André Reis Responds to Cliff Goldstein’s “The Little Horn of Daniel 8”  |  16 March 2018  |  

McHarg’s article on the “little horn” of Daniel 8 has elicited a heated debate. Clifford Goldstein’s piece is the latest iteration of what will perhaps continue to pester Adventist theology. Antiochus is, after all, a four-letter-word in Adventism.

In his essay, Goldstein hits the ground running with a set of questionable assumptions about Dan 8 when he writes:

“It comes after two parallel chapters, Daniel 2 and 7, which both help set the background for interpreting Daniel 8. The link between these three chapters, and this principle of amplification between them, is not an Adventist concoction; other scholars have seen it. And no wonder; it’s obvious.”

He then asserts that Dan 8 “does not appear in a vacuum” and is “parallel” to Dan 2 and 7. All that follows is based on this assumption and repeats the same traditional line of argumentation.

I’ll focus on this and other assumptions underpinning Goldstein’s approach (they often overlap with Marvin Moore’s approach published here too).

Assumption # 1: Dan 8 can only be understood in light of Dan 2 and 7.

Read as straightforwardly as possible, Dan 8 builds on the principles of world domination and effrontery to Yahweh found in chapters 2 and 7 and applies them specifically to the history of the Jewish people. Dan 8 provides a bird’s eye view of a future assault on the people of God and his sanctuary, but does not slavishly depend on Dan 2, 7 as some think. It contains enough information to stand on its own without depending on certain interpretative presuppositions that Goldstein applies to Dan 2 and 7. That is the Achilles’ heel of his approach.

First, a brief overview of the chapter.

Dan 8 zooms in on how the Jews and in particular their sanctuary suffer under a certain political power, the infamous “little horn.” The vision culminates with events circumscribed to “the beautiful land” (8:9), i.e., Jerusalem/Palestine, while chapters 2 and 7 deal with events that impact “the whole earth” (2:35; cf. 7:17). Note how Gabriel dedicates more time to unveil the little horn’s career than those of Medo-Persia and Greece (8:15-26).

Significantly––different from the unclean animals of Dan 7––the animals in Dan 8 arise out of the Jewish sanctuary rituals: a male goat and a ram. The male goat (Greece, v. 21) defeats the ram (Med0-Persia, v. 20). At the height of its power, the goat’s large horn breaks off and in its place appear four horns which grow into the four winds of heaven (v. 8). Then, “out of one” of these four horns (v. 9) comes yet another horn, this time a little one. The first horn here is unanimously interpreted as Alexander the Great and the four horns are his four generals, Antigonus, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. As later interpreted by Gabriel, the “little horn”/fifth king emerges in the “latter part [aharîth]” of the reign of the four Greek generals (v. 23).

Continuing with the Hebrew cult themes, Dan 8:11 zooms further in on the altar of burnt offering of the sanctuary: the “little horn” removes the daily sacrifices and overthrows the entire sanctuary. It reaches up to symbolic heavenly places (v. 10), throws down “stars” and tramples on them and the “prince of the hosts” (v. 11). These are all symbols of the Jewish people and the sanctuary. Through “wickedness” the “host” (the people of Israel, v. 24) are brought under the power of the “little horn” and “truth” is cast to the ground (v. 12), which appears to symbolize the rituals of the earthly sanctuary.

The duration of the aggression then comes into view (v. 13): “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices [tamîd] and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” (NKJV). The answer is: “Until ‘evenings-mornings’ 2,300”.[1] After this rather short period (roughly 6 years, 4 months) the little horn’s grip is broken, the people freed and the sanctuary “restored to its rightful place” or “vindicated” (nitsdaq, v. 14).

That is the gist of Daniel 8.

Goldstein, however (cf. Moore), detaches the “little horn” from the four Greek horns and sees it coming out of the “four winds” instead. In support, they capitalize on several elements in the chapter.

First and foremost is the question of where the “little horn” comes from. There’s the notorious confusion of “antecedents” in the original text; Goldstein (cf. Moore) says that “out of one of them” (8:9) must point to “winds” rather than “horns” because “winds” is syntactically closer. And then, they’re happy to point out, there’s the problem of the pronoun “them” which is masculine while both winds and horns are feminine. All these “mysterious” features in the text are given great weight by Goldstein and Moore. This odd, disembodied horn flying across the sky points cryptically to the appearance of a yet unknown power, Rome, which ties it quite nicely to the little horn of Dan 7, they say. In fact their interpretation of Daniel depends entirely on the veracity of this assumption, which leads them to shout “Unclean!” at any other interpretation of the “little horn” other than the Papacy/Rome.

How do we explain these discrepancies?

First, on the conflict of genders in Dan 8:9, it must be pointed out that gender juxtaposition is not uncommon in Hebrew; feminine nouns can take the masculine suffix when plural, the most striking example is “women” which takes a masculine plural suffix, nashim. And this also applies to pronouns, cf. Gen 31:55: “Early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his grandchildren and daughters and blessed them;” “them” here is masculine, even though it includes both genders.

Hebrew scholars define this phenomenon of masculinizing feminine forms as “zero marking”: “Hebrew grants its ‘masculine’ forms “precedence” or “priority” or considers them “more potent.”[2] The presence of mixed gender elements in Dan 8:8, 9: horns (f), winds (f) and heaven (m) may point in this direction.

But perhaps an even better source for the masculine plural in Dan 8:9 can be found in chapter 8. I would argue that Daniel, writing this chapter after the vision had already been interpreted by Gabriel, used the masculine plural form “them” in 8:9 because he already had the four “kings” of 8:23 in mind: they are masculine plural there, exactly as “them” in 8:9. So we have:

Little horn “out of “one of themmehem: third person, masculine, plural
Fifth king “at the end of their rulemal’kutam: third person, masculine, plural

I believe this is compelling evidence that the “little horn” emerged from them, the four preceding kings and not from “winds.” Scholars are virtually unanimous on this view, with good reason.

And as a bonus proof to settle this matter, the typological pattern in all other visions of Dan 7 and 8 is consistent: horns are always attached to animals in the visions and only horns beget horns––the “little horn” comes out of one of the four Greek horns of the male goat. Goldstein’s case would become unassailable if instead a “little wind” came out of the “four winds”––in fact, the imagery of a “little wind” that grows in strength could be just as effective. But that is not what we read in Dan 8.

How did this all play out in Jewish history?

We read a report strikingly similar to what is described in Dan 8 in 1 Maccabees 1:41–50, 57 (NRSV):

“Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, 42 and that all should give up their particular customs. 43 … they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 44 … he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, 45 to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, 46 to defile the sanctuary and the priests, 47 to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, 48 and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, 49 so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. 50 He added, “And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die…. Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering.”

And to top things off, Antiochus IV set a statue of the Greek god Zeus and installed cultic prostitutes inside the Jewish temple (cf. 2 Mac 6:1-12). Daniel calls Antiochus IV’s abolishing of the tamîd, “the daily sacrifices” (v. 8:13) and his desecration of the Most Holy Place the “abomination of desolation” (11:31). This is essentially the same “abomination of desolation” that the Romans inflicted on the Temple in 70 CE (cf. Matt 24:15). This allusion to Daniel in Maccabees establishes a firm Jewish interpretative tradition of Daniel connected to Antiochus IV.

In light of the grotesque assault of Antiochus IV on the Jews, would it be reasonable that God would have left them in the dark regarding these aggressions by omitting these events from Daniel’s prophecies? I highly doubt it. Seen under this prism, Antiochus IV seems like the undefeated candidate here.

Assumption #2: The “little horn” of Dan 8 is Roman.

But Rome is not symbolized anywhere in Dan 8 and is not part of Gabriel’s explanation either. Why should we see Rome here? If Dan 8 is an “amplification” (according to Goldstein) of Dan 7, Rome (the fourth beast per Goldstein) should be here. But as we shall see, this conclusion is also based on circular reasoning.

Goldstein sees Rome here because he reads Dan 8 with the same lenses as he did Dan 7. But the symbols of world powers in Dan 7 are not the same as Dan 8: we see a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, a leopard with four heads and a terrifying beast with ten horns in Dan 7; Dan 8 has two, a ram and a male goat. The only shared element is a “little horn”, but in Dan 7 it rises out of ten horns of the fourth animal (Rome per Goldstein) while in Dan 8 it rises from the horns of the male goat (Greece) as we already established beyond reasonable doubt.

But because of Goldstein’s interpretative template, he considers the “little horn” of Dan 8 as the same historical entity as the “little horn” in Dan 7. For starters, this creates a conundrum for him: while a “little horn” comes out of ten “horns” in Dan 7:8, it must of necessity come out of “winds” in Dan 8:9 for the whole thing to work.

This is nothing but special pleading. Logically then, we must choose one of two options: (1) either the “little horn” comes out of the same entity in both Dan 7, 8 or; (2) the “little horn” refers to distinct entities in these chapters. Goldstein cannot have his cake and eat it too.

So let’s for a moment accept Goldstein’s proposal that Dan 8 “amplifies” Dan 7 and that they talk about the same “little horn.” Beginning with the “amplification/explanation” in Dan 8 the “little horn” comes out of the male goat’s head, Greece. Since Dan 8 provides the “key” to chapter 7 according to Goldstein, we now need to retroactively superimpose this “little horn” template from Dan 8 onto Dan 7. What do we have? The “little horn” in Dan 7 comes out of Greece (and not Rome); therefore Greece must be the fourth beast.

The tension this construct creates for Goldstein’s interpretative structure is intolerable and yet, these are the logical implications of his hermeneutical approach. (As a disclaimer, I’m not reinterpreting Dan 7 here). No wonder there’s such insistence that the “little horn” is Roman in Dan 8, otherwise the whole structure collapses!

This just goes to show that the book of Daniel defies facile, canned interpretations.

Assumption #3: The “little horn” is “greater” than both Medo-Persia and Greece.

The objection that Antiochus was simply not “big” enough to the “little horn” is another case of circular reasoning based on expectations that this is the same “little horn” of Dan 7 which they read as the Papacy, a religious-political power operating since the 4th century BCE.

Goldstein (cf. Moore) makes theology based on translations rather than the original text. They see a progression of “greatness” in Dan 8 which they think culminates with the “little horn” which is far greater than the previous kingdoms combined and, therefore, cannot be Antiochus IV, a puny, Seleucid king, they say. A comparison between the Hebrew terms to describe the rise of the ram, the male goat and the little horn, reveals some important features. First, the ram simply wtig’diyl, lit. “grew” (8:4) with no modifier of intensity. In turn, the male goat’s rise is ti’gdiyl ad-meod (8:8) translated as “grew exceedingly great” (NRSV) with the important Hebrew adverb meod added. Lastly, we’re told that the little horn watig’dal-yeter, which is commonly translated as “grew exceedingly great” (v.9; NRSV), but as we shall see below, this translation is not decisive.The striking difference in these three expressions of “greatness” is that meod (“muchness, force, abundance, exceedingly”)[3] describes only the male goat and not the ram or the little horn. This is significant because meod is the choice Hebrew adverb of intensity: the recently created earth is tov meod, “very good” (Gen 1:31); the waters of the flood rise meod meod, “exceedingly, mightily” over the whole earth (Gen 7:19; cf. Ex 1:7). So the male goat is the greatest power in Dan 8, Alexander, the Great representing the “height of its power” (v. 8).We now see why the English translation that the “little horn” watig’dal-yeter, “grew exceedingly great” (8:9) is highly debatable. This occurs because yeter [root yatar] can mean “remainder, excess, pre-eminence, superiority, cord, or string.”[4] In fact, it is used mostly as “remainder, rest” in the Old Testament (68 out of 94 times). Surprisingly, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon only defines yeter as “exceedingly” in Dan 8:9! Alternatively, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament translates yeter with the meaning of “pre-eminence” at least once, in Gen 49:3: “you are … pre-eminent [yeter] in pride and pre-eminent [yeter] in power; unstable as water you shall not have pre-eminence [root yatar]”[5] (cf. “excelling in rank” NRSV). Certainly other cases could exist.

So, considering the range of meaning of yeter, “exceedingly” is not a common use or a necessary first choice translation. Along with the lack of the important Hebrew intensifier meod, this opens up other possibilities. The translation “grew exceedingly great” then must be surrendered and changed to either “the little horn grew in pre-eminence,”[6] or, if we use the usual meaning of yeter as “remainder”, it could be rendered: “the little horn grew the remainder [of its size]”, that is, reached maturity.”

Some Bible versions do render it similarly: NIV: “but grew in power to the south…”; GNT: whose power extended toward the south;” YLT: “and it exerteth itself greatly toward the south.” Even if we translated the expression as “grew greatly” (unsupported), the fact is that a horn can never be greater or stronger than the animal that carries it. If the “little horn” was to be greater than the male goat and ram combined, it should logically have appeared as another animal altogether, which is not the case.It appears then that watig’dal-yeter, when rendered as “grew in pre-eminence” along with the geographical markers in the verse emphasize where the “little horn” became most active or pre-eminent: east and south and Palestine, and not how “great” it was there. And history does show that Antiochus did take “pre-eminence” over the east and south and Palestine even reaching further south to Egypt, albeit less successfully. But he did fail to “grow in pre-eminence” against the north and west.The objection that it grew “to the host of heaven” (v. 10) so it must be really huge is not fatal to this view. Note that the four horns were already in “heaven” (v. 8) and the little horn comes out of one of these horns “in heaven”, so reaching the “host of heaven” “i.e., the “stars” would not necessarily imply an “exceedingly great” growth either. In addition, Dan 8:24 which interprets the little horn/fifth king’s power has been consistently mistranslated. The NRSV has: “He [the little horn/fifth king] shall grow strong in power;” ASV: “but not with his own power.” The original Hebrew, however, has: “He shall grow, but not with his power.” The expression “but not with his power,” w’lo v’koho in 8:24 is an exact copy of 8:22: “four kingdoms shall arise from the nation, but not with his power [w’lo v’koho].” This masculine singular form is a clear reference to the first king’s power (Alexander) and not the four kingdoms (feminine plural, cf. NIV: “will not have the same power”). The intended meaning is that these four kings do not have the first king’s power. Likewise, the intended meaning of w’lo v’koho in 8:24 is that the fifth king/little horn does not have the same power as the first king/horn. This must be so because there’s really no syntactical reason to translate the same exact expression differently in such close proximity, just two verses apart. This is how the original readers would have understood it. Thus, by using the same expression “not with his power,” Daniel must have the same meaning in mind: neither the initial four kings, nor the fifth king/“little horn” have the same power as the first horn, Alexander, the Great. Obviously Daniel considered this information significant for the correct interpretation of these five kings.This leaves us with only one conclusion: if the little horn is not even greater than the first horn of the male goat, then Goldstein’s (and Moore’s) argument that the “little horn” in Dan 8 must have been greater than Medo-Persia and Greece combined is utterly untenable on all grounds. Antiochus IV emerges here again as the prime suspect.And what about the 2,300 “evenings-mornings” of Dan 8:14? Yes, that is the real question, isn’t it? (Although Adventists rarely pay attention to question it answers! One looks in vain for Dan 8:13 in The Great Controversy).Many calculations for the 2,300 days have been offered. One scholar computes the 2,300 days from the murder of high priest Onias III in 170 BCE at the behest of Antiochus IV, which gave rise to his oppressions, until the Maccabean revolt in Dec 164 BCE which liberated the Jews.[7] This starting point for Antiochus’ oppression has the partial support of Josephus (cf. Wars of the Jews, 1:1). Alternatively, if the 2,300-day period refers to 1,150 days of two evening-morning sacrifices each (textually unlikely), this period would cover only the desecration of the sanctuary proper, beginning in ca. October 167 BCE through Dec 164 BCE[8] (a little over 3 years). Either are viable alternatives although it is impossible at this time to decide which fits better because we do not have an external witness to these dates. In this case, we should consider as the overall point of the number 2,300 that the oppressions of this “little horn” would last at the most 6 years, 4 months, that is, a little less than the duration of a sabbatical, 7 year period, a symbol pregnant with eschatological meaning for Jews.

Assumption #4: The “time of the end” in Dan 8 refers to the eschatological end.

Adventist interpretations build on the notion that the visions of Dan 8 refer to the eschatological “time of the end” and therefore cannot include Antiochus IV, but rather point to the Papacy. But this is an established misconception based on an auto-pilot reading of the book of Daniel.

Here again, the good old Hebrew provides clarity. The notion of an “end-time” appears twice in Dan 8: “the time of the end”, l’et-qets (v. 17) and “the appointed time of the end”, l’moed qets (v. 19). Their meaning is clarified by the similar “time of the end” (ub’et qets) when the “abomination of desolation” would appear (Dan 11:35, 40) and a time which is parallel to “the latter part of their [Greek] rule” (8:23; cf. “many days from now,” v. 26). Lastly, this “time of the end” reappears twice as ‘ad-‘et qets in 12:4, 9 and its meaning is further elucidated by Gabriel: it is the time when the book of Daniel would no longer be “secret” and “sealed.” The common element here being qets.

We see this unsealing of the book of Daniel predicted for the “time of the end” taking place when the Jews began reading and understanding the prophecies of Daniel, probably shortly after the end of the Babylonian captivity. Accordingly, the book of Maccabees indicates that the Jews were already interpreting the visions of Daniel and applying their fulfilment to the desecrations of Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BCE, especially the “abomination of desolation” predicted for the “time of the end” (cf. Dan 9:27; 11:31, 35, 40; 12:11; 1 Mac 1:41–50, 57; 2 Mac 6:1-12).

It’s also worth noting that Daniel uses a different expression to describe the specific final period in the visions: Dan 8:23 has “the latter part of their reign [aharîth mal’kutam]” (Goldstein acknowledges this meaning here) and in Dan 10:14, a passage that describes the struggle between Persia and Greece: “I …have come to help you understand what is to happen to your people the latter part of the days [b’aharîth hayamim].” And significantly aharîth appears in Dan 2:28: [God] has disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen at the latter part of the days [Aram. aharîth yomayah].”

The word aharîth means “after part, end (of place), latter part, future (of time).”[9] When read synoptically with qets, “end” in these passages it complements the meaning of “the end of days” in Dan 8. Which “days” are these? The days covered in Dan 8’s vision: “the latter part” of ancient Greece, the setup of the “abomination of the desolation” in the sanctuary and the unsealing of the book of Daniel. (Scholars often call this provisional, contextual “end” the prophet’s own “eschatological horizon”[10]).

Conversely, correctly rendering aharîth as “latter part” instead of “the eschatological end” in Dan 2:28 is important because the stone that smashes the statue establishes an earthly kingdom at that time, covering “the whole earth” (2:35). But this event cannot be the eschatological end because this “filling the earth” does not in fact occur at the Second Coming: at that time the earth will actually be engulfed “by fire” and left deserted (cf. 2 Pet 3:7). Therefore “the latter part of the days” in Dan 2 must refer to another “end time,” i.e., the “latter part of the statue.”

Alternatively, God’s earthly kingdom, the church, established at Jesus’ first advent (during the feet of the statue?) present all over the world fits the description much better, but we must leave this for another time.

Ok then, but does Daniel actually talk about the eschatological end time?

Yes, the actual eschatological end in the book of Daniel is found in 12:13: “But you, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.” The unique Hebrew expression here is l’qets hayamim, lit. “the end of the days,” i.e., “when time will come to an end.” It appears only here in the entire Old Testament and points to the day when and Daniel would be resurrected so it refers undeniably to the end.

In sum, the expression “time of the end” in Dan 8 applies to the fulfilment of the events described in the vision involving ancient Greece, the four Greek kingdoms and the Greek little horn and only once refers to the eschatological end in the book (Dan 12:13).

How does Antiochus impact Adventist timelines of the end?

This is a (long!) discussion for another article, but, I’ll simply point out that, because we have misunderstood the identity of the “little horn” as well as the “time of the end” in Daniel 8, every other chronological assumption centered around 1844 faces nearly insurmountable odds:

(1) 457 BCE as the date for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and starting point of a period of 2300 “years” (rather than “days” as the passage indicates) doesn’t work because it doesn’t fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy of a decree by Cyrus in ca. 538 BCE at the end of Jeremiah’s predicted 70 years (Isa 44:28; Jer 25:12; Dan 9:1). Josephus confirms that Cyrus’s decree included both the city and temple so it works here too (cf. Antiquities of the Jews, 9:1-4);

(2) 31 CE as the year of the crucifixion, considered by some as an “anchor point” to arrive at 1844, is astronomically impossible: according to the Jewish lunar calendar, Passover that year was either on a Tuesday or at the latest on a Wednesday and not on a Friday (cf. John 18:28; 19:14, 31). April 3, 33 CE for the crucifixion fits the evidence on all grounds;

(3) 1844 as the year of Jesus’ final entry into the heavenly Most Holy Place is off by about 1810 years: the book of Hebrews states that he entered “within the veil” of the heavenly Most Holy Place at his ascension (Heb 6:19-20; 9:11, 12; 24).


But we’ll have to leave our conversation at that!


The evidence gleaned in this essay indicates that when read in context and with as little external presuppositions as possible, Daniel 8 offers the hope that the heinous assault by the villainous “little horn” against the people of God and his sanctuary would not last forever. After a short time, the earthly sanctuary would again be consecrated. This was such as important event for Jews that even Jesus joined in celebrating this restoration at the Feast of Dedication (Hannukah) as recorded in John 10:22. Thus, I agree with McHarg that “The vision of Daniel 8 is probably the clearest in the whole book.”

And yet, in this latest essay Goldstein did not offer any new take on the issue since he published 1844 Made Simple over a quarter of a century ago. The irony of Goldstein’s “1844 for Dummies” approach is that it does not make Daniel 8 any more simple to understand. He rather goes off on a hermeneutical tangent and applies Dan 8:14 to the 19th century and more specifically to an apocalyptic sect in the ante-bellum United States. Goldstein removes the vision from its safe contextual moorings, catapults its fulfilment into a quantum leap of millennia in the future leaving the loyal Jews in the dark about the Seleucid aggression on Jerusalem and the sanctuary in the 2nd century BCE and nullifies God’s promise of restoration of his people and earthly sanctuary. Thus, what is perhaps the most spectacular fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies is effectively castrated in order to preserve a stubborn interpretative tradition. This is simply too expensive exegetically, theologically and ecclesiologically speaking.

And now, a final disclaimer.

When it comes to the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecies, disconfirmation is often the norm. There are many things we still don’t understand in Daniel and Revelation. The final, authoritative interpretation of these visions will probably escape us fully until we enter into glory. We’d better not “add words” (Rev 22:18) to these prophecies by imposing on them hard interpretations which end up neutering their enduring, “present truth” significance.

Until then, we can find comfort that, all prophecies considered, God has been at the helm of history, guiding it to its glorious consummation, although we may not have all the details, characters and timelines correct. Jesus warned us not to worry about those things (Acts 1:6-8) but rather focus on being “his witnesses.”

At the end, God wins and I want to be part of that victory! Don’t you?

  1. Cf. C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 302-304; S. J. Schwantes, “ʿEreb Boqer of Dan 8:14 Re-examined,” AUSS 16 (1978): 375–85.
  2. Geoffrey Khan, ed., “Gender Representation in Biblical Hebrew,” Encycloped of Hebrew Language and Linguistic, vol. 2 (Leiden, Brill: 2013): 20-22.
  3. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v., “מְאֹד”.
  4. When yeter is used along with meod the meaning of “exceedingly great” can be deduced, as in Isa 56:12: gadol yeter meod, “great beyond measure” (NRSV). The little horn’s reach however is watig’dal-yeter. And yet it does not appear in Dan 8:9.
  5. John E. Hartley, “936 יָתַר,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 420.
  6. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v., “יֶתֶר”.
  7. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 230: “According to the 2,300-day view, therefore, the whole persecution period (the time that the saints “will be trampled underfoot”) was involved, not just the span from the cessation of the sacrifice and the desecration of the sanctuary until the rededication of the temple.”
  8. Ibid., 229.
  9. R. Laird Harris, “68 אָחַר,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 33.
  10. Cf. Carol Ann Newsom and Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2014), 63.

André Reis has degrees in music and theology, and has recently completed a PhD in New Testament studies.

To comment, click here.