As our readers are aware, and as we explained in our article, The Shifting Frame, we maintain that Daniel 11 ought to be read in a single frame of reference from start to finish. The commentaries almost universally recognize what we call an Alexandrian Frame of Reference at Daniel 8:8 and 11:4. In those verses, Daniel’s narrators describe post-Alexandrian Hellenism as “four kingdoms” (Daniel 8:22) that are divided “toward the four winds of heaven,” North, South, East and West. For the rest of the chapter, the warring kings and the events related to them are described in terms of these cardinal directions. And yet, no sooner does the narrator of Daniel 11 establish an Alexandrian Frame of Reference at 11:4 than the commentaries introduce a Judæan Frame at 11:5. The reason for the introduction of a Judæan Frame is that the prophecy of a series of interactions between the North and the South—which ought to have been fulfilled between the kings of Asia Minor and Egypt—appears to have been fulfilled by the Seleucids and Ptolemies, ostensibly rulers of Syria and Egypt, respectively. The Judæan Frame, centered as it is on Judæa rather than on Alexander’s empire, is offered as the solution to the dilemma of a cardinal discontinuity that manifests at 11:6.

Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.) was the first patristic writer to solve the inconsistency through the explicit introduction of a shifting frame of reference. Daniel must have changed his frame of reference, Jerome reasoned, “because Judaea lay in a midway position” between Syria and Egypt (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:4-5). There is hardly a commentary on Daniel 11 that does not in some way invoke that Judæan Frame of Reference. Then later in the chapter the prophecy appears to diverge from known history, and the historical discontinuity requires the introduction of yet another frame of reference. Thus, by the time Jerome gets to 11:24, he has introduced what we call the Eschatological Frame, now centered on the geographic location of a future Antichrist, because “those of our persuasion believe all these things are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time” (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:24). Most, though not all, commentaries introduce that Eschatological Frame somewhere between 11:24 and 11:39. The result of the shifting frame of reference has been enormous confusion in Danielic eschatology.

Our question is a simple one, what we call the Single Frame Hypothesis: 

“What if Daniel 11:5-45 is to be understood solely in the Alexandrian Frame of Reference established at 11:4?”

What if there is no shifting frame of reference at all?

The Single Frame Hypothesis constrains us to expound Daniel 11:5-45 only within the frame of reference established at 11:4, for no other frame is provided for us in the text. North, South and East as used throughout the chapter consistently refer to the same relative geographic regions of Alexander’s divided empire—North of the Taurus, South of the Taurus and East of the Taurus as we discussed in The Bounds of Their Habitation.

According to the division of Alexander’s empire “toward the four winds of heaven,” Daniel 11 may therefore be expounded in the following outline:

Section 1. Daniel 11:1-3: Introduction—the Rise of Alexander

Section 2. Daniel 11:4 (336 – 280s B.C.): Establishment of the Alexandrian Frame of Reference

Section 3. Daniel 11:5: Ptolemy to the South; Introduction of Seleucus

Section 4. Daniel 11:6-18 (252 – 188 B.C.): Seleucids, Phase I: the Northern Period

Section 5. Daniel 11:19-39 (188 – 164 B.C.): Seleucids, Phase II: the Eastern Period

Section 6. Daniel 11:40-45 (67 – 48 B.C.): The Pompey Years

What we shall demonstrate in a cursory exposition is that when the Single Frame is applied from start to finish, the cardinal and historical discontinuities disappear. There is no need to introduce a Judæan Frame at 11:5, and there is no need to introduce an Eschatological Frame after 11:24. The prophecy merely unfolds throughout the Greek period of Daniel’s visions, within the four cardinal directions identified in 11:4.

We actually agree with many of the commentaries in their recognition that the Seleucids and Ptolemies fulfill the conflicts depicted in 11:5-39, although we would argue that the two dynasties fulfill the prophecy for different reasons than the commentaries put forth. The commentaries have historically seen the cardinal directions as references to the dynasties, rather than to the territories in which they reigned. We have addressed our disagreements with the commentaries on those specific points, and therefore we will not spend much time expounding the whole chapter verse by verse. We will instead point out the significance of the relevant cardinal directions in each section, showing that there is a constant, fixed compass, throughout.

However, because the Judæan Frame so commonly introduced at 11:5 later causes the passage to appear to diverge from known history—thereby making the Eschatological Frame necessary—we will spend a little more time in section 5, starting at 11:31. Daniel 11:31 and the eight following verses are often taken to refer to a distant future antichrist—Imperial Rome, the Turks, Islam, Papal Rome, or some later antagonist, depending on the interpretation—so we will spend most of our time this week showing that verses 31-39 are completely fulfilled by Antiochus IV.

Then at 11:40 we will continue with section 6, simply restating in summary what we showed last week, namely that the narrative of Daniel 11 continues beyond Antiochus IV to “the time of the end” (Daniel 11:40), depicting the conflict of Republican Rome under Pompey as he fights in succession, first the Pirates of Pamphylia (in the South), then Mithridates of Pontus (in the North) together with Tigranes of Armenia (in the East). Throughout this period we hear the dying gasps of the Seleucids and Ptolemies as they struggle for significance in a world that is about to become entirely Roman. “The time of the end” in view here is “the end” of the Bronze, Leopard and He-goat period of Greek rule as portrayed in Daniel 2, 7 and 8. When Daniel 11 is completely fulfilled (48 B.C.), we are just 4 years away from the first Cæsar of Rome, the beginning of the Iron period of Daniel 2.

Our objective in the cursory exposition below is both to highlight the problems of the shifting frame that is traditionally added to Daniel 11, and to correct the eschatological confusion that has arisen from it. In the end, the passage from 11:4-45 was completely fulfilled in a single Alexandrian Frame of Reference, as an objective reading of 11:4 would have suggested. To this we add that it was completely fulfilled in the Greek period of Daniel’s visions, before the first Roman Cæsar ever “took the purple.” This, too, is suggested by an objective reading of the text, since the whole passage is narrated in terms of the four-way division of Alexander’s empire, as also depicted in Daniel 7:6, 8:8 and 8:22.

Over the next few weeks we will write further about the dramatic implications this has for Protestants in our understanding of Daniel 7, Daniel 12 and Revelation 12.

Until then, here is an overview of Daniel 11 in a Single Frame of Reference

Section 1. Daniel 11:1-3: Introduction—the Rise of Alexander

The end of Persian dominance and the rise of the Greek empire.

Section 2. Daniel 11:4: Establishment of the Alexandrian Frame

336 – 280s B.C.: This relates to Alexander’s rise and fall, and the four-way division of his empire toward the North, South, East and West. In this verse, Alexander is killed and his kingdom is “divided toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 11:4). The Alexandrian Frame of Reference is thus established, and every reference to the cardinal directions from this point forward refers to the geographic territories of the Diadochi when the kingdom was divided. As we discussed in Reduction of the Diadochi and The Bounds of Their Habitation, Lysimachus had Thrace and Asia Minor North of the Taurus; Seleucus had the territory East of the Taurus from the Syrian Sea to India; Ptolemy had Egypt, Coele Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus and the Southern coast of Asia Minor south of the Taurus, including the Bay of Pamphylia. The descendants of Demetrius, although they are minor players and do not factor into Daniel’s prophecy, after a period of instability held Macedonia in the West until they finally capitulated to Rome in 168 B.C. (Eusebius, Chronicle). Those are the four territories of the Diadochi, and it is to those territories (except the West) that the narrator of chapter 11 refers consistently from start to finish.

3. Daniel 11:5: Ptolemy to the South; Introduction of Seleucus

“And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion” (Daniel 11:5).

In this verse, there is no mention of any other territory than the South, although clearly two kings are in view: Ptolemy is “King of the South,” and Seleucus is clearly one of Alexander’s “princes” who “shall be strong” above Ptolemy. Even before Seleucus I took Lysimachus’ domains, his territories were by far, geographically more extensive than any of the other Diadochi—from the Syrian Sea to Babylon. The commentaries largely agree on the identity of the second king in the passage. To our point, Seleucus had possessed Syria, Babylon and beyond from the earliest days of the post-Alexandrian era. We highlight the fact that Seleucus is not yet called “King of the North” in this verse because he has not yet taken Lysimachus’ domains in Asia Minor and Thrace.

4. Daniel 11:6-18: Seleucids, Phase I: the Northern Period

“And in the end of years they shall join themselves together…” (Daniel 11:6)

252 B.C. – 188 B.C.:  Many years have gone by since the initial division of Alexander’s empire. In fact, 19 years have gone by since  Seleucus I’s victory over Lysimachus at Corupedium in 281 B.C..

The commentaries are largely in agreement that “the king’s daughter of the south” refers to Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II. She “shall come to the king of the north,” Antiochus II, “to make an agreement,” which is to say, enter into an arranged, politically expedient marriage. Antiochus II was with his first wife, Laodice, in Ephesus (not Antioch) when the proposal was made, and after a brief marriage to Berenice, he moved back to Laodice and his son Seleucus II in Ephesus, where he died. 

In response, Ptolemy invaded Asia Minor, having met no resistance in Syria, and when Seleucus II mounted a counterstrike, it was from Asia Minor that he did so, for he had first to cross the Taurus mountains to take Syria back. To our point, during the conflicts of this period, from the marriage of Antiochus II to Berenice in 252 B.C., until the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C., the Seleucids resided in and ruled from Asia Minor and Thrace, the Northern Kingdom. The Seleucids are therefore six times styled by the narrator from Daniel 11:6-18 as “King of the North”  (vv. 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 & 15).

We note as well—since it becomes important later—that in the conflict depicted in Daniel 11:15, Antiochus III, still in control of Asia Minor and Thrace, mounts a siege against Ptolemy’s troops in Coracesium in the Bay of Pamphylia. “So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount …and the arms of the south shall not withstand…”. Pamphylia as we noted in “… and South was South,” was part of the Southern Kingdom when Alexander’s empire was divided, and Coracesium was the southern stronghold depicted in verse 15. The North-South conflicts depicted throughout this section are between the rulers of the Northern territory and the rulers of the Southern territory, as defined in the original division of Alexander’s empire. There is no need, as we have shown, for the tradition of moving the frame of reference to Judæa to make Syria the Northern Kingdom. The conflict was in fact between Asia Minor and Egypt (including Pamphylia), as the Alexandrian Frame plainly suggests.

Of course, by 188 B.C., the Seleucids were evicted from Asia Minor and Thrace, and from that point forward, the narrator simply stops referring to them as “King of the North.”

5. Daniel 11:19-39: Seleucids, Phase II: the Eastern Period

“Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land ….” (Daniel 11:19)

188 – 163 B.C.: After being evicted from his Northern territory, Antiochus III returned to the East and died in Elam (Babylonian King List 6(r), Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 28.3, Book 29.15)). From this point forward, the appellation “King of the North” is missing from the narrative, and the heirs of the Seleucid line are referred to as successors only. I.e., “Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes…” (Daniel 11:20),  “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person…” (Daniel 11:21). Some translations continue inserting the term “King of the North” beyond this point in the chapter (e.g., NIV, NLT, GWT at 11:28), and the New King James subtitle for the section even has “The Northern King’s Blasphemies” at 11:29. But the original Hebrew does not use the term “King of the North.”

 As we have suggested elsewhere, this shows something important: the title “King of the North” attaches to the geography, not to the dynasty, and further, Syria is clearly not the Northern Kingdom as Jerome imagined. While the Seleucids were Kings of the North in Asia Minor and Thrace, they were called as such by the narrator. When they were barred from Asia Minor and Thrace and constrained to the East, they ceased to be called King of the North by the narrator.

The commentaries largely concur that from 11:19 the Seleucids continue to be in view, and we agree. At 11:30 Daniel depicts the intervention of Antiochus IV’s second invasion of Egypt in 168 B.C. by Roman ambassador Gaius Popilius Laenas (Livius, History of Rome, Book 45, 12; Polybius, The Histories, Fragments of Book XXIX, I.2). Most commentaries allow Antiochus IV as the subject of the narrative at least this far.

However Daniel 11:31 then depicts the pollution of the sanctuary, the end of sacrifices and the placement of the abomination of desolation in the Temple. As we addressed in our series on The Leviticus 26 Protocol, Daniel 9 is traditionally presumed to be a Messianic prophecy, and so its fulfillment is generally taken to refer to sometime during or after the life of Christ. Thus, Daniel 9:27 is typically placed in the Roman empire or later, and because of that, Daniel 11:31 too is severed from its Greek context and pushed into a post-Hellenic era. But the basis for doing so is tradition alone. There is nothing in the text to suggest that the chapter undergoes a chronological discontinuity at 11:31. As we showed in the following articles, the entirety of Daniel 9 was fundamentally Mosaic in nature, and the final week (171-164 B.C.) was entirely fulfilled in the lifetime of Antiochus IV under the period of Greek rule:

Rightly Dividing the Weeks
The Seventieth Week of Daniel 9
The Intercalation of Time
All the Evenings and Mornings…
The Rise of Antiochus IV

In this light, Antiochus plainly pollutes the sanctuary, ends sacrifices and the places of the Abomination of Desolation in the Temple in the Seventieth Week. The Statue of Jupiter as erected by Antiochus is seen plainly to be that Abomination of Desolation, and Jesus’ prophecy of its return was just that: the return of the Abomination of Desolation within the generation. In Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 Jesus had not been warning that the Seventieth Week was about to be fulfilled, but rather that the abomination erected by Antiochus IV would soon return as a harbinger of Israel’s destruction. And it surely did when Emperor Caligula sent statues of Jupiter to the Holy Land in 40 A.D..

Thus, we believe the narrative continues talking about Antiochus IV all the way through 11:39, so we will spend considerable time on the next eight verses.

Daniel 11:32 says the antagonist will “corrupt by flatteries” those who do wickedly against the covenant,and this is reported to us in 1 Maccabees:

“Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; … Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath.  …  Many of the people, every one who forsook the law, joined them, and they did evil in the land;” (1 Maccabees 1:30, 43, 52)

Daniel 11:32-33a surely speaks of the Maccabæan Revolt when it says, “but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many.” The Maccabees led many of the faithful either into battle or into martyrdom, for they refused to disobey the Law. Daniel 11:33b-34a states that “yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days, Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help” which is precisely what happened:

“…if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death. They kept using violence against Israel, …. they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks. But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.” (1 Maccabees 1:57-63)

Apart from the faithful Jews who would rather fight or die than violate the Law, there were other Jews trying to corrupt them and dissuade them from their convictions. Daniel 11:34b indicates that  “many shall cleave to them with flatteries” and that is how Jason, the brother of high priest Onias III, “shifted his countrymen over to the Greek way of life … [and] induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat” (2 Maccabees 4:10-12).

Daniel 11:35 indicates that “some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” This is resonant of the time of the Judges when God left some of the inhabitants in the land in order “to prove Israel” (Judges 3:1-5). And thus, even with the Maccabees to guide them, some of the Jews went into battle inadvisedly and paid the price for it:

“Then Joseph and Azariah were routed, and were pursued to the borders of Judea; as many as two thousand of the people of Israel fell that day.  Thus the people suffered a great rout because, thinking to do a brave deed, they did not listen to Judas and his brothers. … On that day some priests, who wished to do a brave deed, fell in battle, for they went out to battle unwisely. (1 Maccabees 5:60-61, 65)

From this point forward the passage deals almost entirely with the self-aggrandizement and personal theology of the antagonist, and so we will now turn to Antiochus IV’s inconsistent pantheism. Daniel 11:36a and 37b state that “the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, …for he shall magnify himself above all.

The passage is a suitable description of Antiochus IV. As we noted in The Rise of Antiochus IV, he was unpredictable and willful. His unique distinction in the Seleucid line was that he was the first one to proclaim himself to be “god” while yet living (Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 2 (London,1902) 154-55). As can be seen in the reverse of one of Antiochus’ coins, he uses an image of Zeus in order to portray himself as “King Antiochus, manifestation of god.” Thus, does Antiochus IV exalt and magnify himself above even Zeus.

As we progress through this section of the narrative, we notice that the narrator places a tremendous amount of emphasis on the ethnic inconsistency of the antagonist’s worship. There is a dissonance in his pantheism in the sense that his ancestors worshiped one pantheon and he disregards it, paying regard instead to another:

“Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, … and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour … Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god” (Daniel 11:37, 38, 39).

Thus he shall not “regard the god of his fathers” nor “regard any god” (Daniel 11:37), but he shall “honour the god of forces” (Daniel 11:38) and “a strange god … he shall acknowledge and increase with glory” (Daniel 11:39).

What are we to do with such an inconsistent pattern of worship? How are we to understand a man who on the one hand does not regard any god or the god of his fathers, but on the other hand freely acknowledges and increases with glory foreign gods and strange gods? The attributes of this man are so discordant that many a commentary has invoked the Eschatological Frame to resolve the problem. Charles Ellicott, for example, immediately invokes the Eschatological Frame, unable to imagine anything else than that two different antagonists are in view. Antiochus was no atheist, and so “the features of Antiochus are gradually fading away from the portrait” and giving way to Antichrist (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Daniel 11:36). 

Of course, one way to solve the apparent inconsistency, as Ellicott has shown us, is to presume that two different antagonists are in view. But the simplest answer, we believe, is that two different pantheons are in view, and the passage explicitly depicts the antagonist’s shift from one pantheon to another. The emphasis in the passage is that of an antagonist who exalts himself above his native pantheon of gods, and while disregarding them elects instead to heap praises and honor on a foreign pantheon. It is a description of a self-willed, self-exalting pagan who does not worship in accordance with the traditions of his ancestors, but is exuberant in his affection for foreign gods. That concept of abandoning one pantheon for another is recited three times in these three verses.

Given the fact that the setting of Daniel 11 is the period of Greek rule, and our antagonist is himself Greek, what we expect is a Greek antagonist who abandons, or pays deficient honors to, his Greek ancestors’ pantheon, exchanging it for a new one to which he pays higher honors. Upon examination, what we have listed for us in Daniel 11:36-37 is actually a Greek pantheon and what we have listed for us in 11:38-39 is a foreign one. And what we have in Antiochus IV is just such a man who disregards the former and heaps praises upon the latter.

We understand that in the traditional application of the Eschatological Frame of Reference, 11:36 tends to be interpreted in a post-Hellenic sense in which the offender is antichrist, and “God of gods” must refer to Yahweh. In that interpretation, the antagonist is presumed to magnify himself above Him. For this reason, in the commentaries, Daniel 11:36 is usually linked to Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:5-6 which read:

“And he shall speak great words against the most High…” (Daniel 7:25)

“speaking great things and blasphemies; … And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name” (Revelation 13:5-6).

In both verses, the antichrist is plainly in view, and his blasphemies are clearly directed against the Most High Himself.

But the context of 11:36 is a self-willed Greek antagonist who magnifies himself above “every god” of his ancestors’ pantheon, even above “the god of gods.” The terms used here are  ’êl and ’ê·lîm. These often refer to the true God, but are also used many times to refer to pagan gods and goddesses (e.g., Isaiah 44:10, 1 Kings 11:33). They are not used exclusively of Yahweh as “Most High” certainly is. When other passages use the term “God of gods,” Yahweh is identified by name or person in the same context (i.e., Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 136:1-2, Daniel 2:47). But not here.

Significantly, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus is the “ruler of the Olympian gods” (Greekmythology.com/Zeus). Put another way, to a Greek antagonist, Zeus would be “god of [Greek] gods.” Thus, 11:36 has the antagonist magnifying himself above the whole Greek pantheon, even above Zeus himself. By striking coins bearing his own image under the title “Theos,” pictured with divine rays emanating from his crown, Antiochus certainly did “magnify himself above every god,” and did “speak marvellous things against the god of gods.” God’s punishment of the Jews was for them to be ruled over by a conceited, willful, narcissistic pagan, and he is allowed to prosper in this until God’s wrath is complete, for he “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.” In a Greek pantheon, Antiochus IV can truly be said to have exalted himself above “all gods,” even “the god of gods.” That Antiochus’ disregard for the Greek pantheon is in view here is plainly evident in the next verse.

In 11:37, the antagonist is said to pay insufficient regard both to “the god of his fathers,” and to “the one in whom women delight.” Again with the Eschatological Frame in view, interpretations actually vary widely here. Calvin saw Mohammed’s approval of polygamy as a disregard for the natural, conjugal affection of women (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, 11:37). Elliott has “the desire of women” referring to the Messiah (Horæ Apocalypticae, vol. 4, 152n). Still others would have “desire of women” refer to marriage or children. But since the context here is of gods that the antagonist does not honor as his ancestors did, we see this as a reference to the Greek son of Zeus, Dionysus, who was, quite notoriously, the desire of women (Greekmythology.com/Dionysus). From Plutarch we have a very detailed description of the rituals of the women who delighted in the worship of Dionysius. Most notably, the one who excelled above all others in this form of devotion was no less than Alexander’s mother, Olympias:

“…all the women of these parts were addicted to the Orphic rites and the orgies of Dionysus from very ancient times (being called Klodones and Mimallones) and imitated in many ways the practices of the Edonian women and the Thracian women about Mount Haemus, from whom, as it would seem, the word ‘threskeuein’ came to be applied to the celebration of extravagant and superstitious ceremonies. Now Olympias, who affected these divine possessions more zealously than other women, and carried out these divine inspirations in wilder fashion, used to provide the revelling companies with great tame serpents, which would often lift their heads from out the ivy and the mystic winnowing-baskets, or coil themselves about the wands and garlands of the women, thus terrifying the men.” (Plutarch, Life of Alexander, Part 1.2.7-9)

In brief, the antagonist of Daniel 11:36-37 rejects the gods of his upbringing, the gods of his forefathers and foremothers—Zeus, the Greek “god of gods,” “the god of his fathers,” and Dionysus, “the desire of [Greek] women.” He magnifies himself above them, and beyond that adopts a foreign pantheon as well.

To which pantheon does Antiochus then resort, having insufficiently regarded the Greek? A Roman one, of course. In accordance with the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C., Antiochus IV was sent to Rome as a hostage. That is where Antiochus learned to worship Jupiter Capitolinus, the Roman “god of forces,” and that is why he dedicated the Temple in Jerusalem to Jupiter Capitolinus. We provided some details on this in The Seventieth Week of Daniel 9.

Antiochus dedicated other temples to Jupiter Capitolinus as well—in Athens and in Antioch—as Livius records for us (Livius, Periochae, Book 41, 5-6). And as Josephus reports, once the Samaritans saw the Temple in Jerusalem dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus, they requested—and Antiochus agreed—that their temple should be dedicated to “Jupiter Hellenius” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, chapter 5, paragraph 5). As Daniel prophesied, “in his estate shall he honour the god of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory” (Daniel 11:38-39).

Jupiter, of course, was not the only Roman god to secure Antiochus’ affections during his involuntary visit. Clearly, living in Rome had an effect on him. What is relevant to us is that the Romans had in their pantheon a god very much like Dionysus, under the name of Bacchus, son of Jupiter. The Bacchanalia—as the rites were called—”were at first held in secret, attended by women only, on three days of the year. Later, admission was extended to men” (Encylopedia Britannica, Bacchanalia). But just when Antiochus moved to Rome, the Senate scaled back Bacchanalia dramatically because it was getting out of hand (Livius, History of Rome, Book 39.8). Just as Antiochus was getting introduced to a new Roman pantheon, devotion to Dionysus’ Roman counterpart Bacchus was on the one hand being extended to include men, but on the other being scaled back to be a lot less raucous. The reason this matters is that 2 Maccabees describes the policies of Antiochus IV in terms of a devotion to Dionysus. But when the practice is related, it sounds more like the refined, gender neutralized Roman Bacchanalia than the primitive and frenzied devotion of his Greek foremothers:

“…and when the feast of Dionysus came, they [the Jews] were compelled to walk in the procession in honor of Dionysus, wearing wreaths of ivy.” (2 Maccabees 6:7)

The description of the ritual in 2 Maccabees 6 bears more likeness to the refined Roman devotion to Bacchus than it does to Olympias’ devotion to Dionysus. The authors of 2 Maccabees, writing more than 60 years after the events, had a propensity for re-hellenizing Antiochus IV’s romanticized pantheon, and thus, his affections for Roman gods are depicted in 2 Maccabees under the names of their Greek counterparts. Antiochus celebrated Jupiter and Bacchus of the Roman pantheon, and the authors of 2 Maccabees re-hellenize those devotions to have them depicted as celebrations of Zeus and Dionysus (2 Maccabees 6:2,7). But clearly the rites depicted in 2 Maccabees 6:7 were the Roman Bacchanalia, not the Greek celebrations of Dionysus. In reality, Antiochus disregarded the gods of his forefathers and foremothers (Zeus and Dionysus), and gave honors to Jupiter and Bacchus, instead. What is depicted in these last three verses about the Seleucid line is not two different antagonists, but rather a single antagonist wavering between two pantheons.

In view of this, we invite the reader to revisit Daniel 11:36-39 and notice how it depicts the antagonist’s shift from one pantheon to another:

“…he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god (in the Greek pantheon), and shall speak marvellous things against the god of gods (Zeus), …  Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers (Zeus), nor the desire of women (Dionysus), nor regard any god (Greek pantheon): for he shall magnify himself above all.  But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces (Roman Jupiter): and a god (Jupiter) whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god (Jupiter), whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; he shall cause them to rule over many…” (Daniel 11:36-39a).

In conclusion, Daniel 11:39b says “he shall divide the land for gain.” Luther flies immediately to the Eschatological Frame, identifying the Papal Rome as the antagonist of Daniel 11:39, for “Antichrist must seize the treasures of the earth, as it is prophesied” (Martin Luther, Three Treatises, American Edition of Luther’s Works, v. 44, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation). But even this was fulfilled in Antiochus, whose designs on partitioning the land for gain are depicted for us in 1 Maccabees 1:29, 51;

“the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute … he appointed inspectors over all the people…”

Antiochus IV’s successor, Demetrius, reversed this very policy:

“And now I free you and exempt all the Jews from payment of tribute and salt tax and crown levies …  I release them from this day and henceforth. I will not collect them from the land of Judah or from the three districts added to it from Samaria and Galilee, from this day and for all time. … and let all officials cancel also the taxes on their cattle.” (1 Maccabees 10:29-33)

Here concludes the section of Daniel 11 that addresses the Seleucids during their Eastern period. For the entire 21 verses, vv. 19-39, the Seleucids are in view, but at no point does the narrator refer to them as “King of the North.”

6. Daniel 11:40-45: Pompey vs. the Pirates, Mithridates and Tigranes

“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him…” (Daniel 11:40)

67 – 48 B.C.. It has now been almost a hundred years since Antiochus IV died. As we showed in “…and South was South” and “Pirates in the Bay,” the Seleucids are on their 13th Antiochus and the Ptolemies are past their 11th Ptolemy. Both lines are struggling for relevance as a new era is about to dawn. By the time Daniel reintroduces the title “King of the North” at 11:40, it is in reference the Roman Republic that now possesses Asia Minor and Thrace. By that time, Syria had been conquered by Tigranes of Armenia. Ptolemy’s kingdom, so politically and geographically reduced—had long since been bequeathed to Rome by Ptolemy VIII.

Rome’s chief rival for dominance of the Mediterranean Basin was the pirate nation of Pamphylia, based at the fortress of Coracesium on a slender crescent of land that had been part of Ptolemy’s domains south of the Taurus. Here in the waning days of Greek influence, the Republic of Rome is the “King of the North,” and the Pamphylian Pirates are the “King of the South.” As we showed last week, Pompey was granted full authority over the entire treasury of Rome, took control of “the precious things of Egypt”—the wheat shipments—came against the Pamphylian pirates like a whirlwind with many ships, horsemen and foot soldiers, overflowed into every nation in the Mediterranean and essentially laid the groundwork for the soon to be Empire of Rome, notably leaving Edom, Moab and most of Ammon untouched.

“But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him…” (Daniel 11:44)

The tidings from the North and the East at 11:44 refer to the double invasion of Rome’s territories in Asia Minor by king Mithridates within the Taurus mountains allied with king Tigranes of Armenia beyond the Taurus mountains in the former Seleucid territories—North and East in the Alexandrian Frame. Pompey made short work of them both.

Thus, as we have shown here, Daniel 11 may be completely expounded in a single, Alexandrian Frame of Reference. There was no need after all to invoke a Judæan Frame at 11:5 and certainly no need to invoke an Eschatological Frame later in the chapter. And there is also no need to see Daniel 11 diverging from Antiochus IV at any point from 11:21-39. He clearly fulfilled those verses, too. Daniel 11 is in fact one continuous narrative of the rise and fall Greece before the Iron period of the Roman Empire.

One interesting conclusion that arises from the Single Frame Hypothesis is that it unifies the Bronze period depicted in Daniel 2:32,39, the Leopard period depicted in 7:6, the He-goat period depicted in 8:5-26, the period of the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:27 and the North-South-East conflicts depicted in Daniel 11:3-45. They all refer to the same Greek period of Daniel’s visions, and were all completely fulfilled before the beginning of the Roman Empire.

Next week, we will begin to explore the vast significance this holds for our understanding of the narrator’s next words:

“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people…” (Daniel 12:1)

As we shall see, Michael stood up “for the children of thy people” much sooner than we would have otherwise imagined.