the
SDA equivalent of the Magisterium in the Catholic Church, a SDA theologian who held to the
scriptural view that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8 and wrote a research
document6 that argued this perspective lost his professorial position in the church because he was
considered a danger to the students he taught. Laiu had taught Greek, Hebrew, and Biblical
Exegesis for 20 years at the Romanian Theological Institute [further, RTI] in Bucharest. After his
heretical document was circulated among some SDA theologians, Pfandl, Mueller, and other
BRI intimidators outlawed him because he had dared to read non-SDA theological books and
had dared to express perspectives that were in contradiction with certain SDA unbiblical
opinions and dogmas. The Education Department at the SDA Euro-Africa Church Division
notified the Romanian scholar after a short while that he had been demoted from his current
professor position with the RTI to a bureaucratic desk. So much for freedom of research and
conscience in the autocratic and repressive SDA Church!
The Need to Reexamine the Issue
The claim the SDA historicists make about the little horn in Daniel 8 is that Rome meets
and exceeds in all the minute details the prophetic criteria outlined in Daniel 8 for that horn, and
therefore passes the required pragmatic test of historical fulfillment,7 claimed to be the
ultimate confirmation that the SDA historicist interpretation of Daniel 8 is correct, while
Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails the pragmatic test due to the incompleteness with which this
persecuting Seleucid king fulfilled the specifications set forth.8 The claim is also that the issue
has been settled once and for all to the complete satisfaction of the SDA scholars and members.
But is the issue, indeed, settled? Does the truthful interpretation of Daniel 8 together with
reliable historical evidence support the SDA perspective that Rome is the little horn? That
uninformed and submissive SDA members take dogmatic Church formulas for Divine oracles
should not be a surprise, but that most SDA scholars continue to propagate the idea that this
little horn [in Daniel 8] represents Rome in both its phases, pagan and papal,9 is conclusive
evidence for the dogmatic spell that has survived on a priori principles accepted as true, instead
of being founded upon experience or induction10 under which the SDA Church has been since
its inception. This research document is intended to break at least part of this deceptive spell and
show that the Seleucid king meets better than Rome the SDA proposed agent the historical
fulfillment parameters outlined in Daniel 8 for the little horn. Factual and indisputable historical
accounts demonstrate that Rome fails the required prophetic criteria, and that, instead, the
Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets to the letter the specific and detailed historical
predictions for the little horn in Daniel 8.
This manuscript is a position document,11 and therefore its conclusion is affirmed from
the start right after the dogmatic SDA theological claims have been identified, exposed, and
denounced. Authentic, factual, and undeniable historical evidence supports the position that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and not Rome, is the prophetic little horn in Daniel 8 because it meets
the explicit predictive expectations for the vicious Seleucid persecutor. This evidence comes
from numerous, legitimate, and authentic historical sources that will be presented in expanded
details in this research document.
II. True Historicism Characteristics

Unambiguous Language Expected
This documents goal, which is to reexamine and dispute the SDA historicist claim that
Rome rather than Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8, cannot be accomplished
before a clear terminological framework has been established for the discussion. We first need to
determine the common definitions for (1) historicism, (2) historical events, and (3) historical
fulfillment in order to distinguish and authenticate true historicist facts and differentiate them
from false pseudo-historicist speculations, distortions, and fabrications that often pass for
authentic evidence. We must also avoid equivocal language that would mask errors and provide
opportunities for illogical, spurious, and pseudo-historicist and downright deceptive circular
arguments that must be avoided before clear-cut scientific conclusions can be drawn from the
evidence available for this research.
(1) Historicism Defined
There are a few definitions for historicism, as a theological concept, but these
definitions share certain common characteristics that will be summarized after the definitions are
included below. The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia [further, SDAE] describes historicism
as follows:
This term [historicism] is used to describe a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the fulfillment
of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the prophet to
the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. 1
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students Source Book [further, SDABSSB], takes from
the book Interpreting Revelation the following definition for the historicist view concept:
[p. 137] The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a
symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to
the end of time.2
The next definition for historicism is from Shea, a well-known SDA historicist theologian
and apologist, in connection with the SDA prophetic interpretations for Daniel and Revelation:
Through the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation have been proposed. The
historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at
the time of the prophets who wrote them.3
Vetne examines the traditional SDA definitions for historicism, finds them imperfect and
inadequate, and contends that a more specific, precise, and inclusive definition would be needed
for a better perspective on historicism. He re-formulates the previous definition as follows:
Here is my proposed definition of historicism: Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy
intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between
his day and the eschaton.4
John Noe, an evangelical scholar, known eschatologist, and expert in Daniel and
Revelation, defines historicism and historicists in these terms:
Thus, historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events, institutions,
movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age
[emphasis added]. These began in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and will
eventually lead up to the Lords return.5
From the five definitions on historicism and historicists included above we are able
to conclude that historicism is a school of prophetic interpretation that perceives the
prophecies in Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the
prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, and that contends that Revelation
is a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the
first century to the end of time. The predictions in Daniel and Revelation are fulfilled through
the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them. The
apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation reveal information about real, in-history events
in the time span between his [the prophets] day and the eschaton. These eschatological time
prophecies describe specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and
periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age
[emphasis added]. All these socio-political entities began in the first century, have continued
through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lords return.
(2) Historical Events Defined
The historicism definitions seem to place their emphases on the historical period from
the time of the prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, or the entire
course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time. All the
historical events, institutions, movements, and periods mentioned in these descriptions are
real and in-history, and also specific and identifiable. The terms history and historical
events also need to be defined in a clear manner. The Oxford English Dictionary [further, OED]
describes history as,
That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise
ascertained [emphasis added]; the formal record of the past, esp. of human affairs or actions [emphasis
added]; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations.6
The OED also explains historical as pertaining to history, of the nature or character
of history, following or in accordance with history, pertaining to, of history as opposed to
fiction or legend, and relating to or concerned with history or historical events [emphasis
added].7 These two definitions are relevant and important and should be used as criteria points
for a scrupulous review of all the unconfirmed historical events or historical facts that the
SDA historicist theologians have suggested as fulfillments for the apocalyptic time prophecies in
Daniel and Revelation.
(3) Historical Fulfillment Defined
The events review should also be based on Sheas pragmatic test of historical
fulfillment [emphasis added] that requires that the interpretive results [should] be
confirmed from extrabiblical sources where possible [emphasis added]8 and that the events,
institutions, movements, and periods [emphasis added] suggested and claimed as evidence for
historical fulfillment should be specific and identifiable historical events [emphasis
added],9 and therefore real, and in-history,10 and not assumed, fictional, or counterfeited
pseudo-events. It remains to be seen how historical, factual, true, verifiable, and reliable are the
prophetic events that Rome is claimed to have fulfilled in the SDA pragmatic test of historical
fulfillment, and whether or not Rome meets all the prophetic requirements for the vicious little
horn in Daniel 8, as Smith has alleged in his undocumented claims.
Exegetical Facts vs. True Events
One essential remark that must be made at this time is that no matter how academic and
sophisticated an interpretation is, exegetical deductions and hermeneutical conclusions cannot
supersede or override historical evidence. This means that the textual or exegetical arguments
presented in support of a certain interpretation should be seen as less adequate and dependable
than real and verifiable historical facts and events. The traditional and current SDA definitions
for historicism, indeed, mention as critical words and reference points for the historicist
interpretations historical period, history of the church, the course of human history, and
real, in-history events, and such real and undeniable events should be the genuine and true
evidence for the prophetic fulfillments in Daniel and Revelation. While biblical interpretations
and exegetical deductions have their place in biblical research, to dismiss factual evidence and
claim that hermeneutical conclusions have more relevance and weight than actual and observed
historical data is incongruous and unscientific. Failure to provide factual and true historical
evidence in order to defend and support the SDA interpretations for Daniel and Revelation would
conflict with the SDA definitions for historicism, and negate the claim that the SDA prophetic
interpretations are based on real and historical human events.
III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel

The SDA position on the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 and the relationship between them
has changed over time from the notion that the two little horns were distinct and separate to the
perspective that their characteristics coincide and therefore the two little horns are identical.
The Little Horns Appear Identical
Some SDA scholars have argued that the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 represent the same
historic agent Rome, because their prophetic characteristics and historical fulfillments are
similar, if not identical. Gane, for example, states:
Daniel 8:9 introduces the next player on the scene of action: Out of one of them came forth a rather small
horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful land. This
horn, which starts out little and in this sense can be called a little horn, is the same symbol used in
Daniel 7 [emphasis added].1
Ganes perspective on the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 and their relationship with each
other becomes clear when one examines the prophetic chart2 shown a few pages further in his
book where the SDA theologian suggests that the little horn in Daniel 7 and the little horn in
Daniel 8 describe the same prophetic character, the church of Rome,3 as the exclusive religious
and political agent that could fulfill the little horns prophetic role:
Daniel 2
Daniel 7
Daniel 8
?
Gold Babylon
Silver
Bronze
?
Lion
Bear
Leopard
?
?
Ram Media-Persia
Goat Greece
Iron
Monster
Horn
Horn (horizontal)
Horn (vertical)
Judgment
Destruction of
earthly powers
Justifying sanctuary
Destruction of earthly
powers
?
?
Destruction of
earthly powers
Dynastic
Prophecy
Assyria
Babylon
Persia
Macedonia
(Greece)
?
?
?
?
New
Testament
?
?
?
?
Imperial Rome
lawless one
or beast
?
Destruction of
earthly powers
Prbstle, another SDA historicist theologian, appears to share the same interpretation
position on the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8. The prophetic chart he placed in his book4 appears
shorter and contains fewer details, but it is quite similar to the one Gane has proposed:
Daniel 7
lion
bear
leopard
fourth beast
little horn
heavenly judgment
Transfer of the kingdom to
Son of man and saints
Daniel 8
ram
he-goat
Little horn
restoration of the holy
-
Interpretation
Babylon
Medo-Persia
Greece
Rome (pagan)
Rome (papal)
eschatological Yom Kippur
Second Coming and
beyond
Shea is even more explicit and dogmatic about the resemblance between the two little
horns in Daniel chapters 7 and 8, and argues that besides the fact that their prophetic symbols are
the same, the powers represented by this same prophetic symbol both engage in similar
actions, and that therefore there are significant arguments in favor of identifying the little
horns in these two chapters as the same historical entity,5 Rome. He states:
From this conclusion about the little horn in Daniel 7, the next main question is, What is its relationship to
the little horn in Daniel 8? Could the little horn in Daniel 8 still be Antiochus Epiphanes even though the
little horn in Daniel 7 does not represent him?
Among historicist and futurist interpreters there have been a significant number who have opted for
different interpretations of these two figures. Virtually all of the pre-Millerite interpreters of the historicist
school from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries referred to by L. E. Froom in volumes 3 and 4 of The
Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers 4 identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as the papacy. Only half of them
identified the little horn in Daniel 8 the same way. The other half interpreted it as Mohammedanism.
A similar split can be seen among futurist interpreters of today. Some of them identify the little horn of
Daniel 7 as the future antichrist and the little horn of Daniel 8 as Antiochus IV. Thus the possibility should
be left open and not ruled out a priori that these two prophetic symbols could refer to different historical
entities.
On the other hand, there are significant arguments in favor of identifying the little horns in these two
chapters as the same historical entity. First, the fact that the same symbol was used for both of them,
whether in Aramaic (chap. 7) or in Hebrew (chap. 8), suggests at the outset that there could well be a
connection between them. If a historical distinction had been intended here, the best way would have been
to use a different symbol, but the symbol remained the same.
Second, the powers represented by this same prophetic symbol both engage in similar actions: Both appear
to arise at a somewhat similar time in history; both begin small and become great (7:8 and 8:9); both are
blasphemous powers (7:8, 25 and 8:11, 25); both persecute the saints of God (7:21, 25 and 8:11, 25); both
appear to endure for protracted periods of prophetic time (7:25 and 8:14); and both eventually suffer similar
fates (7:26 and 8:25).
Thus when two powers represented by the same prophetic symbol arise and carry out the same kinds of
action in the same time slot in the flow of the visions, the probabilities appear to be on the side of those
commentators who have identified them as the same historical entity. Some of the aspects of the work of
the little horn in chapter 7 are not mentioned in chapter 8, and vice versa. The number of correspondences
between them, however, is greater than those aspects of their work not mentioned in both passages. None
of these individual characteristics are mutually exclusive so as to rule out the possibility that they could
refer to the same power.6
The SDA theologian who is the most confident about the presumed similar characteristics
between the two little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 is Pfandl, former associate director with the
Adventist BRI Magisterium and rumored expert on Daniel:
A study of the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 indicates a strong parallelism between them: 1. Both horns are
little in the beginning (Dan. 7:8; 8:9). 2. Both become great later on (Dan. 7:20; 8:9ff.). 3. Both are
persecuting powers (Dan. 7:21, 25; 8:10, 24). 4. Both are self-exacting and blasphemous (Dan. 7:8, 20, 25;
8:10, 11, 25). 5. Both target Gods people (Dan. 7:25; 8:24). 6. Both have aspects of their activity
delineated by prophetic time (Dan. 7:25; 8:13, 14). 7. Both extend until the time of the end (Dan. 7:25, 26;
8:17, 19). 8. And both face supernatural destruction (Dan. 7:11, 26; 8:25).
Since in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolism clearly points to the Papacy, the little horn in Daniel 8 must
refer to the same power. The only difference between the two chapters is that in Daniel 8 the little horn
symbolizes pagan Rome (Dan. 8:9, 10) as well as papal Rome (verses 11, 12).7
The Little Horns Are Not Identical

The similarities between the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 that Gane, Prbstle, Shea, and
Pfandl propose, though, are superficial and inconsequential. A closer look at the prophetic and
historical details in the chapters shows that the little horns are far from identical. The theologians
who have written Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine [further, QOD] are
positive that this is the case, and warn that to confuse the two horns means to become involved
in irreconcilable difficulties [emphasis added]. State the QOD authors:
Why do Adventists reject the position, so widely held, that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills the prophecy of the
little horn of Daniel 7 or 8, or both, with his suppression of the Jewish sacrifices between 167 and 164
BC., as the fulfillment of the predicted exploits and time period of the little horn?
The issue here raised is more complex, and far more fundamental, than might at first appear. Some apply to
Antiochus Epiphanes the little horn symbol of Daniel 7, which became more stout than any other of the
ten horns (verse 20), while others apply to him the little horn of Daniel 8, which became exceeding great
(Dan. 8:9, 10). Still others seek to apply to Antiochus the little horns in both chapters. But these horns, as
will be shown, are two separate symbols. They are not identical, and parallel each other only in part
[emphasis added].
Numerous Bible scholars (such as Faussett, Auberlen, Zndel, Eberhardt, Hvernick, Hengstenberg,
Scofield, Gaebelein, and Ironside) warn against confusing the little horn of Daniel 7 with the little
horn of Daniel 8. Nevertheless, many continue to confuse them, and thus become involved in
irreconcilable difficulties [emphasis added].8
Hewitt, an Advent Christian Church [further, ACC] historicist theologian, and exegesis
professor at the Aurora College, is sure that the two little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are distinct and
separate, and makes a reliable case for his position with nine well-documented contrast points
that demonstrate with irrefutable biblical, linguistic, and historical evidence that the two little
horns cannot be analogous or identical, but are different and separate historical powers:
The following points of contrast [between the little horn in Daniel 7 and the little horn in Daniel 8] indicate
clearly that two separate powers are intended.
1. The little horn of chapter 7 is associated with a beast representing the fourth empire; that of chapter 8 is
associated with a beast which, as we have shown in the preceding paragraph, stands for the third empire. It
is evident, therefore, that they represent powers which are to arise at different periods in history and under
different empires.
2. The little horn of chapter 7 rises directly out of the head of the beast; that of chapter 8 grows out of an
already existing horn. This seems to suggest that the power typified by the former develops directly from
the center and head of the fourth empire itself, whereas the power typified by the latter springs out of a
division of the goat kingdom.
3. The little horn of chapter 7 comes up in the midst of ten already existing horns that is, after the fourth
empire is divided into ten parts. It is a fresh, new power, rising out of the body of the old empire, but in the
midst of its several parts. Nothing corresponding to this is found in the other little horn. It does not come up
upon the head of the goat, among the four horns which stand there, but out of one of the four. The eleventh
horn of chapter 7 is a horn out of a beast, the little horn of chapter 8 is a horn out of a horn. This
remarkable difference ought not to be glossed over in the interpretation.
4. The eleventh horn of chapter 7 uproots three horns in its rise. Nothing like this is said of the little horn of
chapter 8.
5. The little horn of chapter 7 is said to be diverse from the ten amongst which it arises, thus conveying
the definite intimation that it would be a new and different kind of power. No such language is used of the
little horn of chapter 8, and no such intimation is given.
6. The Aramaic for little horn in 7:8 is not equivalent in meaning to the Hebrew for little horn in 8:9. The
former is strictly translated another horn, a little one, whereas the latter strictly translated would be a
horn from littleness.4
7. It is said of the little horn in chapter 7 that his look is more stout than his fellows (v. 20). In other
words, it represents a power that is stronger and more redoubtable than those symbolized by the ten
fellow horns. With regard to the little horn of chapter 8 precisely the opposite impression is given. He is
only a horn out of a horn, a horn of littleness an insignificant horn, compared to the four notable
horns and the original, Alexandrine horn of the goat. It is true that this horn waxes great from his
original littleness, and that he plays a large part on a small stage, but this does not imply that he is
regarded as becoming greater than the other goat horns. In chapter 7, however, a special point is made of
the fact that the eleventh horn becomes stouter than his fellows.
8. The field of activity of the two horns is very different. That of the little horn of chapter 7 is apparently
the whole extent of the fourth empire, since it develops directly from the head of the beast and rapidly
becomes the dominating force among the other ten divisions. But when we turn to chapter 8 and inquire
into the field of activity of the little horn there, what a difference! How clearly we are given to understand
that its work is restricted to a narrow stage of operations. First, it pertains to only one of four divisions of
the goat power. Second, its attention is restricted principally to a minor province of that split-off portion,
the pleasant land of v.9; i.e., Palestine.
9. The objects of malevolence of the two horns are also different. In chapter 7 the little horn lifts himself up
against the most High and the saints of the most High. Here we naturally understand the latter to be the
saints of God throughout the length and breadth of the fourth empire. But in chapter 8, the little horns
malevolence is directed wholly against the Jewish people, their high-priest, sacrifices and sanctuary.
Boutflower correctly observes that the atmosphere and coloring become definitely local and Levitical. 5
Here, then, are nine particulars in which the two little horns are distinguished the one from the other. Surely
that is not an acceptable interpretation which ignores all these marks of difference and forces an unnatural
identity upon the two horns.9
The Greek view errs again in trying to equate the world vision of chapter 7 with the restricted Palestinian
vision of chapter 8. The stage on which is enacted the drama of chapter 7 is clearly world-wide: embracing
the expanse of the ancient world at the beginning and becoming truly global in dimensions at the close,
when the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the
most High an obvious parallel to the world-wide stone kingdom of chapter 2. Consider in contrast to
this, how the vision of chapter 8 follows the reverse order, beginning on the wide stage of ancient Persian
imperialism and with the great contest for world dominion between that power and Greece (or between
West and East), then rapidly narrowing down, first to Syria, and then to little Palestine descending, as one
might say, from the contemplation of world events to the delineation of a local persecution in an obscure
province. One can hardly imagine a greater contrast! The atmosphere of chapter 8 is primarily Jewish, that
of chapter 7 is universal, for all local coloring is absent.6 The climax of chapter 8 is a temporal event
the cleansing of the Jewish sanctuary while the climax of chapter 7 lies in Eternity. In view of these
considerations, it must seem to the candid mind impossible to equate the visions of the two chapters, and
especially to crowd the universal scenes of the seventh into the provincial setting of the eight. 10
Hewitts prophetic chart demonstrates a radical difference from the ones Gane and
Prbstle have developed and establishes a categorical and undeniable contrast between the
speculative SDA assumptions and an authentic interpretation based on true historical evidence:
TABLE II11
ROMAN VIEW
CHAP. 2
CHAP. 7
Head of gold
Breast and arms
of silver
Belly and thighs
of brass
Lion
Bear
Legs of iron
Beast with iron teeth

and ten horns
The ten horns
Leopard with four

heads
CHAP. 8
Ram with two horns

He-goat with one horn,
then four
Little horn from one of the
four horns
Eleventh horn
Feet of iron and
clay
IDENTIFICATION
Babylon
Medo-Persia
Greece (Alexander and
successors)
Antiochus Epiphanes
Rome
Barbarian Kingdoms
out of Roman Empire
Temporal power of
Papacy
Barbarian kingdoms,
becoming the nations
of Modern Europe
Obvious Fundamental Differences

The obvious fundamental differences between the little horn in Daniel 7 and the little
horn in Daniel 8, as Hewitt describes them, are tabulated below:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The little horn in Daniel 7

The little horn of chapter 7 is associated with a
beast representing the fourth empire.
The little horn of chapter 7 rises directly out of the
head of the beast.
The little horn of chapter 7 comes up in the midst of
ten already existing horns that is, after the fourth
empire is divided into ten parts.
The eleventh horn of chapter 7 is a horn out of a
beast.
The eleventh horn of chapter 7 uproots three horns
in its rise.
The little horn of chapter 7 is said to be diverse
from the ten amongst which it arises.
The Aramaic for little horn in 7:8is strictly
translated another horn, a little one.
It is said of the little horn in chapter 7 that his look
is stouter than his fellows (v. 20).
The field of activityof the little horn of chapter 7
The little horn in Daniel 8

That of chapter 8 is associated with a beast which
stands for the third empire.
That of chapter 8 grows out of an already existing horn
[SDA wind].
[The little horn in chapter 8] does not come up upon the
head of the goat, among the four horns which stand
there, but out of one of the four [horns] [SDA
wind].
The little horn of chapter 8 is a horn out of a horn
[SDA wind].
Nothing like this is said of the little horn of chapter 8.
No such language is used of the little horn of chapter 8,
and no such intimation is given.
The Hebrew for [the] little horn in 8:9strictly
translated would be a horn from littleness.4
The little horn of chapter 8is only a horn out of a
horn, a horn of littleness an insignificant horn.
The field of activity of the little horn there [in chapter
is apparently the whole extent of the fourth empire.

10
In chapter 7 the little horn lifts himself up against

the most High and the saints of the most High.
11
The stage on which is enacted the drama of chapter

7 is clearly world-wide.
12
13
[The] [atmosphere] of chapter 7 is universal.

The climax of chapter 7 lies in Eternity.
8] pertains to only one of four divisions of the goat

power.
In chapter 8, the little horns malevolence is directed
wholly against the Jewish people, their high-priest,
sacrifices and sanctuary.
The vision of chapter 8 [is] descending, as one might
say, from the contemplation of world events to the
delineation of a local persecution in an obscure
province.
The atmosphere of chapter 8 is primarily Jewish.
The climax of chapter 8 is a temporal event the
cleansing of the Jewish sanctuary.
Hewitts documented and clear position on the fundamental differences between the two
little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 provides sufficient biblical evidence and reliable historical
confirmation for a reasonable conclusion in this matter, and corroborates with the theological
position the QOD writers have taken in their research on the same issue. The factual and
indisputable truth is that there is no exegetical or historical basis for the idea that the two little
horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are identical and represent the same prophetic agent. The Bible texts and
the historical accounts show without doubt that the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 are separate and
distinct entities that fulfill unique individual roles in the two different prophetic visions.
IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn

The Little Horn without a Root
The origin of the little horn in Daniel 8 has been studied, deliberated, and argued without
too much success in the SDA theological circles for quite a long time, and the issue still remains
to be settled. Some SDA historicists, such as Smith, contend that the little horn arose from the
four notable horns that followed the dissolution of Alexander the Greats empire, while some
other SDA historicist theologians are certain that the little horn came out of one of the four
winds of heaven (Daniel 8:8, 9).
Lost about Little Horns Origin
The QOD inexpert writers are not able to determine which position to take about the
origin of the little horn, and decide to leave the issue open to further deliberation and
clarification:
The view that makes Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8, which becomes exceeding great, must also be
examined. There is a tempting plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come out of one of the
four horn kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Macedonian goat. Nevertheless, even aside from the fact that
there is a difference of opinion as to whether out of one of them means out of one of the horn kingdoms
or out of one of the four winds (verses 8, 9) i.e., one of the four directions of the compass there are
obstacles to considering Antiochus an adequate fulfillment of the prophetic specifications. 1
The Little Horn from the Horn

Smith, the despondent Millerite, future SDA pioneer, and popular theologian, is more
than certain that he knows the answer to the question related to the little horns origin, and
declares:
There are two leading applications of the symbol now under consideration, which are all that need be
noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the little horn here introduced denotes the Syrian king,
Antiochus Epiphanes; the second, that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test the claims of
these two positions.
Does it mean Antiochus? If so, this king must fulfill the specifications of the prophecy? If he does not
fulfill them, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of
the goat [emphasis added]. It was then a separate power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any
of the horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power? 2
The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat [emphasis added]. How, it may be asked,
can this be true of Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not
introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became
connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C. 161. 1
Maccabees 8; Josephuss Antiquities, book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, Vol. II p. 166. But seven years
before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its
empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as from the conquered Macedonian horn of the
goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be
properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat. 3
The SDA historicists extravagant claim that the little horn originated from Macedonia
because Rome had conquered the Greek kingdom is so puerile and implausible that no other
SDA theologian seems to have used this interpretation in the Adventist circles except for
Smith alone. In fact, Hewitt finds Smiths position on the issue ridiculous, and comments:
The Roman view can be maintained historically only with the greatest difficulty. The little horn came forth
from one of the four horns of the he-goat, or in other words, out of one of the four kingdoms into which
Alexanders empire was divided. Now it is certain that Italy was never a part of the Alexandrian domain.
Rome did not rise out of one of these Grecian kingdoms, but far to the west, entirely outside the boundaries
of the Greek dominion, and from this position threw herself in turn upon the four kingdoms, devouring
them one after another.
Advocates of the Roman view endeavor to turn aside the force of this objection by claiming that when the
Romans conquered Macedon in 168 B.C., Rome took the place of that horn, and so may be said, in a sense,
to have come forth out of it.16 In other words, when one nation invades another from without and conquers
it, the invader becomes identified with its conquered foe to such an extent that it may properly be spoken of
as having sprung from it. According to this principle, one might argue that the United States could
properly be represented as having sprung from the Land of the Rising Sun, because American forces
conquered and occupied Japan! [emphasis added].4
The Little Horn from the Wind

In the past decades, the standard SDA historicist position on the origin of the prophetic
little horn in Daniel 8 has regressed into the nonsensical and bizarre perspective that the horn
comes out of one of the four winds of heaven (verses 8-9). Some of the scholars who share
this extravagant notion are Prbstle, Gane, Pfandl, the authors of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary [further, SDABC], and Shea. Prbstle, well known for his pseudo-linguistic and
contorted exegetical studies claims:
Antiochus IV was a king of the Seleucid kingdom that is already represented by one of the four horns of the
he-goat (Dan. 8:8). The little horn, however, does not stem from those horns, but came forth from
one of the directions of the compass, as contextual, literal-structural, and semantic considerations
suggest [emphasis added].3 5
Gane concurs with Prbstle, and articulates his claim as an indisputable truth that requires
no further support from factual evidence. While he argues for the winds option instead of the
horns alternative, the SDA historicist cannot provide credible reasons for his choice, but leaves
his readers with the odd impression that he claims the absolute and ultimate prerogative to decide
what is appropriate and correct in matters of interpretation. The SDA theologian bases his
mistaken arguments on the speculative nearest antecedent assumption that Laiu6 finds illogical
and implausible and refutes with ease later in this section. Speculates Gane:
Daniel 8:9 introduces the next player on the scene of action: Out of one of them came forth a rather small
horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. This
horn, which starts out little and in this sense can be called a little horn, is the same symbol used in Daniel 7.
However, whereas in Daniel 7 the little horn sprouts from a monstrous beast, here in Daniel 8 the little horn
comes out of one of them, meaning out of one of the four winds of heaven. The four winds represent
the four directions of the compass (see Jeremiah 46:36; Ezekiel 37:9; Daniel 7:2; Zechariah 2:6; Matthew
24:31; Revelation 7:1) north, south, east, and west into which Alexanders empire was divided.
In attempting to establish Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Hellenistic Seleucid ruler, as the little horn, many
scholars have taken out of one of them to mean that the little horn comes out of one of the Hellenistic
horns after all, horns do not come out of winds. But neither do horns normally grow out of other horns,
and this is symbolic prophecy, where symbols need not conform to what we find in real life. For example,
have you even seen a leopard with four wings and four heads (Daniel 7:6)?
Several points justify our rejecting the interpretation that Daniel 8:9 predicts the rise and career of
Antiochus:
1. The them in out of one of them at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest
antecedent [emphasis added]: the immediately preceding four winds of heaven at the end of verse 8. So
the little horn need not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the
directions toward which Alexanders kingdom was divided. This agrees with our previous conclusion that
the little horn in Daniel 7 is a Roman power.7
Pfandl, the expert in residence with the BRI, echoes Prbstles claim about the little
horns origin from a wind, and adds a geographical plane angle to the historicist timeworn
arguments in order to stretch to the limit his hopeless speculation, while in the meantime he also
deplores the fact that all the commentators who disagree with him assume that the little horn
came out of one of the four horns, which appears to suggest to his mislead readers that he alone
has the little horn interpretation right:
Most commentators assume that the little horn came out of one of the four horns, but contextual and
literary-structural grounds make that unlikely [emphasis added].4 The previous verse ended with the
words In place of it [the notable horn] four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. The
immediate antecedent of one of them, therefore, is the four winds of heaven, not four horns. The
geographical expansion of the little horn (south, east, beautiful land) suggests that its emergence also
belongs to the geographical plane, i.e., it comes out of one of the four points of the compass. Furthermore,
the verb, yatza, used for the coming out of the little horn (verse 9), stands in contrast to the verb alah,
used for the coming up of the other horns (verse 3 and 8). 8
The SDABC scholars depend on gender discord, which is a common Hebrew language
diglossia [two language varieties in use] phenomenon, in order to resolve the origin of the little
horn in Daniel 8, and to establish the whole interpretation of the chapter, but ignore the important
fact that gender discord is common and frequent in Hebrew and cannot be relevant for the
exegesis of verses 8 and 9 in Daniel 8. The SDABC scholars also include in their failed
apologetics the outdated and unscientific nearest antecedent assumption that Pfandl and Gane
have used in their implausible arguments, and which expert linguistic research discounts and
discards as unempirical and unreliable. State the SDABC authors:
9. Out of one of them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word for them, hem,
is masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is winds (v. 8) and not horns, since
winds may be either masculine or feminine, but horns, only feminine. On the other hand the word for
one, achath, is feminine, suggesting horns as the antecedent. Achath could, of course, refer back to the
word for winds, which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would
assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical
agreement, either achath should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to
winds, or the word for them should be changed into a feminine, in which case the reference would be
ambiguous, since either winds or horns may be the antecedent. A number of Hebrew manuscripts have
the word for them in the feminine. If these manuscripts reflect the correct reading, the passage is still
ambiguous.
Commentators who interpret the little horn of v. 9 to refer to Rome have been at a loss to explain
satisfactorily how Rome could be said to arise out of one of the divisions of Alexanders empire. If them
refers to winds, all difficulty vanishes. The passage then simply states that from one of the four
points of the compass would come another power [emphasis added]. Rome came from the west. In the
literal explanation of the symbols of the vision Rome is said to arise in the latter time of their kingdom
(v. 23), that is, the kingdom of the four horns. However, v. 23 refers only to the time when the little horn
would arise and says nothing of the place of its rising, whereas v. 9 is concerned exclusively with its
location.9
Shea, a venerated but uninformed SDA historicist theologian, resorts to the same
speculative, unscientific, and nonoperational arguments to support the fallacious perspective that
the little horn in Daniel 8 came out of a wind, and to formulate his bogus exegesis of the
chapter. He, though, introduces a small variation in his theological misinterpretations and makes
the absurd claim that the [correct] antecedent of them in the Hebrew language phrase from
them (vs. 9), is neither winds nor horns, but heavens. Alleges the SDA theologian:
Origin of the little horn. A major question concerning the little horn in Daniel 8 is whether it came out of
the four preceding horns or from one of the four winds toward which those horns extended. The obvious
reason why this is important is that if the little horn came from the Seleucid horn, then it could have been a
Seleucid king like Antiochus Epiphanes. However, if it came from one of the winds, then it would not
represent Antiochus IV since he should more naturally issue from the Seleucid horn.
Given the importance of this point, the syntax of the statement on the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8:89 should be examined carefully. Any commentary which does not do this is shirking its exegetical duty,
because the decision on how the Hebrew sentence structure should be translated will affect the subsequent
interpretation of verse 9.
This problem involves the agreement in gender between a pronominal suffix at the beginning of Daniel 8:9
(them) and the antecedents proposed for it in the preceding verse (horns/winds). Verse 8 concludes,
and instead of it [the great horn of Alexander that was broken] there came up four conspicuous horns
toward the four winds of heaven. Drawing on this picture and relating to it, verse 9 continues, Out of one
of them came forth a little horn.... The question is, to what in verse 8 does them refer the horns or the
winds?
The linguistic setting is more specific in Hebrew than in the English translation, inasmuch as nouns and
pronouns in Hebrew have gender which requires their agreement. The problem then is: The pronominal
suffix them in verse 9 is a masculine plural. On the other hand, the Hebrew word for horn is always
feminine. The word for winds is written as a feminine plural, although it can occasionally be written in
masculine form. This means that as the Hebrew text stands there is no agreement in gender between the
pronominal suffix them (vs. 9) and either of its potential antecedents horns [understood] or winds
in verse 8.
This problem is compounded further by the form of the numerals used in these two verses. The numeral
four at the end of verse 8 and the numeral one at the beginning of verse 9 are both feminine in form.
Thus this masculine pronominal suffix (them) does not agree with the gender of either of its potential
antecedent nouns (horns/winds), nor does it agree with the gender of the numerals (four) used with it
and them. The nature of this problem, but not its final solution, has been summarized thus in The SDA
Bible Commentary:
Out of one or them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word for them, hem, is
masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is winds (vs. 8) and not horns, since
winds may be either masculine or feminine, but horns only feminine. On the other hand, the word for
one, achath, is feminine, suggesting horns as the antecedent. Achath could, of course, refer back to the
word for winds, which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would
assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical
agreement, either achath should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to
winds, or the word for them should be changed into feminine, in which case the reference would be
ambiguous, since either winds or horns may be the antecedent.5
In my opinion, it is not necessary to resort to an emendation of the text if the syntax of this statement is
understood. Verse 8 states that four horns appeared in the place of the great horn that was broken. The last
phrase of the verse indicates that those horns extended toward the four winds of the heavens. Verse 9
begins with the prepositional phrase, Out of one of them and goes on to describe how the little horn went
forth and grew up to a position of great exaltation.
The English translation, Out of one of them, however, obscures and smooths out the actual Hebrew
construction. The sentence actually opens with two prepositional phrases. Translated literally the sentence
reads, and from the one from them ..., etc. The reason why it is important to notice this literal
construction is that it provides a precise parallel to the gender of the elements found in the last phrase of
verse 8. This can best be shown by transposing the first phrase of verse 9 to line up beneath the last phrase
of verse 8 with these elements in parallel columns.
When this procedure is carried out, it can be seen that the gender of the first two elements in verse 9
(one/them) lines up perfectly with the gender of the last two elements at the end of verse 8
(winds/heavens).
In writing his visions Daniel simply broke up the construct chain at the end of verse 8 (the four winds of
the heavens) and distributed its two elements to two separate prepositional phrases at the beginning of
verse 9 (from the one/from them). This is not poetic parallelism, it is syntactic parallelism in which the
gender of the elements in the second statement parallels the gender of the elements in the first, or
preceding, statement.
Thus the antecedent of them in the phrase from them (vs. 9), is neither winds nor horns, but
heavens [emphasis added]. Since heavens is masculine by gender and treated as a plural in biblical
Hebrew, according to the verbs and adjectives used with it, there is perfect agreement in gender and
number with the masculine plural pronoun them. The feminine one of verse 9 refers back to the
feminine winds of verse 8. The text discloses the origin clearly enough: It came from one of the four
winds of the heavens, that is, from one of the directions of the compass.
From this understanding of the syntax in verses 8-9, it is evident that when the little horn came onto
the scene of action, it did not come from the Seleucid horn nor from the other three. In the pictorial
vision it is simply seen as coming from one of the compass directions [emphasis added]. Thus the syntax
of this statement does not support the contention that the little horn developed from the Seleucid
horn/kingdom.10
Sheas interpretation artifices, which he calls exegesis but are in fact pseudo-linguistic
nonsense, are an example of the SDA pseudo-hermeneutical approach to the Bible and to Daniel
and Revelation. Rather than examine the text at discourse level and discover the true authorial
intent, the overconfident SDA historicist ignores the semantic fragment in Daniel 8 and tears the
words apart in order to promote and defend an illogical and bizarre interpretation. Laiu,11 cited
later in this document, demonstrates that Sheas arguments are based on pure ignorance and
dogmatic overconfidence and shows that such an exegesis is an example of what Biblical
Interpretation should never be.
Prophetic Beast Lost in Action
There is another matter that needs to be explained when one considers the option that the
little horn in Daniel 8 might have come from a wind or cardinal point. In Daniel, all horns are
attached to a beast. This is not possible when the evil little horn materializes from a cardinal
point. How do we solve this problem? Well, it is simple. We produce again one thousand wild
suppositions and preposterous assumptions and hope that the SDA readers are conditioned
enough to accept them as present truth. Quips Pfandl, the BRI magisterial oracle:
But where is the beast to which the horn belongs? One possibility is that it is outside the frame of the
vision, and thus Daniel does not see it. The reason for this could be that the animals symbolizing Medo-
Persia in Daniel 9 were ritually clean ones, while any terrible beast such as used to symbolize Rome in
Daniel 7, would have been an unclean creature. That would have distorted the connection between the
vision and the sanctuary.6 However, in biblical symbolism horns represent powers or nations, and they can
appear by themselves without the animals to which they naturally belong. Zechariah 1:18,19, for example,
tells how the prophet sees four horns by themselves, and an angel explains that these are the horns
[nations] that have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem (verse 19). 12
Gane takes a rather different interpretation path in order to explain the elusive beast, and
his speculative exegetical approach and individual pseudo-historicist perspective demonstrates
how inconsistent, divided, and fragmented is the SDA scholarship in matters of prophetic
interpretation. States the theologian:
Now we are stuck with a dilemma. In Daniel 7, the Roman Church little horn arose from the imperial
Roman monster, but Daniel 8 moves directly from the four Hellenistic kingdoms to the little horn. Where is
the imperial Rome in this chapter? There are two options. Either the vision simply skips over imperial
Rome, or the little horn includes imperial Rome. The latter options seems to work best because verse 9 has
the little horn expanding in three horizontal directions, corresponding to the direction of imperial Romes
initial expansion. Verse 9 states that the little horn pushed its conquests to the south and to the east and
toward the Beautiful Land. These directions fit Rome perfectly as it picked off the four main pieces of the
Greek Empire Macedonia and Pergamum to the east in 168 and 133 B.C., the Beautiful Land of Judea
in 60 B.C., and Egypt to the south in 33 B.C. 1 Then verses 10-12 describe the horns vertical thrusts up
against heaven, implying that it has become transformed into a religious power. 2
Why would Daniel 8 combine imperial and papal Rome under the same symbol? Perhaps in order to
emphasize the continuity between them, which is even greater than in Daniel 7, where the little horn
(Church of Rome), which is different from the earlier horns, sprouts from the fourth beast (imperial Rome),
which is different from the earlier beasts (verses 7, 23, 24). 3 Notice the similarity here between the fourth
beast and the little horn: They are both different.13
Such assumptions, speculations, and absurdities are part of the ineffectual and
implausible professional explanations produced in the SDA historicist theological circles
whenever biblical support for their dogmas is absent. How should the members treat this
uninhibited nonsense? The advice from the SDA leadership is to trust the SDA scholars and
administrators that all that is taught in the church is pure and undiluted present truth. When
confusion is the norm among the SDA theologians about biblical interpretation, it is no wonder
that members get also confused and lose faith in their church and their dictatorial leadership and
look for answers outside their congregations.
Untrue and Unsound Arguments
The common arguments the SDA theologians use in order to manipulate the prophetic
text and postulate that the little horn in Daniel 8 came from a wind (cardinal point) rather than
from a Greek horn are: (1) the unscientific nearest antecedent notion, and (2) the presumed
gender discord in Daniel 8:8 and 9. Laiu provides intelligent and proficient empirical evidence
that indicates that both these arguments depend on Hebrew language ignorance and exegetical
ineptitude.
The Nearest Antecedent Trick
Gane invokes the nearest antecedent notion in order to resolve the confusion about the
true referent for the pronoun them in Daniel 8:9 because according to him the them in out
of one of them at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest antecedent
[emphasis added]: the immediate preceding four winds of heaven at the end of verse 8,14 but
his claim reveals ignorance about linguistic matters and anaphora resolution issues. Had the
historicist theologian done his homework, he would have come across the relevant comment
Mitkov had made in 1999 about the possible statistical distance between the anaphor and its true
antecedent. In that comment, the anaphora resolution expert had warned:
Most of the anaphora resolution systems deal with resolution of anaphors which have noun phrases as their
antecedents because identifying anaphors which have verb phrases, clauses, sentences or even
paragraphs/discourse segments as antecedents, is a more complicated task. Typically, all noun phrases
(NPs) preceding an anaphor are initially regarded as potential candidates for antecedents. Usually, a search
scope has to be identified: most approaches look for NPs in the current and preceding sentence. However,
an "ideal" anaphora resolution system should extend its scope of search: antecedents which are 17
sentences away from the anaphor have already been reported (Mitkov 1995a)! [emphasis added] 15
Besides the fact that the nearest antecedent speculation is a weak and unscientific
defense for a position that has no biblical basis and no linguistic support, the whole theological
argumentation is plagued with unacceptable logical and grammatical errors. States Laiu:
The phrase min haaa mhm and out of one of them in Da 8:9 has been usually
understood by Jewish and Christian scholars as a reference to the four horns, which is the subject of the
preceding sentence. William Millers interpretation involves the same understanding: the four horns were
the four parts of Alexanders divided kingdom: Persia (east), Syria (north), Macedon and Europe (west),
Egypt and Africa (south).44 To my knowledge, Uriah Smith and generally our pioneers inherited the same
basic approach, that was held also by Isaac Newton, 45 namely the little horn coming out of one of the four
horns of the goat, only changing the focus, from vague geographical identification to a more accurate
political identification: the little Roman horn comes out of the Hellenisitic Macedon, by annexation. 46
Noting a gender disagreement in the Hebrew text, an alternative solution of the origin of the little horn has
been promoted in 1955 by the authors of the SDA Bible Coomentary (vol. IV, Daniel, pp. 840-41): the
Roman horn has come out of one of the four winds of heaven. This solution, with few variations was
adopted after 1980 by some of our best scholars, 47 and it was popularized even through the Sabbath School
(2004, 4Q).48 Please consider the following critical points in reaction to this new solution:
The logical referent and subject of the last sentence is the four prominent [horns]. Thus, logically one of
them corresponds to the four horns, as one may see in the following tables:
1. The goat became extremely great

2. but, when it was strong,
3. its great horn was broken;
4. and there arose in its place four conspicuous horns

toward the four winds of the skies.
5. Out of one of them
6. emerged one horn from smallness
Blue text emphasizes adverbs and adverbial phrases.

A. The logical referent of the pronoun them is horns, because this is the major subject
of the paragraph, [or center], and the subject of the preceding sentence.
B. Winds of the skies is the closest possible referent, but it is a false referent, because it is
part of an adverbial phrase.
The solution of the problem depends on how one understands the sequence of clauses and the logical
subject:
Preposition
out of
Numeral
four
one
one
Logical Subject
horns
of them
horn
Modifier Or Digressive Phrase

to the four points of compass
out of smallness
The closeness of the modifier (digressive phrase) to the four points of compass proves to be an
interesting logical trap.49 The true referent cannot be one of the winds, since winds is part of a digressive
phrase.
An expression like one of the winds of heaven occurs nowhere in Hebrew and carries no meaning. If the
writer had said out of the western wind, or anything similar, he would have communicated to us an
information. But an expression like out of one of the[m = winds of heaven] does not convey any
information. From one of the directions of the compass means from anywhere. Tell me, Daniel, the
precise direction of compass you saw the horn rising from, as you did with the goat, and implicitly with the
ram. To say that it came out of one of the four winds, is like saying out of no matter where. This is
more perplexing than a sibylline message, because it has no clue. It is perfectly useless.16
That the SDA theologians have not thought the matters through with this nearest
antecedent argument becomes obvious when one attempts to extend this half-baked closest
antecedent hermeneutical approach to similar biblical text situations and runs into impossible
and insurmountable logical dilemmas. Continues Laiu:
See other examples of similar pseudo-referents:
1K 19:1-2 (Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, how he killed all the prophets . Jezebel sent a
messenger to Elijah with this warning, May the gods judge me severely if I do not take your life as you
did theirs!). Which is the closest and which is the logical referent (both masculine): the gods, or the
prophets?
Ezekiel 39:28 (They will know that I am YH their God, when I will bring them captives to the nations.
Then I will gather them to their country, I will leave none of them there anymore.) Could the pronouns
them and their in the second sentence refer to nations, since this is the closest referent? Actually they
have the same referent as the pronouns emphasized in the first sentence, that point back to verse 22 (where
the explicit referent is identified as the house of Israel). The true logical referent are the Israelites, the
future of Israel is the issue.17
Gender Discord and Diglossia

The gender discord case in Daniel 8:8-9 is another failed scheme the SDA historicist
theologians have used together with the fallacious nearest antecedent idea in order to claim
that the little horn in Daniel 8:9 arises from a wind. Here again, the basis for the incorrect
assumption is a natural language phenomenon diglossia (two different Hebrew language
varieties in use) that has no practical relevance or exegetical weight for the SDA deductive
speculation. To base the interpretation of Daniel 8 on such questionable ideas is an undisputable
indication of theological and linguistic incompetence. Explains again Laiu:
The gender disagreement in Da 8:9 and consequently the grammatical chiastic agreement suggested50 by
scholars have been best explained by Martin Prbstle,51 following Rendsburgs studies.52 While this
masculine form mhm, instead of the required feminine form mhn is not Standard Biblical
Hebrew, and would be considered as a grammatical disagreement, it is merely a formal disagreement,
specific to the spoken Hebrew that often uses masculine forms for both genders. 53
G. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew, American Oriental Series, vol. 72, American Oriental Society,
New Haven, Connecticut (1990:62-63). Actually Rendsburg (op. cit. p 48) quotes the cases of Da 1:5; 8:9
as examples among others. Similar cases of gender neutralization are at least in the following places: Gn
26:15, 16, 18; 29:10; 32:16; 41:23, 27; Ex 2:16-17; 25:29; 36:14; Lv 26:3, 33; 32:16; 41:23; Nu 16:18;
27:7, 17; 36:6; Dt 27:2, 4-5; Job 1:14-15; 3:24; 16:22; 21:20; 39:1, 3; 42:15; Jos 17:3-4; Jg 16:3; 21:21-22;
Rt 1:19, 22; 2:9; 4:11; 1S 6:7, 10; 9:20; 31:7; 2S 1:24; 20:3; 21:12; 24:12; 1K 11:3; 22:17; 2K 18:13; Ps
16:4; 34:20; 102:28; Pr 3:1-2; 16:3; 23:23; Ecc 2:6, 10; 10:9; 11:8; 12:1,4; Song 2:7; 3:5, 7; 4:2; 5:8; 6:8, 9;
8:4; Am 4:1-2; Hos 14:1,7; Is 3:16; 17:9; 19:18; 23:1; 32:11; 34:17; 36:1; 38:16; 49:11; 60:8; Jr 5:10; 43:9;
44;2; Ez 1:5, 6, 10, 18, 20, 26; Ez 13:[17-] 20; 20:16; 34:12, 26; Da 1:20; 8:4; 11:15, 22, 31, 41, 44; Zc 2:4;
5:9; 6:1, 7; 11:4, 5, 7, 9, 16; 14:12; Est 1:17, 20; 2:3, 12; Jl 2:22; 1Cr 6:49, 50; 8:8; 10:7; 23:22; 28:15;
2Cr 11:11; 20:37; 35:25; Ezra 10:3; Ne 1:9; 2:13; 3:34.
While the interpretation making the little horn appear out of some wind is ingenious and it has a few
supporters in the academic world,54 it is not gladly admitted by every SDA scholar. Besides the persisting
interpretation of U Smith, various other solutions have been suggested in the Adventist theological
community in the last fourth years.55
W Shea, of the first promoters of the interpretation one of the four winds, is less dogmatic now on this
issue;56 and M Prbstle, while finally decides in favor of the four winds, he criticizes the syntactic
arguments of the former proponents of this view.57
The one of the four winds solution probably sprang out of dissatisfaction with our traditional
interpretation of the origin of the horn [emphasis added]. As these interpretations became obsolete, it
emerged the need to find a better solution that would avoid a possible application to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes. The present reluctance to discard this new explanation as well is probably motivated by the
same emotional reason.18
Little Horn Anaphora Resolution

While the SDA historicist theologians continue to speculate and debate whether or not
the little horn in Daniel 8 came from a horn,19 winds, 20, 21 or even heavens22 in the futile
attempt to find the answer to their question through inept contextual, literal-structural, and
semantic considerations,23 linguistics provides a scientific and reliable method for the solution
to the problem. This scientific approach is called anaphora resolution and eliminates the
confusion about what the authentic antecedent to them might be. Orsan and Evans define
anaphora resolution as follows:
Anaphora resolution is the process which attempts to determine the meaning of expressions such as
pronouns or definite descriptions whose interpretation depends on previously mentioned entities or
discourse segments [emphasis added]. Anaphora resolution is very important in many fields of
computational linguistics such as machine translation, natural language understanding, information
extraction and text generation (Mitkov, 2002).24
Prolo delivers a short but clear explanation about the natural discourse references
introduced with previous expressions, the distinction between anaphor and its antecedent and the
discourse relationship between the two, and then restates in more explicit and detailed terms
what the antecedent or pronoun resolution approach involves:
Anaphora is roughly speaking1 the phenomenon of making in a discourse abbreviated references to entities
that have been directly or indirectly introduced by a previous expression. The expression used to make the
abbreviated reference is called the anaphor and the previous expression the antecedent. In this paper I
restrict myself to the cases where the anaphor is a pronoun. The concept is illustrated in (1). The occurrence
of the pronoun he makes an anaphoric reference to the discourse entity introduced by the noun phrase
Carlos. Hence he is the anaphor and Carlos is the antecedent. There are two occurrences of the possessive
pronoun its, the first has as antecedent the paper, and the second, as well as the occurrence of it, refers to
the introduction of the paper.
(1) Carlos is writing a paper. Right now he is rewriting its introduction because he is not happy with its
current form. It should be clear enough so that people not familiar with the area can understand at least
the topic the paper is about.
By pronoun resolution I mean the process of finding for each pronoun its antecedent, and the rules
that govern the choice of the antecedent by the hearer/listener are the central point of this problem
that the proposals here discussed try to capture [emphasis added]. 25
The anaphora or pronoun resolution process involves work with multiple and verified
linguistic constraints and preferences that will allow the scholar to distinguish the true and
genuine noun antecedent from other possible but illegitimate antecedents and resolve the
anaphora or pronoun antecedent issue. Mitkov, professor of Computational Linguistics and
anaphora resolution expert at the British University of Wolverhampton, describes the anaphora
resolution process as follows:
1.3 The process of anaphora resolution
Most of the anaphora resolution systems deal with resolution of anaphors which have noun phrases as their
antecedents because identifying anaphors which have verb phrases, clauses, sentences or even
paragraphs/discourse segments as antecedents, is a more complicated task. Typically, all noun phrases
(NPs) preceding an anaphor are initially regarded as potential candidates for antecedents. Usually, a search
scope has to be identified: most approaches look for NPs in the current and preceding sentence. However,
an ideal anaphora resolution system should extend its scope of search: antecedents which are 17
sentences away from the anaphor have already been reported [emphasis added] (Mitkov 1995a)!
Assuming that the scope of search for a specific approach has already been specified, the NPs preceding the
anaphor within that scope are identified as candidates for antecedents and a number of anaphora resolution
factors are employed to track down the correct antecedent.
Approaches to anaphora resolution usually rely on a set of anaphora resolution factors. Factors used
frequently in the resolution process include gender and number agreement, c-command constraints,
semantic consistency, syntactic parallelism, semantic parallelism, salience, proximity etc. These factors can
be eliminating i.e. discounting certain noun phrases from the set of possible candidates (such as gender
and number constraints3, c-command constraints, semantic consistency) or preferential, giving more
preference to certain candidates and less to others (such as parallelism, salience). Computational linguistics
literature uses diverse terminology for these for example E. Rich and S. LuperFoy (Rich & LuperFoy
1988) refer to the "eliminating" factors as constraints, and to the preferential ones as proposers,
whereas Carbonell and Brown (Carbonell & Brown 1988) use the terms constraints and preferences.
Other authors argue that all factors should be regarded as preferential, giving higher preference to more
restrictive factors and lower to less absolute ones, calling them simply factors (Preu et al. 1994),
attributes (Rico Prez 1994), "symptoms" (Mitkov 1995b) or indicators (Mitkov 1996a, 1998b).
The division of factors into constraints and preferences has led to distinguishing between constraint-based
and preferences-based architectures in anaphora resolution (Mitkov 1997b).
1.3.1 Constraints
Several constraints will be outlined and illustrated by examples. Coreferential items are given the same
index.
Gender and number agreement
This constraint requires that anaphors and their antecedents must4 agree in number and gender.
Example:
Janei told Philipk and his friendsm that shei was in love.
Syntactic binding theories constraints
Results in Government and Binding Theory (GB) 5 and Lexical Functional Grammar have provided useful
constraints on the anaphors and their antecedents which have been successfully used in anaphor resolution.
For instance, various GB c-command restrictions have been formulated in (Ingria & Stallard 1989) for
eliminating unacceptable candidates when searching for the antecedent:
(a) A non-pronominal NP cannot overlap in reference with any NP that c-commands it.
Hei told them about Johnj.
(b) The antecedent of a bound anaphor must c-command it.
Johni likes pictures of himselfi.
(c) A personal pronoun cannot overlap in reference with an NP that c-commands it.
Johni told Billj about himk.
Semantic consistency
This constraint stipulates that if satisfied by the anaphor, semantic consistency constraints must be satisfied
also by its antecedent.
Vincent removed the diskette from the computeri and then disconnected iti.
Vincent removed the diskettei from the computer and then copied iti.
1.3.2 Preferences
Preferences, as opposed to constraints, are not obligatory conditions and therefore do not always hold. We
shall illustrate three preferences: syntactic parallelism, semantic parallelism and center of attention.
Syntactic parallelism
Syntactic parallelism could be quite helpful when other constraints or preferences are not in a position to
propose an unambiguous antecedent. This preference is given to NPs with the same syntactic function as
the anaphor.
The programmeri successfully combined Prologj with C, but hei had combined itj with Pascal last time.
The programmeri successfully combined Prolog with Cj, but hei had combined Pascal with itj last time.
Semantic parallelism
This is a useful (and stronger than syntactic parallelism) preference but only systems which can
automatically identify semantic roles, can employ it. It says that NPs which have the same semantic role as
the anaphor, are favoured.
Vincent gave the diskette to Sodyi. Kim also gave himi a letter.
Vincenti gave the diskette to Sody. Hei also gave Kim a letter.
Centering
Although the syntactic and semantic criteria for the selection of an antecedent are very strong, they are not
always sufficient to distinguish between a set of possible candidates. Moreover, they serve more as filters
to eliminate unsuitable candidates than as proposers of the most likely candidate. In the case of antecedent
ambiguity, it is the most salient element among the candidates for antecedent which is usually the
frontrunner. This most salient element is referred to in computational linguistics as focus (e.g. (Sidner
1979) [sic!] or center6 e.g. (Grosz et al. 83) though the terminology can be much more diverse (Hirst 1981;
Mitkov 1995a).
For instance, neither machines, nor humans, would be able to resolve the anaphoric pronoun it in the
sentence
Jenny put the cup on the plate and broke it.
However, if this sentence is part of a discourse segment7 which makes it possible to determine the most
salient element, the situation is different:
Jenny went window shopping yesterday and spotted a nice cup. She wanted to buy it, but she had no money
with her. Nevertheless, she knew she would be shopping the following day, so she would be able to buy the
cup then. The following day, she went to the shop and bought the coveted cup. However, once back home
and in her kitchen, she put the cup on a plate and broke it...
In this discourse segment, the cup is the most salient entity and is the center of attention throughout the
discourse segment.
It is now clear that very often when two or more candidates compete for the antecedent, the task of
resolving the anaphor is shifted to the task of tracking down the center/focus of the sentence (clause).
Various methods have already been proposed to center/focus tracking (e.g. Brennan et al. 1987; Dahl &
Ball 1990; Mitkov 1994b; Sidner 1986; Stys & Zemke 1995; Walker et al. 92).
However useful the term center (or focus) can be for anaphora resolution, we should point out that it has
suffered from two inconveniences: its intuitive nature and the use of different terms to describe concepts
which either seem to be very close to center or even could be considered practically identical (e.g. focus,
topic, theme - for further details please see (Hirst 1981) and (Mitkov 1995a).26
Based on the constraints and preferences data taken from Mitkov27, 28 and other world
experts in anaphora resolution,29, 30, 31, 32, 33 the above-mentioned selection parameters have been
organized into a table that will be used to solve the pronoun resolution issue in Daniel 8:8-9. The
biblical texts that will be considered in the anaphora or pronoun resolution process come from
the English KJV translation and are included below:
KJV7
And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the
ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down
to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
KJV8
Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it
came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven [emphasis added].
KJV9
And out of one of them [emphasis added] came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,
toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
KJV10
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to
the ground, and stamped upon them.
The various constraints and preferences that will allow the distinction and separation
between the true and legitimate noun antecedents and other possible but illegitimate antecedents
in the anaphora or pronoun resolution process have been organized into the table below that will
facilitate the resolution process and provide an overall perspective on the linguistic approach:
Anaphora Resolution in Daniel 8:8-9
Little Horn From
Them (Notable
Ones [Horns])
Little Horn From

Them (Winds of
Heaven)
1. Number Agreement
+
Number agreement.
+
Number agreement.
2. Gender Agreement
+
Gender neutralization.
+
Gender agreement.
3. Person Agreement
+
Person agreement.
+
Person agreement.
4. Case Agreement
+
Construct relation.
+
Construct relation.
+
Outside local domain.
+
Outside local domain.
+
Direction mentioned.
+
Antecedent consistent.
Direction not mentioned.
+
Both entities recent.
+
Both entities recent.
+
Horns more salient.
Winds less salient.
+
Subject position.
Object position.
Resolution Parameters
Constraints
5. Syntactic Constraints
6. Selectional Restrictions
7. Semantic consistency
8. Recency
9. Grammatical Role
a. Subject Position
Antecedent inconsistent.
Linguistic Data on the

Parameters
The constraints are used to
eliminate certain noun phrases
(NPs) from the set of possible
antecedent candidates.
This constraint requires that the
anaphor and its antecedent
should agree in number.
should agree in gender.
should agree in person.
should agree in case.
The pronouns choose their
antecedents outside of their local
domain.
A verb places restrictions on its
arguments.
If satisfied by the anaphor,
semantic consistency constraints
must be satisfied also by its
antecedent.
Entities introduced recently are
more
salient
than
those
introduced before.
Entities mentioned in subject
position are more salient than
those in object position.
From the list of potential
candidates, the subject of the
previous sentence (clause) is the
preferred antecedent.
Subject position.
+
Object position.
+
Construct relation.
+
Construct relation.
1. Syntactic Parallelism
+
Subject Subject.
Subject Object.
2. Semantic Parallelism
+
Parallelism present.
Parallelism absent.
3. Verb Semantics
+
No semantic emphasis.
+
No semantic emphasis.
4. Repeated Mention
+
Horns are repeated.
Winds not repeated.
+
Factual agreement.
Furthest possible
antecedent.
+
Horns more sentient.
Factual disagreement.
+
Nearest possible
antecedent.
Winds less sentient.
+
The horns are the
discourse center.
The winds are not the

discourse center.
b. Object Position
c. Genitive Position
Preferences
5. World Knowledge
6. Distance
7. Animate
Discourse Center
From list of potential candidates,

the subject of the previous
sentence (clause) is the preferred
antecedent; the second preferred
antecedent is the direct object.
From the list of potential
candidates the subject of the
previous sentence (clause) is the
preferred antecedent; the second
preferred antecedent is the direct
object. The third preferred
antecedent is in the genitive
position.
While the constraints rule out
the implausible candidates, the
preferences emphasize the
proper selection of the most
likely antecedent.
This preference is given to the
entities with the same syntactic
function as the anaphor.
The favored antecedents are
those that have the same
semantic role as the anaphor.
Certain verbs appear to place a
semantically-oriented emphasis
on one of their argument
positions.
Entities that have been focused
on in the prior discourse are
more salient.
A horn cannot grow greater than
the animal on which it sits.
Candidates from the previous
clause or sentence are preferred.
Animate (sentient) entities are
more salient that inanimate
entities.
Certain discourse entities are
more central than the others.
The anaphora resolution table submitted above shows that the two possible antecedents
to them the notable ones [horns], and the winds of heaven obtain similar values for
number, gender, person, case, syntactic constraints, and recency, but that these two potential
antecedents differ concerning their grammatical roles (horns is the sentence subject, while
winds is the sentence object), syntactic parallelism (the term horn is parallel to horn, while
the term horn is not parallel to wind), repeated mention (horn is repeated in Daniel 8:8-9,
while wind is never repeated in the texts), world knowledge (a horn cannot grow greater
than the animal on which it sits), animation (horns are animated, while winds are not), and
discourse center (horn is the discourse center, while wind is an adverbial and therefore
peripheral). For these multiple reasons it is obvious that wind (verse 8) cannot be the
legitimate and actual antecedent for the little horn (verse 9) and that the preferred and
acceptable antecedent must be a notable horn.
False Claims about Horns Origin
The biblical and linguistic evidence submitted in this documents section shows that the
SDA historicist apologetics on the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8 is unscientific and
inadequate, and that the speculative idea that the little horn came out of a fictional wind or out
of heaven is not credible. Plain and natural textual interpretation that avoids wild speculations
and tendentious dogmatic conclusions indicates that the little horn originates in one of the
notable horns from the prophetic narrative:
KJV8
Therefore the he-goat [Sentence subject, Center] waxed [Verb] very great [Adverbial of manner]: and
when he was strong [Adverbial clause of manner], the great horn [Sentence subject Center] was broken
[Verb]; and for it [Adverbial of place] came up [Verb] four notable ones [Sentence subject Center]
toward the four winds of heaven [Adverbial phrase of place].
KJV9
And out of one of them [Adverbial phrase of place] came forth [Verb] a little horn, [Sentence
Subject Center] which waxed [Verb] exceeding great [Adverbial of manner] toward the south, and
toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land = supplied] [Adverbials of place].
The texts propositional content is so clear, unambiguous, and obvious, that all the
pseudo-historicist forced exegesis that attempts to reach a different conclusion and argue that
the little horn in Daniel 8 originates from a wind appears manufactured and implausible
because it is based on multiple and fanciful assumptions, speculations, and deductions, and
therefore needs to be discarded as invalid, unauthentic, and unreliable.
V. False Claims against Antiochus

Biased SDA Historicist Theologians
The idea that Antiochus IV Epiphanes might be the little horn in Daniel 8 has been
considered an abomination in the SDA church, and all efforts have been made to oppose and
dispute this notion, and to intimidate and discipline the SDA scholars and church members
who dared to propose or even entertain such a heretical thought. In this document section we
will review arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes that have been compiled from known
SDA historicist theologians such as Gane, Prbstle, Pfandl, the SDABC scholars, Smith, the
QOD authors, and Shea.
Roy Gane
Gane advances three main arguments against the unorthodox perspective that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8. His arguments revolve around the little
horns origin and its exploits. Argues the SDA historicist:
Several points justify our rejecting the interpretation that Daniel 8:9 predicts the rise and career of
Antiochus:
1. The them in out of one of them at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest
antecedent: the immediately preceding four winds of heaven at the end of verse 8. So the little horn need
not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the directions toward which
Alexanders kingdom was divided. This agrees with our previous conclusion that the little horn in Daniel 7
is a Roman power.
2. In Daniel 8, the Medo-Persian ram magnified himself (verse 4), Alexanders Greek goat magnified
himself exceedingly (verse 8), and the little horn grew exceedingly great (verse 9). Antiochus never
achieved a greatness comparable to that of Alexander the Great or even Media-Persia.
3. The earthly powers in Daniel 8 replace each other: Media-Persia gives way to Alexanders united Greek
kingdom, which, in turn, divides into the four Greek kingdoms, and they yield to the little horn which is
presented as a separate empire. Antiochus did not replace another kingdom in this way. Rather, he was
simply part of one of the four Greek kingdoms. 1
Laiu2 has provided relevant biblical examples that demonstrate that the nearest
antecedent claim is unscientific and fallacious and that its across-the-board application would
produce absolute exegetical nonsense. The Little Horn Anaphora Resolution linguistic
discussion in the previous section of this document has also presented reliable evidence that there
is no true linguistic basis for the nearest antecedent assumption. Ganes third apologetic
contention that in Daniel 8 the little horn is presented as a separate empire, disregards the
important fact that chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10-12 in Daniel are parallel and expand on one
another. His interpretation is forced, inconsistent, breaks the parallelism between the above
chapters, and has no true scientific and theological merit.
Martin Prbstle
Prbstle, a SDA historicist who claims to be a linguistics expert and wrote the Sabbath
School Guide for the fourth semester 2013 saturated with dogmatic speculations and theological
nonsense against the Seleucid king, proposes six apologetic arguments against the notion that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes could be the little horn in Daniel 8:
Contrary to the majority of scholars, the horn power in Daniel 8 does not refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes
in the second century B.C., but to Rome.2 There are several reasons for such a view:
1. Antiochus IV was a king of the Seleucid kingdom that is already represented by one of the four horns of
the he-goat (Dan. 8:8). The little horn, however, does not stem from those horns, but came forth from one
of the directions of the compass, as contextual, literal-structural, and semantic considerations suggest.3
2. The growth and self-magnification of the horn is much greater than that of the previous powers.
Antiochus IV was never more powerful than Greece or Medo-Persia, but Rome was.
3. Since the little horn functions on the same structural level as the ram (Medo-Persia) and the he-goat
(Greece), we must therefore identify it historically as Rome, which followed the kingdoms of Medo-Persia
(verse 20) and Greece (verse 21). Though imperial Rome might be included, the horns symbol clearly
represents papal Rome and its religious war, the primary focus of the vision.
4. Striking parallels between the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 show that they represent the same power. In
Daniel 7 the horn and its characteristics clearly point to the Roman Church, 4 so must the horn in Daniel 8.
5. The temporal sequence of the kingdoms in Daniel 7 and 8 indicates that the power represented by the
little horn should originate from within imperial Rome (the fourth animal in Daniel 7) and extend to the
end-time. Note the similarities between the bear (two sides, three ribs, devouring much flesh) and the ram
(two horns, three directions of attack, no other beast could stand against it), and between the leopard (four
winds, four heads) and the he-goat (without touching the ground, four horns).
6. Jesus suggested that the abomination of Desolation was still future in His time (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27),
thus not supporting the view that Antiochus IV was the desolater mentioned in Daniel.3
The evidence seems to run counter to Prbstles claims. There is no adequate linguistic
support for the absurd idea that the little horn originates from one of the directions of the
compass. Ample evidence, instead, has been provided to show that his pseudo-linguistic claim
is based on sheer will power and wild speculations unverified and unconfirmed from reliable
factual data. The biblical text is clear and unmistakable that the little horn is a Greek horn
because it arose from one of the notable horns that resulted from the disintegration and division
of Alexanders empire, and the factual historical evidence that supports that interpretation cannot
be ignored or refuted with, logical, intelligent, and empirical counterarguments.
The bizarre assumption that the growth and self-magnification of the horn is much
greater than that of the previous power4 is another speculation based on an a priori text
interpretation from a historicist position, and so is the undocumented notion that the little horn
functions on the same structural level as the ram (Medo-Persia) and the he-goat (Greece).5 One
wonders: How large can an animal horn grow? Could the little horn in Daniel 7 have grown
greater than the fourth beast in the same chapter? Could the little horn in Daniel 8 have grown
larger than the he-goat that carried it? That some SDA theologians have come to believe that the
little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 could have grown larger than the animal heads that originated and
carried them, and even larger than the beasts themselves, is abundant evidence for the desperate
SDA historicist attempts to support and protect an indefensible theological position with
groundless and irrational arguments.
There are no striking parallels between the two little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 that would
provide evidence that the horns are identical. In fact, the absolute opposite is true, as we have
shown in a previous section of this document. The little horns are different and distinct prophetic
entities. The similarities between them are incidental. While the little horn in Daniel 7 might
point to Rome, there is irrefutable evidence that the other little horn in Daniel 8 represents
Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Prbstles claim that the temporal sequence of the kingdoms in Daniel
7 and 8 suggests that the power represented by the little horn should originate from within
imperial Rome6 is another unscientific and frivolous speculation. The QOD writers had warned
about five decades before that to confuse the two prophetic little horns means to become
involved in irreconcilable difficulties7 [emphasis added], but Prbstle is too overconfident and
arrogant to heed their admonition.
The SDA theologian does not seem to be too keen in biblical interpretation, or otherwise
he would not claim that because Jesus suggested that the abomination of Desolation was still
future in His time He also denied the view that Antiochus IV was the desolator mentioned in
Daniel.8 Such a claim is, again, based on a presumptive historicist interpretation of Daniel and
the Gospels. A short search through the SDABC would indicate that Antiochus IV Epiphanes
and the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 are not mutually exclusive but rather
successive socio-political events and that Antiochuss desecration of the Maccabean temple
could have well preceded the later desolation of the Herodian temple by the Roman legions:
Further, inasmuch as this third view maintains that the little horn is a symbol of imperial Rome as well as
of papal Rome (see on vs. 9, 13), predictions concerning its activities may also be understood as applying
to pagan Rome, as well as to papal Rome. Thus the daily may also refer to the earthly Temple and its
services, and the taking away of the daily to the desolation of the Temple by Roman legions in A.D.
70 and the consequent cessation of the sacrificial services [emphasis added]. It was this aspect of the
activity of the abomination of desolation to which Christ referred in His delineation of future events (see
on Dan. 11:31; cf. Matt. 24:1520; Luke 21:20).9
Gerhard Pfandl
The former BRI associate director and high-handed historicist seems to reserve the right
to make ex cathedra pronouncements based on mere dilettante and improvised personal
impressions. His arrogance and overconfidence pervade his gratuitous arguments against
Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He states:
Most modern Bible scholars interpret the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 as the Syrian king Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (175-163 B.C). In 168 B.C., after a successful campaign against Egypt, Antiochus IV returned
home via Judea and encountered an insurrection in progress. He put down the rebellion by massacring
thousands of Jewish men, women, and children (2 Macc. 5:12-14). A year later he invaded Egypt again.
This time, however, he underwent a humiliating experience when during his march on Alexandria the
Roman legate G. Pompilius Laenas handed him a letter from the Roman Senate ordering him to leave
Egypt. To add insult to injury, Pompilius Laenas arrogantly drew a circle around Antiochus and demanded
that he respond before stepping outside the circle. Knowing the might of Rome, Antiochus had to
acquiesce. He then vented his anger on the Jews. Attempting to make Palestine a Syrian province, he tried
to compel the Jews to abandon their ancestral customs and live no longer by the laws of God (2 Macc.
6:1). If they did not reject their heritage they would face death. Then he desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem
by dedicating it to Olympian Zeus and sacrificing unclean animals on its altar (verses 1-5). His persecution
of the Jews led to the Maccabean revolt and the eventual rededication of the Temple on the twenty-fifth of
Chislev (December), 164 B.C.
Seventh-day Adventists identify the little horn in Daniel as pagan and papal Rome. They reject the equation
of the little horn with Antiochus IV for several reasons: 1. The little horn came up among 10 horns (Dan.
7:8), but Antiochus did not emerge among 10 Hellenistic kings. He was the eight king in the Seleucid
kingdom, which had 28 kings during its existence. 2. The vision in Daniel has three horns plucked up
before it (verse 8). Antiochus IV did not uproot three kings. 3. The little horn became greater than the other
horns (verse 20). Clearly Antiochus IV was not greater than the other kings of his time. In fact, the
presence of the Roman ambassador Pompilius Laenas was sufficient to cause Antiochus IV to withdraw
from Egypt. 4. The saints were given into his hands for three and a half times/years (verse 25). According
to 1 Maccabees 1:57 and 4:52-54, the desecration of the Temple lasted only three years and 10 days. 5. The
ram (Persia) became great (Dan. 8:4); the goat (Greece) grew very great (verse 8); and the little horn grew
exceedingly great (verse 9). At no time was Antiochus IV greater than Medo-Persia or Greece.
A study of the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 indicates a strong parallelism between them: 1. Both horns are
little in the beginning (Dan. 7:8; 8:9). 2. Both become great later on (Dan. 7:20; 8:9ff.). 3. Both are
persecuting powers (Dan. 7:21, 25; 8:10, 24). 4. Both are self-exacting and blasphemous (Dan. 7:8, 20, 25;
8:10, 11, 25). 5. Both target Gods people (Dan. 7:25; 8:24). 6. Both have aspects of their activity
delineated by prophetic time (Dan. 7:25; 8:13, 14). 7. Both extend until the time of the end (Dan. 7:25, 26;
8:17, 19). 8. And both face supernatural destruction (Dan. 7:11, 26; 8:25).
Since in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolism clearly points to the Papacy, the little horn in Daniel 8 must
refer to the same power. The only difference between the two chapters is that in Daniel 8 the little horn
symbolizes pagan Rome (Dan. 8:9, 10) as well as papal Rome (verses 11, 12). 10
Pfandls arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes include distorted and concocted

historical accounts, speculative historicist assumptions, and biblical text misinterpretations, while
in the meantime he manages to confirm with factual evidence that Antiochus is indeed the little
horn in Daniel 8. His pseudo-historical narrative looks infantile even to those readers who are not
familiar with the Jewish history. He claims, for instance, that the mere presence of the Roman
ambassador Pompilius was sufficient to cause Antiochus IV to withdraw from Egypt and
ignores the fact that the ambassador had behind him the imperial power to deliver on the threats
he had made. He also states that after his encounter with the Pompilius Antiochus IV vented his
anger on the Jews, and then, attempting to make Palestine a Syrian province he forced the
Jews to abandon their religion. The historical record, though, disputes Pfandls nonsensical and
emotional claims. Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not have to pressure the Jews to abandon their
religion in order to turn Palestine into a Syrian Province. The troops under his command were
sufficient for that purpose. Also, that his actions against the Jews extended far beyond a mere
childish temper tantrum is shown in his organized and persistent efforts to eliminate the Jewish
religion and to obliterate all the elements of religious tradition from their social life at the public
and personal level.
The BRI pseudo-historicist manages to confuse the little horn in Daniel 7 with the little
horn in Daniel 8, and does so with the insolence and condescension that have been his constant
trademark. Most of his claims against Antiochus IV Epiphanes are based on this mix-up, and are
useless. The biblical and historical evidence that the two horns are distinct and separate has been
presented in this document and is irrefutable. For this reason, it would be irrelevant to argue that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not the little horn in Daniel 8 because it fails to meet the prophetic
criteria in Daniel 7. All that matters is how Antiochus IV meets the prophetic and historical
criteria in chapter 8. Pfandls false assumption that since in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolism
clearly points to the Papacy, the little horn in Daniel 8 must refer to the same power because
the only difference between the two chapters is that in Daniel 8 the little horn symbolizes pagan
Rome (Dan. 8:9, 10) as well as papal Rome (verses 11, 12)11 is not based on empirical historical
evidence but on uninformed personal speculations, and is worthless.
The SDABC Scholars

The SDABC scholars have struggled to demonstrate that a careful examination of the
prophecy makes evident the incompleteness with which this Seleucid king fulfilled the
[prophetic] specifications set forth, and that for this reason Antiochus IV could not be the little
horn in Daniel 8. Their claims are as follows:
A number of commentators have set forth the view that the little horn power of ch. 8 symbolizes the
career of Antiochus Epiphanes (see on ch. 11:14). However, a careful examination of the prophecy makes
evident the incompleteness with which this persecuting Seleucid king fulfilled the specifications set forth.
The four horns of the goat (ch. 8:8) were kingdoms (v. 22), and it is natural to expect the little horn to be a
kingdom also. But Antiochus was only one king of the Seleucid empire, hence was a part of one horn.
Therefore he could not be another complete horn. Further, this horn grew great toward the south, the east,
and the pleasant land of Palestine (v. 9). Antiochus advance into Egypt ended in humiliation from the
Romans, his successes in Palestine were short-lived, and his push to the east was cut short by his death. His
policy of enforced Hellenism utterly failed, nor did his craft bring him outstanding prosperity (v. 12).
Furthermore, Antiochus did not come at the latter end (v. 23), but about the middle of the period of the
divided Hellenistic kingdoms; his might could hardly be attributed to anything but his own power (v. 22);
his craft and policy failed more than they prospered (v. 25); he did not stand up against any Jewish Prince
of princes (v. 25); his casting of the truth to the ground (v. 12) was temporary and completely
unsuccessful, for it drove the Jews to the defense of their faith against Hellenism. Even though he spoke
proud words, oppressed the people of God, and briefly desecrated the Temple, and though some other
points might be argued for as partly true of his activities, nevertheless the inadequacy of Antiochus as a
fulfillment of many specifications of the prophecy is obvious. See further on v. 14; chs. 9:25; 11: 31.12
The contention that a number of commentators [emphasis added] have set forth the
view that the little horn power of ch. 8 symbolizes the career of Antiochus Epiphanes
misrepresents the facts. The bare truth is that except for the SDA theologians all the respectable
scholars share in the position that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the true and legitimate horn in
Daniel 8. The unbiased examination of the prophecy uncovers undeniable historical evidence
that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8 and that there are no real facts that
support the notion that Rome is the little horn. For the most part, the SDA historicist theologians
depend on distorted and invented pseudo-historical accounts to support their case for Rome. The
fact that Antiochus IV enforced Hellenism on the Jews, that he forbade them to continue in their
religious rites, that he spoke proud words, oppressed the people of God, and briefly desecrated
the temple, is clear evidence that he more than fulfilled the prophetic requirements. To ignore
and discard all these factual and undisputable historical fulfillments and claim that what
Antiochus IV Epiphanes did against the Jews has no relevance and significance for the
interpretation of Daniel 8 exposes an obtuse and pernicious attitude that denies all the facts that
conflict with its dogmas.
Uriah Smith
The depressed Millerite and semi-recovered SDA popular historicist theologian makes
some extreme arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His theological vision is so damaged
and reduced that he squashes all the evidence that challenges his dogmatic position and pushes
forward with his urgent personal agenda. His immodest self-assurance and arrogance, common
to most SDA theologians, are too obvious when he makes the triumphalist claim that it has been
an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus. Here are his arguments:
1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of
Alexanders empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the
Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was
Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian
horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence he could not be at the same time a separate
and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was.
2. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be
applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means
sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious, he was illustrious only
in name; for nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be
more alien to his true character; for, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool
and others a madman, they changed his name of Epiphanes, The Illustrious, into Epimanes, The
Madman.
3. Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being terribly defeated in a war with the Romans, was
enabled to produce peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money, and the surrender of a
portion of his territory; and, as a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was
obliged to give hostages, among whom was this very Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The
Romans ever after maintained this ascendency.
4. The little horn waxed exceedingly great; but this Antiochus did not wax exceedingly great; on the
contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he
immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist from
his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the unoffending Jews.
5. The little horn, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, was exceedingly great. Persia is simply
called great, though it reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Esther 1:1. Grecia, being more
extensive still, is called very great. Now the little horn, which waxed exceeding great, must surpass them
both. How absurd, then, to apply this to Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of
the Romans, to whom he paid enormous sums of money as tribute. The Religious Encyclopedia gives us
this item of his history: Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to levy tribute, and
collect large sums which he had agreed to pay the Romans. It cannot take long for anyone to decide the
question which was the greater power, the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one that commanded that
evacuation; the one which exacted tribute, or the one which was compelled to pay it.
7. The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond
controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four
years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfill the
specifications in one single particular. The question may then be asked how any one has ever come to apply
it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and
many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that the Second Advent of Christ is now at
hand.13
One notices from the start that Smith attempts to minimize and even negate at all costs
the Seleucid kings historical relevance because Antiochus IV Epiphanes, claims the uninformed
SDA pioneer, is simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the
goat, and is not allowed a horn of his own. Smith claims that the little horn should be applied
to the most powerful and illustrious of them [Syrian kings] all, but the dogmatic historicist fails
to indicate who could be that illustrious Syrian king, although he manages to provide sufficient
evidence that Antiochus IV was notorious enough to promote himself among all the other Syrian
kings and make a name for himself in the Jewish religious records. The next hopeless argument
in Smiths apologetic arsenal seems to be both illogical and redundant. If the SDA inexpert
theologian means that the Romans maintained control over Antiochus IV even after the future
king left Rome, Smith fails to demonstrate how that issue would prevent the Seleucid king from
being the little horn in Daniel 8.
There should be no doubt now, after we have examined Smiths claims, that the notorious
SDA pioneer lives in absolute denial of exegetical and historical facts and that all the evidence
he sees is the one that confirms his personal ideas. It is obvious that he ignores all the opposed
interpretation alternatives when he states that he [Antiochus] does not fulfill the specifications
in one single particular. To make such an irrational and absurd claim necessitates more than
extreme overconfidence and total ineptitude. It requires the absolute intellectual blindness that
will not be persuaded with true facts no matter how undeniable those facts are.
Arguments 3, 4, and 5 appear to indicate that Smith is obsessed with the outdated English
term exceeding and argues that this Antiochus did not wax exceeding great. The best current
definition for the dated and seldom used English word is, according to the OED, 14 an amount
(of funds, goods, etc.) in excess of calculation, or of what is usual; an excess, a surplus. The
confused SDA pioneer seems to make the illogical claim that Rome, as the genuine and authentic
little horn has grown in excess. One wonders what in excess would mean, how could that
little horn grow in excess, and compared to what. Does the little horn in Daniel 8 grow larger
than the he-goat that carries the horn? Does the little horn grow greater and larger than the four
beasts that populate the vision in Daniel 7?
It becomes clear that the SDA pioneer fails to recognize the absurd claims he makes, and
continues with his irrational description of a horn larger than unbroken logic would allow. The
obvious conclusion is that while for a short time the KJV translation might have been acceptable
for the English Bible readers, at this time the antiquated and illogical phrase waxed exceeding
great makes no sense and fails to provide the proper rendition of the Hebrew text for the current
readers. It should, therefore, be abandoned and discarded for a modern and much more correct
translation, while the absurd claim that the little horn grows larger than the he-goat that carries it
should be treated as another eccentric pseudo-historicist SDA speculation.
Smiths pernicious influence on some other SDA historicist theologians becomes more
than evident when one recalls that Pfandls twisted and distorted pseudo-historical narrative
about Antiochus IV Epiphanes includes the absurd note that He [Antiochus] then vented his
anger on the Jews which echoes Smiths previous allegation that the rage of his disappointed
ambition he [Antiochus IV] vented upon the unoffending Jews. The SDA pioneers claim is that
the Seleucid king could not stand up against the Prince of princes, and this seems more than
enough to prove that Antiochus IV has flunked the prophetic test. The inexpert dogmatist,
though, fails to inform his readers who would be the better historical character that meets such
specific prophetic criterion. It is apparent that Smith must have been in some anomalous and
illogical religious fervor when he wrote his arguments against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and that
the real and material world failed to appeal to him at that time.
The QOD Theologians
The QOD doctrinaire writers have suggested an extensive list of arguments against
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and some SDA theologians have returned from time to time to that list
in order to compile their original and innovative personal arguments against the Seleucid
king. These undocumented and untested claims have been organized in three main sections:
1. - 3. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 7 NOT MET,
2. - 4. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 8 NOT MET, and
3. - 5. TIME SPECIFICATIONS FAIL FOR BOTH DANIEL 7 AND 8
[emphasis in the original].
Hewitt has provided ample evidence that the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot be mistaken
for the little horn in Daniel 8. These two horns are distinct and separate, and the QOD authors
hold the same perspective on the issue. While the traditional protestant theologians have
interpreted the little horn in Daniel 7 to be the papal Rome, there has been no doubt in the same
learned theological circles that the little horn in Daniel 8 designates the Seleucid king, Antiochus
IV Epiphanes. Hewitts arguments that support the distinction between the two little horns stand
on solid empirical evidence. For this reason, the Seleucid king does not have to meet the
prophetic criteria for the little horn in Daniel 7 as the QOD writers expect, but should meet the
criteria for the little horn in Daniel 8. The QOD authors, though, are confused in this matter and
also propose unrealistic expectations for Antiochus IV Epiphanes, an issue that indicates
theological ignorance and exegetical ineptitude, as the QOD arguments below demonstrate:
4. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 8 NOT MET
The view that makes Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8, which becomes exceeding great, must also be
examined. There is a tempting plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come out of one of the
four horn kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Macedonian goat. Nevertheless, even aside from the fact that
there is a difference of opinion as to whether out of one of them means out of one of the horn kingdoms
or out of one of the four winds (verses 8, 9) i.e., one of the four directions of the compass there are
obstacles to considering Antiochus an adequate fulfillment of the prophetic specifications.
a. In the first place, Antiochus was not a horn. The four horns of the goat were four kingdoms (verse
22), the largest of which was the Seleucid (or Syrian) kingdom. Antiochus was not a separate horn, or
kingdom, but one of the kings of the Seleucid horn, and hence a part of one of the horns.
b. Antiochus did not wax exceeding great (verse 9) in comparison with the Greco-Macedonian empire of
Alexander (verse 8). Antiochus was not even the most powerful king of the Seleucid division of
Alexander's empire.
c. Antiochus hardly grew exceeding great through conquest (verse 9). His push to the south into Egypt
was stopped by the mere word of a Roman officer; his expedition to the east resulted in his death; and his
dominion of the pleasant land of Palestine did not last, for his persecution of the Jews drove them to
resistance that later resulted in their independence.
d. The horns fury against the host of heaven (verse 10), who are evidently equated with the mighty and
the holy people (verse 24), is plausibly a reference to Antiochus' persecution of the Jews. However, if the
specifications point rather to another power that also persecuted the people of God, this verse cannot be
decisive.
e. Against what prince of the host (verse 11) or Prince of princes (verse 25) did Antiochus stand? A
mere Jewish priest is hardly such a figure; Prince of princes could be only an unusual designation for
God or Christ, whose worship he attacked.
f. Antiochus did take away the daily sacrifice to the true God, though he did not abolish the Temple
sacrifices; he substituted others in honor of heathen gods. However, he only desecrated the place of his
sanctuary; it was not cast down until the Romans destroyed it in AD. 70.
g. His attempts to cast down the truth (verse 12) were unsuccessful. The net result of his persecution was
to strengthen the truth by uniting the Jews against the Hellenization of Judaism.
h. Though Antiochus was not a weak king, his ambitious policy can scarcely be said to have Practised, and
prospered (verses 12; compare verse 24), nor did his craft ... prosper in his hand (verse 25) in attaining
his ends.
i. The attempts to reckon the 2300 days (verse 14) as the literal period of Antiochus desecration of the
Temple fail in making the chronology fit, any of the sources (see p. 330, Sec. 6).
j. Antiochus did not reign in the latter time of the Hellenistic kingdoms of Alexander's empire (verse 23),
but nearly in the middle of the period.
k. Antiochus was fierce toward the Jews, but was not noted for understanding dark sentences (verse
23).
1. His power was not outstandingly mighty, nor can it be said that it was not by his own power
(verse 24). At least such phrases give no particular confirmation to the identification of Antiochus.
m. Antiochus was not broken without hand (verse 25); there is no suggestion of anything miraculous or
mysterious about either his failure with the Jews or his death.
n. To find, as some do, the Papacy as the little horn in chapter 7, and Antiochus as the little horn in chapter
8, is to throw the two prophecies out of balance to interfere with the obvious parallel between the two
series of world powers presented (see p. 335). If chapter 7 follows the sequence from Babylon through
Persia, Alexander's empire, and his divided successors, on through the Roman Empire and the Papacy
down to the judgment, then chapter 8, which begins with Persia, one step later, should cover the same
sequence Persia, Alexander, the four horn-kingdoms that grew out of his empire, and then another horn,
obviously another kingdom. To preserve the obvious parallel, this horn should logically be the next world
power after the Hellenistic monarchies, namely Rome; and we should expect the scope of the prophecy to
be similar to that of chapter 7, that is, extending to the end, when the horn would be broken without hand.
(This does not mean that the two little horns are in all respects identical; see p. 337).
Although certain details of this prophecy of Daniel 8 might be considered applicable to the activities of
Antiochus, yet the figure of that ruler, with his moderate successes and outstanding failures, is entirely too
small to fill the picture.
5. TIME SPECIFICATIONS FAIL FOR BOTH DANIEL 7 AND 8
The sources cited for the time specifications of both little horns are themselves in hopeless conflict. Thus,
as to Daniel 7, the activities of Antiochus do not meet the time demands of the prophecy. Despite the
claims of proponents to the contrary, according to 1 Maccabees 1:54, 59 and 4:52, Antiochus suppressed
the Jewish sacrifices exactly three literal years. But this does not comport with the demand of Daniel 7:25
for three and one-half times, which are generally recognized as involving 1260 prophetic days.*
Furthermore, Josephus, two centuries later in conflict with the Maccabean record says (Wars i. 1. 1)
that the episode lasted three and one-half years, though elsewhere (Antiquities xii. 7. 6) he contradicts
himself by saying it was three years to the day! But more than that, he neutralizes both of these statements
in his Preface to Wars when he imperturbably states that it was actually three years and three months. So
one cancels out the others. There is thus hopeless conflict and contradiction in the sources themselves.
Furthermore, all attempts to equate the 1260 days of the little horn (of Dan. 7:24, 25) with the 2300 days, or
evenings-mornings, of Daniel 8:14 or with 1150 days, if 2300 be divided by two, as some insist are
plainly forced. They constitute only an approximation, for 2300 days (or 1150) assuredly do not equal
1260. And conversely, the 1260 days of Daniel 7 certainly do not equate with the 2300 half days, or 1150
full days, of Daniel 8. One number cannot be accommodated to meet the demands of the others. That is
too great a stretch for the figures are not elastic. Quite apart from the year-day principle, fixing upon one
number clearly rules out the others. So all are out, under such a scheme.
We concur with Bishop Thomas Newton (Dissertations on the Prophecies, 1796, p. 217), who in the
eighteenth century wisely wrote:
These two thousand and three hundred days, can by no computation be accommodated to the times of
Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the days be taken for natural days. And Dean F. W. Farrar, though
personally holding the Antiochus theory, admits that no minute certainty about the exact dates is
attainable (The Book of Daniel, 1895, p. 266). And he freely confesses, By no reasonable supposition can
we arrive at close accuracy. Ibid., p. 264.*
And a half century ago Dr. Charles H. H. Wright, of Trinity College, Dublin and Oxford (Daniel and His
Prophecies, 1906, p. 186), declared, on the 2300 day calculations of Daniel 8:
All efforts, however, to harmonize the period, whether expounded as 2300 days or as 1150 days, with any
precise historical epoch mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees or in Josephus have proved futile.
Indeed, Dr. Wright goes so far as to say:
No satisfactory interpretation has been given of the 2300 days regarded as referring to Maccabean times. It
is quite possible that those 2300 days may be a period of prophetic days or [literal] years which have still to
run their course Ibid., p. 190.*
But quite apart from these inconsistent and contrasting features as to the exact timing, the interpretation of
the three and one-half times (1260 days), or the 2300 days, as simply that number of literal days violates
the fundamental law of symbolism which is that all symbols stand for something other than the object or
item used as the symbol. Thus the beasts of Daniel 7 and 8 symbolize not literal beasts but specified
nations. Similarly, the attendant time features must stand for some time measurement other than the actual
unit used in the prophetic portrayal. Thus in symbolic time prophecy a prophetic day stands for an actual
year in literal fulfillment. (See Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6.) Therefore the 2300 days could not stand for the
same number of literal days, but for that number of years. Consequently, anyone who insists that Antiochus
is symbolized by the little horn violates the basic principle of symbolism, by literalizing the inseparable
time factor. (See Questions 25 and 26.) 15
The QOD arguments listed above suffer from a common fault no true historical support
for the claim that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails to meet the SDA assumed SPECIFICATIONS
OF DANIEL 8 [emphasis in the original]. While the QOD scholars must acknowledge in the
preamble to their arguments the undeniable genuine historical evidence that there is a tempting
plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come out of one of the four kingdoms in the
head of the Greco-Macedonian goat, their immediate dogmatic reaction is to dismiss the truth
and launch into a series of speculations about what the prophetic text in Daniel 8 should mean
from their pseudo-historicist perspective. Their initial attempt (point a.) is to negate that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is a horn based on the idea that the Seleucid king was not a separate
horn or kingdom, although the angel Gabriel identifies the little horn with such words in Daniel
8:23 and Daniel 11:21. Instead, later in the chapter, the QOD writers claim that Imperial Rome
meets better the prophetic criteria for the little horn. Their interpretation, though, breaks the
parallelism between chapters 7 and 8. In both chapters, the world empires are shown as great
beasts, and the kings and kingdoms as horns, therefore the little horn in Daniel 8 could not be the
Rome that had been depicted in Daniel 7 as a beast.
The next two QOD arguments (claims b. and c.) are based on three exegetical fallacies
that Carson identifies and denounces as appeal to selective evidence (all the opposite evidence
is ignored or suppressed),16 uncontrolled historical reconstruction (the actual historical record
is distorted in order to introduce bogus evidence for a certain viewpoint),17 and cavalier
dismissal (all the other views are written off, but not argued against with accurate and reliable
evidence).18 For these claims, the QOD historicist authors must depend on the archaic and
outdated King James (further, KJV) Bible in order to argue their point and ignore all the modern
Bible translations because these much more correct, accurate, and reliable Old Testament
[further, OT] Hebrew-English translations fail to support a speculative SDA interpretation for
Daniel 8 and cannot be used to sell the dogmatic and spurious SDA prophetic speculations.
The SDA theologians have strained ad nauseam the implausible notion that the little horn
in Daniel 8 waxed exceeding great (verse 9), and that because Antiochus did not wax
exceeding great he cannot be the little horn in Daniel 8. Besides the fact that the archaic and
outdated KJV translation is hard to understand and inaccurate, the verbal phrase waxed
exceeding great makes little or no sense. As stated above, the OED19 defines the outdated and
seldom used adverb exceeding as an amount (of funds, goods, etc.) in excess of calculation,
or of what is usual; an excess, a surplus. When we replace this English term, exceeding, with
in excess or excessive, the KJV text we obtain is either waxed great in excess or waxed
excessively great. The questions we need to ask ourselves in order to place the matters in proper
perspective are: If it is indeed true that the little horn in Daniel 8 represents Rome, how
excessive could the horn on the he-goats head grow? Could it grow larger and greater than the
he-goats head? Could it grow larger than the he-goat himself? Larger than the fourth beast
described in Daniel 7? Did the pagan or papal Rome ever grow in excess in their historical
progress? What would that mean, and what is the historical evidence that supports this frivolous
claim? Also, if Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not even the most powerful king of the Seleucid
division of Alexanders empire who was that king, and what, again, is the actual historical
evidence for this claim that has no factual support?
That Antiochus did not grow exceeding great through conquest is debatable in the first
place because the KJV translation is incorrect and illogical, but the factual and indisputable truth
is that the Seleucid king had successful campaigns in Egypt, the countries of the East, and
Palestine. That his conquests did not last forever is a true fact about all conquests. Imperial Rome
expanded and then declined and fell after a while, and lost all its conquered territories, while
Papal Rome possessed no actual territories during its short religious dominance in Europe. The
truth is that the pagan or papal Rome did not fare better than Anthiochus IV Epiphanes in these
matters and to state otherwise is nothing but an unfounded and dogmatic opinion.
Once in a while, the pseudo-historicist QOD authors are compelled to admit that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets at least in part the prophetic criteria, and therefore contradict
Smiths preposterous claim that the Seleucid king does not fulfill the specifications in one
single particular. It is a true, historical, and proven fact that the little horns vicious attacks
against the temple in Jerusalem, the temple servants, and the Jewish population is a reference to
Antiochus persecution of the Jews, and whether or not the specifications point rather to
another power that also persecuted the people of God is irrelevant for prophetic interpretation
purposes. The QOD authors combine the frivolous dismissal of Antiochus actions against the
Jewish temple with distortions and speculations that claim that he did not abolish the Temple
sacrifices, that, in their perspective, while Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Jewish
temple he did not cast it down although he stopped the sacrifices in the temple, and that his
attempts to cast down the truth (verse 12) were unsuccessful. Such flippant claims, though, are
a matter of perspective. Where the QOD writers see no event, most scholars see clear historical
evidence, and where the QOD writers see failure, most interpreters see achievement and
undeniable prophetic fulfillment.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes did reign in the last part of the Greek period, and did desecrate
the Jewish temple which was later restored from his desecration. These are historical facts that
cannot be denied. While there might be some disagreement about the exact dates that started and
ended his attack on the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, it cannot be denied that those
events happened. The claim that the Seleucid king was not noted for understanding dark
sentences is pure gibberish as the QOD writers even fail to explain what that means and what
confirmation this requires. The Seleucid kings death seems to have happened in unusual
circumstances, and to claim that nothing strange occurred is another brazen and outrageous
denial of the historical records. Rather than throw the two prophecies [Daniel 7 and Daniel 8]
out of balance with the proposal that Antiochus is the actual little horn, this true and verified
historical interpretation preserves the parallelism between the above chapters. This means that
the pseudo-historicist SDA argument that Rome must be the little horn in Daniel 8 negates the
link between the two chapters because in Daniel 7 pagan Rome is described as a beast while
papal Rome is represented as a small horn.
The QOD writers make the claim that although certain details of this prophecy of Daniel
8 might be considered applicable to the activities of Antiochus, he cannot fill the [prophetic]
picture because while he had moderate successes and outstanding failures, the vicious and
notorious Seleucid king is entirely too small to fill the picture. This idea, though, is not based
on historical facts. The truth is that factual historical evidence supports the perspective that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes had an immense and exceptional impact on the Jews, their religion, and
their temple, but the QOD authors, trapped in their pseudo-historicist presuppositions and
assumptions, cannot accept the historical record and disregard all the historical facts that
contradict their biased dogmatic perspective and their fraudulent prophetic distortions.
The fact that 1 Maccabees and Josephus are in disagreement about the start and end dates
for the 2,300 days in Daniel 8:14 cannot invalidate the clear historical record. It is a known
fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes persecuted the Jews and desecrated their temple. In spite of the
claimed hopeless conflict and contradiction in the sources themselves the historical evidence
stands. The same cannot be said about the fictional SDA pseudo-historicist 2300 years time
period. No true historical event can be suggested for the start of this period, and the event
claimed to end the period is a fictional and unverifiable event that is supposed to have happened
in heaven in 1844. So much for the better SDA pseudo-historicist evidence to support Rome
as the little horn in Daniel 8!
William H. Shea
Shea, the venerated SDA theologian, continues the speculative pseudo-historicist
interpretation about the vicious little horn and Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 8. He dismisses
and discards the relevant historical evidence that demonstrates that the Seleucid king meets the
prophetic requirements, and argues against Antiochus with strange theories that depend on
capricious, whimsical, and inexpert exegetical gimmicks. His comments are deductive and
speculative, overloaded with theoretical and abstract questions, and use biblical texts as pretexts
for his wild and extravagant speculations. He states:
The horn as a symbol for king/kingdom. Daniel 8:23 identifies the little horn as a king. But the
question may be raised whether the term was not intended to stand for a kingdom rather than for a single
king. Several points suggest this possibility. Since the four preceding horns are identified as kingdoms in
verse 22, one might expect them to be succeeded by another kingdom rather than an individual king. The
two horns on the Persian ram represented the kings of Media and Persia; that is, the dynastic houses that
ruled those nations (vs. 20).
Going back to chapter 7, the historicist interpretation of the little horn suggests that it represents the papacy
which came up among the horn-nations of Europe that resulted from the breakup of the Roman Empirebeast. It should also be noted in chapter 7 that whereas the four beasts were referred to as four kings (vs.
17), they were understood to represent kingdoms and not individual monarchs (vs. 23). The same concept is
evident as early as chapter 2, where Nebuchadnezzar was told that he was the head of gold to be succeeded
by another kingdom (Dan 2:38-39).
The only place among these symbols where one can clearly point to the identification of a horn as an
individual king is in the case of Alexander, represented by the great horn of the Grecian he-goat (Dan
8:21). Alexander's horn, of course, did not come up from the other horns of the goat. If the little horn of
Daniel 8 came out of another horn and is interpreted as a king, such an interpretation would prove to be
unique among this series of symbols. Although this point is not definitive when studied in isolation, it
seems more reasonable to assume that the little horn represents a corporate kingdom rather than an
individual king.20
Gabriel explains that the little horn in Daniel 8 is a king of fierce countenance, but
Shea discounts the angelic interpretation and argues that the angel is mistaken and that the word
king must mean kingdom instead. How much more arrogant and defiant than that could an
interpreter be? That Sheas speculation is nothing more than pure gibberish becomes obvious
when one understands that while the SDA historicists arguments provide clear textual support
that the little horn is indeed a king, the SDA theologian contradicts his own factual arguments
and draws a final conclusion that opposes the empirical evidence in order to force the biblical
text to conform to his unbiblical a priori assumptions, and to establish the whole interpretation
for Daniel 8 on the wild and unsupported speculation that it seems more reasonable to
assume that the little horn represents a corporate kingdom rather than an individual king
[emphasis added].
Sheas next pseudo-historicist and deceptive arguments on some presumed comparative
greatness of the little horn are based on fallacious claims that depend on the obsolete and
unreliable KJV Bible translation on the little horn in Daniel 8, while he ignores much more
accurate and reliable Hebrew-English Old Testament scientific and modern translations. He
states:
Comparative greatness of the little horn. The Persian ram magnified himself (8:4); the Grecian goat
magnified himself exceedingly (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself exceedingly in different
directions. On the horizontal level it grew exceedingly great toward the south, east, and glorious land. On
the vertical plane it grew great ... to the host of heaven, and ultimately magnified itself ... up to the
Prince of the host (8:9-11).
The verb to be great, gadal, occurs only once each with Persia and Greece, but it appears three times with
the little horn. In view of this verbal usage and the adverb for excessively, which accompanies it in the
first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative. Translating this
into historical terms means that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in
greatness. Obviously, this was not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but
little success.
This argument finds further support as we return to the parallel of the little horn in Daniel 7. There we
discover another point which militates against the identification of the little horn with Antiochus IV: the
judgment scene. It seems unlikely that the heavenly court would have been called into session on such a
grand scale in order to judge Antiochus IV. A setting far less glamorous, such as Micaiah ben Imlah's
prediction concerning Ahab in 1 Kings 22, should have been adequate for Antiochus IV. To say it
differently, because of its grandeur the vision of the heavenly court session in Daniel 7 would not at all
match the political and religious importance of the party being judged there, if that little horn were
Antiochus. Given the parallels between the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8, this merely emphasizes the
disparity between Antiochus IV and the superlative greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8. 21
The arguments that attempt to dismiss all factual evidence that supports the notion that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn in Daniel 8 are based, as stated before, on an erroneous
KJV Bible translation. Although Shea knows well that the KJV text is outdated, inaccurate, and
unreliable, he goes ahead and uses it because he depends on this translation for his fictitious
conclusions. His false assumption is that there is a progression from the comparative to the
superlative in the prophetic description, and that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the
Persian and Greek Empires in greatness. The veteran SDA historicist theologian never attempts
to explain, though, how Papal Rome was greater than the Medo-Persian and Greek empires in its
development, because the true historical facts contradict his invented narrative. In order to argue
for the progression position Shea combines the little horn in Daniel Chapter 7 with the little
horn in Chapter 8, and drums on the SDA fantastic notion of a judgment in heaven during which
God is investigated so that the universe will know whether or not He was just in his decisions
concerning the beings he had created and whether or not he should maintain his leadership in the
universe!!!
The fabricated and undocumented claims about the comparative greatness of the little
horn appear to indicate that the veteran SDA historicist has missed basic grammar lessons about
the comparison degrees of the English qualifiers. He insists:
first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative [emphasis
added]. Translating this into historical terms means that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the
Persian and Greek Empires in greatness [emphasis added].
Given the parallels between the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 [the grandeur the vision of the heavenly court
session in Daniel 7], this merely emphasizes the disparity between Antiochus IV and the superlative
greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8 [emphasis added].22
Sheas claims are so loaded with the most absurd and unscientific speculations that the
notion that such nonsense has been published in what has been claimed to be the best and most
expert work ever published in the SDA theological circles in unthinkable. His unfounded
speculations advance from the claim that the little horn magnified itself exceedingly in different
directions, that the repeated usage of the Hebrew verb gadal makes it evident that this is a
progression from the comparative to the superlative, and that, as a consequence, Antiochus
should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in greatness. The SDA historicist even
talks about the superlative greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8, because he has no clear idea
what superlative greatness might be. Does he mean that the little horn has grown greater than
all the prophetic horns ever mentioned in the biblical text? Does he mean that the little horn in
Daniel 8 has grown so much that its real and actual dimension is so massive and extreme that
there is no possible comparison between this horn and the forth beast in Daniel 7 or the he-goat
in Daniel 8? It becomes obvious that the veteran theologian has gotten the excess metaphor out
of control with consequences that he is unable to comprehend because he has more than
overstated his case with such intemperate statements. Shea, indeed, manages to propel his case
for the little horns utter and unqualified greatness to the absolute and superlative absurd!!!
That a scholar of Sheas claimed high reputation among the SDA scholars ignores the
Hebrew text and bases all his arguments on an antiquated and disputed translation should be
enough indication that Shea is not in search for truth, but wants to reach his pre-established
conclusions at all costs. The SDA theologians is not a true and honest historicist, as the term was
defined in section II of this document, but a dogmatist who relies on fabricated events to support
his wild interpretations and speculations. This fact becomes more than evident when one
recognizes to what lengths the SDA historicist theologian goes in order to dismiss the true and
unquestionable historical facts that demonstrate that Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets the little
horn prophetic requirements in Daniel 8. States Shea:
Activities of the little horn:
Conquests. The horn grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious
land.
To the south. Antiochus III was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when
he defeated the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern
frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta
in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria to undertake its siege, but was turned
back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success
in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow exceedingly great toward the south.
To the east. Antiochus III subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him
to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after
the Romans defeated him at Magnesia.
Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory during the eastern campaign he conducted in the
last two years of his reign. After some initial diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and Media,
however, he found himself unable to make further headway against the Parthians. He died during the
course of his campaign against the latter, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C.
While Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as
Antiochus III; and this project was left incomplete at the point of his death. It is open to question, therefore,
as to what extent these partial and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning
the little horn as "growing exceedingly great" toward the east.
To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the
temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because
Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C. He could not have "grown
exceedingly great toward the glorious land," Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest or acquiring
control of it by military action. He could have "[grown] exceedingly" only in the sense of exercising or
abusing his control over it, since it was already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.
Although Antiochus IV was not the conquerer of Palestine, the defeats his forces suffered there toward the
end of his reign started the course of events that eventually led to the complete independence of Judea from
the Seleucids. While he himself was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces suffered defeats at
Emmaus (1 Mace 3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Mace 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews
liberated the polluted temple from Seleucid hands and rededicated it (1 Mace 5:52). Antiochus died in the
east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Mace 6:15).
Summary. Antiochus IV never captured Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, but he enjoyed military successes
in Lower Egypt during his campaigns from 169 to 167 B.C. However, he had to forsake these briefly held,
ill-gotten gains, due to diplomatic pressure from the Romans. Only the first part of his campaign toward the
east was successful. He died before he had carried out his plans for that region to consolidate his control
over it.
Although he bore down harder on the Jews than had his predecessors, he was not the one who brought
Judea into the Seleucid Empire, since it was already part of that dominion when he came to the throne. The
three defeats his forces suffered there shortly before he died signaled developments that ultimately led to
Judea's independence.
The net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was rather negligible
and even negative in some cases. Thus he does not fit very well the specification of this prophecy which
states that the little horn was to grow exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the
glorious land.23
Not much should be said about Sheas statements. Facts speak for themselves. No matter
how much the SDA theologian works to distort and negate the facts, it is obvious that the
historical records show that the Seleucid king met the prophetic criteria, and is indeed the little
horn in Daniel 8. He had partial success when he attempted to extend his southern frontier,
in spite of Sheas preposterous argument that it is doubtful that he [Antiochus] really did grow
exceedingly great toward the south. He also had some initial successes in his attempts to
expand to the east, although Shea argues that it is open to question, therefore, as to what extent
these partial and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning the
little horn as growing exceedingly great toward the east. Antiochus also reached towards
Palestine and was known as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the
Jews. While the SDA historicist theologian strives to argue that he [Antiochus] could not have
grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land, Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest
or acquiring control of it by military action, he must concede that Antiochus IV Epiphanes
could have still done so in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over it, since it was
already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.
Sheas conclusion that Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit very well the specification
of this prophecy which states that the little horn was to grow exceedingly great toward the
south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land is a speculative and uninformed opinion
based on an obscurantist and obtuse pseudo-historicist viewpoint. That Rome cannot meet even
as much as Antiochus IV Epiphanes the prophetic expectations from authentic historical
evidence is not information that Shea wants to share with his docile readers. His unsuccessful
efforts to show that if Rome is not the little horn in Daniel 8 then no other legitimate historic
agent can fulfill that prophetic role are not based on rigorous empirical claims but on fabricated
pseudo-historical narratives that he feeds to nave and ignorant SDA readers.
The SDA theologian adopts and uses the outdated KJV translation when it is convenient
to him, but is also more than eager to distort the words in this preferred Bible rendition in order
to argue for a fantastic and ludicrous perspective on the issue under discussion, as is the case
with his extensive and unsuccessful argumentation that attempts to convince his readers that the
specific Hebrew word temple means something else:
Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the daily or continual. It
holds true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the temple,
or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices. Nevertheless, the phrase, the
place of his sanctuary was cast down (8:11, KJV), which indicates what was done to the temple building
itself by the little horn, does not fit the activities of Antiochus. The word used for place (Hebrew, makon)
is both interesting and important. It occurs in the Hebrew Bible 17 times. In every instance but one it refers
to the place where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests.
This word appears first in the Bible in the "Song of the Sea" which the Israelites sang on the shore of the
Red Sea after their deliverance from Pharaoh's army (Exod 15:17). In that song God's makon is identified
as the place where he would establish His abode, that is, His sanctuary in the promised land. The term
appears four times in the address Solomon gave when the temple was dedicated (see 1 Kings 8 and its
parallel passage of 2 Chronicles 6). Once the king uses the term to refer to the temple; three times it denotes
God's dwelling place in heaven (1 Kgs 8:13, 39, 43, 49).
In Psalm 33:14 the word likewise is used for God's dwelling in heaven. Three other texts employ makon to
refer to the place of God's dwelling on earth. It occurs twice in Isaiah, once referring to the location of
God's earthly abode on Mount Zion (Isa 4:5), and once referring to the place from which God looked upon
Ethiopia in judgment (18:4), presumably the earthly temple again. In Ezra 2:68 it was used more
specifically for the place upon which God's earthly temple was to be rebuilt. In Psalms 89:14 and 97:2 this
word was used in the metaphorical sense. Justice and righteousness are said to be the "foundation" of His
throne.
Aside from this occurrence in Daniel, therefore, makon is used seven times for the place of God's dwelling
in heaven, six times for the place of His earthly dwelling, and twice for the place of His throne in a
metaphorical sense. The only instance where this word was not used for God's dwelling place, whether
earthly or heavenly, is Psalm 104:5 where it is used poetically for the "foundations" upon which the earth
was set.
It was this place of God's sanctuary that was to be cast down by the little horn, according to Daniel 8:11.
One could apply this to what the Romans did to the temple in AD. 70. But Antiochus never did anything to
the temple which would qualify as casting down its makon, or place. Desecrate it he did; but, as far as
is known, he did not damage its architecture in any significant way.
On the contrary, it would have been to his disadvantage to have done so, since he turned it over to be used
for the cult of Zeus. Thus while it is fair to say that Antiochus suspended the daily or continual
sacrifices/ministration of the temple, we have no indication that he cast it down from its place, or cast down
its place. Consequently, this aspect of the prophecy is in opposition to the interpretation of the little horn as
Antiochus IV.24
One wonders whether Shea ever consulted the ample historical records and demonstrable
evidence when he made the inane comments included above. To depart to such a length from the
biblical text and claim that the papal Rome as the little horn in Daniel 8 cast down the place
where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests, that is, heaven itself, must be the
ultimate feat in arrogance and self-deception. Should we assume that the papal little horn must
have reached these high heavens on a contraption similar to Jacobs ladder about which we are
unable to learn because of our lack of theological clearance? Facetious or not, such statements
seem proper when one considers the utter nonsense regarded as rigorous exegesis among the
SDA scholars and still considered fundamental interpretation work in the SDA Church. Such
things happen when scholars discard a scientific interpretation and slide into a theological
dreamland and total obscurantism in order to validate the most illogical, incongruous and
irrational prophetic interpretations. It is no great surprise that most if not all non-SDA scholars
disregard, discount, and ridicule such inconceivable SDA dogmatic speculations.
We must be grateful to Shea, though, for the large amount of factual evidence that
supports Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn in Daniel 8, although his manifest intention
has been to use that historical data in order to argue against Antiochus and for Rome. That Shea
fails to see the truth in all that material and observable historical data should not surprise the
readers. It is a common fact that religionist minds suffer from spiritual and intellectual blindness
and often little can be done to shake the victims out of their religious stupor. The historical facts
Shea presents are indisputable evidence that the SDA historicists have no case that Rome is the
little horn of Daniel 8, and we will allow now Shea to prove this again in his own words:
Time factors for the little horn:
Time of origin. The rise of the little horn is dated in terms of the four kingdoms which came from
Alexander's empire. It was to come up at the latter end of their rule (8:23).
The Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C. Antiochus
IV was the eighth in line, and he ruled from 175 to 164/3 B.C. Since more than a dozen Seleucids ruled
after him and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he can hardly be said to have arisen at the latter end of
their rule.
It would be more correct to fix the period of his rule in the middle of the dynasty; and chronology supports
this argument. The Seleucids ruled for a century and a third before Antiochus IV and a century after him.
This fact places this particular ruler within two decades of the midpoint of the dynasty. Thus Antiochus IV
did not arise at the latter end of their rule.
Duration. The chronological datum given in the question and answer of Daniel 8:13-14 has been
interpreted as giving the length of time Antiochus IV was to have desecrated the temple or persecuted the
Jews. Precise dates are available for the disruption of the temple services and its pollution. The pagan
idol was set up on the altar of burnt offering on the fifteenth day of the ninth month of the 145th year of the
Seleucid Era, and pagan sacrifices began there ten days later (1 Mace 1:54, 59) [emphasis added].
On the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month in the 148th year of the Seleucid era a newly built altar was
consecrated and the celebrations continued for eight days thereafter (1 Mace 4:52, 54). Thus a period of
three years, or three years and ten days, was involved here. Neither 2300 literal days (six years, four and
two-thirds months) nor 1150 literal days (made by pairing evening and morning sacrifices to make full
days) fits this historical period, since even the shorter of the two is two months too long.
Various attempts have been made to explain this discrepancy. None of them are satisfactory. The troops of
Antiochus did sack the temple, though, on their way back from Egypt two years earlier [emphasis
added], but that still falls a year and a half short of the longer period.
Since a connection between this time period and the temple is lacking, it has been suggested that it should
be interpreted as referring to persecution. Menelaus (one of two rival Jewish high priests) talked
Andronicus, an official of Antiochus, into killing Onias, a former high priest (2 Mace 4:34). This might
have occurred in 170 B.C. (2 Mace 4:23), or six and one half years (2300 days) before the cleansing of the
temple late in 164 B.C. When he heard about it, Antiochus executed Andronicus (2 Mace 4:38).
Thereafter, Menelaus and his brother Lysimachus led a fight against some of the Jews who opposed them.
This was not a Seleucid persecution. It was partisan Jewish in-fighting, and Antiochus executed his own
official for his part in the affair. Thus neither the 2300 days nor the 1150 days fits Antiochus' desecration of
the temple or his persecution of the Jews as some of the more candid critical commentators readily
acknowledge.
The other way to look at the relationship of this time period to Antiochus is by taking the historicist
interpretation into account. That school of prophetic interpretation utilizes the day-for-a-year principle for
time periods found in apocalyptic contexts. If this position (see chap. 3) is correct, it means that we are
dealing with a period of 2300 years, not 2300 literal days. Regardless of where one begins in the B.C. era, it
is obvious that they must extend far beyond the narrow chronological confines of Antiochus' one-decade
reign in the second century B.C.
The End. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8, he introduced his explanation
with the statement, Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end (8:17). At the
beginning of his actual explanation Gabriel again emphasized this point by stating, Behold, I will make
known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the
end (8:19). The phrases, the time of the end and the appointed time of the end, are also essential for a
correct identity of the little horn.
Since the third and final section of the vision is concerned mainly with the little horn and its activities, it
seems reasonable to conclude that the horn relates most directly to the time of the end. The end of the
little horn, therefore, should coincide in one way or another with the time of the end.
At a bare chronological minimum Daniel's time prophecies (Dan 9:24-27) had to extend to the time of the
Messiah in the first century AD. The time of the end could only arrive some time after the fulfillment of
that prophecy. Therefore, there is no way for Antiochus death in 164/3 B.C. to be made to coincide with
the time of the end when the little horn was to come to its end.
Nature of the end of the little horn. According to the prophecy, the little horn was to come to its end in a
particular way, But, by no human hand, he shall be broken (8:25). This phraseology sounds somewhat
similar to the description of the fate for the king of the north in Daniel 11:45 he shall come to his end,
with none to help him. The end to the little horn in Daniel 7 was to come about by a decision of God in the
heavenly court. In Daniel 2 the image was brought to an end by a stone that smote the image on its feet, and
that stone was cut out without the assistance of any human hand (Dan 2:45). The conclusions to the
prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 are all to be brought about by God's direct intervention in human
history. Given the nature of the statement in 8:25 (and its parallels in the other prophecies of Daniel), it is
difficult to see how Antiochus IV could fulfill this particular specification. As far as is known (compare 1
Macc 6:8-17), he died of natural causes not in battle nor from extraordinary circumstances during the
course of his eastern campaign in 164/3 B.C.25
The assumed SDA expert appears to misunderstand some fundamental prophetic texts
and to misconstrue them from a pseudo-historicist perspective. This is the case, for instance, with
the little horns time of origin. Shea states that the little horn in Daniel 8 was to come up at the
latter end of their rule (8:23), and claims that because Antiochus IV was the eighth in [the
Seleucid] line, the king did not arise at the latter end of their rule. The same KJV translation
that Shea prefers has for the same verse the rendition in the latter time of their kingdom, and
this might well mean that the prophetic vision designated in these verses the entire historical
Greek time period. In this case, Antiochus IV Epiphanes came indeed towards the end of the
Greek domination and met this prophetic time requirement.
While the SDA historicist claim that neither the 2300 days nor the 1150 days fits
Antiochus desecration of the temple or his persecution of the Jews, might be true, the
alternative Shea offers, that the 2300 days should be interpreted as 2300 years, is even worse
because it returns us to Millers Second Coming prediction fiasco and draws us into the fictional
and untested SDA narrative that includes the claim that Jesus was locked for 1800 years in the
first apartment of a wood and cloth celestial temple where he force-performed the ceremonial
work of an Aaronic priest and then he escaped from that first celestial prison into a second
apartment of that same temple in 1844 so that he could perform again an Aaronic high priest
function. While Shea sees the time of the end in Daniel 8:17 as the Second Coming in the
Millerite tradition, other non-SDA theologians appear to make more sense with the notion that
the time of the end could better mean the end of the prophetic time in Daniel 8, rather than the
absolute and ultimate end of the world.
The Inspired KJV Translation
The SDA historicist theologians place an enormous and undeserved weight on the archaic
King James Version [further, KJV] English translation of the Bible because it validates their odd
interpretation for Daniels prophetic messages. Much theological commotion is made about the
obsolete and almost never used English language expression that in Daniel 8 Rome waxed
exceeding great [emphasis added] while the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not
have the good fortune to do so. In fact, two main points in the QOD arguments are drawn from
this defective and imprecise KJV translation. State the QOD theologians:
b. Antiochus did not wax exceeding great [emphasis added] (verse 9) in comparison with the GrecoMacedonian empire of Alexander (verse 8). Antiochus was not even the most powerful king of the Seleucid
division of Alexander's empire.
c. Antiochus hardly grew exceeding great [emphasis added] through conquest (verse 9). His push to the
south into Egypt was stopped by the mere word of a Roman officer; his expedition to the east resulted in
his death; and his dominion of the pleasant land of Palestine did not last, for his persecution of the Jews
drove them to resistance that later resulted in their independence.26
This extreme confidence in a Bible translation denotes more than simple incompetence in
language matters. It indicates an indoctrinated and rigid mindset that clings to theological straws
in order to get from the biblical text what it wants. The total number of English Bible translations
is hard to count. Most Internet sites make available about 40 Bible texts to their readers, and
even for those who are not experts in Biblical Hebrew a simple comparison between those
translations is much better than Sheas exclusive use of an archaic and defective text. Such
simple and effortless text comparisons would reveal that the SDA historicists progression from
the comparative to the superlative27 among the prophetic beasts in Daniel 8 has no basis in the
biblical Hebrew text and needs to be relegated to the trash bin.
Little Horn Larger Than He-Goat

Based on the outdated KJV translation of Daniel 8:9 that renders the Hebrew text to mean
that the little horn waxed exceeding great, some SDA theologians such as Prbstle have
proposed a size and power struggle between the two beasts and other prophetic entities in Daniel
Chapter 8, and have claimed that the growth and self-magnification of the [little] horn is much
greater than that of the previous powers.28 Gane, the Andrews theologian, agrees:
In Daniel 8, the Medo-Persian ram magnified himself (verse 4), Alexanders Greek goat magnified
himself exceedingly (verse 8), and the little horn grew exceedingly great (verse 9). Antiochus never
achieved a greatness comparable to that of Alexander the great or even Media-Persia.29
Shea is also in full agreement with Gane. The biblical texts he mentions to support his
similar position are based on the unproven claim that this is a progression from the comparative
to the superlative, and the cited texts are almost identical. He states:
Comparative greatness of the little horn. The Persian ram magnified himself (8:4); the Grecian goat
magnified himself exceedingly (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself exceedingly in different
directions. On the horizontal level it grew exceedingly great toward the south, east, and glorious land. On
the vertical plane it grew great ... to the host of heaven, and ultimately magnified itself ... up to the
Prince of the host (8:9-11).
first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative. Translating this
into historical terms means that Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in
greatness. Obviously, this was not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but
little success.30
One wonders what English translations have the two SDA theologians used to support
their fictive claims. An examination of the KJV Bible provides a partial answer to the question
when one compares the biblical texts Gane and Shea have quoted with KJV texts that are
supposed to match the quotes. The claim is that in Daniel 8:4 the Medo-Persian ram magnified
himself, that in verse 8 Alexanders Greek goat magnified himself exceedingly, and that in
verse 9 the little horn grew exceedingly great. The KJV version texts, though, fail to match
the texts Gane and Shea mention:
KJV4
I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before
him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became
great [emphasis added].
KJV8
Therefore the he goat waxed very great [emphasis added]: and when he was strong, the great horn was
broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
KJV9
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great [emphasis added],
The unsuccessful match with the KJV texts could suggest that Gane and Shea might have
used an obscure English translation, the Hebrew Names Version (HNV), in order to support their
position on the issue:
HNV4
I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; and no animals could stand before
him, neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and
magnified himself [emphasis added].
HNV8
The male goat magnified himself exceedingly [emphasis added]: and when he was strong, the great
horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable [horns] toward the four winds of the sky.
HNV9
Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceeding great [emphasis added], toward
the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious [land].
Even the biblical texts from this HNV translation fail to match the quoted texts from the
two theologians, and therefore we must conclude that the two scholars must have picked and
chosen texts from various Bible versions, or have produced their homespun Hebrew-English
translations in order fabricate the evidence that would allow them to argue their speculative
positions because even the original Hebrew texts fail to match their original renditions.
The question again left out in this pseudo-historicist hodge-podge is whether or not the
little horn has grown larger than the two beasts in Daniel 8, the ram, and the he-goat, and
how large he could have grown in order to demonstrate the assumed progression from the
comparative to the superlative. If the little horn is Rome, as the SDA historicist theologians
have claimed, how and when has the papal Rome grown greater and in excess than the two
previous historical empires the great Medo-Persia, and the immense Grecian empire under
Alexander? It seems obvious that a response that attempts to maintain the above claims cannot
be based on factual evidence from historical records, but on fictional pseudo-historical data, and
therefore the Roman position must be abandoned as baseless and without scientific merit.
VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome

The SDA historicist theologians have claimed that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fails to meet
the prophetic criteria for the little horn in Daniel 8, and have argued, instead, that the little horn
represents Rome in its pagan and papal phases.1 Hewitt summarizes the main arguments that
support this indefensible SDA historicist perspective as follows:
According to the Roman opinion, the power described by the little horn which waxed exceedingly great
is none other than the mighty Roman Empire. The advocates of this hypothesis claim that this power is the
only one which properly fulfills all the requirements of the prophecy [emphasis added]. With
commendable earnestness and no little skill they build up an impressive argument for the view.
1. In the other visions of Daniel, the power which succeeds Grecia as the fourth great empire is Rome. So
in this vision, the little horn which succeeds Grecia and becomes exceeding great must also be Rome.
2. This horn waxed great toward the east, and toward the south, and toward the pleasant land. This is
precisely the direction in which the conquests of Rome proceeded. She overran Macedonia, Greece, Asia
Minor and Syria to the east; she conquered Egypt on the south, and she planted her eagles in the pleasant
land of Palestine.
3. This horn waxed great even to the host of heaven and cast down some of the stars. By the host of
heaven most expositors agree we are to understand the Jewish people, as the nation elect or favored of
heaven. The stars would therefore represent the leaders of that nation. 12 Rome fulfilled these figures by
warring against the Jewish people, slaying many of their leaders, and terminating Jewish national existence.
4. This very little horn magnified himself against the prince of the host (v.11), even the Prince of
princes (v.25). This latter figure, it is argued, naturally suggests Jesus the Christ, who is King of kings
and Lord of lords. The earthly power that magnified itself against Jesus was none other than Rome,
which, in the person of Pontius Pilate, the representative in Judea of the Roman government, ordered the
crucifixion.
5. By this little horn the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down
(v. 11).
It is pointed out by some that on the simplest and most natural meaning of these words, they refer to the
daily sacrifices of the Jews and to the sanctuary of Jehovah in Jerusalem, and that Rome did forever take
away the smoking sacrifices on the altars of Jehovah and did cast down His sanctuary, when the soldiers of
Titus destroyed the temple in 70 A.D.13 A point in favor of this interpretation is the fact that it brings this
prophecy into line with a similar prediction recorded in the vision of the next chapter (9:26, 27) and which
the overwhelming majority of conservative expositors believe refers to events which culminated in the
destruction of Jerusalem.2
Smiths Broken Historicist Claims

Extreme overconfidence seems to be Smiths personal trademark, and the SDA pioneer
and popular theologian never fails to express it as often as possible. After he has dismissed
Antiochus IV Epiphanes without the proper and adequate research because in his perspective, the
Seleucid king does not fulfill the [prophetic] specifications in one single particular, Smith
states that it has been an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus and
therefore, it will be just as easy to show that it does denote Rome. He then moves to argue his
position with a series of vacuous pseudo-historicist arguments:
1. The field of vision here is substantially the same as that covered by Nebuchadnezzars image of chapter
2, and Daniels vision of chapter 7. And in both these prophetic delineations we have found that the power
which succeeded Grecia as the fourth great power, was Rome. The only natural inference would be that
the little horn, the power which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an exceeding great power, is also
Rome [emphasis added].
2. The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of
Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till
they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the
people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C. 161. 1 Maccabees 8: Josephuss Antiquities,
book 12, chap 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, Vol. II, p. 166. But seven years before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome
had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into
prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests
in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this
prophecy as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat [emphasis added].
3. The little horn waxed great toward the south. This was true of Rome. Egypt was made a province of the
Roman empire B.C. 30, and continued such for some centuries.
4. The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of Rome. Rome conquered Syria B.C. 65,
and made it a province.
5. The little horn waxed great toward the pleasant land. So did Rome. Judea is called the pleasant land in
many scriptures. The Romans made it a province of their empire, B.C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city
and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth.
6. The little horn waxed great even to the host of heaven. Rome did this also. The host of heaven, when
used in a symbolic sense in reference to events transpiring upon the earth, must denote persons of
illustrious character or exalted position. The great red dragon (Rev. 12:4) is said to have cast down a third
part of the stars of heaven to the ground. The dragon is there interpreted to symbolize pagan Rome, and the
stars it cast to the ground were Jewish rulers. Evidently it is the same power and the same work that is here
brought to view, which again makes it necessary to apply this growing horn to Rome.
7. The little horn magnified himself even to the Prince of the host. Rome alone did this. In the interpretation
(verse 25) this is called standing up against the Prince of princes. How clear an allusion to the crucifixion
of our Lord under the jurisdiction of the Romans.
8. By the little horn the daily sacrifice was taken away. This little horn must be understood to symbolize
Rome in its entire history, including its two phases, pagan and papal. These two phases are elsewhere
spoken of as the daily (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the transgression of desolation; the daily
(desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal [emphasis
added]. (See on verse 13.) In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of,
sometimes the other. By him (the papal form) the daily (the pagan form) was taken away
[emphasis added]. Pagan Rome was remodeled into papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or
worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of government was removed by Constantine in A.A.
330 to Constantinople. This same transaction is brought to view in Rev. 13:2, where it is said that the
dragon, pagan Rome, gave to the beast, papal Rome, his seat, the city of Rome.
9. A host was given him (the little horn) against the daily. The barbarians that subverted the Roman empire
in the changes, attritions, and transformations of those times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the
instruments of the dethronement of their former religion. Though conquering Rome politically, they were
themselves vanquished religiously by the theology of Rome, and became the perpetuators of the same
empire in another phase. And this was brought about by reason of transgression; that is, by the working
of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy is the most cunningly contrived, false ecclesiastical system ever
devised; and it may be called a system of iniquity because it has committed its abominations and
practiced its orgies of superstition in the garb, and under the pretense, of pure and undefiled religion
[emphasis added].
10. The little horn cast the truth to the ground, and practiced and prospered. This describes, in few words,
the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured; it is loaded with traditions;
it is turned into mummery and superstition; it is cast down and obscured [emphasis added].
And this antichristian power has practiced practiced its deceptions upon the people, practiced its
schemes of cunning to carry out its own ends and aggrandize its own power.
And it has prospered. It has made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. It has run its allotted
career, and is soon to be broken without hand, to be given to the burning flame, and to perish in the
consuming glories of the second appearing of our Lord.
Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and
no other, is the power in question. And while the descriptions given in the word of God of the
character of this monstrous system are fully met, the prophecies of its baleful history have been most
strikingly and accurately fulfilled [emphasis added].3
Hewitts Unarguable Refutation

Hewitt realizes Smiths utter confusion, and reacts to the SDA pioneers baseless
contention that the little horn came from Macedonia because Rome had invaded and conquered
the Greek kingdom in 168 B.C. with understandable amusement:
The Roman view can be maintained historically only with the greatest difficulty. The little horn came forth
from one of the four horns of the he-goat, or in other words, out of one of the four kingdoms into which
Alexanders empire was divided. Now it is certain that Italy was never a part of the Alexandrian domain.
Rome did not rise out of one of these Grecian kingdoms, but far to the west, entirely outside the boundaries
of the Greek dominion, and from this position threw herself in turn upon the four kingdoms, devouring
them one after another.
it, the invader becomes identified with its conquered foe to such an extent that it may properly be spoken of
conquered and occupied Japan! [emphasis added] 4
The ACC scholar also perceives that Smith, the SDA unexceptional theologian, proposes
an unusual interpretation that seems to make no sense at all, is a dreadful example of everything
that exegesis ought not to be, and needs to be denounced as absurd and outrageous. States
Hewitt:
Some who make a great deal of this chapter [Daniel 8] suggest a variation of this interpretation. It will be
best to let an advocate of the view state it in his own words:
We understand that the little horn symbolized Rome in its entire history, including the two phases of
pagan and papal. The two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the daily (sacrifice is a supplied word) and
the transgression of desolation; the daily (desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of
desolation, the papal. In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of, sometimes the
other. By him (the papal form) the daily (the pagan form) was taken away. Pagan Rome gave place to
papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of
government was removed to Constantinople.14
This paragraph has been quoted, it must be confessed, principally as an example of everything that
exegesis ought not to be. The extreme artificiality and ineptitude of this suggestion become apparent
the moment we endeavor to substitute the meanings suggested for these symbols in the place of the
symbols themselves in the text [emphasis added]. The result is something like this:
Yes, Rome in both the pagan and the papal forms magnified itself even to the Prince of the host, and
by Rome in the papal form Rome in the pagan form was taken away and the city of Rome was cast
down when the capital was removed from Rome to Constantinople. And an host was given to Rome
against the pagan form thereof by reason of the papal form, and Rome cast down the truth to the
ground, and Rome practised and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said
unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the pagan form, to give
both the city of Rome and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, unto two
thousand and three hundred days; then shall the city of Rome be cleansed [emphasis added].5
Such an outrageous speculative interpretation is not a sound exposition of the biblical

text, or even common sense, but rather a terrible distortion of the prophetic message in Daniel
Chapter 8, and Hewitt must warn his readers about such a falsification of Gods word:
Who can think that this is either sound exposition or good common sense [emphasis added]? It would
seem ruled out not alone by its fanciful nature but also by certain plain requirements of the text. For
example, the transgression of desolation is clearly the result of the taking away of the daily sacrifice, and
not the cause of it, as Elder Smith contends that it was. A transgression is not a transgressor; it is either
the act of a transgressor, or the result of his action. Legitimate exposition will not thus identify cause
and effect [emphasis added]. And again, one of the most natural understanding of the passage, the
sanctuary is not the place of the little horns worship but of that of the prince of the host. It is the
princes sanctuary that is defiled, not the horns; the horn does the defiling, and it is this act of casting
down the princes sanctuary that climaxes the horns impious magnifying of himself against that one. If
Smith is serious in suggesting that the sanctuary was cast down when the seat of Roman government was
removed to Constantinople, then, by parity of reasoning, he ought to hold that its cleansing should be
accomplished by a reverse movement back to Rome! But of course nothing like this has ever occurred in
history, or conceivably will occur [emphasis added]. We are persuaded, also, that Smith would evade the
logic of this suggestion on other grounds! All in all, we cannot resist the conclusion that his treatment
of the Roman theory is an effective reduction ad absurdum of that position [emphasis added].6
Millers Reckless Number Game

The ACC theologian has noticed that the SDA Church bases its entire, distinctive
system of prophetical interpretation upon its understanding of Daniel 8 particularly of the feature
of the sanctuary and its cleansing7 and that the SDA historicists must hold on to their
interpretation at all costs in order to save face after the Millerite Second Coming prediction
failure. He also deplores the disastrous consequences and human tragedies that had followed
Millers reckless Second Coming number game for which the super confident and super
enthusiastic but deluded popular theologian was never held accountable. States Hewitt:
Most attempts to fix a date for the end of the world have stemmed from the time period of 2,300 days found
herein [in Daniel 8]. There have been many such attempts, but the most conspicuous is that of William
Miller in this country about a century ago. According to Miller, the 2,300 year-days are to be reckoned
from the beginning of the Seventy Weeks of the following chapter. And since he thought that the Seventy
Weeks (or 490 year-days) began in 457 B.C., then the 2,300 year-days must also have begun at that date
and would run out in 1843 A.D. That year, Mr. Miller believed, would witness the cleansing of the
sanctuary, which he understood would be accomplished by the second coming of Christ. 1
Many other students of the prophetic Word have believed that the grand clue to the understanding of
chronological prophecy is to be found in this chapter. This clue is the theory that the Seventy Weeks, or
490 year-days, of chapter 9 are the first segment of the 2,300 year-days of chapter 8. William C. Davis in
this country and Archibald Mason of Scotland appear to be responsible for first discovering this clue
shortly after the year 1800.2 The writings of both these men were greatly admired among the Millerites
and were responsible for their fixing upon the 1843 date. The importance which was attached to this
clue may be judged from the following extravagant estimate of Mr. Froom [emphasis added], when he
says: It was this grand clue of the seventy weeks as the first segment of the 2,300 years; cut off for the
Jews and climaxing with the Messiah that burst simultaneously upon the minds of men in Europe and
America, and even in Asia and Africa. This was the great advance truth that led to the emphasis upon the
2,300 years from 457 B.C. to A.D. 1843 or 1844 which we have surveyed. 3
In fact, among popular writers on prophecy (as distinguished from more sober, scholarly expositors)
[emphasis added] the 2,300-day period became the focal point of discussion in both Europe and America
in the early decades of the nineteenth century, and great importance was attached to the debate as to
whether the right number was 2,300 (Cunningham and others) or 2,400 (Frere and his supporters), the latter
being based on the reading of certain manuscripts of the Septuagint version of Daniel. 4 The majority held
for the former, and indeed they had the better of the argument, for the best textual authority was clearly on
their side. The fact that many good and earnest men, some of them men of ability and sound learning,
were so preoccupied with the vision which we are now to consider, and the further fact that their
interpretation led to such misunderstandings and disappointments, not only testifies to the
importance of the subject but also lays upon the present-day interpreter a heavy responsibility to
reach more sound and reliable conclusions [emphasis added].8
Prbstles Revised Historical Data

That the SDA pseudo-historicist arguments that endorse and promote Rome as the little
horn in Daniel 8 depend on fabricated and fictitious historical events is even more obvious from
the most recent attempts to argue Antiochus IV Epiphanes out of Daniel 8 and replace the true
historical evidence with absolute religionist nonsense. The SDA theologian who has performed
this remarkable stunt is Prbstle, who packs in a recent book9 the dogmatic SDA claims that
support the Roman perspective and collates these fabrications into a pseudo-linguistic and
pseudo-exegetical section entitled The Little Horns Attack on Holiness.10 His arguments
reveal that while true historicists depend on verifiable historical records and true historical facts
in order to demonstrate real and actual prophetic fulfillments, the SDA pseudo-historicists revise
and rewrite historical data in order to defend their speculative theological positions. Prbstles
evidence for Rome as the little horn in Daniel 8 is as follows:
As in Daniel 7, the horn power basically attacks God [emphasis added], His people, and His sanctuary
(Dan. 8:9-14). The horn power first grows horizontally, enlarging its territory of influence upon the earth
(verse 9), then vertically against the host of heaven (verse 10), and finally it exalts itself up to the prince
of the host (verse 11, KJV).
The host of heaven and the stars symbolize the people of God (Gen. 37:9; Num. 24:17; cf. also the
simile in Dan. 12:3). Some of them get trampled by the horn, which resembles the terrorizing of the saints
in Daniel 7:21, 25.
The prince of the host must be a divine person. In Joshua 5:13-15, the only other place in which a
heavenly prince of the host appears, He is the supreme commander of the host of Yahweh and is
distinctly marked as divine as Yahweh. Joshua, who was standing on holy ground in His presence,
bowed down to Him and listened to His, Yahwehs, words (Joshua 6:2-5). Thus we should identify the
prince of the host in Daniel 8:11 as the divine-like commander Michael, the chief of the angels. It is
nobody else than Christ, the Son of man, who is distinct from the Most High. 5
We see the divinity of the prince of the host underlined by the fact that a sanctuary (Hebrew
miqdash) belongs to Him (Dan. 8:11). The term miqdash often indicates an earthly temple, but it can
also refer to a heavenly sanctuary, as it does here [emphasis added].6 Throwing down the place
(foundation) of His sanctuary (verse 11) is parallel to throwing down the truth (verse 12). Obviously, the
horn attacks the fundamental truths the heavenly sanctuary is built upon [emphasis added].
The horn took away the daily (Hebrew tamid) from the prince of the host (verse 11, KJV). What does the
word tamid mean? It is a cultic expression.7 In the Torah tamid designates the regularity (with intervals) or
continuity (without interruption) of activities, events, or state or affairs and, as such, describes the regular
activities of the daily service at the sanctuary.8 A priest (often the high priest) performs such activities in
the presence of Yahweh, and they thus form part of the continual worship service of Yahweh. 9
In addition to the regular sanctuary service, the tamid also refers to the true worship by the people of God.
We find two reasons for this. First, Daniel 6:16, 20 uses the Aramaic equivalent for tamid in connection
with Daniels constant worship. Thematically, Daniel 6 is about the struggle for the tamid of an individual,
the prophets continual worship, whereas Daniel 8 is about the struggle for the universal tamid, the
continual worship by Gods people. Second, in Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 the tamid is replaced by
false worship (abomination of desolation), indicating that it is the true worship. In short, the tamid in
Daniel 8 designates (a) the continual service of the Prince of the host as high priest, and (b) the continual
worship directed toward the Prince of the host by believers.
Daniel 8:11, 12 then describes how the horn interferes with the worship of the divine Prince of the host,
the true priest. The horn acts as another prince of the host and commands its own counterfeit
host, which the horn sets up against the tamid (verse 12) [emphasis added]. In a warfare context, the
word host refers to an army, but in a sanctuary framework it indicates a priestly host. Because the
counterfeit host goes against the regular worship service, it could point to a counterfeit priestly host. Verse
12, with the repetition of the hook words tamid and throw down, functions as an explanation of the two
activities of verse 11.
Of course, the horn cannot interfere in Christs continual priestly mediation in the heavenly
sanctuary (Heb. 7:25; 8:1, 2) Who could do that anyway? Christs priestly ministry itself remains
unaffected and untouched. However, the horn power usurps the responsibilities of the heavenly
priest and interrupts the continual worship of God on earth. It substitutes the true worship of God
with a false, sacrilegious worship. Historically, the taking away of the daily by the horn
represents the introduction of such papal innovations as a mediating priesthood, the sacrifice of the
Mass, the confessional, and the worship of Mary, by which it has successfully taken away knowledge
of, and reliance upon, the continual ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and rendered that
ministry inoperative in the lives of millions of professed Christians [emphasis added].10
The horn wages a religious war against the divine heavenly Prince, His sanctuary, and His people. It
becomes an earthly instrument of Satan, as indicated by the phrase that the horn power is mighty, but not
by his own power (Dan. 8:24). Its activities are indicative of a cosmic war fought on two levels, the
earthly and the heavenly.11
Fictitious Spins and Gremlin Tales

Such a misconstruction of the little horns prophetic narrative in Daniel 8 is nothing less
than a Kabbalistic falsification of the Bible that shows a consistent effort to distort the biblical
text and mutilate the truth. All means are used to divert the SDA readers from a genuine biblical
interpretation supported with solid historical evidence and to provide instead anecdotal and
fraudulent theological narratives that would protect face-saving historicist dogmas a cherished
and honored practice in the SDA Church. Prbstle needs to use revision, distortion, and
falsehood in order to support his dogmatic and spurious arguments because no factual evidence
could be invoked for his Kabbalistic misrepresentations.
These SDA pseudo-historicist inventions and Kabbalistic distortions look like desperate
gibberish when compared with Hewitts intelligent and biblical interpretation of Daniel 8. True
to the historicist precepts that interpretive results [should] be confirmed from extrabiblical
sources where possible,12 and that the events, institutions, movements, and periods proposed
and claimed as evidence for historical fulfillment must be specific and identifiable historical
events,13 and should therefore reveal information about real, in-history events,14 rather than
disseminate speculative or fabricated rumors and anecdotes, the expert scholar establishes his
interpretation on factual and positive historical data as true and genuine historicists should do.
VII. Hard Arguments against Rome

Authentic and Factual Historicism
There is a good, scientific, and reliable case to be made against Rome as the little horn in
Daniel 8, and Hewitt supports his historical and well-documented position with six compelling
reasons which may prompt the careful student to place a question mark against the Roman
view. States the Advent Christian Church [ACC] theologian:
It would be manifestly unfair to charge the extravagancies of Smith upon the Roman view as a whole.
There is much to be said for it, and many careful students have championed it (e.g., Sir Isaac Newton,
Bishop Newton, Joseph Wolff, Cuninghame, Irving, Birks, and others). It is undeniable, for example, that
the five arguments given above make out a good case for Romes filling the picture of this little horn as she
does the other one in Daniel 7. But on the other hand, the position labors under many difficulties which
should not be overlooked [emphasis added].
1. This interpretation identifies the two little horns. In Chapter Four the readers attention was called to
no less than nine points of distinction between these horns, which forbid such an identification
[emphasis added].
2. This view maintains that the fourth empire of the preceding visions appears in this chapter as a
very little horn growing up out of a larger notable horn on the head of a beast symbolizing the
third word empire. Such a type of representation is neither appropriate nor consistent. It imports
confusion into the symbolic pattern of those visions [emphasis added].
One searching critic of the theory has well said:
The first objection that may be urged against it, is the improbability that the same Power which in the
former vision was represented under the symbol of a great and terrible beast, should now be
described under that of only a little horn [emphasis added]. In prophetic imagery there is, to the full, as
exact a discrimination of ideas as in ordinary language; otherwisethere could be no definiteness and
precision in any of the symbolical predictions. Accordingly we shall find that a Universal Empire is never
symbolized by a Horn, but always by a Beast [emphasis added].15
3. The Roman view can be maintained historically only with the greatest difficulty [emphasis added].
The little horn came forth from one of the four horns of the he-goat, or in other words, out of one of the
four kingdoms into which Alexanders empire was divided. Now it is certain that Italy was never a part of
the Alexandrian domain. Rome did not rise out of one of these Grecian kingdoms, but far to the west,
entirely outside the boundaries of the Greek dominion, and from this position threw herself in turn upon the
four kingdoms, devouring them one after another.
it, the invader becomes identified with its conquered for to such an extent that it may properly be spoken of
conquered and occupied Japan! [emphasis added].
4. The conquests of Rome were by no means limited to the directions in which the exploits of the little
horn were confined. Rome not only advanced her sway to the south, and the east, and the pleasant
land, but to the north and the west, and even beyond the Pillars of Hercules [emphasis added]. The
terms of the prediction mark the little horn power as Asiatic; Rome was principally a European power.
5. Those who hold the Roman theory face another problem in their view of the sanctuary. They have
usually believed that the sanctuary will be cleansed at or near the second coming of Christ. Some have held
that it is the earth, and that the cleansing referred to is the renewal of the earth after the judgment. Others
have held that by the sanctuary we are to understand the Christian Church, which will be cleansed of papal
and other abominations at the judgment. Yet when advocates of these hypotheses allude to the casting
down or defiling of the sanctuary they speak of the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In
other words, according to this theory, the sanctuary to be cleansed is not the same sanctuary that was
defiled! Careful students will ask, How can this be? [emphasis added].
6. This seems rather astonishing, to be sure. Yet it is a minor inconsistency compared with the difficulty
created by the 2,300 days. According to the Roman view, these are to be understood on the year-day
principle as so many years. Even a cursory examination reveals that these 2,300 days mark the period of
time during which the sanctuary was to be cast down or defiled. (Compare v. 11 with v.14) Here is a fact
which advocates of this theory seem completely to have overlooked. Before the event proved them wrong,
it was the fashion with such expositors to end the period in 1843, or thereabouts, at which time they
speculated the Lord might come, and to begin it 2,300 years earlier, or in 457 B.C. 17
It did not occur to them, apparently, to ask themselves, What sanctuary was cast down or defiled in 457
B.C. [emphasis added]? That is the year in which Artaxerxes Longimanus, emperor of Persia, issued his
famous decree for the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem. If this edict had any direct bearing on the
temple and temple worship, its effect must have been favorable rather than otherwise. As defined, then, by
the terms of the vision in Daniel 8, there seems to have been no acceptable terminus a quo for this great
chronological period at the time suggested. Furthermore, can advocates of the Roman theory find any
sanctuary that, on any fair understanding of the words, has lain waste and desolate for 2,300 years
[emphasis added]? Neither 70 A.D., when a sanctuary of God was cast down that has never yet been
restored, nor 395 A.D., when according to Uriah Smith, the sanctuary was defiled by the seat of
government being moved from Rome to Constantinople, yields a terminus a quo that is at all satisfactory to
these interpreters.1
VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus

SDA Historicist Credits Antiochus
There is no doubt that all true and factual historical evidence supports the position that
the little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Even the most dogmatic SDA theologians
acknowledge that at least some partial credit is due to the notorious Seleucid king. Shea makes
this matter obvious in a document that defines where he stands on the issue explicit and
unequivocal against Antiochus and all for Rome.1 Still, for the sake of balance in his
apologetic debate, the inflexible SDA historicist includes in his document the opposed
viewpoint, or arguments in favor of Antiochus IV Epiphanies and the Little Horn certain
unassailable historical records and unquestionable events that establish with undeniable realism
that the little horn in Daniel 8 is the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. States Shea:
Since Antiochus IV is commonly identified with the little horn of Daniel 8, arguments favoring this
identification will be considered first.
Arguments in Favor of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Little Horn
Antiochus was a Seleucid king. As one of this dynasty of kings, he could have proceeded from one of the
four horns referred to in Daniel 8:8 [emphasis added] provided that was the little horn's origin.
Antiochus succession was irregular. If the phrase, but not with his power [welo bekoho], at the
beginning of Daniel 8:24 is original with the MT (the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT) and not a
dittography or scribal repetition from the end of verse 22, it would suggest that, historically speaking, the
little horn came to power through an irregular succession.
A son of Seleucus IV Philopator should have succeeded to the rule after his father's assassination by the
courtier Heliodorus. However, the king's brother, Antiochus IV came to the throne instead, aided by the
armies of Pergamos. It is possible to apply the phrase but not by his own power to this course of events.
Antiochus persecuted the Jews.
Antiochus polluted the Jerusalem temple and disrupted its services. However, it remains to be seen
whether in fact he did all the things against the temple that Daniel 8 says the little horn did.
There are, therefore, two reasonably straightforward arguments in favor of identifying the little horn
as Antiochus IV: his irregular succession and his persecution of the Jews. There are two other
arguments which may possibly support that identification, but they must be qualified to some extent.
These have to do with his origin and his desecration of the temple [emphasis added]. The question here
is whether these four points, two reasonably straightforward and two qualified, provide a sound basis for
making this identification.2
True and Solid Historical Evidence

The SDA historicist adds to his document even more genuine historical evidence that
confirms Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn, although the theologian misinterprets and
distorts the historical facts to argue against the Seleucid king, rather than support him. Still, the
actual historical information Shea provides is relevant to this discussion and is included here not
as evidence that the SDA theologian supports the Antiochus perspective, but as truthful and
indisputable historical evidence that will help the readers conclude that, indeed, the vicious
Seleucid king is the little horn in Daniel 8, and that Rome fails to meet the prophetic criteria:
Activities of the little horn:

Conquests. The horn grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious
land.
To the south. Antiochus III was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when
he defeated the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern
frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta
in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria to undertake its siege, but was turned
back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success
in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow exceedingly great toward the south.
To the east. Antiochus III subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him
to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after
the Romans defeated him at Magnesia.
Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory during the eastern campaign he conducted in the
last two years of his reign. After some initial diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and Media,
however, he found himself unable to make further headway against the Parthians. He died during the
course of his campaign against the latter, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C.
While Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as
Antiochus III; and this project was left incomplete at the point of his death. It is open to question, therefore,
as to what extent these partial and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning
the little horn as growing exceedingly great toward the east.
To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated
the temple and persecuted the Jews [emphasis added]. This did not occur because of any conquest of his
own, but because Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C.
He could not have grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land, Judea presumably, in any sense of
conquest or acquiring control of it by military action. He could have [grown] exceedingly only in the
sense of exercising or abusing his control over it, since it was already part of his kingdom when he
came to the throne [emphasis added].
Although Antiochus IV was not the conquerer of Palestine, the defeats his forces suffered there toward the
end of his reign started the course of events that eventually led to the complete independence of Judea from
the Seleucids. While he himself was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces suffered defeats at
Emmaus (1 Mace 3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Mace 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews
liberated the polluted temple from Seleucid hands and rededicated it (1 Mace 5:52). Antiochus died in the
east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Macc 6:15).
Summary. Antiochus IV never captured Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, but he enjoyed military successes
in Lower Egypt during his campaigns from 169 to 167 B.C. However, he had to forsake these briefly held,
ill-gotten gains, due to diplomatic pressure from the Romans. Only the first part of his campaign toward the
east was successful. He died before he had carried out his plans for that region to consolidate his control
over it.
Although he bore down harder on the Jews than had his predecessors, he was not the one who brought
Judea into the Seleucid Empire, since it was already part of that dominion when he came to the throne. The
three defeats his forces suffered there shortly before he died signaled developments that ultimately led to
Judea's independence. The net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres
was rather negligible and even negative in some cases. Thus he does not fit very well the specification of
this prophecy which states that the little horn was to grow exceedingly great toward the south, toward the
east, and toward the glorious land.
Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the daily or continual.
It holds true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the
temple, or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices [emphasis added].3
Not Confused With Genuine Facts

From Sheas pseudo-historicist perspective, whether or not Antiochus IV Epiphanes
meets the prophetic criteria in Daniel 8 seems to be less a matter of true historical record than an
interpretation issue open to question. Between verifiable factual evidence and some
speculative SDA exegesis, the theologian never hesitates to accept deduction over induction
and personal theological opinion over confirmed historical evidence. For instance, although Shea
never questions the true and indisputable fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was successful in
conquering most of the [Egyptian] Delta in 169 B.C. when the Seleucid king attempted to
extend his southern frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C., he diminishes the
events relevance and disputes its true historical value when he contends that it is doubtful that
he really did grow exceeding great toward the south. Sheas preferred English translation
seems to be the KJV because no modern English Bible renders the Old Testament original
Hebrew text as exceeding great or excessively great. When pagan Rome, even at its utmost
height, extended its territories or political power in excess or too much is a matter that has
never received a logical and rational explanation from the SDA historicists.
Shea has similar comments for the Seleucid kings conquests to the east. Again, while
Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area
as Antiochus III, and therefore it is open to question, therefore, as to what extent these partial
and incomplete military successes match the prophetic prediction concerning the little horn as
growing exceedingly great toward the east. The question which the theologian mentions
must mean interpretation because in the final instance what will prevail in his argument are not
the historical facts but the SDA pseudo-historicist interpretation that denies the evidence and
excludes Antiochus IV Epiphanes from Daniel 8 for dogmatic reasons. Shea offers identical
protests for the idea that the Seleucid king might have met the prophetic criteria in his conquest
of the glorious land, but accepts the notion that while Antiochus could not have grown
exceedingly great toward the glorious land, Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest or
acquiring control of it by military action, the notorious and vicious Seleucid king could have
[grown] exceedingly only in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over it, since it was
already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.
Compelled to Admit the Evidence
Unquestionable historical evidence compels the SDA theologian to acknowledge that in
matters of anti-temple activities the facts cannot be ignored, negated, or dismissed, and
therefore it is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the daily; or continual. It holds
true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the
temple, or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices.4 Sheas
admission feels like a breath of fresh air when one compares it with the slanted and distorted
interpretation Prbstle suggests for the same plain historical event in order to propagandize
Rome as the little horn:
the true priest. The horn acts as another prince of the host and commands its own counterfeit host,
which the horn sets up against the tamid (verse 12). In a warfare context, the word host refers to an army,
but in a sanctuary framework it indicates a priestly host. Because the counterfeit host goes against the
regular worship service, it could point to a counterfeit priestly host. Verse 12, with the repetition of the
hook words tamid and throw down, functions as an explanation of the two activities of verse 11.
Of course, the horn cannot interfere in Christs continual priestly mediation in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb.
7:25; 8:1, 2). Who could do that anyway? Christs priestly ministry itself remains unaffected and
untouched [emphasis added]. However, the horn power usurps the responsibilities of the heavenly priest
and interrupts the continual worship of God on earth. It substitutes the true worship of God with a false,
sacrilegious worship. Historically, the taking away of the daily by the horn represents the
introduction of such papal innovations as a mediating priesthood, the sacrifice of the Mass, the
confessional, and the worship of Mary, by which it has successfully taken away knowledge of, and
reliance upon, the continual ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and rendered that ministry
inoperative in the lives of millions of professed Christians [emphasis added].10
The horn wages a religious war against the divine heavenly Prince, His sanctuary, and His people. It
becomes an earthly instrument of Satan, as indicated by the phrase that the horn power is mighty, but not
by his own power (Dan. 8:24).5
The Heretic and His Punishment

Those who are close enough to the SDA theologians have noticed that a lot of scholars
seem to change their interpretations on Daniel right after their retirement, and that quite often
their new perspectives free from the SDA dogmatic constraints are rather unorthodox and
even heretic. Some SDA theologians and scholars, though, dare to see the light before their
due retirement and risk to be punished and removed from their church positions. Such is the case
with Laiu, Biblical Languages and Old Testament exegesis professor at the Romanian
Theological Institute, who critiqued the traditional unbiblical and dogmatic SDA perspective
against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and was demoted from his college professor position. States the
Romanian theologian:
After our scholars gradually abandoned or tend to ignore today the traditional solutions for the origin of the
little horn, the implication of the phrase out of one of the [m = four horns] compells [sic!] me to resort to
the traditional Christian solution: Antiochus-Antichrist, in Daniel 8 and 11, but with the identity of
AntichristPapacy taken from Daniel 7. Though we do not need to resort to the so-called apotelesmatic
principle, this solution has apologetic advantages: it is already acknowledged, and it does not contradict our
application to Rome and Papacy. Most important, the little horn of Daniel 8 has its widely acknowledged
parallel character in the prophecy of Daniel 11:21-35. The vile king of the North is best applied to
Antiochus, as it is commonly agreed, usually outside the SDA circles.
There is no reason to see the little horn as representative of the professed people of God, or of their sins,
confessed or unconfessed, as some have proposed.58 The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 are symbolic for the
same class of hostile forces as the other horns, and as the beastly heads where they are rooted. No matter
that the wicked horn represents first either Antiochus or pagan Rome, how can these professed pagans
represent the professed people of God? If the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Roman (Papal) Antichrist, and it
has a correspondent in the wicked horn of Daniel 8, how could a Pagan-Christian power represent the
professed people of God or their sins? Such interpretation was an ingenious way of compensate the
lack of contextual support for the historical view of cleansing the sanctuary from the confessed sins
of Gods people in the eschatological Day of Atonement [emphasis added].
If there is any wonder how a horn can grow out of another horn, we must remember the monstrous
character of the visionary beasts. There is no need to find something similar in apocalyptic literature. Do
we find any beast chewing animal ribs, or another horn with eyes and mouths, or another beast with two
unequal horns, save in Daniel 7? This feature is not as monstrous as it appears anyway, since it is specific
to some relatives of the goat, such as the hart and the reindeer, in the wild life. Visions are certainly wilder
than life.
On the other hand, the possibility to have a horn appearing with no animal support may be compared to the
vision of Zechariah (1:19), where four horns appear out of nothing. These four horns have general symbolic
functions. They are not related to any animal, just like the iron horns of the false prophet Zidkiyahu benKenanah (1K 22:11; 2Ch 18:10). By contrast, in Daniel 8 all the other seven horns (two of the ram and one
plus four of the goat) come out of animal heads. Why this last horn should come simply out of a wind
(direction)? A horn in Hebrew poetry means power. The four horns in Zechariah symbolize the universal
political forces that have dispersed Gods people, and not four specific political powers, while the horns in
Daniel 8 have specific identities as political dynasties: two of the Medo-Persians and six of the Greeks.
It is said that the verb y could not possibly describe the waxing of a horn, since such a movement is
described in Daniel 8 by the verb lh (8:3, 8). But it is sometimes a synonym for lh59, and it is
known to have a broader range of meanings, not limited to describing a military movement from some
direction. Daniel uses also the verb m for the same purpose (8:22-23). Furthermore, if y
describes:
flowers sprouting from a rod (Nu 17:23);
a shoot springing from a stem (Is 11:1);
a tower that protrudes/projects from a palace (Ne 3:25);
any product of the field (Gn 1:12; Dt 14:22);
the source/spring of a river (Gn 2:10);
racial descendance (Gn 19:14; 17:6).
Why then y cannot be used to describe the growing up of a horn?

It is true that each animal in Daniel 8 comes out of some direction. The ram is not said to have come out of
a specific direction, it is only implied the east, since it batters toward three western directions. The verb
y is not used for the horizontal campaigns of the ram. Actually, the goat only is spoken of coming out
of a specific wind (west), though neither for it is used the verb y, but the verb b (came
[from]). In any case, the direction is either implied or specified. But when we come to the Luciferian horn,
there is no direction specified or implied.
If Daniel wanted to say that the horn came out of one direction, but not indicate the direction, it could come
from the north, or from the west, judging from its directions of expansion. But when Gabriel explains the
vision he does not refer to the specific direction wherefrom this horn-king came, neither has he given any
clue. The information received by vision is sufficient for the time. The angel will give further instruction in
chapter 11.
If the divine inspiration intended a symbol of Rome, as a new and different empire, would it not the
image of another beast have been more appropriate, as in chapter 7? The present solution, of a horn
coming out of one wind/direction, has no apologetic future, in my opinion [emphasis added].
Comparing the prophecy of Daniel 8 with the comparatively ill-studied prophecy of Daniel 11, and noting
the oldest Jewish and Christian commentaries and some modern commentaries, we are encouraged to admit
a twofold application of this prophecy: first to Antiochus, and next to Antichrist, his sinister long shadow,
revealed in Daniel 7 as a Roman outgrowth.
Actually, there is no unique historical fulfillment corresponding to all the details indicated by the prophet.
If this prophecy must be fulfilled by a single historical entity, one wonders who such power was. Neither
the Roman Empire, nor the Papacy did come from a Hellenistic state. On the other side, Antiochus had no
connection with the 2300 days and did not survive to the time of the end, to be finally crushed by Gods
hand.
Desmond Fords proposal that Antiochus is a first, incomplete and typical fulfillment of this
prophecy, which had to be better fulfilled by the pagan and Christian Rome, seems to me the best
solution [emphasis added], even though I dont like double prophecies.60 I would avoid it, if I could find a
better solution. Anyway, it seems to me, hermeneutically and apologetically, more acceptable than any
other historical or current Adventist explanations.
Rome and Papacy better fulfill much better the most prophetic features of the little horn, but Antiochus fits
best the origin of the little horn at least. In Daniel 11, in the same manner, the king of the north is, in the
last phase, the Papal Antichrist, but at the moment of his first appearance (11:21), and in a lot of dealings
with the Jewish religion (vv. 21-34), it is clearly the Hellenistic king. Antiochus is the spiritual root of
Antichrist, and as a character he is even a Roman king, since he was educated in Rome and played so
ominously his role as a persecuting god-king.
The close connection between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the prophecy of Daniel 11-12 is a
generally accepted view.61 However, in the determination to avoid the presence of Antiochus in
Daniel 11, SDA have adopted a pattern that does not hold water. Our historical insistence to describe
the dominant role of imperial Rome in Daniel 11 is forced and doomed to failure [emphasis added].
Some SDA expositors would say that Rome appears early in this prophecy, in verse 14, to play an
exclusive role in verses 16-30. But while they made ingenious attempts to explain each verse consistently,
our traditional expositions of the king of the north have no future. 62
Others would make appear the Roman forces much earlier in the chapter, beginning with the last sentence
of verse 4, but with little or no attempt to identify the historical events in the prophecy. 63
Unfortunately, our usual interpretations ignore the solutions of SDA teachers who identified
Antiochus in Daniel, at least in chapter 11 (H C Lacey, W G Wirth, M C Wilcox, S Horn, R Cottrell,
D Neufeld, A Vaucher, D Ford, etc.) [emphasis added].64 Some important consideration to this subject
showed Zdrvko Stefanovi in his commentary on Daniel, reviewing some non-Adventist expositions that
contain applications to Antiochus.65 Likewise Antonio Caracciolo of Villa Aurora, very practically put in
parallel the SDA classical view and some Catholic and Evangelical views focused on Antiochus.66 6
An Authentic Historicist Perspective

Hewitt reviews the biblical and historical arguments that support Antiochus IV Epiphanes
as the little horn in Daniel 8 in intelligent and competent statements free from pseudo-historicist
dogmatic distortions and misinterpretations and faithful to the biblical text and to the divine
prophetic intent in these comments:
The Test of History
This position, maintained by eminent conservative scholars and commentators, satisfies the test of
conformity to history. Since this phase of the subject has been touched upon frequently in this and the
preceding chapter, it is hardly necessary at this point to do more than give a brief summary.
1. Antiochus fits the requirements as to origin. He was a horn from littleness, springing up out of
one of the four kingdoms into which the Macedonian Empire was divided [emphasis added].
2. Antiochus meets also the geographical test in verse 9; his warlike expeditions were directed against
the south (Egypt), the east, (Persia), and the pleasant land (Judea) [emphasis added].
3. He satisfies the requirement of objective, for the particular objects of his hatred and violence were the
host of heaven Gods holy and chosen people and the stars. Since the Jewish people are
symbolized by the heavenly bodies the host of heaven individual stars are to be understood as
referring to conspicuous leaders among the people. A number of such were deposed or slain by the
machinations of this mad king, among them the venerable and beloved high priest, Onias III
[emphasis added].
4. Antiochus meets also the specification of daring impiety. There can be no doubt that he magnified
himself even to the prince of the host, or Prince of princes (v. 25); i.e., against Jehovah himself.
This he did by attempting to suspend the provisions of the Mosaic law and to prohibit the worship of
Jehovah [emphasis added]. The reader should consult I Maccabees 1:44-50 on this point.
5. This iniquitous little horn meets also the test of desolating the sanctuary. He did this not all at
once but by a succession of steps, all of which were calculated to suppress the divine worship
[emphasis added]. Perhaps the first of these acts was the rifling of the temple treasury by a certain
Menelaus to whom Antiochus had sold the high priesthood. This was followed by other and more
outrageous attacks. The author of I Maccabees describes those days of terror and depredation in language
that faithfully reflects the horror with which all the faithful contemplated them:
Thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary and defiled it: insomuch that the inhabitants
of Jerusalem fled because of them: whereupon the city was made an habitation of strangers, and became
strange to those that were born in her; and her own children left her. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a
wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, her honour into contempt (I
Macc. 1:37-39).
The height of this insolence and iniquity was reached when, on Chisleu (December) 25, 168 B.C., the
minions of Antiochus offered heathen sacrifices upon the idolatrous altar which they had erected ten
days before upon the altar of burnt offerings [emphasis added].
6. Antiochus meets the test of taking away the daily sacrifice (v. 11) [emphasis added]. The word
sacrifice does not appear in the Hebrew; literally the passage reads: and he took away the continual
(Heb., tamid). Commentators are agreed, however, that the reference is to the continual burnt offering
(Exod. 29:42), and that the translators have given the right sense of the passage. That Antiochus
suppressed the offering of the daily sacrifices in the temple for a considerable period is authenticated
by the author of I Maccabees, Josephus and other Jewish authorities [emphasis added]:
For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow
the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple
(I Macc. 1:44, 45).
7. Antiochus meets the test of character. He was just the sort of person that is envisioned by the little
horn. He was indeed a king of fierce countenance (v. 25), as witness his ferocity and venom
toward the Jews. He understood dark sentences or stratagems. Barnes comments that Antiochus
was more distinguished for craft and policy then he was for wisdom [emphasis added].20 Driver
mentions in particular the manner in which he completely misled the legates who were sent by the
Romans for the purpose of ascertaining his feelings toward them. 21 This characteristic of craft is more
fully delineated in verse 25. It can also be said with perfect fidelity to history that this king magnified
himself in his heart (v. 25), that he practiced and prospered (v. 24), and that he was mighty in power
one of the most powerful monarchs of his time and that his power was not his own, since it was given
him by God, for precisely the same purpose that in former days God had given power to the kings of
Assyria and Babylon, i.e., that they might be instruments in the divine hand for bringing punishment upon
Israel for her sins.
8. Antiochus meets also the test of fate [emphasis added]. It is written of the little horn that while he shall
stand up against the Prince of princes, yet he shall be broken without hand. The last phrase recalls the
manner in which the stone of King Nebuchadnezzars vision was cut out of the mountain (Dan. 2:34). This
was explained as meaning by divine agency. The suggestion therefore is that there would be something
about the death of Antiochus which would suggest the hand of God in punishment. It is significant that all
of the ancient authors, Greek as well as Jewish, agree that he died very suddenly while on an
expedition against the Parthians as a result of some strange malady, accompanied by supernatural
tokens such as might well suggest the idea of a divine stroke [emphasis added].
With all these remarkable points of conformity between the career of Epiphanes and the
specifications of this vision, there is indeed good reason for accepting the Maccabean view of it the
strongest of all grounds in a question of this sort, the point-by-point correspondence of history to
prophecy [emphasis added].7
The Question about the Desolation

Besides the perpetual dispute about the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8, another
problem of special interest concerns the question, How long shall be the vision concerning the
daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host
to be trodden under foot? in Daniel 8:13, and is about what events are considered in the
question. The traditional SDA response to this essential prophetic time issue is that although the
question singles out a few activities of the horn (perhaps the most horrible ones), it still seeks the
length of the entire vision [emphasis added] that is, it is inquiring about the events shown in
the vision of Daniel 8.118 This dogmatic interpretation, though, is standard pseudo-historicist
speculation and text distortion. Hewitt dismisses it the following statements:
There remains, however, a final problem to be solved before we can agree that the case for the Maccabean
position is complete. It is a serious problem. It concerns the length of time the sanctuary should lie
desolate [emphasis added]. In his vision Daniel heard a certain saint ask the angel interpreter, How long
shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the
sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? [emphasis added] And he said unto me, Unto two
thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (vv. 13, 14). Was there any period
corresponding to this in the depredations of Epiphanes against the host and their sanctuary?
The first thing to notice is the beginning and the ending of this period. (As the scholars would call them, the
terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem.) Some have supposed that the 2,300 days measure the entire
duration of the history contemplated in this vision [emphasis added], i.e., from the rise of Persia to the
cleansing of the sanctuary. Others have looked outside of this vision for a convenient beginning point.
This is the more surprising because the language is so specific [emphasis added]. The inquiring saint
did not ask, How long shall be the vision concerning the ram and the he-goat? He did not ask, How
long shall be the vision from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem
unto the cleansing of the sanctuary? [emphasis added] (That mixes up two visions rather badly!) What he
did ask was, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of
desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? [emphasis added] This is
exceptionally clear phraseology and can mean only one thing; viz., that the vision which is to be
measured by 2,300 days is limited to that part of the whole vision which concerns the taking away of
the daily sacrifice and the treading under foot of the sanctuary. The terminus a quo must therefore
coincide with the beginning of these desolations, and the terminus ad quem, with the cleansing. This
seems to require that the 2,300 days be looked for somewhere during the Maccabean period
[emphasis added].
The second thing to notice is that on this basis the days of this vision must be literal and not symbolic
days. In other words, that the year-day principle cannot be applied to this measurement, for obviously 2,300
years cannot be compressed within the limits of the Maccabean struggle against Antiochus. 9
The Verifiable Prophetic Fulfillment

The SDA historicist claim that the question in Daniel 8:13 seeks the length of the entire
vision in the chapter is essential for the defense of the sanctuary doctrine assumed to be the
SDA unique contribution to the prophetic interpretation of Daniel. This doctrine also depends
on the claims that Daniel 9 explains the 2300 days in Daniel 8, and that an important event
took place in heaven in 1844. This assumed event, though, is not verifiable with factual
historical data, and is not acceptable as a historical fulfillment for the prophetic events described
in Daniel 8:9-26. A better interpretation for the 2300 days is needed, and Hewitt provides the
true historical evidence for the fulfillment of the events predicted about the vicious little horn
and the desolation he had caused. He states:
We may now be on the threshold of a most interesting discovery. For if the number 2,300 measures the
period of both the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation against
sanctuary and host, it appears to have been fulfilled with startling exactness [emphasis added].
What was the first act of desecration performed against the sanctuary in the warfare of Antiochus to
suppress the Jewish faith? It was the pillaging of the temple treasures by the renegade high priest
Menelaus, a tool of Epiphanes [emphasis added]. This Menelaus had secured his appointment by
promising the king a huge bribe. After he secured the office by this unlawful means, he had no money
wherewith to pay; so he pilfered many precious golden vessels from the sanctuary treasures. Some of these
he gave into the hands of the royal treasurer, and others he sold in Tyre and other places, to satisfy his debt.
By this daring sacrilege as well as by other nefarious actions, such as procuring the murder of the revered
ex-high priest Onias, and corrupting many of the leaders of the Jews to the God-dishonoring designs of
Antiochus, Menelaus not only aroused resentment in the hearts of the faithful but also fomented greater
hostility on the part of the king. Moses Stuart declares that this sacrilege of Menelaus was the
commencement of that long series of persecution, oppression and bloodshed which took place in the
sequel under Antiochus [emphasis added].22
Can we now determine an accurate terminus a quo for this period of desolation? Fortunately, we are
able to do so. The date for the sacrilege of Menelaus is given by Josephus as the one hundred and
forty-second year of the Syrian kingdom, the sixth month and the sixth day. It was just six years, four
months and twenty days after this when, according to I Macc. 4:52, the cleansed sanctuary was
rededicated and the burnt offerings again lifted their smoke from the altar of Jehovah. And in six
years, four months and twenty days, Jewish reckoning, there are exactly 2,300 days. The prophecy
was thus fulfilled to the very day [emphasis added].10
IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations

The complete list of all the theologians, commentators, Bible scholars, and ancient and
modern historians who concur with Hewitt that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is indeed the little horn
in Daniel 8 is so extensive that it would be quite difficult if not impossible for all their comments
and notes to be included in this limited research document. There are a few, though, such as The
Jewish Encyclopedia, Moses Stuart, T. R. Birks, Winston McHarg, Robert D. Wilson, Flavius
Josephus, Edwin R. Bevan, Albert Barnes, and Ernest Lucas whose informed and expert remarks
would be hard to leave outside this investigative document on Antiochus IV Epiphanes:
The Jewish Encyclopedia
The authors of The Jewish Encyclopedia should know well the historical narratives and
ancient records of their own nation, and this matter is evident from the abundance of factual
information that populates the Antiochus section in the treatise:
ANTIOCHUS IV., EPIPHANES
(the Illustrious): King of Syria; reigned from 175 B.C.; died 164. He was a son of Antiochus the Great,
and, after the murder of his brother Seleucus, took possession of the Syrian throne which rightly belonged
to his nephew Demetrius. This Antiochus is styled in rabbinical sources
, the wicked. Abundant
information is extant concerning the character of this monarch, who exercised great influence upon Jewish
history and the development of the Jewish religion. Since Jewish and heathen sources agree in their
characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct. Antiochus combined in himself the worst faults
of the Greeks and the Romans, and but very few of their good qualities. He was vainglorious and fond of
display to the verge of eccentricity, liberal to extravagance; his sojourn in Rome had taught him how to
captivate the common people with an appearance of geniality, but in his heart he had all a cruel tyrant's
contempt for his fellow men.
The attempt of modern phil-Hellenes to explain Antiochus attitude toward the Jews as an endeavor to
reform a stiff-necked people receives no confirmation from the fact that a Tacitus first formulated it.
Antiochus had no wish to Hellenize his conquered subjects, but to denationalize them entirely; his Aramean
subjects were far from becoming Hellenes simply because they had surrendered their name and some of
their Semitic gods. His attempt to level all differences among the nations he ruled arose not from a
conviction of the superiority of Greek culture, the true essence of which he can scarcely be said to have
appreciated, but was simply a product of his eccentricity.
The Jews themselves afforded Antiochus the first opportunity to interfere in their domestic affairs. The
struggle of the Tobiads against the high priest Onias III., originally a personal matter, gradually assumed a
religio-political phase. The conservatives siding with the legitimate high priest approached the king of
Egypt; for they relied more on that monarch than on Antiochus, sometimes nick-named '
(madman), while the Tobiads well understood that Antiochus favor was to be purchased with gold. The
Tobiads caused the deposition of Onias (173), and the appointment of their own partizan, Jason. In order to
ingratiate himself with the king, this new high priest established an arena for public games close by the
Temple. But the king cared very much more for gold than for the Hellenizing of Palestine, and a certain
Menelaus made use of the fact so shrewdly that he received the high-priesthood in place of Jason, in the
year 171. But when false tidings came to Jerusalem that Antiochus had died on a campaign in Egypt,
Menelaus could not maintain himself in the city, and together with the Tobiads fled to Egypt.
On his return homeward, Antiochus came to Jerusalem to reinstate Menelaus, and then the true character of
the Hellenism that Antiochus desired was revealed to the Jews. He entered the Temple precincts, not out of
curiosity, but to plunder the treasury, and carried away valuable utensils, such as the golden candlestick
upon the altar and the showbread table, likewise of gold. This spoliation of the Sanctuary frustrated all the
attempts of Jason and the other Tobiads to Hellenize the people, for even the most well-disposed of
Hellenizers among them felt outraged at this desecration. They must have given vent to their sentiment very
freely; for only thus can the policy of extermination waged by Antiochus against the Jews and Judaism, two
years later, 168, be explained. As long as he was occupied with preparations for his expedition against
Egypt, Antiochus had no time for Palestine; but when the Romans compelled him to forego his plans of
conquest, his rage at the unexpected impediment was wreaked upon the innocent Jews. An officer,
Apollonius, was sent through the country with an armed troop, commissioned to slay and destroy. He first
entered Jerusalem amicably; then suddenly turning upon the defenseless city, he murdered, plundered, and
burnt through its length and breadth. The men were butchered, women and children sold into slavery, and
in order to give permanence to the work of desolation, the walls and numerous houses were torn down.
The old City of David was fortified anew by the Syrians, and made into a very strong fortress completely
dominating the city. Having thus made Jerusalem a Greek colony, the king's attention was next turned to
the destruction of the national religion. A royal decree proclaimed the abolition of the Jewish mode of
worship; Sabbaths and festivals were not to be observed; circumcision was not to be performed; the sacred
books were to be surrendered and the Jews were compelled to offer sacrifices to the idols that had been
erected. The officers charged with carrying out these commands did so with great rigor; a veritable
inquisition was established with monthly sessions for investigation. The possession of a sacred book or the
performance of the rite of circumcision was punished with death. On Kislew (Nov.-Dec.) 25, 168, the
"abomination of desolation" (
, Dan. xi. 31, xii. 11) was set up on the altar of burnt offering in
the Temple, and the Jews required to make obeisance to it. This was probably the Olympian Zeus, or Baal
Shamem.
Antiochus, however, had misunderstood the true character of Judaism, if he thought to exterminate it by
force. His tyranny aroused both the religious and the political consciousness of the Jews, which resulted in
the revolution led by the Maccabees. After the passive resistance of the asidim (pious ones), who, much
to the surprise of the Hellenes, suffered martyrdom by hundreds, the Hasmonean Mattathias organized open
resistance in 167-166, which, through the heroic achievements of his son and successor Judas the Maccabee
in defeating two large and well-equipped armies of Antiochus, grew to formidable proportions. Antiochus
realized that a serious attempt must be made to put down the rising, but was himself too busily occupied
against the Parthians to take personal charge. Lysias, whom he had left as regent in Syria, received
instructions to send a large army against the Jews and exterminate them utterly. But the generals
Ptolemus, Nicanor, and Gorgias, whom Lysias despatched with large armies against Judah, were defeated
one after the other (166-165), and compelled to take refuge upon Philistine soil. Lysias himself (165) was
forced to flee to Antioch, having been completely routed by the victorious Jews. But although he began to
gather new forces, nothing was accomplished in the lifetime of Antiochus, who died shortly thereafter in
Tab in Persia, 164.1
Moses Stuart
To discard and ignore the above potent historical facts that come from unquestionable
and corroborated ancient Jewish records is clear evidence for a mindset that places speculative
theories above the truth. Stuart confirms the facts presented above with comprehensive and
pertinent comments about the vicious deeds of the Seleucid king:
This [the temple restoration Daniel 8:14] was done when Judas Maccabaeus, after the three and a half
years in which all temple-rites had been suspended, and heathen sacrifices had been offered there, made a
thorough expurgation of everything pertaining to the temple, and restored its entire services. This was on
the 25th of Dec. 165 B.C., just three years from the time when swines flesh was first offered there by
Antiochus. We have then the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days; and it is not difficult, therefore, to find
the terminus a quo. These days, at 30 in a month 9 which is clearly the prophetic mode of reckoning), make
6 years, 4 months, and twenty days. Dec. 25 of 171 makes six years, and the four months and twenty days
will bring the time to the latter half of July in the same year, i.e. 171 B.C. During this year, Menelaus, the
high-priest appointed by Antiochus on the ground of a proffered bribe, and in this transaction he was
assisted by his brother Lysimachus. The regular and lawful high-priest, Onias III, who had been removed,
severely reproved this sacrilege committed by his brethren; and afterward, through fear of them, fled for
refuge to Daphne, and asylum near Antioch in Syria. Thence he was allured by the false promises of
Menelaus, and perfidiously murdered by the kings lieutenant, Andronicus. See the whole story in 2 Macc.
4:27 seq. The Jews at Jerusalem, incensed by the violent death of their lawful high-priest, and by the
sacrilegiou8s robberies of Menelaus and Lysimachus, became tumultuous, and a severe contest took place
between them and the adherents of those who committed the robbery, in which the patriotic Jews at last
gained the victory, and Lysimachus was slain at the treasury. This was the first contest that took place,
between the friends of Antiochus and the adherents to the Hebrew laws and usages. The whole of it was
occasioned by the baseness of Antiochus, in accepting bribes for bestowing the office of high priest on
those who had no just claim to it. The payment of the bribes occasioned the robbing of the temple and the
sacrilege committed there; and this was the commencement of that long series of oppression, persecution,
and bloodshed, which took place in the sequel under Antiochus.
We have, indeed, no data in ancient history by which the very day, or even month, connected with the
transactions above related can be exactly ascertained. But the year is certain; and as the time seems to be
definite in our text, the fair presumption is, that the outbreak of the populace, and the battle that followed,
constitute the terminus a quo of the 2300 days. See Froelich, Annales Reg. Syr. p. 46; and also Ushers
Chronol. The first of these two solid and excellent writers, has taken the most pains to enucleate the Syrian
history, and it the most to be relied upon. Both depend mainly on 2 Macc. 4:39-42 as their source; where
the time is not specifically noted. But Froelich seems most thoroughly and accurately to have developed the
course of events.
As to the difference between the time here, viz. 2300 days, and the three and a half years in 7:25, if the
reader narrowly inspects the latter, he will perceive, that the time there specified has relation to the period
during which Antiochus entirely prohibited the Jewish religion in every shape. This period, as is well
known, corresponds with historical facts. In the passage before us, a more extensive series of events is
comprised, as vs. 10-12 indicate. They begin with assaults on the priesthood, (which we have seen to be
matter of fact, as stated above), and end with the desecration and prostration of all that is sacred and holy. It
is unnecessary to show that each of the things described belongs to each and every part of the 2300 days.
Enough that the events are successive, and spread over the time specified in our text. The trampling down
or degradation of the priesthood and the sanctuary commenced the whole series of oppression and
persecution; and this with most aggravated acts of sacrilege and blasphemy, was also the consummation of
the tyrants outrages.2
In Dan. 8:13, 14, a period of 2300 days is mentioned, as the limit to which the desolations in Judaea
shall come. Judas Maccabaeus restored the temple worship, Dec. 25, A.C. [Ante Christum Before
Christ] 165. Now if we count back for six years, four months, and twenty days 2300 days, (counting
thirty days to a month and twelve months in a year, which is plainly the prophetic usage), we shall of
course find 171 A.C., and some time in that year during the month of August, to be the terminus a
quo of the 2300 days. In that very year the temple was plundered, through the urgency of Antiochus
for the tribute promised to him by the high priest, Menelaus. It was moreover profaned, in such a
way as to occasion an insurrection among the Jews, who slew the deputy of the high-priest and all
concerned in the sacrilege. From that time, there were frequent aggressions made upon the temple
and holy city, particularly for the last 3 years of Antiochus reign, until final victory perched upon
the standard of Judas Maccabaeus, in Dec. 165 A.C. [emphasis added].
Now as Dan. 8:9-13 (comp 8:22-25) makes it plain that Antiochus is the person to whom the 2300 days
stand related, so it is certain (as before) that these cannot mean 2300 years. How could Antiochus in person
oppress the Jews for two thousand and three hundred years? Events in the life and reign of Antiochus make
it quite unnecessary, as it would seem, to look after any other than a literal interpretation of the days which
are specified in Da. 8:14.3
In the year 168 A.C., in the month of May, Antiochus, on his way to make an attack upon Egypt, detached
Apollonius, one of his military officers, with 22,000 men, to subdue and plunder Jerusalem. This was
accomplished. A horrible slaughter was made of the men, and the women and children were made captives,
and multitudes of them sold as slaves. The Jews were soon compelled to eat swines flesh, and to
sacrifice to idols. In December of that same year, the temple was profaned by introducing the statue
of Jupiter Olympius, and on the 25th of that month, sacrifices were made to this idol upon the altar of
God. Just three years after this, i.e. in 165 A. C. Dec 25 th, the temple was expurgated by Judas
Maccabaeus, and the worship of Jehovah restored. Thus three years and six months, if not to the day,
yet very nearly so, marked the period of desolation in the holy city and temple as predicted by
Daniel* [emphasis added].4
T. R. Birks
T. R. Birks continues to support the testimonies that came from the scholars quoted
above, and shares with the readers his complete amazement that the remarkable divine
predictions in Daniel 8 about Antiochus IV Epiphanes unique in the entire Bible for their
impressive details have been fulfilled in such an accurate manner:
31. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they will not give the honour of the kingdom.
So we read in Livy: About this time Antiochus, son of Antiochus the Great, who had long been a hostage
at Rome, on the death of Seleucus, his brother, seized on the kingdom of SyriaObtaining the throne by
the help of Eumenes and Attalus, he was received with such favour of the people that they surnamed him
EpiphanesNot was he wanting in warlike skill and vigour of mind; but he was so depraved and reckless
in the whole course of his life and manners, that soon after, changing the surname, instead of Epiphanes
(the Illustrious), they called him Epimanes (the Madman) (Liv. xli. 19).
It is needless at present to trace the correspondence between the ten following verses and the history
of Antiochus. The facts which have been presented in a compressed form, and almost entirely in the
words of the original authorities, make a comment superfluous to prove the accurate fulfillment of
the prophecy, even in its minutest details. There is not one prediction, it may be safely asserted, in the
inspired writings themselves which approaches to this in the number of distinct and connected
particulars, manifestly accomplished in the same order not one which yields such overwhelming
evidence of the divine foreknowledge [emphasis added].5
Winston McHarg
McHarg organizes similar information about the Seleucid king into contrastive and
detailed points, and demonstrates that even the most minute vision points have had their
fulfillment in the life and deeds of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. No arguments can negate or dismiss
that incomparable prophetic fulfillment:
1. The little horn of Daniel 8 is a Greek horn. Unlike the little horn of Daniel 7, which emerges from the
Roman beast, this horn is said to emerge from one of the four horns upon the Greek beast. It is crystal
clearwhile the horn of Daniel 7 emerges from the fourth world empire, the horn of Daniel 8 emerges
from the third world empire. This fact is so plain and transparent that one can only wonder why some
have overlooked it [emphasis added].
2. One of the first things that the angelic interpretation says about the little horn, is that he is a King of
fierce countenance (v. 23). According to the traditional Adventist view the horn represents a kingdom,
namely the Roman Empire. It is hard to see how a kingdom could have a fierce countenance and
understand dark sentences. The angelic interpretation allows no misunderstanding.
3. This King emerges from one of the fourfold divisions of the Greek Empire. Out of one of them came
forth a little horn (v. 9). Antiochus emerged from the Seleucid horn, which was a division of the
Greek Empire. Rome did notit emerged on the Italian peninsula to the west of the Greek Empire
[emphasis added].
4. The horn would arise in the latter time of the fourfold division, which pictures well Antiochuss
emergence. The fourfold division of Greece had passed the peak of its power when he emerged, this is
evidenced by the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the Romans while on his way to invade
Egypt [emphasis added].
5. The horn would attack the South and East and the pleasant land, i.e. Palestine. Antiochus did
exactly that. However, when Rome came to power, it expanded in all directions, including West to
Britain and North to the Germanic tribes [emphasis added]. This little horn is clearly not Rome.
6. The horn would be noted for his cunning and intrigue. He would understand dark sentences and cause
craft to prosper (v. 25). Antiochus was renowned for his craftiness and cunning; Rome, more for her
brute strength and power [emphasis added].
7. The horn would destroy the mighty and holy people. History reveals that tens of thousands perished as
Antiochus attempted to force the Jews to deny their faith.
8. The horn would take away the daily sacrifices (v. 11). Antiochus put a stop to the sacrifices for a
period of over three years [emphasis added].
9. Antiochus cast down the place of Gods Sanctuary (v. 11) when he shut down its daily ministry
and set up the abomination that caused horror, i.e. the image of Zeus Olympias, and slaughtered
swine on the altar of burnt offering [emphasis added]. The importance of the Sanctuary service, lay, not
so much in the building, as in the daily sacrifices and offerings, by taking these away Antiochus brought
low Gods dwelling place.
10. Antiochus continued for approximately (possibly precisely, it is impossible to determine) 2300 days (v.
14) i.e. from the first attacks upon the Sanctuary to his death in 164 BC. One of the worlds leading
conservative Scholars stated, In this year (i.e. 171BC) began the laying waste of the Sanctuary. The
termination would then be the death of Antiochus (164BC). 2 There is no convincing fulfillment of the 2300
days in the history of the Roman Empire and only by a fine-spun linking of the Roman Empire with the
Roman Church, and a further fine-spun linking of Daniel 8 with Daniel 9 (these two chapters are
historically separated by at least 10 years) can Seventh-day Adventists arrive at a closing date for the 2300
days. This date is October 22, 1844 when Christ is said to have shifted his ministry from the first apartment
of the heavenly Sanctuary into the second, to begin a work of judgement.
11. In his desecration of the Sanctuary and his persecution of true believers, Antiochus did practice
and prosper and was exceeding great (v.9 & v.12). One of the major objections to Antiochus as the
fulfillment of the prophecy is the fact that he was a relatively minor player on the stage of history. It
is sometimes asserted he is not big enough to fulfil the prophecy. This objection fails to take into
account the simple fact that this particular prophecy centres primarily on the fate of the people and
religion of God. The great theme of this vision is an unprecedented and successful attack upon the
saints and true worship. It is in this sense that Antiochus practices and prospers and becomes
exceeding great [emphasis added].
Another important point, is that there is much to imply that more than Antiochus alone is portrayed here.
Almost all conservative Scholars agree that Daniel 8 portrays Antiochus as a type of the final Antichrist.
Many believe that the prophecy will have a further, fuller and final fulfillment in the future.
12. That Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel 8, is convincingly confirmed by a comparison with the final
vision of chapter 11. This final vision covers much the same ground as chapter 8. Various Persian and
Grecian kings, including Alexander the Great, are referred to, but all are dealt with briefly in just one or
two verses. As the vision moves towards its climax, Antiochus is once again centre stage, and no less than
fifteen full verses are devoted to him (see 11:21-35). Antiochus is clearly no minor player in this vision.
There then follows an almost imperceptible blending of Antiochus with the one whom most conservative
Scholars consider to be the final manifestation of evil (see v. 36 onwards). It is clear, then, that this Old
Testament tyrant, in his overt and unbridled opposition to the true God, his truth and his people, is a
remarkable and fitting type of the even more horrifying figure of the Antichrist to come. 6
Robert D. Wilson
For those who claim that the Seleucid king was much too small, insignificant, and
irrelevant to be the little horn in Daniel 8, and that what Antiochus accomplished in these three
geographical spheres [south, east, and the glorious land] was rather negligible and even negative
in some cases,7 Wilson provides a remarkable and impressive description of the terrible
persecution Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched at the Jews and about its important consequences
for the entire population in Palestine:
THE IMPORTANCE OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES
The time has now arrived to grapple with the most insidious and treacherous attack that has been made
upon the Book of Daniel. It is insidious because it claims to be philosophical and scientific. It is
treacherous in so far as it is made by professing Christians. A philosopher who believes that God wound up
the universe, like a clock, and then let it run its course without any interference, must refuse to accept the
Book of Daniel as true. So, also, must one who thinks that nothing contrary to the ordinary course of
human or natural events can be proved by testimony. A scientist (or shall we say sciolist?) who thinks he
knows that the laws of nature are binding on their Creator and that a modern chemist or psychologist or
animal trainer can manipulate the elements, or the minds of men, or of lions, better than the Almighty, will
not hesitate to reject Daniel because of the extraordinary events recorded there as having been wrought by
God. But a Christian who necessarily accepts the principles of theism, and who consequently believes in
God's intervention in the affairs of men, and in predictive prophecy as well as miracle, cannot refuse to
accept the Book of Daniel as historical and reliable, as authentic, genuine, and veracious, simply because of
the character of its predictions.
Now, in works already published42 and elsewhere in this volume we have endeavoured to show, that the
objections against Daniel based upon the alleged inaccuracy of its statements about the age of
Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus are unfounded, that the argument from silence as illustrated in Ecclesiasticus
and other cases is fallacious, that the argument from Daniel's place in the present Hebrew Bible has no
basis to rest on, and that the origin and influence of its ideas and its background including its language are
in harmony with its claims to have been written in the sixth century B.C. in a Babylonian environment.43
There remains but one important obstacle standing in the way of the Christian who desires to follow
Christ and the apostles in their apparent acceptance of the Book of Daniel as being what it purports
to be. It is the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes looms so high in the mind of the prophet. It is difficult
to account for the prominence given to this "contemptible" monarch in the midst of a narrative that
opens with an account of Nebuchadnezzar the king of great Babylon that he had built, that thinks
Cyrus the founder of the Persian empire to be worthy of the merest reference, and that alludes to
Alexander the Great in the most cursory fashion. Why should Epiphanes be selected from all the
successors of Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, Perdiccas, Eumenes, Antigonus, Demetrius
Poliorcetes, and the rest? [emphasis added].
Why should he be given forty verses, or more, of a book which barely squints at the Persian kings, and
never gives but a glimmering intimation that the Roman fleets and legions were to become in his time the
masters of the world? Why should a vision predicting with such accuracy and detail the campaigns of the
kings of the North and the South never allude to that unequalled family of heroes who were to begin at
Modin the liberation of God's people and scatter like the leaves of Vallombrosa the numerous and frequent
hosts of deadly enemies who were to desolate the homes and attempt to suppress the religion of that
Jehovah in whose name the prophet spoke? Why above all was his detailed vision to cease with the
renovation of the temple and fade off into dim outlines when it passed beyond that time into the more
distant vistas but the more glorious hopes of the Messianic kingdom? Why especially should he describe
the true course of events in Epiphanes' expedition against Egypt till the year 169 and then picture another
campaign which according to the critics never occurred at all?
These and similar questions have vexed the righteous souls of many who would like to believe in the real
Daniel and who have no prejudices against the possibility of the kind of predictive prophecy alleged to be
found in the book. They can accept the first six chapters which record the striking occurrences in the lives
of Daniel and his companions. They can accept the principle of the possibility and the fact of divine
revelation of future events. But they hesitate at accepting the whole, at least, of Daniel, because they see
no good and sufficient reason why he should have narrated with such length and clearness the
history of the Seleucids up to the death of Epiphanes and have given so much emphasis to the deeds
of this tyrant while barely mentioning such superlatively and relatively important events as the
resurrection, the judgment, and the kingdom of the Messiah [emphasis added].
Now, in order to remove this hesitation, it may seem to some sufficient to affirm our belief that these
predictions might have been made by God through Daniel, even though we could perceive no good reason
for them. We think, however, that we can perceive a good and sufficient reason for them, one at least that
justifies them in our estimation, and we shall proceed to state it, in order that if possible we may make the
ways of God appear just to the men of little faith.
It appears to us, then, that the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the most important
events in the history of the church. It can be rivalled only by the call of Abraham, the giving of the
Law, the Captivity, and the Incarnation. Among all the crises to which the people of God have been
subjected, it can be compared only with the dispersion in the time of Nebuchadnezzar [emphasis
added]. The return of the exiles had been definitely foretold by Jeremiah, and Jeremiah's prediction was
known and pondered by Daniel.44 He was not needed, nor was it given to him, to supplement the work of
his great predecessor. But he performed a greater and more lasting service for the church. He showed
clearly that all the tyrants of the earth were under the control of the God of heaven, that the kingdoms of
this world were foreordained by Him and should at last be superseded by the Kingdom of the Messiah and
his saints, and he encouraged the people not merely of his own time but of all time to be steadfast in the
midst of fiery trials and deadly perils of all kinds in view of the certainty that God could and would
eventually circumvent or crush the tyrants and deliver the innocent for time and for eternity.
Now, the deadliest peril that the church has ever confronted was the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes
to suppress it utterly. For reasons of state, and perhaps also of religion, he determined to enforce
conformity of worship throughout his dominions. His plan of operations was the most astute that has
ever been devised. He ordered the cessation of circumcision, the sign of the covenant between the
people and their God and that which held them together as a race. He stopped the services in the
temple and instituted in their stead the worship of Jupiter. He set up idol altars in every city and
demanded that every Jew should sacrifice according to the heathen ritual which he had introduced.
He commanded that the holy writings should be destroyed so that the laws and customs and
institutions might be gradually but surely forgotten and eliminated. And for all who refused to accept
these severe and stringent regulations and requirements he pronounced the penalty of death;
whereas he crowned with honours and emoluments all who apostatized and renounced the God of
their fathers. The result of his well calculated machinations was almost complete enough to equal the
most sanguine expectations. Most of the Jewish people seem to have cast away without any apparent
qualm the hereditary claims of race and country and religion, and to have grasped with eagerness the
proffered hand of the subtle enemy of their faith. The blood-thirsty tyrant executed his threats of
death upon all who opposed his will. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered. Whole
families were extirpated for the guilt of one of their number. The chosen people were on the point of
being annihilated and the promises and the hopes of the covenant of being annulled for ever
[emphasis added].
There never was, before or since, such a period of desperation and despondency in the history of the
church. Pharaoh's aim had been to destroy the race, but the promise to Abraham had been fulfilled
through Moses and Joshua. Nebuchadnezzar had carried the people captive and destroyed Jerusalem
and the temple; but the sacred books had been preserved, apostasy was rare, and through God's
servants, the kings of Persia, the people and the temple were at length restored to their former
worship, as it had been foretold by the prophets. But, now, under Epiphanes, was attempted what
had never been proposed by Babylonian conqueror or Persian friends, the entire destruction of
people and religion at one fell blow. Prophecy had ceased. The tribes of Israel were scattered over the
earth, some foreign cities like Alexandria and Antioch having more Jewish inhabitants than
Jerusalem. The Holy Land was largely in possession of the Gentiles. The Jews themselves had
become indifferent to the Law. The High Priests were murdering each other and one of them when
deposed at Jerusalem built a rival temple in Egypt. The whole polity of the Jews was disintegrated,
all their fortresses and cities were in the hands of the enemy, they had no army and no leaders, and
all seemed lost [emphasis added].
Then it was that one man stood up and defied the haughty king. His name was Mattathias. He lived at a
village named Modin. The heathen had constructed an altar. The priest was ready to sacrifice the victim,
when Mattathias slew him and made a fiery appeal to his fellow citizens to take arms against the tyrant. To
hearten them, he called to mind the great deeds of their fathers and the faith that had inspired them. In the
climax of his speech he referred to the fiery furnace and to Daniel in the den of lions. This recalled to them
that their God could and would save those who put their trust in Him. They rallied round Mattathias and his
five noble sons, the most valiant and able of them all. The pious sprang to arms and after many a hard
fought fight the Syrians were overcome and the kingdom of the Jews was reestablished under the
Asmonean rulers.
Had the attempt of Antiochus succeeded, the preparation for the coming of the Messiah could not
have been completed. A people waiting for his appearing would not have been existent. A Diaspora
eager to receive and disseminate the gospel would not have been ready. In short, the continuity of the
church would have been destroyed, the records of the Old Testament might have disappeared as
utterly as the archives of Tyre and the memoirs of Hannibal, the New Testament could not have been
written, the life of Jesus would have been entirely different, the method of the early propagation of
the gospel must have been altered and the whole plan of salvation changed [emphasis added].
But, it will be said, how did the time when these alleged predictions of Daniel were written affect all this?
Only in this respect, that it affords sufficient reason for their having been made so many years before. Just
as the deliverance of the three children from the fiery furnace and of Daniel from the lions den on account
of their faith in Israels God gave Mattathias a fitting climax in his speech inciting the people to
steadfastness in their trials, so the knowledge that their evil condition had been foretold nearly four hundred
years before would strengthen the hearers confidence that the rest of the prediction would be fulfilled in
the overthrow of the oppressor and in the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God. The stupendous crisis
justified the prediction; the prediction justified the expectation of deliverance.
Because the hearers of Mattathias knew about the three children and Daniel, they were incited by
Mattathias speech to emulate their conduct and to imitate their faith. Because the learned leaders of the
Jews believed that the visions were really those of Daniel, they accepted the book as true and received it as
canonical. Had the history been fictitious, Mattathias would not have cited from it and the people would not
have been roused by it. Had the visions not been considered genuine, the educated church of that day would
not have acknowledged the book as holy and its teachings as divine. Had the book not been deemed
authentic, it would have been condemned as a forgery and would have failed in that purpose of consolation
and encouragement to which all critics ascribe the reason of its existence. Because both people and rulers
and literati esteemed the book to be authentic, genuine, and veracious, they placed it among those holy
writing for whose preservation they willingly gave up their lives. 8
Flavius Josephus
Flavius Josephus, the famous Romano-Jewish historian, lived close to the events
described in Daniel about Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His detailed narratives are impressive and
powerful, while the facts he presents are true, reliable, and indisputable:
1. At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about
his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had
a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to
be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of
Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to
make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came
upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that
favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and
put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six
months [emphasis added]. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the
Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple (1)
concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.
2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with
the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering
what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and
to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they
all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death [emphasis added].
Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own
natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the
inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he
provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves.9
1. About this time, upon the death of Onias the high priest, they gave the high priesthood to Jesus his
brother; for that son which Onias left [or Onias IV.] was yet but an infant; and, in its proper place, we will
inform the reader of all the circumstances that befell this child. But this Jesus, who was the brother of
Onias, was deprived of the high priesthood by the king, who was angry with him, and gave it to his younger
brother, whose name also was Onias; for Simon had these three sons, to each of which the priesthood came,
as we have already informed the reader. This Jesus changed his name to Jason, but Onias was called
Menelaus. Now as the former high priest, Jesus, raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after
him, the multitude were divided between them both. And the sons of Tobias took the part of Menelaus, but
the greater part of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were
distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their
country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian
way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. And
when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were
naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own
country, and imitated the practices of the other nations.
2. Now Antiochus, upon the agreeable situation of the affairs of his kingdom, resolved to make an
expedition against Egypt, both because he had a desire to gain it, and because he contemned the son of
Ptolemy, as now weak, and not yet of abilities to manage affairs of such consequence; so he came with
great forces to Pelusium, and circumvented Ptolemy Philometor by treachery, and seized upon Egypt. He
then came to the places about Memphis; and when he had taken them, he made haste to Alexandria, in
hopes of taking it by siege, and of subduing Ptolemy, who reigned there. But he was driven not only from
Alexandria, but out of all Egypt, by the declaration of the Romans, who charged him to let that country
alone; according as I have elsewhere formerly declared. I will now give a particular account of what
concerns this king, how he subdued Judea and the temple; for in my former work I mentioned those things
very briefly, and have therefore now thought it necessary to go over that history again, and that with great
accuracy.
3. King Antiochus returning out of Egypt, for fear of the Romans, made an expedition against the city
Jerusalem; and when he was there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the kingdom of the Seleucidae, he
took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him. And when he had gotten
possession of Jerusalem, he slew many of the opposite party; and when he had plundered it of a great deal
of money, he returned to Antioch.
4. Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that
month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third
olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by
treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches
that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold,
and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he
ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden
candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering];
and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its
secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation,
for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law.
And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive,
together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive
amounted to about ten thousand. He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the
city walls, he built *a citadel in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the
temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of
Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from
whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. And when the king had built an idol
altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the
Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid
their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol
altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to
circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his
injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed
many Jews there were who complied with the king's commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the
penalty that was denounced. But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did
pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened
to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they
were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still
alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the
king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were
any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably
perished also.10
Edwin R. Bevan
Bevan has written an entire book on the House of Seleucus, and the historical facts
presented in the books chapters are well-documented and impressive, saturated with remarkable
and pertinent information that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant and inadequate. States the
famous expert on the Hellenistic world:
The definite quarrel of Antiochus with the Jews or so, as he perhaps regarded it, with the faction among
the Jews opposed to the High-priest [Menelaus] and to the great Jewish families who supported the Highpriest began when the intelligence reached him during one of his campaigns in Egypt 1 that Jerusalem had
risen for the house of Ptolemy in his rear. Jason had suddenly (on a false report that Antiochus was dead)
come back from the Ammonite country with a band he had got together and possessed himself of
Jerusalem, except the citadel, where Menelaus had taken refuge. Those who Jason found of the party of
Menelaus from the Seleucid point of view, the loyal party were put to the sword. It was not Antiochus
who drew the first blood in Jerusalem.
The defection of Jerusalem at a critical moment determined the King to visit it with signal chastisement. A
city so near the Egyptian frontier must be made sure beyond question. We can well believe that the
passionate and wilful nature of Antiochus took a direction of strong vindictiveness towards the treacherous
city. On his return from Egypt he turned aside, and came to Jerusalem with a fierce countenance to wreak
vengeance. That the people generally, whose religion had been outraged by the high-priesthood of the
Benjamite Menelaus, and still more by his manner of exercising office, had given a welcome to Jason we
can hardly doubt. Jason, before the arrival of Antioch, had already played the part of the hireling shepherd;
he was safe once more across the Jordan, and upon the people the punishment fell. It shows, of course, not
that Antiochus was a fiend, but that he was of that order of statesmen who would repress disaffection by
unscrupulous violence without ascertaining whence it springs. Once more blood ran in the streets of
Jerusalem, and the Syrian soldiery told of for the work of massacre were probably no more merciful than
those whom the Ottoman Sultan sets upon the Armenian Christians.
It was not in blood only that Antiochus made the Jews pay. Their rebellion had given him the excuse to
take into the royal treasury the precious things of the Temple of the Lord, as, on one pretext or another, he
appropriated the riches of the other Syrian temples. With unspeakable horror the Jews saw him enter within
the holy doors which might be passed by the priests alone. And the Lord withheld His hand!
Antiochus had not yet declared war on the Jewish religion. He had but chastised Jerusalem as another
rebellious city might have been chastised. The further development of this policy did not manifest itself till
after an interval.1 Since Antiochus could no longer after 168 protect the Coele-Syrian province by holding
any Egyptian territory, its internal consolidation became imperative in the first degree. The weak spot was
Jerusalem. What the Seleucid court believed it saw there was a loyal party, readily accepting the genial
culture which was to harmonize the kingdom, on the one hand, and on the other a people perversely and
dangerously solitary, resisting all efforts to amalgamate them with the general system, and only waiting the
appearance of a foreign invader to rebel. And on what ground did this people maintain its obstinate
isolation? On the ground of an unlovely barbarian superstition. Very well: the religion of Jehovah must be
abolished. The Hellenization of Jerusalem must be made perfect. If part of the population took up an
attitude of irreconcilable obstruction, they must be exterminated and their place filled by Greek colonists.
Apollonius, the commander of the Mysian mercenaries, was charged with the first step of effecting a strong
military occupation of Jerusalem. His errand was concealed; he went with a considerable force, ostensibly
in connexion with the tribute from southern Syria, and seized Jerusalem by a coup de main. A fresh
massacre, directed probably by Menelaus and his adherents, cleared Jerusalem of the obnoxious element. A
new fortress of great strength was built on Mount Zion, and a body of royal troops, Macedonians,
established in it to dominate the city.
But now came the second part of the process, the extinguishing of the Jewish religion. It was simple
enough in Jerusalem itself. Jehovah was identified with Zeus Olympius, and Zeus Olympius, it would
appear, with Antiochus. The ritual was altered in such a way as to make the breach with Judaism
more absolute. A Greek altar the Abomination of Desolation1 was erected upon the old Jewish
altar in the Temple court, and swine sacrificed upon it. The High-priest partook of the new sacrificial
feasts, of the broth of abominable things. To partake was made the test of loyalty to the King. The
day of the Kings birth was monthly celebrated with Greek rites. A Dionysiac festival was
introduced, when the population of Jerusalem went in procession, crowned with ivy. That everything
might conform to the purest Hellenic type, the framing of the new institutions was entrusted to one of
the Kings friends from Athens. At the same time that the transformation was accomplished in
Jerusalem, the other temple built to Jehovah in Shechem, the religious centre of the Samaritans, was
constituted a temple of Zeus Xenios.1 [emphasis added].
To purge Jerusalem of all trace of Judaism was comparatively easy; it was another matter to master the
country. In the country villages and smaller towns of Judaea the royal officers met with instances of
extreme resistance. Their instructions were to compel the population to break with the old religion by
taking part in the ceremonies of Hellenic worship, especially in eating the flesh of sacrificed swine, and to
punish even with death mothers who circumcised their children. The books of which the Jews made so
much were destroyed, if found, or disfigured by mocking scribbles, or defiled with unholy broth.
There can be no question that these measures threw the bulk of the Jewish people, who had perhaps
wavered when there seemed a possibility of combining Judaism with Hellenism, into definite antagonism.
But immense force was brought to bear upon them. Antiochus did not omit to have the reasonableness of
Hellenism put in a friendly way to those who would hear, and he punished without mercy those who would
not. And under the stress of those days numbers of the Jews conformed; those who held fast generally
forsook their homes and gathered in wandering companies in desolate places. But there also shone out in
that intense moment the sterner and sublime qualities which later Hellenism, and above all the Hellenism of
Syria, knew nothing of uncompromising fidelity to an ideal, endurance raised to the pitch of utter selfdevotion, a passionate clinging to purity. They were qualities for the lack of which all the riches of Hellenic
culture could not compensate. It was an epoch in history. The agony created new human types and new
forms of literature, which became permanent, were inherited by Christendom. The figure of the martyr, as
the Church knows it, dates from the persecution of Antiochus; all subsequent martyrologies derive from the
Jewish books which recorded the sufferings of those who in that day were strong and did exploite. 1 11
Albert Barnes
Barnes, the American theologian, promoted a brand of expert Biblical criticism far ahead
of his time, and supported his commentaries with ample and irrefutable evidence. In his famous
and well distributed Notes on the Book of Daniel, the scholar adds to his arguments for the
Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes the support that comes from 1 Maccabees an authentic
piece of Jewish history and a record of the events that occurred in Palestine while the vicious
Antiochus persecuted the Jews:
The daily sacrifice was taken away. The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and
evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Mac. i. 20-24, 29-32, 44-50. In the
execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar,
and the candlestick, and all the vessel thereof; and the table of shew-bread, the pouring vessels, &c.,
and stripped the temple of all the ornaments of gold [emphasis added],
After two years he again visited the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel, and
when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and pulled down the walls thereof on every side.
Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts
were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, her honour into contempt.
Subsequently, by a solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the
temple, and polluted and defiled every part of it. For the king had sent letters by messengers unto
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burntofferings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbaths and
festival days; and pollute the sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and
sacrifice swines flesh, and unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and
make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget
the laws, and change all the ordinances. 1 Mac. i. 44-49
It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us [Daniel 8:10-11] refers, and
the event accords with the words of the prediction so clearly as if what is a prediction had been
written afterwards, and had been designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of
historical record [emphasis added]. 12
Ernest Lucas
Ernest Lucas provides the historical context to his commentaries on Daniel, and makes
sure to provide an adequate historical context for the prophetic book in which he includes
detailed information about Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his exploits in Palestine:
When Seleucus was murdered, his younger brother came to the throne as Antiochus IV. His path to power
is not quite clear (see the Comment on 11:21). Dan. 11:21-39 is concerned with his career, and he is
generally seen as the person represented by the small horn in Dan. 7-8. A struggle for control of the highpriesthood in Jerusalem between the pro- and anti- Hellenists gave him the opportunity to make muchneeded money by selling the office to the highest bidder among the pro-Hellenists. This meddling of a
pagan monarch in the highest religious office outraged orthodox Jews, and especially so when he
eventually appointed someone, Menelaus, who was not from the traditional high-priestly family. Menelaus
compounded the problem by having Onias III, the ousted conservative high priest, murdered. Antiochus
invaded Egypt twice. On the second occasion, after initial success, he was forced to withdraw when an
emissary arrived from the Roman Senate and ordered him to do so. Faced with the power of Rome, he had
no option but a humiliating retreat (11:30). As he passed through Palestine after each campaign in Egypt,
unrest in Jerusalem came to his attention and provoked action. In 169, with Menelaus connivance, he
plundered the temple. In 167 he sent an army led by Apollonius to deal with the problem. Having given the
impression of coming with peaceful intentions, he attacked and sacked the city on a Sabbath day. A strong
citadel, the Acra, was built in Jerusalem. It was a colony of Hellenized pagans and renegade Jews, and had
its own constitution as a Greek city (11:31a).
Antiochus, apparently exasperated by the religious intransigence of the orthodox Jews, tried to break it by
outlawing traditional Jewish religious practices: reading the Torah, keeping the Sabbath, practicing
circumcision, keeping the food laws and offering Jewish sacrifices in the temple, including the regular daily
sacrifices. Antiochus agents desecrated the temple by rededicating it to the pagan god Zeus/Jupiter, setting
up an image to his god, and then offering swine-flesh on the altar of burnt offerings (11:31b). A fierce
persecution was then unleashed against Jews who remained faithful to their God and his Torah (11:32-35;
see also 1 Macc. 1; 2 Macc 6-7). Eventually, armed revolt flared up. It began in the village of Modein, to
the north-west of Jerusalem. When one of Antiochus agents arrived in the village and tried to get people to
offer a pagan sacrifice, an elderly priest, Matththias, killed both Antiochus agent and a renegade Jew, who
was willing to offer the sacrifice. Mattathias and his sons then fled, and became the leaders of a guerrilla
band (1 Macc. 2). When Mattathias died, his son Judas became the leader. He was given the nickname
Maccabeus (Hammer). He lead a successful campaign against the Antiocene forces in Judea. After a
series of victories over them, he marched on Jerusalem and took over the whole city except Acra. He and
his followers were then able to purify and rededicate the temple in December 164, a little over three years
after it had been desecrated ( 1 Macc. 4:36-58). They instituted the annual feast of Hanukkah (Dedication)
to commemorate the event (1 Macc. 4:59). It may be Maccabean forces that are referred to (somewhat
disparagingly) as the little help in Dan. 11:34a. Whether or not this is the case, it is notable that the
Maccabean forces are given no positive notice in the book of Daniel. At about the time the Jerusalem
temple was rededicated, Antiochus met an untimely death while attempting to rob a temple in Persia (see
the Comment on Dan. 11:4-45).13
X. Historicism and False Historicism

Historical Fact or Dogmatic Fiction
The fundamental difference between biblical and unbiblical interpretations comes from
the presence or absence of supportive evidence. No matter how persuasive and impressive are
the theological claims or how erudite and brilliant appear to be the arguments, if no factual
historical data is provided to support the claims with empirical evidence, those interpretations are
not reliable. This is the case with the SDA arguments on Daniel 8 and the actions of the little
horn. The comparison between the factual and accurate non-SDA historicist commentaries and
the SDA pseudo-historicist speculations will provide undeniable and irrefutable evidence that
the SDA interpretations are based on assumptions, speculations, and distorted and manufactured
truths. The truthful non-SDA historicist interpretations of the texts in Daniel 8:8-25 and the
unbiblical and manufactured historicist SDA interpretations of the same texts will be shown
below for the readers evaluation. The Bible texts used in this contrast between genuine truth and
dogmatic speculations come from the flawed and outdated KJV Bible, and Laius verbatim and
current Hebrew-English Bible translation:
Daniel 8:8
KJV8
Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was
broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
Verbatim English Translation
LAIU8
And the buck of the goats grew great until/as far as very much but as/when his
becoming strong, was broken the horn the big one, and they came up [horns of]
distinction four in place of her [it], toward the four winds of the skies.1
True Historicist Interpretation
8. Therefore the he-goat waxed very great. The Macedonian power, especially under the reign of
Alexander.
And when he was strong, the great horn was broken. In the time, or at the period of its greatest strength.
Then an event occurred which broke the horn in which was concentrated its power. It is easy to see the
application of this to the Macedonian power. At no time was the empire so strong as at the death of
Alexander. Its power did not pine away; it was not enfeebled, as monarchies are often, by age, and luxury,
and corruption; it was most flourishing and prosperous just at the period when broken by the death of
Alexander. Never afterward did it recover its vigour; never was it consolidated again. From that time this
mighty empire, broken into separate kingdoms, lost its influence in the world.
And for it came up four notable ones. In the place of this one horn in which all the power was
concentrated, there sprang up four others that were distinguished and remarkable. On the word notable, see
Notes on ver. 5. This representation would lead us to suppose that the power which had thus been
concentrated in one monarchy would be divided and distributed into four, and that instead of that one
power there would be four kingdoms that would fill up about the same space in the world, occupy about the
same territory, and have about the same characteristics so that they might be regarded as the succession to
the one dynasty. The same representation we have of this one power in ch. vii. 6: And the beast had four
heads. See also ch. xi.4: His kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of
heaven. This accords with the accounts in history of the effect of Alexander's death, for though the
kingdom was not by him divided into four parts, yet, from the confusion and conflicts that arose, the power
was ultimately concentrated into four dynasties.
At his death, his brother Aridaeus was declared king in his stead, and Perdiccas regent. But the unity of the
Macedonian power was gone, and disorder and confusion, and a struggle for empire, immediately
succeeded. The author of the books of Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:7, 8, 9) says: So Alexander reigned twelve
years, and then died. And his servants bare rule every one in his place. And after his death, they all put
crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many years; and evils were multiplied in the earth.
Alexander died B.C. 323; Antipater succeeded Perdiccas, B.C. 321; Ptolemy Lagus the same year took
possession of Egypt; Cassander assumed the government of Macedon, B.C. 317; Seleucus Nicator took
possession of Syria, B.C. 311; in 305 B.C. the successors of Alexander took the title of kings, and in 301
B.C. there occurred the battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, who reigned in Asia Minor, was killed, and
then followed in that year a formal division of Alexander's empire between the four victorious princes,
Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. This great battle of Ipsus, a city of Phrygia, was fought
between Antigonus and his son Demetrius on the one side, and the combined forces of these princes on the
other.
Antigonus had aimed at universal sovereignty; he had taken and plundered the island of Cyprus; had
destroyed the fleet of Ptolemy Lagus, and had assumed the crown. Against him and his usurpations,
Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus, combined their forces, and the result was his complete overthrow at
the battle of Ipsus. Lengerke, in loc. In this battle, Antigonus lost all his conquests and his life. In the
division of the empire, Seleucus Nicator obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, and Susiana, Armenia, a part of
Cappadocia, Cilicia, and his kingdom, in name at least, extended from the Hellespont to the Indies. The
kingdom of Lysimachus extended over a part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocia, and the countries
within the limits of Mount Taurus. Cassander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly, and a part of Greece.
Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, and ultimately Coelo-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, and a part of
Asia Minor and Thrace. Lengerke, in loc.
Toward the four winds of heaven. Toward the four quarters of the world. Thus the dominions of Seleucus
were in the east; these of Cassander in the west; those of Ptolemy in the south, and those of Lysimachus in
the north.2
Deductions and Speculations

8. Waxed very great. Or, magnified himself exceedingly (see on vs. 4, 9).
When he was strong. Prophecy predicted that Alexander would fall while his empire was at the height of
its power. At the age of 32, still in the prime of life, the great leader died of a fever aggravated, no doubt,
by his own intemperance. See on ch. 7:6.
Four notable ones. On the four Macedonian (or Hellenistic) kingdoms into which Alexanders empire was
divided, see on chs. 7:6; 11:3, 4.3
Daniel 8:9
KJV9
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,
LAIU9
And out of the one of them [=horns], (he) came horn one/an out of smallness and
she magnified herself exceedingly toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the
Splendor [land].4

9. And out of one of them, came forth a little horn. Emblematic of new power that should spring up. Comp.
Notes on ch. vii. 8. This little horn sprang up out of one of the others; it did not spring up in the midst of the
others as the little horn in ch. vii. 8 did among the ten others. This seemed to grow out of one of the four,
and the meaning cannot be misunderstood. From one of the four powers or kingdoms into which the empire
of Alexander would be divided, there would spring up this ambitions and persecuting power.
Which waxed exceeding great. Which became exceedingly powerful. It was comparatively small at first,
but ultimately became mighty. There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here. All the
circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him, and if it were supposed that this was written after
he had lived, and that it was the design of the writer to describe him by this symbol, he could not have
found a symbol that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The Syriac version has
inserted here, in the Syriae text, the words Antiochus Epiphanes, and almost without exception,
expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to. For a general account of him, see Notes on
ch. vii. 24, seq. The author of the book of Maccabees, after noticing in the passage above quoted, the death
of Alexander, and the distractions that followed his death, says, And there came out of them a wicked
root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been a hostage at Rome, and he
reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. 1 Mac. i. 10. A few
expositors have supposed that this passage refers to Antichrist what will not expositors of the Bible
suppose? But the great body of interpreters have understood it to refer to Antiochus. This prince was a
successor of Seleucus Nicator, who, in the division of the empire of Alexander, obtained Syria, Babylonia,
Media, &c. (see above on ver. 8), and whose capital was Antioch. The succession of princes who reigned in
Antioch, from Seleucus to Antiochus Epiphanes, were as follows:
(1) Seleucus Nicator, B.C. 312-280.
(2) Antiochus Soter, his son, 280-261.
(3) Antiochus Theos, his son, 261-247.
(4) Seleucus Callinicus, his son, 247-226.
(5) (Alexander), or Seleucus Ceraunus, his son, 226-223.
(6) Antiochus the Great, his brother, 223-187.
(7) Seleucus Philopater, his son, 187-176.
(8) Antiochus Epiphanes, his brother, 176-164.
Clintons Fasti Hellenici, vol. III. appendix, ch. iii.
The succession of the Syrian kings reigning in Antioch was continued until Syria was reduced to the form
of a Roman province by Pompey, B.C. 63 Seleucus Philopater, the immediate predecessor of Antiochus,
having been assassinated by one of his courtiers, his brother Antiochus hastened to occupy the vacant
throne, although the natural heir, Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was yet alive, but a hostage at Rome.
Antiochus assumed the name of Epiphanes, or Illustrious. In Dan. xi. 21, it is intimated that he gained the
kingdom by flatteries; and there can be no doubt that bribery, and the promise of reward to others, was
made use of to secure his power. See Kittos Cyclo. i. 168170. Of the acts of this prince there will be
occasion for a fuller detail in the Notes on the remainder of this chapter, , and ch. xi.
Toward the south. Toward the country of Egypt, &c. In the year B.C. 171, he declared war against
Ptolemy Philometor, and in the year 170 he conquered Egypt, and plundered Jerusalem. 1 Macc. i.16 19.
Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might
have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore he entered Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and
elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee
was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the land of
Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof.
And toward the east. Toward Persia and the countries of the East. He went there these countries being
nominally subject to him according to the author of the book of Maccabees (1 Macc. iii. 2837), in order
to replenish his exhausted treasury, that he might carry on his wars with the Jews, and that he might keep
up the splendor and liberality of his court: He saw that the money of his treasures failed, and that the
tributes in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague which he had brought upon the
land, and he feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give
so liberally as he did before; wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into
Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. So the king departed from
Antioch, his royal city, the hundred fifty and seventh year; and having passed the river Euphrates, he went
through the high countries.
And toward the pleasant land. The word here used tseb y means, properly, splendor, beauty. Isa.
iv. 2; xxiv. 16; xxviii. 1, 4, 5. It is applied, in Isa. xiii. 19, to Babylon the glory of kingdoms. Here it
evidently denotes the land of the Israelites, or Palestine so often described as a land of beauty, as flowing
with milk and honey, &c. This is such language as a pious Hebrew would naturally use of his own country,
and especially if he was an exile from it, as Daniel was. Nothing more would be necessary to designate the
land so as to be understood than such an appellation as nothing more would be necessary to designate his
country to an exile from China than to speak of the flowery land. Antiochus, on his return from Egypt,
turned aside and invaded Judea, and ultimately robbed the temple, destroyed Jerusalem, and spread
desolation through the land. See 1 Mac. i.5

There is a tempting plausibility in the fact that Antiochus did actually come out of one of the four
horn kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Macedonian goat [emphasis added]. 6
The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat [emphasis added]. It was then a separate
power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any of the horns of the goat. 7
The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat [emphasis added]. 8
The little horn, however, does not stem from those horns, but came forth from one of the directions
of the compass [emphasis added], as contextual, literal-structural, and semantic considerations suggest.9
The them in out of one of them at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest
antecedent: the immediately preceding four winds of heaven at the end of verse 8. So the little horn
need not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the directions
toward which Alexanders kingdom was divided [emphasis added]. This agrees with our previous
conclusion that the little horn in Daniel 7 is a Roman power. 10
Most commentators assume that the little horn came out of one of the four horns, but contextual and
literary-structural grounds make that unlikely [emphasis added].11
If them refers to winds, all difficulty vanishes. The passage then simply states that from one of the
four points of the compass would come another power [emphasis added]. 12
From this understanding of the syntax in verses 8-9, it is evident that when the little horn came onto the
scene of action, it did not come from the Seleucid horn nor from the other three. In the pictorial
vision it is simply seen as coming from one of the compass directions [emphasis added].13
Thus the antecedent of them in the phrase from them (vs. 9), is neither winds nor horns, but
heavens [emphasis added]. Since heavens is masculine by gender and treated as a plural in biblical
Hebrew, according to the verbs and adjectives used with it, there is perfect agreement in gender and
number with the masculine plural pronoun them. The feminine one of verse 9 refers back to the
feminine winds of verse 8. The text discloses the origin clearly enough: It came from one of the four
winds of the heavens, that is, from one of the directions of the compass [emphasis added].14
3. The little horn waxed great toward the south. This was true of Rome. Egypt was made a province of the
Roman empire B.C. 30, and continued such for some centuries.
4. The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of Rome. Rome conquered Syria B.C. 65,
and made it a province.
5. The little horn waxed great toward the pleasant land. So did Rome. Judea is called the pleasant land in
many scriptures. The Romans made it a province of their empire, B.C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city
and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth. 15
Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and
no other, is the power in question. And while the descriptions given in the word of God of the
character of this monstrous system are fully met, the prophecies of its baleful history have been most
strikingly and accurately fulfilled [emphasis added].16
Hewitts Sensible Refutation

4. The conquests of Rome were by no means limited to the directions in which the exploits of the little
horn were confined. Rome not only advanced her sway to the south, and the east, and the pleasant
land, but to the north and the west, and even beyond the Pillars of Hercules. The terms of the
prediction mark the little horn power as Asiatic; Rome was principally a European power.
[emphasis added].17
Daniel 8:10
KJV10
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host
and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
LAIU10
She magnified herself as far as the host of the heaven, and she cast to the ground
from [e.g. some of] the host and (namely) from the stars, and trampled them.18
10. And it waxed great. It became very powerful. This was eminently true of Antiochus, after having
subdued Egypt, &c.
Even to the host of heaven Marg., against. The Hebrew word ad means to or unto, and the
natural idea would seem to be that he wished to place himself among the stars, or to exalt himself above all
that was earthly. Comp, Notes on Isaiah xiv. 13: For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. Lengerke supposes that the meaning here is, that he
not only carried his conquests to Egypt and to the East, and to the holy land in general, but that he made
war on the holy army of God the priests and worshippers of Jehovah, here spoken of as the host of
heaven. So Maurer understands it. In 2 Mac. ix. 10, Antiochus is described in this language: And the man
that thought a little afore he could reach the stars of heaven, &c. The connection would seem to demand
the interpretation proposed by Lengerke and Maurer, for it is immediately said that he cast down some of
the host and the stars to the ground. And such an interpretation accords with the language elsewhere used,
of the priests and rulers of the Hebrew people. Thus, in Isa. xxiv. 21, they are called the host of the high
ones that are on high. See Notes on that passage. This language is by no means uncommon in the
Scriptures. It is usual to compare princes and rulers, and especially ecclesiastical rulers, with the sun, moon,
and stars. Undoubtedly it is the design here to describe the pride and ambition of Antiochus, and to show
that he did not think any thing too exalted for his aspiration. None were too high or too sacred to be secure
from his attempts to overthrow them, and even those who, by their position and character, seemed to
deserve to be spoken of as suns and stars, as the host of heaven, were not secure.
And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground. The horn seemed to grow up to the stars,
and to wrest them from their places, and to cast them to the earth. Antiochus, in the fulfillment of this, cast
down and trampled on the princes, and rulers, and people, of the holy host or army of God. All that is
implied in this was abundantly fulfilled in what he did to the Jewish people. Comp. 1 Mac. i, and 2 Mac.
viii. 2.
And stamped upon them. With indignation and contempt. Nothing could better express the conduct of
Antiochus toward the Jews.19

As in Daniel 7, the horn power basically attacks God, His people, and His sanctuary (Dan. 8:9-14). The
horn power first grows horizontally, enlarging its territory of influence upon the earth (verse 9), then
vertically against the host of heaven (verse 10), and finally it exalts itself up to the prince of the host
(verse 11, KJV).
The host of heaven and the stars symbolize the people of God (Gen 37:9; Num. 24:17; cf. also the
simile in Dan. 12:3). Some of them get trampled by the horn, which resembles the terrorizing of the saints
in Daniel 7:21, 25.20
The prince of the host must be a divine person. In Joshua 5:13-15, the only other place in which a
heavenly prince of the host appears, He is the supreme commander of the host of Yahweh and is
distinctly marked as divine as Yahweh. Joshua, who was standing on holy ground in His presence,
bowed down to Him and listened to His, Yahwehs, words (Joshua 6:2-5). Thus we should identify the
prince of the host in Daniel 8:11 as the divine-like commander Michael, the chief of the angels. It is
nobody else than Christ, the Son of man, who is distinct from the Most High.5
We see the divinity of the prince of the host underlined by the fact that a sanctuary (Hebrew miqdash)
belongs to Him (Dan. 8:11). The term miqdash often indicates an earthly temple, but it can also refer to a
heavenly sanctuary, as it does here.6 Throwing down the place [foundation] of His sanctuary (verse 11) is
parallel to throwing down the truth (verse 12). Obviously, the horn attacks the fundamental truth the
heavenly sanctuary is built upon.21
Daniel 8:11
KJV11
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily
sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.
LAIU11
And as far as to the Prince of the host magnified himself and from Him was lifted
up the daily offering and was despised the dwelling place of His Sanctuary.22
11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host. Grotius, Ephraem the Syrian, and others,
understand this of Onias the high priest, as the chief officer of the holy people. Lengerke supposes that it
means God himself. This interpretation is the more probable; and the idea in the phrase prince of the host
is, that as God is the ruler of the host of heaven leading on the constellations, and marshalling the stars, so
he may be regarded as the ruler of the holy army here below the ministers of religion, and his people.
Against him as the Ruler and Leader of his people Antiochus exalted himself, particularly by attempting to
change his laws, and to cause his worship to cease.
And by him. Marg., from him. The meaning is, that the command or authority to do this proceeded from
him.
The daily sacrifice was taken away. The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and
evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Mac. i 2024, 2932, 4450. In the
execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the
candlestick, and all the vessels thereof; and the table of shew-bread, the pouring vessels, &c., and stripped
the temple of all the ornaments of gold. After two years he again visited the city, and smote it very sore,
and destroyed much people of Israel, and when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and
pulled down the walls thereof on every side.
Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts
were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt. Subsequently, by a
solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the temple, and polluted
and defiled every part of it. For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of
Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and
drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbaths and festival days; and pollute the
sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and
unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable
with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget the laws, and change all the
ordinances. 1 Mac. i. 44 49.
It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us refers, and the event accords with
the words of the prediction as clearly as if what is a prediction had been written afterward, and had been
designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of historical record. The word which is rendered
daily sacrifice the word sacrifice being supplied by the translators t m yd means properly,
continuance, perpetuity, and then what is continuous or constant as a sacrifice or service daily occurring.
The word sacrifice is properly inserted here. Gesenius, Lex. The meaning of the word rendered was taken
away huram (Hophal from r m - to exalt, to lift up) - here is, that it was lifted up, and then
was taken away; that is, it was made to cease - as if it had been carried away. Gesenius.
And the place of his sanctuary. Of the sanctuary or holy place of the, Prince of the host, that is, of God.
The reference is to the temple.
Was cast down. The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its
holy vessels were carried away. The walls indeed remained, but it was desolate, and the whole service then
was abandoned. See the passages quoted above from 1 Mac. 23

Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamid, the daily or continual. It
holds true if applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the temple,
or to the ministration of the priests who offered those and other sacrifices. 24
the true priest. The horn acts as another prince of the host and commands its own counterfeit host,
which the horn sets up against the tamid (verse 12). In a warfare context, the word host refers to an army,
but in a sanctuary framework it indicates a priestly host. Because the counterfeit host goes against the
regular worship service, it could point to a counterfeit priestly host. Verse 12, with the repetition of the
hook words tamid and throw down, functions as an explanation of the two activities of verse 11.
Of course, the horn cannot interfere in Christs continual priestly mediation in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb.
7:25; 8:1, 2). Who could do that anyway? Christs priestly ministry itself remains unaffected and
untouched. However, the horn power usurps the responsibilities of the heavenly priest and interrupts the
continual worship of God on earth. It substitutes the true worship of God with a false, sacrilegious
worship. Historically, the taking away of the daily by the horn represents the introduction of such papal
innovations as a mediating priesthood, the sacrifice of the Mass, the confessional, and the worship of Mary,
by which it has successfully taken away knowledge of, and reliance upon, the continual ministry of Christ
in the heavenly sanctuary, and rendered that ministry inoperative in the lives of millions of professed
Christians.10 25
3. It took away the daily and cast down the place of Gods sanctuary (Dan. 8:11). How did the Papacy
remove the daily sacrifice and cast down the place of his Sanctuary? By placing human intercession into
the hands of priests, the use of the confessional, and by sacrificing Christ anew in every Mass, the Papacy
has eclipsed Christs heavenly ministry in the minds of the worshipers. Believers no longer approach
Christ directly [emphasis added]; instead they go to the priest, to the saints, or to Mary. By substituting the
priests service here on earth for Christs role in the heavenly sanctuary the little horn has symbolically
cast down the place of his sanctuary to the earth and thereby defiled it.
In the sacrifice of the Mass the Roman priest becomes an alter Christus, that is another Christ, in that he
sacrifices the real Christ upon the altar and presents Him for the salvation of the faithful. We see this
clearly taught in the latter edition (1994) of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church. The sacrifice of
Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass] are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same:
the same now offers through ministry of the priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner
of offering is different. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who
offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody
manner.11
Furthermore, the priest changes the substance of bread and wine into the true substance of Christs body
and blood. The bread and wine are bought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of
Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. 12 In other words, in
obedience to the priestss words Christ descends on the altar in every Mass. The Jesuit priest Franz Xaver
Esser wrote: Oh, priest, how superhuman and great you are, you are like Christ who commanded the wind
and the sea, and who walked on the heaving wavesWith his scepter the priest enters heaven and takes the
Son of God from the closed circle of the angelic choir and they are all powerless, they cannot prevent it.13
In the confessional the priest forgives sins by the formula I absolve you from your sins in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is a miraculous key in the hands of the priest. Says the Catechism,
Bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of the Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 14
It is through such teaching that the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary has been
overthrown in the minds of many Christians and its place effectively taken by misleading substitutes
[emphasis added]. The mass and the confessional draw the minds of Christian believers away from a
continual dependence upon the mediatorial ministry of the Savior in His sanctuary. Elaborate ceremonies,
all in the name of Christ, obscure the ministry of Christ [emphasis added]. Instead of trust in the
inspired Word and in the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit men are taught to depend upon an infallible
church and transubstantiation, purgatory, adoration of images, immortality of the soul, the sacrifice of the
Mass, the immaculate conception. Our Great High Priest, who invites us to come to His throne of grace and
find grace to help in time of need, finds His perpetual intercession pushed aside, and other means of grace,
other mediators and intercessors, are interposed between him and his people His place is taken in the
Roman system by human priests who offer sacrifices, forgive sins, and confer the Holy Spirit [emphasis
added].26
Daniel 8:12
KJV12
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,
and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
LAIU12
And a host/warfare will be given/set over/against the daily [sacrifice] in

rebellion/sin and she will cast the Truth to the ground; and she will do [it] as she will
prosper.27
12. And a host was given him. The Vulgate renders this, and strength robur was given him, &c.
Theodotion, and sin was permitted t
edoth against the sacrifice; and this righteousness was cast
on the ground; so he acted and was prospered. Luther renders it, and such might (or power, macht) was
given him. The Syriac renders it, and strength was given him, &c. Bertholdt renders it, Statt jenes stellte
man den Greuel auf, instead of this [the temple] there was set up an abomination. Dathe, and the stars
were delivered to him tradita ei fuerunt astra, seu populus Judaicus. Maurer understands it also of the
Jewish people, and interprets it, and an army exercitus the people of the Jews was delivered to
destruction, at the same time with the perpetual sacrifice, on account of wickedness, that is, for a wicked
thing, or for impure sacrifices. Lengerke renders it, as in our translation, an host ein Heer was given
up to him at the same time with the daily offering, on account of evil. The word host ts b ' is
doubtless to be taken here in the same sense as ver. 10, where it is connected with heaven the host of
heaven. If it refers there to the Jewish people, it doubtless does here, and the appellation is such an one as
would not unnaturally be used. It is equivalent to saying the army of the Lord, or the people of the Lord,
and it should have been rendered here and the host was given up to him; that is, the people of God, or the
holy people were given into his hands.
Against the daily sacrifice. This does not convey any clear idea. Lengerke renders it, sammt den
bestandigen opfer at the same time with the permanent sacrifice. He remarks that the preposition al
(rendered in our version against), like the Greek epi, may denote a connection with anything, or a
being with a thing Zusammenseyn and thus it would denote a union of time, or that the things occurred
together. Gen. xxxii. 12; Hos. xiii.14; Amos iii. 15. Comp. Genenius, Lex. on the word al, 3. According
to this, the meaning is, that the host, or the Jewish people, were given to him at the same time, or in
connection with the daily sacrifice. The conquest over the people, and the command respecting the daily
sacrifice, were simultaneous. Both passed into his hands, and he exercised jurisdiction over them both.
By reason of transgression bepp sha. That is, all this was on account of the transgression of the
people, or on account of abounding iniquity. God gave up the people, and their temple, and their sacrifices,
into the hands of Antiochus, on account of the prevailing impiety. Comp. 1 Macc. i. 1116. The author of
that book traces all these calamities to the acts of certain wicked men, who obtained permission of
Antiochus to introduce pagan customs into Jerusalem, and who actually established many of those customs
there.
And it cast down the truth to the ground. The true system of religion, or the true method of worshipping
God represented here as truth in the abstract. So in Isa. lix. 14, it is said: Truth is fallen in the street, and
equity cannot enter. The meaning here is, that the institutions of the true religion would be utterly
prostrate. This was fully accomplished by Antiochus. See 1 Mac. i.
And it practised - Heb. it did, or it acted. That is, it undertook a work, and was successful. So in Ps. i 3,
where the same expression occurs: And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. This was fully accomplished
in Antiochus, who was entirely successful in all his enterprises against Jerusalem. See 1 Mac. i. 28

Cast down the truth. The papacy loaded the truth with tradition and obscured it by superstition.29
4. It cast truth to the ground (Dan. 8:12). Jesus said of Himself, I am the truth (John 14:6), and in regard
to Gods Word, He said, Your word is truth (John 17:17). From the twelfth century onward various
popes prohibited the use of the Bible in the vernacular the Waldenses and later the Protestants used
it against the teachings of the church [emphasis added].
The council of Trent in 1546 decreed that no one was to interpret Scripture contrary to the opinion of the
church, for the church was the judge of the true sense of Scripture. No one, relying on his own skill, shall
in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine wresting the sacred
Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy
mother Church whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures hath held
and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers 16 30
Daniel 8:13
KJV 13
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which
spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression
of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
LAIU13
I heard one/an holy being speaking, and (then) said an [other] holy being to the
anonymous one who was speaking: Until when the vision: the daily offering, and the
rebellion/sin devastating to give/set both sanctuary and host [become] overtrodden
ground? 31
13. Then I heard one saint speaking. One holy one. The vision was now ended, and the prophet represents
himself now as hearing earnest inquiries as to the length of time during which this desolation was to
continue. This conversation, or these inquiries, he represents himself as hearing among those whom he calls
saints or holy ones q d sh. This word might refer to a saint on earth, or to an angel to any holy
being. As one of these, however, was able to explain the vision, and to tell how long the desolation was to
continue, it is more natural to refer it to angels. So Lengerke understands it. The representation is, that one
holy one, or angel, was heard by Daniel speaking on this subject, but nothing is recorded of what he said. It
is implied only that he was conversing about the desolations that were to come upon the holy city and the
people of God. To him thus speaking, and who is introduced as having power to explain it, another holy
one approaches, and asks how long this state of things was to continue. The answer to this question (ver.
14) is made, not to the one who made the inquiry, but to Daniel, evidently that it might be recorded. Daniel
does not say where this vision occurred whether in heaven or on earth. It was so near to him, however,
that he could hear what was said.32
How long shall be the vision. Concerning the daily sacrifice. How long is that which is designed to be
represented by the vision to continue; that is, how long in fact will the offering of the daily sacrifice in the
temple be suspended?
And the transgression of desolation - Marg., making desolate. That is, the act of iniquity on the part of
Antiochus producing such desolation in the holy city and the temple how long is that to continue?
To give both the sanctuary. The temple; the holy place where God dwelt by a visible symbol, and where
he was worshipped.
And the host. The people of God the Jewish people.
To be trodden under foot. To be utterly despised and prostrated as anything which is trodden under our
feet. 33

Although the question singles out a few activities of the horn (perhaps the most horrible ones), it still
seeks the length of the entire vision that is, it is inquiring about the events shown in the vision of
Daniel 8.11[emphasis added] 34
Hewitts Sensible Refutation

There remains, however, a final problem to be solved before we can agree that the case for the Maccabean
position is complete. It is a serious problem. It concerns the length of time the sanctuary should lie
desolate [emphasis added]. In his vision Daniel heard a certain saint ask the angel interpreter, How long
shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the
sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? [emphasis added]. And he said unto me, Unto two
thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (vv. 13, 14). Was there any period
corresponding to this in the depredations of Epiphanes against the host and their sanctuary?
The first thing to notice is the beginning and the ending of this period. (As the scholars would call them, the
terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem.) Some have supposed that the 2,300 days measure the entire
duration of the history contemplated in this vision [emphasis added], i.e., from the rise of Persia to the
cleansing of the sanctuary. Others have looked outside of this vision for a convenient beginning point.
This is the more surprising because the language is so specific [emphasis added].
The inquiring saint did not ask, How long shall be the vision concerning the ram and the he-goat? He
did not ask, how long shall be the vision from the going forth of the commandment to restore and
build Jerusalem unto the cleansing of the sanctuary? [emphasis added] (That mixes up two visions
rather badly!) What he did ask was, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the
transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? [emphasis
added].
This is exceptionally clear phraseology and can mean only one thing; viz., that the vision which is
to be measured by 2,300 days is limited to that part of the whole vision which concerns the taking
away of the daily sacrifice and the treading under foot of the sanctuary. The terminus a quo must
therefore coincide with the beginning of these desolations, and the terminus ad quem, with the
cleansing. This seems to require that the 2,300 days be looked for somewhere during the Maccabean
period [emphasis added].
The second thing to notice is that on this basis the days of this vision must be literal and not symbolic
days. In other words, that the year-day principle cannot be applied to this measurement, for obviously 2,300
years cannot be compressed within the limits of the Maccabean struggle against Antiochus. 35
Daniel 8:14
KJV
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed.
LAIU14
And he said/answered to me: Until evening and morning two thousand and three
hundred: and will be vindicated the sanctuary.36
14. And he said unto me. Instead of answering the one who made the inquiry, the answer is made to Daniel,
doubtless that he might make a record of it, or communicate it to others. If it had been made to the inquirer,
the answer would have remained with him, and could have been of no use to the world. For the
encouragement, however, of the Hebrew people, when their sanctuary and city would be thus desolate, and
in order to furnish an instance of the clear fulfillment of a prediction, it was important that it should be
recorded, and hence, it was made to Daniel.
Unto two thousand and three hundred days. Marg., evening, morning. So the Hebrew, ereb
boqer. So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et man. And so Theodotion
he s
hesperas kai pr i to the evening and morning. The language here is evidently what was derived from
Gen. i., or which was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the evening and the morning as
constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and
obvious interpretation. The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner by
the word nuchth meron (see 2 Cor. xi. 25), in order more emphatically to designate one
complete day. See Prof. Stuarts Hints on Prophecy, pp. 99, 100. The time then specified by this would
be six years and a hundred and ten days [emphasis added].
Much difficulty has been felt by expositors in reconciling this statement with the other designations of time
in the book of Daniel, supposed to refer to the same event, and with the account furnished by Josephus in
regard to the period which elapsed during which the sanctuary was desolate, and the daily sacrifice
suspended. The other designations of time which have been supposed to refer to the same event in Daniel,
are ch. vii. 25, where the time mentioned is three years and a half or twelve hundred and sixty days, and
chapter xii. 7 where the same time is mentioned, a time, times, and an half, or three years and an half, or,
as before, twelve hundred and sixty days, and ch. xii. 14, where the period mentioned is a thousand two
hundred and ninety days, and ch. xii. 12, where the time mentioned is a thousand three hundred and
thirty-five days. The time mentioned by Josephus is three years exactly from the time when their Divine
worship was fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, till the time when the lamps were
lighted again, and the worship restored, for he says that the one event happened precisely three years after
the other, on the same day of the month - Ant. B. xii. ch. vii. 6. In his Jewish Wars, however, B. i. ch. i.
1, he says that Antiochus spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily
sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. Now, in order to explain the passage before us, and to
reconcile the accounts, or to show that there is no contradiction between them, the following remarks may
be made:
(1) We may lay out of view the passage in ch. vii. 25. See Notes on that passage. If the reasoning there be
sound, then that passage had no reference to Antiochus, and though, according to Josephus, there is a
remarkable coincidence between the time mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice
was suspended, yet that does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.
(2) We may lay out of view, also, for the present, the passages in ch. xii. 11, 12. Those will be the subject
of consideration hereafter, and for the present ought not to be allowed to embarrass us in ascertaining the
meaning of the passage before us.
(3) On the assumption, however, that those passages refer to Antiochus, and that the accounts in Josephus
above referred to are correct though he mentions different times, and though different periods are referred
to by Daniel, the variety may be accounted for by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to at the
starting point in the calculation the terminus a quo. The truth was, there were several decisive acts in the
history of Antiochus that led to the ultimate desolation of Jerusalem, and at one time a writer may have
contemplated one, and at another time another. Thus, there was the act by which Jason, made high priest by
Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem after the manner of the heathen (Prideaux,
iii. 216; 1 Mac. i. 1115); the act by which he assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the most holy place,
stripping the temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a great sow on the altar of burntofferings (Prideaux, iii. 230, 231; 1 Mac. 1:2028); the act, just two years after this, by which, having been
defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all his wrath on the Jews, and, on his return, sent
Apollonius with a great army to ravage and destroy Jerusalem when Apollonius, having plundered the
city, set it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, and with the ruins of the demolished city
built a strong fortress on Mount Acra, which overlooked the temple, and from which he could attack all
who went to the temple to worship (Prideaux, iii. 239, 240; 1 Mac. i. 29-49); and the act by which
Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple.
(Prideaux, iii. 241, 242; 1 Mac. i. 4451). Now, it is evident that one writing of these calamitous events,
and mentioning how long they would continue, might at one time contemplate one of these events as the
beginning, the terminus a quo, and at another time, another of these events might be in his eye. Each one of
them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each one might be contemplated as a period which, in
an important sense, determined the destiny of the city, and put an end to the worship of God there.
(4) It seems probable that the time mentioned in the passage before us is designed to take in the whole
series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act which led to the suspending the daily sacrifice, or the
termination of the worship of God there, to the time when the sanctuary was cleansed. That this is so
would seem to be probable from the series of visions presented to Daniel in the chapter before us. The acts
of the little horn representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the pleasant land
(ver. 9) and the things which attracted the attention of Daniel were, that he waxed great, and made war on
the host of heaven, and cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground (ver. 10) and magnified
himself against the prince of the host (ver. 11) acts which refer manifestly to his attack on the people of
God, and the priests or ministers of religion, and on God himself as the prince of the host unless this
phrase should be understood as referring rather to the high priest. We are then rather to look to the whole
series of events as included within the two thousand and three hundred days, than the period in which
literally the daily sacrifice was forbidden by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and the worship
of God interrupted during all that time.
(5) The terminus ad quem the conclusion of the period is marked and settled. This was the cleansing of
the sanctuary. This took place, under Judas Maccabeus, Dec. 25, 165 B.C. Prideaux, iii. 265-268. Now,
reckoning back from this period, two thousand and three hundred days, we come to August 5, 171 B.C. The
question is, whether there were in this year, and at about this time, any events in the series of sufficient
importance to constitute a period from which to reckon; events answering to what Daniel saw as the
commencement of the vision, when some of the host and the stars were cast down and stamped upon.
Now, as a matter of fact, there commenced in the year 171 B.C. a series of aggressions upon the priesthood,
and temple, and city of the Jews on the part of Antiochus, which terminated only with his death. Up to this
year, the relations of Antiochus and the Jewish people were peaceful and cordial.
In the year 175 B.C. he granted to the Jewish people, who desired it, permission to erect a gymnasium in
Jerusalem, as above stated. In the year 173 B.C. demand was made of Antiochus of the provinces of CoeleSyria and Palestine by the young Philometor of Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother
a demand which was the origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of
all the disturbances. Prideaux, iii. 218. In the year 172 B.C., Antiochus bestowed the office of high priest
on Menelaus, who was the brother of Jason the high priest. Jason had sent Menelaus to Antioch to pay the
king his tribute money, and while there Menelaus conceived the design of supplanting his brother, and by
offering for it more than Jason had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem. Prideaux, iii.
220-222. Up to this time all the intercourse of Antiochus with the Jews had been of a peaceful character,
and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred.
In 171 B.C. began the series of events which finally resulted in the invasion and destruction of the city, and
in the cessation of the public worship of God. Menelaus, having procured the high priesthood, refused to
pay the tribute money which he had promised for it, and was summoned to Antioch. Antiochus being then
absent, Menelaus took advantage of his absence, and having, by means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at
Jerusalem, procured the vessels out of the temple, he sold them at Tyre, and thus raised money to pay the
king. In the meantime, Onias III., the lawful high priest, who had fled to Antioch, sternly rebuked Menelaus
for his sacrilege, and soon after, at the instigation of Menelaus, was allured from his retreat at Daphne,
where he had sought an asylum, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vicegerent of Antiochus. At the
same time, the Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at the profanation by Menelaus, and the sacrilege in
robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who defended him, and both
cut off this sacrilegious robber (Prideaux), and the guards by whom he was surrounded.
This assault on the officer of Antiochus, and rebellion against him, was the commencement of the
hostilities which resulted in the ruin of the city, and the closing of the worship of God. Prideaux, iii. 224
226; Stuarts Hints on Prophecy, p. 102. Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and
the temple, and the city of the Jews, which, with occasional interruption, continued to the death of
Antiochus, and which led to all that was done in profaning the temple, and in suspending the public
worship of God, and it is doubtless to this time that the prophet here refers. This is the natural period in
describing the series of events which were so disastrous to the Jewish people; this is the period at which
one who should now describe them as history, would begin. It may not, indeed, be practicable to make out
the precise number of days, for the exact dates are not preserved in history, but the calculation brings it into
the year 171 B.C., the year which is necessary to be supposed in order that the two thousand and three
hundred days should be completed. Comp. Lengerke, in loc., p. 388.
Various attempts have been made to determine the exact number of the days by historic records. Bertholdt,
whom Lengerke follows, determines it in this manner. He regards the time referred to as that from the
command to set up pagan altars to the victory over Nicanor, and the solemn celebration of that victory, as
referred to in 1 Mac. vii. 48, 49. According to this reckoning, the time is as follows: The command to set
up idol altars was issued in the year 145, on the 15th of the month Kisleu. There remained of that year, after
the command was given,
Half of the month Kisleu 15 days
The month Thebet 30 days
The month Shebath 29 days
The month Adar 30 days
The year 146 354 days
The year 15l to the 13th day of the month Adar, when the victory over Nicanor was achieved 337 days
Two intercalary months during this time, according to the Jewish reckoning 60 days
Total of 2,271 days.
This would leave but twenty-nine days of the 2300 to be accounted for, and this would be required to go
from the place of the battle between Beth-Horon and Adasa (1 Mac. vii. 39, 40) to Jerusalem, and to
make arrangements to celebrate the victory. See Bertholdt, pp. 501 503. The reckoning here is from the
time of founding the kingdom of the Seleucidae, or the era of the Seleucidae.
Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Marg., justified. The Hebrew word ts daq means, to be right
or straight, and then to be just or righteous; then to vindicate or justify. In the form used here (Niphal), it
means to be declared just; to be justified or vindicated, and, as applied to the temple or sanctuary, to be
vindicated from violence or injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lex. There is undoubtedly
reference here to the act of Judas Maccabeus, in solemnly purifying the temple, and repairing it, and rededicating it, after the pollutions brought upon it by Antiochus. For a description of this, see Prideauxs
Connexion, iii. 265269. Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in the temple; pulled down the altars
which the pagan had erected; bore out all the defiled stones into an unclean place; built a new altar in place
of the old altar of burnt-offerings which they had defiled; hallowed the courts; made a new altar of incense,
table of shew-bread, golden candlestick, &c., and solemnly re-consecrated the whole to the service of God.
This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kisleu), and the solemnity continued for eight
days. This is the festival which is called the feast of dedication in the New Testament (John x. 22) and
which our Saviour honored with his presence. See 1 Mac. iv. 4158, 2 Mac. x. 17. Josephus, Ant. B. xii.
ch. vii. 6, 7.37

Days. Heb. ereb boqer, literally, evening morning, an expression comparable with the description of the
days of creation, the evening and the morning were the first day (Gen. 1:5), etc. The LXX has the word
days following the expression evening and morning.
In an attempt to make this period roughly conform to the three years of the devastation of the Temple by
Antiochus IV, some have ingeniously assigned to the expression 2300 evening morning only 1150 literal
days.
Concerning this, Keil has remarked that the prophetic period of the 2300 evening-mornings cannot be
understood as 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at creation constituted
not the half but the whole day. After quoting the foregoing statement, Edward Young says, Hence, we
must understand the phrase as meaning 2300 days (The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 174).
Commentators have tried, but without success, to find some event in history that would fit a period of 2300
literal days. As Wright observes, All efforts, however, to harmonise the period, whether expounded as
2300 days or as 1150 days, with any precise historical epoch mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees or
in Josephus have proved futile. Professor Driver is justified in stating, It seems impossible to find two
events separated by 2300 days (=6 years and 4 months) which would correspond with the description
(Charles H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies, 1906, pp. 186, 187). The only way that consistency can
be given to these days is to apply them in a prophetic sense by the application of the year-day principle.
The time here involved is specific and definite, but in ch. 8 no date is indicated for its beginning. However,
in ch. 9 such a date is specifically mentioned (see on v. 25). This will be shown to be 457 B.C. From this
date as a beginning, the 2300 prophetic days, designating as many solar years (see on ch. 7:25), reach to the
year A.D. 1844. For a consideration of contextual evidence that ch. 9:2427 provides an explanation of the
vision of ch. 8:13, 14, and thus locates the starting point of the 2300 days or years, see on ch. 9:21. For
comment on the validity of the date 457 B.C. see on ch. 9:25. For comment on a nonexistent LXX reading
2400 instead of 2300, formerly often cited but based on a misprint, see p. 58).
Sanctuary. Inasmuch as the 2300 years project us far into the Christian Era, the sanctuary cannot refer to
the Temple at Jerusalem, which was destroyed in A.D. 70. The sanctuary of the new covenant is clearly the
sanctuary in heaven, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Heb. 8:2; GC 411417). Of this sanctuary
Christ is the high priest (Heb. 8:1). John foresaw a time when special attention would be directed toward
the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein (Rev. 11:1). The symbols employed by
the revelator are strikingly similar to those employed in Dan. 8:1113.
Be cleansed. From the Heb. sadaq, to be just, to be righteous. The verb occurs in the form here found
(niphal) only this once in the OT, which may suggest that a specialized meaning of the term is indicated.
Lexicographers and translators suggest various meanings, such as be put right, or be put in a rightful
condition, be righted, be declared right, be justified, be vindicated. The translation shall be
cleansed is the reading of the LXX, which here has the verb form katharisthesetai. It is not known
whether the translators of the LXX gave an adapted meaning to the Heb. sadaq or translated from
manuscripts employing a different Hebrew word, perhaps tahar, the common Hebrew word for to be
clean, to cleanse. The Vulgate has the form mundabitur, which also means cleansed. See on ch. 9:24.
As an aid to determining what event in connection with the heavenly sanctuary is here referred to, it is
helpful to examine the services of the earthly sanctuary, for the priests in the earthly sanctuary served unto
the example and shadow of heavenly things (Heb. 8:5). The services in the wilderness tabernacle and in
the Temple consisted of two main divisions, the daily and the yearly. Christs daily ministration as our high
priest was typified in the daily services. The annual Day of Atonement typified a work that Christ would
undertake at the close of the age. For a detailed discussion of these two phases of service see on Lev. 1:16;
see also GC 418432. The prophecy of Dan. 8:14 announces the time for the beginning of this special
work. The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary comprehends the entire work of final judgment, beginning
with the investigative phase and ending with the executive phase, which results in the permanent
eradication of sin from the universe.
A significant feature of the final judgment is the vindication of Gods character before all the intelligences
of the universe. The false charges that Satan has lodged against the government of God must be
demonstrated as utterly groundless. God must be shown to have been entirely fair in the selection of certain
individuals to make up His future kingdom, and in the barring of others from entrance there. The final acts
of God will evoke from men the confessions, Just and true are thy ways (Rev. 15:3), Thou art righteous,
O Lord (Rev. 16:5), and, True and righteous are thy judgments (Rev. 16:7). Satan himself will be led to
acknowledge Gods justice (see GC 670, 671). The word translated just and righteous is dikaios,
equivalent to the Heb. saddiq, derived from sadaq, a form of which is translated shall be cleansed in Dan.
8:14. Thus the Heb. sadaq may convey the additional thought that Gods character will be fully vindicated
as the climax to the hour of his judgment (Rev. 14:7), which began in 1844. See Problems in Bible
Translation, pp. 174177.38
Daniel 8:23
KJV23
And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full,
a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
LAIU23
And in the latter time of their kingdom, as making their full the rebels/sins, their
will stand up a king hard/thick skinned of face and understanding things locked up.39
23. And in the latter time of their kingdom. When it shall be drawing to an end. All these powers were
ultimately absorbed in the Roman power; and the meaning here is, that taking the time from the
period of their formation the division of the empire after the battle of Ipsus (Notes on ver. 8), till
the time when all would be swallowed up in the Roman dominion, what is here stated to wit, the
rise of Antiochus, would be in the latter portion of that period. The battle of Ipsus was fought 301
B.C., and the Roman power was extended over all those regions gradually from 168 B.C., the battle
of Pydna, when Perseus was defeated, and Macedonia was reduced to a Roman province, to 30 B.C.,
when Egypt was subjected the last of these kingdoms that submitted to the Roman arms.
Antiochus began to reign, 175 B.C. that it was in the latter part of this period [emphasis added].
When the transgressors are come to the full. Marg., accomplished. That is, when the state of things the
prevalence of wickedness and irreligion in Judea shall have been allowed to continue as long as it can be
or so that the cup shall be full then shall appear this formidable power to inflict deserved punishment on
the guilty nation. The sacred writers often speak of iniquity as being full of the cup of iniquity as being
full as if there was a certain limit or capacity beyond which it could not be allowed to go. When that
arrives, God interposes, and cuts off the guilty by some heavy judgment. Comp. Gen. xv. 16: The iniquity
of the Amorites is not yet full. Matt. xxiii. 32: Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 1 Thess. ii. 16
to fill up their sins alway. The idea is, that there is a certain measure or amount of sin which can be
tolerated, but beyond that the Divine compassion cannot go with safety to the universe, or consistently with
the honor of God, and then the punishment may be expected; then punishment must come. This is true,
doubtless, of individuals and nations, and this period had arrived in regard to the Jews when Antiochus was
permitted to lay their temple, city, and country waste.
A king of fierce countenance. Stern and severe. This expression would be applicable to many who have
held the kingly office, and no one can doubt that it may be applied with strict propriety to Antiochus.
And understanding dark sentences. Gesenius (Lex.) explains the word here rendered dark
sentences to mean artifice, trick, stratagem. This will better agree with the character of Antiochus,
who was more distinguished for craft and policy than he was for wisdom, or for explaining enigmas.
The meaning seems to be that he would be politic and crafty, seeking to make his way, and to
accomplish his purpose, not only by the terror that he inspired, but by deceit and cunning. That this
was his character is well known. Comp. Notes on ver. 25. [emphasis added].
Shall stand up. Shall succeed, or there shall be such a king.40

1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of
Alexanders empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the
Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was
Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian
horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence he could not be at the same time a separate
and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was.
2. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be
applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means
sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious, he was illustrious only
in name; for nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be
more alien to his true character; for, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool
and others a madman, they changed his name of Epiphanes, The Illustrious, into Epimanes, The
Madman.41
k. Antiochus was "fierce" toward the Jews, but was not noted for understanding dark sentences- (verse
23).42
Daniel 8:24
KJV24
And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy
wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy
people.

LAIU24
And it will be mighty (in) his power and not with his power and wonders/
amazingly he shall destroy, and he shall prosper, and he shall do, and he shall destroy
strong ones and a people of holy ones; 43
24. And his power shall be mighty. He shall be a powerful monarch. Though not as mighty as
Alexander, yet his conquests of Egypt and other places show that he deserved to be numbered among
the mighty kings of the earth.
But not by his own power. That is, it shall not be by any strength of his own, but by the power which God
gives him. This is true of all kings and princes (Comp. John xix. 11; Isa. X 5, seq.), but it seems to be
referred to here particularly to show that the calamities which he was about to bring upon the Hebrew
people were by Divine direction and appointment. This great power was given him in order that he might
be an instrument in the Divine hand of inflicting deserved punishment on them for their sins.
And he shall destroy wonderfully. In a wonderful or extraordinary manner shall he spread desolation. This
refers particularly to the manner in which he would lay waste the holy city, and the land of Judea. The
history in the books of Maccabees shows that this was literally fulfilled.
And shall prosper. Antiochus was among the most successful kings in his various expeditions.
Particularly was he successful in his enterprises against the holy land [emphasis added].
And practise. Hebrew, do. That is, he shall be distinguished not only for forming plans, but for executing
them; not merely for purposing, but for doing.
And shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. The people of God the Jewish nation. See Notes on vs.
912.44

4. The little horn waxed exceedingly great; but this Antiochus did not wax exceedingly great; on the
contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he
immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist
from his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the
unoffending Jews.45
Daniel 8:25
KJV25
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall
magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up
against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
LAIU25
An to his mind he shall prosper (with) deception in his hand; and in his heart shall
magnify himself, and at ease shall destroy many, and over against the Prince of princes
shall he stand up/arise, and with no/zero hand he shall be broken.46

25. And through his policy. The word rendered policy here s' kel means, properly, intelligence,
understanding, wisdom; and then, in a bad sense, craft, cunning. So it is rendered here by Gesenius, and the
meaning is, that he would owe his success in a great measure to craft and subtlety.
He shall cause craft to prosper in his hand. He shall owe his success in a great measure to a crafty policy,
to intrigue, and to cunning. This was true in an eminent sense, of Antiochus. See his history in Prideaux,
above referred to, and the books of Maccabees. Comp. Notes on ch. xi. 21. The same character is given of
him by Polybius, Relig. lib. xxxi. c. 5, Tom. iv. p. 501, Ed. Schweighauser; Appian, "de reb. Syr." xlv. t. 1,
p. 604, ed. Schweigh. Compare 2 Macc. 5:24-26. He came to the kingdom by deceit (Prideaux, iii. 212),
and a great part of his success was owing to craft and policy.
And he shall magnify himself in his heart. Shall be lifted up with pride, or esteem himself of great
consequence.
And by peace shall destroy many. Marg., prosperity. The Hebrew word shalev h means properly,
tranquility, security, ease, carelessness. Here the phrase seems to mean in the midst of security (Gesenius,
Lex.); that is, while they were at ease, and regarded themselves as in a state of safety, he would come
suddenly and unexpectedly upon them, and destroy them. He would make sudden war on them, invading
their territories, so that they would have no opportunity to make preparation to meet him. Comp. ch. xi. 21,
24. It would seem to mean that he would endeavor to produce the impression that he was coming in peace;
that he pretended friendship, and designed to keep those whom he meant to invade and destroy in a state of
false security, so that he might descend upon them unawares. This was his policy rather than to declare war
openly, and so give his enemies fair warning of what he intended to do. This description agrees every way
with the character of Antiochus, a leading part of whose policy always was to preserve the appearance of
friendship, that he might accomplish his purpose while his enemies were off their guard.
He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes. Notes, ver. 11. Against God, the ruler over the kings
of the earth.
But he shall be broken without hand. That is, without the hand of man, or by no visible cause. He shall be
overcome by Divine, invisible power. According to the author of the first book of Maccabees (ch vi. 8 6),
he died of grief and remorse in Babylon. He was on an expedition to Persia, and there laid siege to Elymais,
and was defeated, and fled to Babylon, when, learning that his forces in Palestine had been repulsed,
penetrated with grief and remorse, he sickened and died. According to the account in the second book of
Maccabees (ix.), his death was most distressing and horrible. Comp. Prideaux, iii. 272275. All the
statements given of his death, by the authors of the books of Maccabees, by Josephus, by Polybius, by
Q. Curtius, and by Arrian (see the quotations in Prideaux), agree in representing it as attended with
every circumstance of horror that can be well supposed to accompany a departure from this world,
and as having every mark of the just judgment of God. The Divine prediction in Daniel was fully
accomplished, that his death would be without hand, in the sense that it would not be by human
instrumentality; but that it would be by a direct Divine infliction [emphasis added]. When Antiochus
died, the opposition to the Jews ceased, and their land again had peace and rest. 47

m. Antiochus was not broken without hand (verse 25); there is no suggestion of anything
miraculous or mysterious about either his failure with the Jews or his death [emphasis added].48
XI. When Dogmas Replace Evidence

This research document has reexamined issues related to the actual origin and the true
nature of the little horn in Daniel 8. In order to establish a logical and scientific basis for the
discussion, we have also demarcated from the start, in section II (True Historicism
Characteristics), a language framework that would provide adequate protection against logical
deadlocks due to possible communication confusion, and also against truth and fact
manipulations that appear to be too common in the SDA theological circles. We have determined
general definitions for (1) historicism, (2) historical events, and (3) historical fulfillment in order
to prevent false claims related to the terms mentioned above. We will revisit and summarize
those established definitions in order to be able to draw a valid and legitimate conclusion to this
document.
The Terms and Their Definitions
(1) Historicism
This term [historicism] is used to describe a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the fulfillment
of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the prophet to
the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.1
[p. 137] The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a
symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to
the end of time.2
Through the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation have been proposed. The
historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at
the time of the prophets who wrote them.3
Here is my proposed definition of historicism: Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy
intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between
his day and the eschaton.4
Thus, historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events, institutions,
movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age
[emphasis added]. These began in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and will
eventually lead up to the Lords return.5
(2) Historical Events

That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise
ascertained [emphasis added]; the formal record of the past, esp. of human affairs or actions [emphasis
added]; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations. 6
The OED also defines historical as pertaining to history, of the nature or character of history,
following or in accordance with history, and pertaining to, of history as opposed to fiction or
legend, and relating to or concerned with history or historical events [emphasis added]. These two
definitions are relevant and important and should be treated as criteria points for a scrupulous review of all
the unverified historical events or historical facts that the SDA historicist theologians have proposed
as fulfillments for the apocalyptic time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.7
(3) Historical Fulfillment

This events review should also be based on Sheas pragmatic test of historical fulfillment [emphasis
added] that requires that the interpretive results [should] be confirmed from extrabiblical sources
where possible [emphasis added]8 and that the events, institutions, movements, and periods [emphasis
added] suggested and claimed as evidence for historical fulfillment must be specific and identifiable
historical events [emphasis added],9 and therefore real, and in-history,10 and not assumed, simulated,
counterfeited, or fabricated. It remains to be seen how historical, factual, true, verifiable, and reliable are
the prophetic events that Rome is claimed to have fulfilled in the SDA pragmatic test of historical
fulfillment, and whether or not Rome has qualified as the little horn in Daniel 8.
Historicism vs. Pseudo-Historicism

The definitions included above (1. historicism, 2. historical events, and 3. historical
fulfillment) have allowed us to establish whether or not the SDA biblical interpretation claims
for Daniel 8 and the little horn have been based on factual historical data or on mere
assumptions, speculations, and fact manipulations. The interpretations based on empirical
historical evidence are authentic and historicist. On the other hand, the interpretations based on
theological opinions and unverifiable historical narratives cannot be considered historicist, but
pseudo-historicist, a situation in which theoretical perspectives based on deductions and
assumptions are considered more significant and important than empirical, actual, and verifiable
historical facts. We have also concluded that theoretical perspectives or deductions could never
supersede or prevail over actual facts, and that failure to document an interpretation with actual
evidence would weaken and invalidate an interpretation, and reduce it to a simple personal
opinion. The collected evidence demonstrates that in spite of the high claims of true and
authentic historicism the SDA theological interpretations of Daniel 8 and its vicious little horn
show to be pseudo-historicist because no authentic historical and verifiable data has been
submitted to support the assumptions, speculations, and text manipulations that have been passed
for genuine and factual data in those interpretations and commentaries.
Historical Truth vs. Dogmatic Truth
The factual data assembled in this document also compels us to conclude that the position
the SDA Church theologians have taken on Antiochus IV Epiphanes cannot be considered
historical truth but rather dogmatic truth a deductive and speculative theological position
that cannot be supported with rigorous factual evidence and fails the empirical test. Gane
summarizes well the unfortunate situation in which the SDA Church finds itself at the present
time because it defends contrived dogmas rather than biblical and historical truth, and
discourages and punishes all the serious research about Antiochus IV Epiphanes for fear that this
research would expose the errors in the SDA interpretations for Daniel 8. States the historicist:
Why dont more people accept the eschatological aspects of sanctuary teaching, including a pre-Advent
judgment taking place now? Here are a few possible reasons:
1. Abandonment of the Reformation view regarding the Church of Rome, in favor of ecumenism and
political correctness. Without including the Church of Rome in fulfillment of the little horn, it is
impossible to accurately interpret the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14.
2. Abandonment of historicism by most Christians after the disappointment of 1844, when William Miller
and his associates predicted Christs Second Coming on the basis of Daniel 8:14, mistakenly interpreting
the cleansing of the sanctuary after 2,300 days = years as the cleansing of the world by fire. Other
exegetical mistakes and excesses by historicists have not helped the cause of historicism. Well-trained
Adventist scholars are now being much more careful and cautious, utilizing all the rich exegetical resources
at their disposal, but the stigma is still strong.44
3. The misconception that the Adventist teaching that Christ began a new phase of heavenly sanctuary
ministry in 1844, namely, participation in a pre-Advent judgment in heaven, is simply a face-saving
strategy of reinterpretation for disappointed Millerites. 45 Of course, we know that the same kind of
argument was long ago directed against the reality of Christs Resurrection.
4. The fact that nothing happened on earth in 1844 to prove the beginning of a new phase of salvation
in heaven. Acceptance of this, as with other Christian beliefs, is based on faith in the biblical evidence
alone [emphasis added].
5. Failure to grasp the role of the pre-Advent judgment in the Lords plan of salvation, supposing it to
legalistically destroy the Gospel assurance of faithful, saved people. 46
6. The misconception that Adventist sanctuary eschatology is based on the writings of Ellen G. White
rather than biblical exegesis. While White participated in the Bible study through which the basic Adventist
view was developed and she wrote on this topic, she directed people to Scripture as the sole authority.
Notice that the present paper relies on the Bible alone.
7. The fact that interpreting the time prophecies of Daniel is a rather complicated process. Of course, other
aspects of biblical interpretation are complicated too, and the need to deal with layers of misinterpretation
greatly augments the complexity, through no fault of Daniel. 11
Divine Truth vs. Human Deception

That plain, honest, and unadorned truth is inconvenient and uncomfortable and never fails
to infuriate the deception brokers is a verified and often painful fact. Walter Rea learned this
matter first hand when he experienced persecution from those who have called themselves the
remnant and the truth bearers but have acted like gangsters and terrorists when their evil
deeds have been brought out into the open so that others could see what was hidden under those
sanctimonious cloaks. States the maligned, harassed, and oppressed scholar:
In view of what I have observed, experienced, and learned, I have thought it proper and necessary to record
for future generations the findings of my ongoing study. These coming generations will want to know the
truth about what has been unearthed from the past. It will be a part of what they will take into consideration
in their religious experience and judgments.
Despite much good counsel to the contrary, I have chosen the title THE WHITE LIE for my book. I do not
apply that term separately and only to Ellen G. White. When we (any of us) give our consent or support
to perpetuating a myth (in whole or in part) about any person or any thing, we ourselves are thereby
party to a white lie [emphasis added]. The message of this book is to help reveal to all of us that often we
do indeed carry on a legend.
The worst lies that are told are often the ones told in religion because they are told in a way that the
assumption is that God endorses them and that therefore they are for our good. That that good can, and
does, become harmful, wrongful, and even evil does not usually occur to those zealous persons who
promote legends in the name of God.
In this study I have intended to deal not only with the facts as I have found them but also with their
outworking in the church and in us personally as I have come to view that outworking. I hope also to leave
a lesson or two for those who may be looking for such lessons.
Much study remains to be done on the question of why some of us accept as much as we do from
whomever we do. What thing is it deep within us that is tapped to make us react as unquestioningly as
we do to unreliable information so that we make it "truth" and let it govern our thinking and our
lives? [emphasis added].
At this stage in my thinking, if there is blame left to be assessed or portioned out, I must accept much of it
for having been so gullible, without adequate study or research on my own part, as to consent to much of
that which was originally portrayed to me as "the truth" but which, in fact, contains much untruth that
diverts us from that about which we ought to be concerned primarily. The major regret I have is that
time will not allow me to correct some of the misinformation that I myself unwarily bought and
passed on to others as the white lie [emphasis added].
Every institution, every corporate entity, every established system whether political, economic, social, or
religious must have its patron saint. That saint may be a founder, a benefactor, a charismatic leader, or a
long-dead mystic figure. Regardless of the category or the time period of existence, the patron is venerated
even if he was a vampire; he is canonized even if he was a con artist; he is given sainthood even if he was a
known sinner.
There is something in the human mind that seeks to create the unreal to imagine or pretend that
something is so even if all logic says it is not so. What is unseeable we claim is a vision; what is fallible
we label perfection; what is illusory we give authority [emphasis added]. Much study has been given to
why we want to believe, and indeed have to believe, the permissible lie. For my purpose here, it is
enough to say that we do so and we seem to have to do so. For if we reject the fantasy we now hold,
probably we will find or invent another in our effort to keep from facing reality.
The sellers of nostrums for fantasizers (who tend to hold psychic manifestations in awe) are the
supersalesmen of the psychic. They are the ones who manipulate, maneuver, and massage the conscience of
those they wish to convince. In all times and in all places, they have been the magicians that led the
populace to believe that the emperor really was dressed with the unseeable, and that those who will listen
and come to them for counsel and guidance (for which, of course, proper payment must be given) will be
among the few who really do see what isnt there to see.
The element that is essential, without exception, to any con game is the lie [emphasis added]. To be
sure, it is a white lie, a small thing that deviates from the truth a little, over and over until, with the passing
of time and under the right circumstances, it expands into an enormous hoax.
The techniques of the supersalesmen are few, but absolutely essential. They consist of playing down the
humanity of the one to be venerated; exalting the venerated ones virtues to the level of the miraculous;
denying access to reliable source records and facts of the significant past; appealing to the inclination
to be superstitious (or at least gullible); and buying time [emphasis added].
One Webster dictionary edition says that a white lie is a minor lie uttered from polite, amiable, or
pardonable motives; a polite or harmless fib.
To understand, in a small way, how people arrive at where they are is possible only if one looks at where
they have been, what manner of salesmen sold them the trip, and what motivated them to go. It is not
possible to view all these aspects in one lump. But we will touch on what circumstances make a true
believer, what kind of supersalesmen have sold the wares, and what happens to those who buy.
Books such as The Status Seekers, The Permissible Lie, and The True Believer10 hint at the connection
between all disciplines economic, social, and religious. In all these disciplines salesmen sell their product
by using the white lie. Though the salesmen of social and economic ideas claim to be interested in your
present, they are really more interested in their future. Salesmen of the psychic claim to be interested in
your future, but what they are really interested in is their present. All hucksters sell the white lie in
whatever size or shape they think their public will buy. Adventists know and accept these facts of life about
the systems of others; but they believe that their own system is "different" and therefore better. Very little
study has been offered to prove or to disprove their belief.
Most people accept the fact that there are few, if any, holy men left selling merchandise in social or
economic or political reform. What is harder for them to acknowledge or accept is that there are likewise
few, if any, saints in religion. There are no holy men or women except as we ourselves make them so by
our own wishful thinking. Because we have always with us this pretense factor, it is easy for the
supersalesmen of religion to gain control through our own quirks and consciences and to exercise authority
over our minds and actions. There have been many on this planet who have sold themselves to the
world as saints offering salvation for the future when in reality they were just supersalesmen who,
by instilling guilt and fear and by bending their followers to their own will, have robbed us of our
freedom to think [emphasis added].
As you read, keep in mind that someone has sold you the idea that what you believe deep within
yourself is unique and has authority from God, the highest court of appeal; that you are
different because of this authority; and that you will be saved if you follow the rules. The
problem with this line of thinking is that your truth may be only your saints interpretation of truth,
and the pronouncements you have accepted as authority may be ideas your saint borrowed from
others [emphasis added].
In this odyssey that we take together, the supersalesmen will be the clergymen, the preachers, the
reverends, the divines who more than any professionals have been granted license (both by the
people themselves and by the state) to peddle their wares to the unwary, to project their fears on the
fearful, and to sell their guilt to the remorseful [emphasis added].
The true believers will be the unwary, the fearful, the guilt-ridden, the overzealous, the wellintentioned, the unquestioning. Lacking personal confidence in God, they seek him through their
chosen saint, who they think has an unfailing pipeline to the heavenly places [emphasis added].
This book seeks to trace the birth, growth, and full bloom of the white lie in Adventism. It cannot
explain all the strings that bind us, Gulliver-like, on our travel because access is thus far denied to
many sources of the facts [emphasis added]. It can only point the reader to certain sources so that he can
see for himself what is there to be seen.
I do not seek to show those who, having eyes, do not wish to see, or to shout at those who, having ears,
do not wish to hear. But because someone has an obligation to the generations that will follow, this
material is put forth to light a little candle in a world of superstition and fear and guilt. It may be
that the flame, though even a small one, can help light the path to the real Saint of all saints Jesus
12
Christ [emphasis added].
XII. Conclusion
The Little Horn Comes from a Horn
The SDA assumption that the little horn in Daniel 8 comes from a wind has no biblical
or linguistic basis. It is an implausible pseudo-historicist speculation, and nothing more. One
does not need to be an expert theologian in order to see that a plain reading of the Bible provides
factual and irrefutable evidence that the vicious little horn originates in one of the four notable
horns that followed the dissolution of Alexanders empire.
No Evidence for Rome as Little Horn
There is no reliable historical evidence that the little horn in Daniel 8 is Rome, and even
less that the little horn represents both the pagan and papal Rome. All the SDA claims are based
on wild speculations and personal opinions. This document has shown that except for the fact
that the SDA historicist theologians are original in their interpretation of Daniel 8 no biblical
and linguistic evidence supports their perspective.
Little Horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes
There is, on the other hand, abundant Biblical and historical evidence that the little horn
in Daniel 8 is the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. While the idea that the SDA historicist
theologians are unique in their assumption that the little horn is Rome gives them an euphoric
state of mind, an examination of the reasons all the other theologians have decided long ago that
all the historical evidence points towards Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the one who fulfilled the
prediction for the little horn in Daniel 8 should encourage the SDA historicists to understand that
their dogmatic position is untenable and indefensible. The little horn in Daniel 8 is the Seleucid
king, and there is no escaping from this truth. The unbiblical position that defends Rome as the
little horn must be discarded, and the SDA theologians must accept the biblical and linguistic
evidence that the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is the vicious persecutor in Daniel 8.
References
I. Introduction
1
William H. Shea, Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8 in Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised
Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1992), 32.
2
Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald Publishing Assn.,
1907), 198.
3
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 343-344.
T. R. Birks, First Elements of Sacred Prophecy (London: William Edward Painter, 1843), 148149.
5
1907), 202.
6
Florin Laiu, The Sanctuary Doctrine: A Critical-Apologetic Approach (Bucharest: Romania,

2013). Unpublished manuscript. http://www.academia.edu/4145197/The_Sanctuary_Doctrine_-_A_Critical_-_Apologetic_Approach
7
William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.
8
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8:25.
9
Ibid., Daniel 8:9.
10
John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,
Second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Dogmatic, 3.
11
Kristine Hansen, Public Position Papers and Opinion Pieces in A Rhetoric for The Social
Sciences: A Guide To Academic And Professional Communication (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1998), 301-306.
II. True Historicism Characteristics
1
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald Publishing Association,1978). Historicism.
2
Don F. Neufeld, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students Source Book, (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1962). Historical (Historicist) Interpretation, 1257.
William H. Shea, Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy, Adventists Affirm (Spring
2003), 22.
4
Reimar Vetne, A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting
Daniel and Revelation, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.
5
John Noe, An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of

Revelation, JETS, 49/4 (December 2006), 774.
6
second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), History.
7
Ibid., History.
9

10
III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel
1
Roy Gane, Whos Afraid of the Judgment? (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing
2
Ibid., 44.
Ibid., 43.
Martin Prbstle, Where God and I Meet (Hagerstown, MD: The Review and Herald Publishing
5
William H. Shea, Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8, Daniel and
6
Ibid., 37-38.
Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 2004), 76-77.
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1957), 317-318.
9
Clarence H. Hewitt, The Seer of Babylon Studies in the Book of Daniel (Boston, MA: Advent
Christian Publication Society, 1948), 147-149.
10
Ibid., 149.
11
Ibid., 140.
IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn

1
Publishing Association, 1957), 327.
2
1907), 198.
3
Ibid., 202-203.
Christian Publication Society, 1948), 171.
5
6

2013). Unpublished manuscript. http://www.academia.edu/4145197/The_Sanctuary_Doctrine_-_A_Critical_-_Apologetic_Approach, 17-20.
7
8
9
Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 9.
10
11

12
13
14
Ibid., 37.
15
Ruslan Mitkov, Anaphora Resolution: The State Of The Art, working paper based on the
COLING'98/ACL'98 tutorial on anaphora resolution (University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, 1999), 3.
16

17
Ibid., 19.
18
Ibid., 19-21.
19
1907), 202-203.
20
21
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 9.
22
23
24
Constantin Orsan and Richard Evans, NP Animacy Identification For Anaphora Resolution,
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 29 (2007), 79.
25
Carlos Augusto Prolo, Computational Approaches to Pronoun Resolution, Letras de Hoje.

Porto Alegre. v. 41, n 2, Junho, 2006, 139-140.
26
Ruslan Mitkov, Anaphora Resolution: The State Of The Art, working paper based on the
COLING'98/ACL'98 tutorial on anaphora resolution (University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, 1999), 3-6.
27
Ibid., 4-6.
28
Ruslan Mitkov (1997). Factors In Anaphora Resolution: They Are Not The Only Things That
Matter. A Case Study Based On Two Different Approaches. In Proceedings of the
ACL'97/EACL'97 workshop on Operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution,
Madrid, Spain, 14-17.
29
Adrian Brasoveanu, (Spring 2010), Anaphora Resolution. Retrieved December 22, 2013 from
people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/anaphora%20resolution.ppt
30
Andrew Kehler (1997), Current Theories of Centering for Pronoun Interpretation: A Critical
Evaluation, Association for Computational Linguistics, 467-475.
31
Susan E. Brennan, Marilyn Walker Friedman, and Carl J. Pollard (1987), A Centering
Approach to Pronouns, 25th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics,
155-162.
32
Roland Stuckardt, Anaphor Resolution and the Scope of Syntactic Constraints, German
National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD) Retrieved on December 22, 2013
from acl.ldc.upenn.edu/C/C96/C96-2158.pdf, 1-6.
33
Constantin Orsan and Richard Evans, NP Animacy Identification For Anaphora Resolution,
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 29 (2007), 79-103.
V. False Claims against Antiochus

1
2

3
Association, 2013), 104-105.
4
Ibid., 105:1.
Ibid., 105:2.
Ibid., 105.
9
Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 11.
10
11
Ibid., 77.
12
and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8:25.
13
Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald Publishing
Assn., 1907), 198-202.
14
Second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Exceeding.
15
Publishing Association, 1957), 327- 333.
16
D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996),
93.
17
Ibid., 131.
18
Ibid., 118.
19
John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,
second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Exceeding.
20
21
Ibid., 44-45:1.
22
Ibid., 44-45:2.
23
Ibid., 45-46.
24
Ibid., 46-47.
25
Ibid., 47-50.
26
27
28
29
30
VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome
1
2
3
1907), 202-205.
4
5
Ibid., 168-169.
Ibid., 169-170.
Ibid., 155.
Ibid., 155-157.
Association, 2013), 104-116.
10
Ibid., 105-107:1.
11
Ibid., 105-107:2.
12
13

14
VII. Hard Arguments against Rome
1
VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus

1
Association, 1992), 64:2.
2
Ibid., 42-43.
Ibid., 45-46.
Ibid., 46.
Association, 2013), 106-107.
6

7
9
10
Ibid., 220-221.
IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations

1
Isidore Singer, Editor, The Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls
Company, 1906). From: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1589-antiochus-ivepiphanes.
2
Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850), 238239.
3
Moses B. Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 464465.
4
Ibid., 463.
T. R. Birks, First Elements of Sacred Prophecy (London: William Edward Painter, 342, Strand,
1843), 148-149.
6
Winston McHarg, Why the Little Horn of Daniel 8 Must Be Antiochus Epiphanes, at Good
News For Adventists.com: http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/
7
8
Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, Second series (New York: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1938), 270-276.
9
William Whiston, Translator, The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus The war of the Jews
or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book 1, Chapter 1 (Chicago, ILL.: Thompson &
Thomas, 1901), 500-501.
10
William Whiston, Translator. The Whole Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Vol II,
Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Chapter 5, (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton and Co., 1829), 164167.
11
Edwin R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol. II (London: Edward Arnold, 1902), 171-175.
12
13
Ernest Lucas, Daniel (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsiti Press, 2002), 40-42.
X. Historicism and False Historicism

1
Florin Laiu, Daniel 8 Hebrew-English Lexicon & Grammar, (Bucharest: Romania, 2013).
Unpublished document.
2
Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 8:8.
4
5
7
1907), 198.
8
Ibid., 202.
10
11
12
13
14
Ibid., 52.
15
1907), 203.
16
Ibid., 204-205.
17
18
19
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1857), 345.
20
21
Ibid., 106.
22
23
24
25
Association, 2013), 106-107.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Ibid., 348.
34
35
36
37
38
and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 8: 14.
39
40
41
1907), 198-201.
42
43
44
45
1907), 201.
46
47
48
XI. When D`ogmas Replace Evidence

1
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald Publishing Association,1978). Historicism.
2
Don F. Neufeld, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students Source Book, (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association,1962). Historical (Historicist) Interpretation, 1257.
3
William H. Shea, Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy, Adventists Affirm (Spring
2003), 22.
4
5

6
second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), History.
7
Ibid., History.
9

10
11
Roy E. Gane, Christ at His Sanctuary Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue, Paper

presented at dialogue with World Evangelical Alliance, Andrews University, August 6, 2007, 1617.
12
Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M & R Publications, 1982), 19-25.

Antiochus IV and Daniel's Little Horn Reexamined Final Version

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Antiochus IV and Daniel's Little Horn Reexamined Final Version

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 1

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 2

The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him [Antiochus IV Epiphanes]; for he

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 3

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 4

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 5

II. True Historicism Characteristics .......................................................................................12

III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel ........................................................................................15

IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn .......................................................................................21

V. False Claims against Antiochus ..........................................................................................36

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 6

VI. Arguments that Sponsor Rome .........................................................................................58

VII. Hard Arguments against Rome .......................................................................................65

VIII. Arguments that Sponsor Antiochus...............................................................................67

IX. Multiple Historical Confirmations ....................................................................................76

X. Historicism and False Historicism ......................................................................................89

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 7

XI. When Dogmas Replace Evidence ....................................................................................108

XII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................113

XIII. References ......................................................................................................................114

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 8

The Two Contrastive Perspectives

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 9

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 10

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 11

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 12

II. True Historicism Characteristics

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 13

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 14

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 15

III. The Two Little Horns in Daniel

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 16

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 17

The Little Horns Are Not Identical

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 18

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 19

Beast with iron teeth

Leopard with four

Ram with two horns

Obvious Fundamental Differences

The little horn in Daniel 7

The little horn in Daniel 8

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 20

is apparently the whole extent of the fourth empire.

In chapter 7 the little horn lifts himself up against

The stage on which is enacted the drama of chapter

[The] [atmosphere] of chapter 7 is universal.

8] pertains to only one of four divisions of the goat

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 21

IV. The Enigmatic Little SDA Horn

The Little Horn from the Horn

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 22

The Little Horn from the Wind

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 23

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 24

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 25

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 26

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 27

1. The goat became extremely great

4. and there arose in its place four conspicuous horns

Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined 28

Blue text emphasizes adverbs and adverbial phrases.