Follow
Of the many things Daniel shows us in his visions, one of the most prominent is that of imperial succession. Son follows father in the succession of kings, and empire follows empire in the succession of kingdoms. Daniel 2 speaks explicitly of four empires—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome—and Daniel 7 speaks explicitly of the same four. When those two visions are harmonized, what emerges is a Fifth Empire, the Empire of Roman Catholicism that arose after the thirteen-way fragmentation of Rome. We explored the emergence of Roman Catholicism as the successor to those Four Empires in our series, The Fifth Empire, and in our article The Fourteenth Diocese. Like a river flowing relentlessly and continuously onward, the prophetic timeline depicted in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 flowed from Babylon to the rise of Antichrist without gaps or discontinuities—Babylon, then Medo-Persia, then Greece, then Rome. Then Papal Roman Catholicism, the arrogant Little Horn of Daniel 7, the persecutor of God’s holy people.
But not all of Daniel’s visions span the whole period from Babylon to the final destruction of Roman Catholicism. Daniel 8 depicts the rise of Greece, as Alexander the Great assumed prominence in the region and utterly destroyed the Medo-Persian empire. The vision spans the period from Medo-Persian dominance to the period of Greek dominance, and ends “in the latter time” of the Greek era (Daniel 8:23). Medo-Persia is depicted as a two-horned Ram, and his “two horns are the kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20). Greece is depicted as a one-horned He-goat, and Alexander the Great is the “notable horn between his eyes” (Daniel 8:5,21). What unfolds in the vision of Daniel 8 after the death of Alexander is a conflict between a Little Horn and the people of God, and that Little Horn stems from the line of one of Alexander’s successors (Daniel 8:9-12). In that conflict, the Little Horn desolates the sanctuary and causes sacrifices to cease, and does so under the period of Greek rule. The chief antagonist of Daniel 8 is clearly Greek.
Two long-standing traditions, however, have long militated against that reading and have instead worked to move the Little Horn of Daniel 8 hundreds or thousands of years into the future, out of a Greek context and into a Roman one. One tradition is based on the assumption that the Little Horn of Daniel 8 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 are the same person, and the other is based on the assumption that the One Week of Daniel 9 is a post-Hellenic, Messianic phenomenon.
Regarding the first tradition, the conflict depicted in Daniel 8 bears so much similarity to the conflict between the Little Horn and the people of God in Daniel 7 that the two Little Horns of chapters 7 and 8 have been taken by many to signify the same antagonist. As we noted last week, Roman Catholic apologists leverage that identification to make the Little Horn of Daniel 7 into a Greek antagonist like the Little Horn of Daniel 8, and thus divert our attention away from the Roman Papacy as the Little Horn of Daniel 7 (see Fr. William Most’s, Commentary on Daniel). But many Historicist eschatologists engage in the opposite error, and try to make the Little Horn of Daniel 8 into a Roman antagonist like the Little Horn of Daniel 7. In doing so, they have projected the events of Daniel 8 far into the future and out of their native Greek context, and onto a Roman antagonist. They have thus led us to expect in a Roman Antichrist certain behaviors, attributes and timelines that belong to the Greek antagonist alone.
Regarding the second tradition, because the events of Daniel 8:9-12 are also depicted in the One Week of Daniel 9, and Daniel 9 is almost universally understood to be a Messianic prophecy, the events of Daniel 8, along with those of the One Week of Daniel 9:27, are typically transported centuries into the future to take place either during the life of Christ, the destruction of Jerusalem, the rise of Antichrist or the end of the world. The result is that we are left awaiting the fulfillment of essentially Greek events within an explicitly Roman context.
But the text will not allow either of these traditions. The person explaining the vision to Daniel insists that the conflict between the Little Horn and the people of God in Daniel 8 takes place “in the latter time of their kingdom” (Daniel 8:23). In the context of Daniel’s immediate vision in chapter 8 and proximate visions in chapters 2, 7, 9 and 11, the kingdom in view is the kingdom of the Greeks—the brass (Daniel 2:39), the leopard (Daniel 7:6), and the he-goat (Daniel 8:21)—and that kingdom would end with the rise of Rome, just as Medo-Persia had ended with the rise of Greece, and as Babylon had ended with the rise of Medo-Persia. The “latter time of their kingdom” means the latter time of the empire of the Greeks. When the events of Daniel 9:27 and 8:13 are revisited again in Daniel 11:31, it is again in the context of one of the lines of succession from Alexander. The context of Daniel 9:27, 8:13 and 11:31 is wholly and substantially Greek, and the events they depict occur toward the end of the Greek period.
Likewise, as we noted in The Leviticus 26 Protocol, in Rightly Dividing the Weeks, and in The Seventieth Week of Daniel 9, the Seventy Weeks prophecy is Mosaic rather than Messianic. The culmination of that prophecy occurs under the period of Greek rule, and the restoration of “perpetual righteousness” and the rededication of “the Most Holy” (Daniel 9:24) are accomplished in accordance with the First covenant, not the Second, in the context of Leviticus 26 rather than in the context of Hebrews 10. The context of Daniel 9:27 is wholly and substantially Greek, and the events depicted in it occur toward the end of the Greek period.
In brief, the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is Greek and arose in the mid-2nd century B.C., and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Roman and arose toward the end of the 4th century A.D.. The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is the Greek antagonist Antiochus IV who arose from the Seleucid line of Alexander’s successors. It is he who is depicted as the antagonist in the One Week of Daniel 9:27, as well as in Daniel 8:13 and Daniel 11:31. The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the Antichrist Roman Papacy who arises from the fragments of the divided Roman empire. And never the twain shall meet. At least not within the timeline of Daniel’s succession of kingdoms.
The separation of the chief antagonist of Daniel 8:13, 9:27 and 11:31 from the chief antagonist of Daniel 7 is the key to understanding Danielic eschatology, and the textual cues of that necessary separation are not wanting. Daniel’s instructor—by his description of their times, their attributes and their activities—depicts the Little Horns of Daniel 7 and 8 as two antagonists, not one.
The Two Little Horns Emerge from Different Empires
The first cue, as we have noted above, is that the Little Horn of Daniel 8 emerges “out of one” of four horns (Daniel 8:8-9), and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 emerges “among” or between ten horns, having first removed three (Daniel 7:7-8). We have already identified all of the Roman horns of Daniel 7 in A See of One and The Fourteenth Diocese, and we will identify the four Greek horns of Daniel 8 later in this series. For now, we simply highlight the fact that from the one “great horn”—the Greek Alexander the Great—”came up four notable ones” (Daniel 8:8)—his Greek successors—and the Little Horn of Daniel 8:13 came up “out of one of them,” and he, too, is Greek.
The two Little Horns, though similarly hostile to God’s holy people (Daniel 8:24, 7:25), are nevertheless distinguished one from the other in the Scriptures, separated in time by the succession of empires. The Little Horn of Daniel 8 emerges from one of the lines of succession from the divided Greek empire, and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 emerges from the midst of the fragments of the divided Roman empire.
The Two Little Horns Oppress God’s People for Different Durations of Time
The second cue is that the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is allowed to oppress God’s holy people for 2,300 “days” (Daniel 8:13-14), while God’s people are given into the hands of the Little Horn of Daniel 7 for “a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25). Revelation 13:5-7 depicts that time for the Little Horn of Daniel 7 to “wear out the saints of the most High” (Daniel 7:25) and “to make war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7) as “forty and two months,” which is 1,260 “days.” Thus, the duration of their two respective persecutions is described much differently—2,300 days vs. 1,260 days.
The Two Horns are each Allotted a Different “Time, Times and an Half”
The third cue is that even though both the Greek antagonist and the Roman antagonist are each allotted a similar period—alternately described as “time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7) and “time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25)—to accomplish their assigned purposes, the duration and content of that period is different for each Little Horn.
The Greek antagonist’s “time, times, and an half” is described as 1,290 days during which “the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up” (Daniel 12:11). But the Roman antagonist’s “time and times and the dividing of time” is described as forty-two “months,” which is clearly 1,260 “days,” during which he “shall wear out the saints of the most High” (Daniel 7:25) and “make war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7).
There is no indication in the text that the Greek antagonist’s power to oppress God’s holy people is limited to his “time, times and an half.” The Greek antagonist is allowed to persecute God’s holy people for 2,300 “days,” and within that 2,300 “days,” he is is allotted 1,290 days—”time, times, and an half”—to abolish sacrifices and set up the abomination of desolation. But as noted above, the Roman antagonist’s power to oppress God’s holy people is clearly limited to 1,260 “days,” which is his “time and times and the dividing of time.”
Thus, not only do the two Little Horns have different periods during which they oppress God’s people (2,300 “days” vs. 1,260 “days”), but also when they are allotted three and a half “times” (Daniel 7:25, 12:7), the content of their three and a half “times” differ, as do the respective durations of their three and a half “times” (1,290 days vs. 1,260).
The Greek Antagonist’s “days” are Explicitly Literal
The fourth cue—where we will spend most of our time today—is that the Greek antagonist’s “time, times and an half” are to be taken as 1,290 literal days, whereas the Roman antagonist’s “time and times and the dividing of time” are to be taken prophetically as 1,260 years. Only the Greek antagonist’s time frame is described in terms of “days” in Daniel’s visions, and when his instructors are conversing with one another in Daniel 8, they explicitly inform him that the Greek antagonist is operating within a timeframe of literal days:
“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? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (Daniel 8:13-14)
We invite our readers to investigate the text of Daniel 8:14. There they shall discover that what is typically translated as “days” is actually “evenings (ereb) and mornings (boqer).” This is a reference to literal days, just like the literal days of creation in Genesis:
“And the evening (ereb) and the morning (boqer) were the first day. … And the evening (ereb) and the morning (boqer) were the second day…” (Genesis 1:5,8, etc…)
The narrator of the vision then takes a moment to explain to Daniel that he is to understand these days literally, for he returns to them saying,
“And the vision of the evenings (ereb) and the mornings (boqer) Which was told is true.” (Daniel 8:26, NKJV)
What is meant by the additional statement that the vision of evenings and mornings is “true”? All of Daniel’s visions are true, in the sense that in their written description and explanation they convey truth. The vision of Daniel 8 is not more “true” than any of the other visions, and his other visions are not less “true” than the vision of Daniel 8. For example, Daniel is elsewhere shown “that which is noted in the scripture of truth” (Daniel 10:21). That vision, too, is “true.” As are the visions of Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 11. The difference here is that the “evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8 are to be understood as literal days, as in, “the evenings and mornings are literal.” They are not to be understood to depict a prophetic duration, as the time frames of the other visions are (i.e., Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 9:24-27)
The reason this matters to us is that the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 take place within the period of a literal 2,300 “evenings and mornings,” and therefore, they, too, must be a literal 1,290 days. Note that the 2,300 literal days encompass the cessation of “the daily sacrifice,” and “the transgression of desolation” (Daniel 8:13), and so do the 1,290 days:
“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” (Daniel 12:11)
Because the 1,290 days are included within the 2,300 literal days, the 1,290 days, too, must be literal days. And so are the next 45 days, which are appended to the 1,290, to comprise 1,335 days:
“Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” (Daniel 12:12)
Thus the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 and the 1,335 days of Daniel 12:12 are clearly literal days. Just like the 2,300.
But why would a three and a half year period—”a time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7)—be described as 1,290 days instead of 1,260 days in the first place? Why describe time, times and a half as 1,290 days when they are described as forty-two months and 1,260 days in other passages of Scripture (Revelation 12:6,14, 13:5)? The answer to these questions is “intercalation.”
The Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, which is to say that its months are based on the phase of the moon, but its years are based on the solar year. A lunar month is about 29 1/2 days, which is why the Hebrew calendar is comprised of 12 months of 29 or 30 days. Under that calendar, a lunar “year” is about 355 days long, roughly ten days shy of a solar year. Because the lunar month and the solar year do not remain synchronized very long, an additional 30-day month must be added every three years or so. Just as the modern calendar of a 365 day year must add a 366th day—February 29th—every four years, in order to stay synchronized with a solar year, the Hebrew calendar had to add a thirteenth month every few years in order to keep the lunar months aligned with the solar year. The practice of adding days and months to a calendar for this purpose is called intercalation.
After three successive years on the Hebrew calendar, the lunar year would be 30 days out of synch with the solar year, and would require the addition of one intercalary month to get back on track. A three and a half year period therefore will always include at least one intercalary month in order to make it 1,260 days long.
Of interest to us in this eschatological discussion is the fact that some three and a half year periods—”time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7)—would include two intercalary months. Given the irregular scheduling of intercalary months—every three years or so—some three and a half year periods would include one intercalary month toward the beginning, and another toward the end. In that scenario, a three and a half year period that included two intercalary months would be 1,290 days long.
The fact that the “time, times, and an half” of Daniel 12:7 correlates to 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 is clearly a recognition of the ancient practice of intercalation in the Hebrew calendar. Most significant to our discussion today, intercalation is only necessary when speaking of literal days. After all, there is never a need to align prophetic “days” of years to the solar calendar. Prophetic “days” of years are, by definition, already defined by the solar calendar (i.e., Numbers 14:34, Ezekiel 4:6). But literal months of days are not.
Finally, we note that the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 comprise half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week in Daniel 9:27. The One Week of Daniel 9:27 is seven prophetic days, which are seven literal years. If the “time, times, and an half” of Daniel 12:7 is half of that prophetic “week,” or three and a half literal years, then the 1,290 days that make up those three and a half literal years are 1,290 literal days. One thousand, two hundred and ninety “years” cannot possibly fit into the literal three and a half year period of the second half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week.
Thus, in addition to the fact that Daniel’s narrators refer to the 2,300 “days” of the Greek antagonist as “evenings and mornings”—which is how the literal days of creation are described; and the fact that the 1,290 days take place within those literal 2,300 days; and the fact that the three and a half “times” are described not as 1,260 but as 1,290 days—which would only occur through intercalation, which is only necessary when literal days are in view; and the fact that the 1,290 days comprise half of a literal seven year period, it is clear that the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 are in fact literal days. The entire narration on the Greek antagonist is discussed in terms of literal days, not prophetic days.
To summarize the differences between the Little Horn of Daniel 8 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7,
- one is Greek, the other is Roman;
- the Greek one oppresses God’s people for 2,300 days, and the Roman one oppresses God’s people for 1,260 “days”;
- the “time, times and a half” of the Greek Little Horn is 1,290 days, and the “time and times and the dividing of time” of the Roman Little Horn is 42 months—1,260 days—according to Revelation 13:5-7;
- the “days” of the Greek antagonist are explicitly literal, as evidenced by the reference to “evenings and mornings,” and by the insertion of a second intercalary month to make 1,290 days, and the fact that the 1,290 days comprise half of Daniel’s Seventieth prophetic “week,” which is itself comprised of literal years.
We will next continue this series with a discussion on the 2,300 literal days, the 1,290 literal days and the 1,335 literal days. Until then, we simply assert that the Little Horns of Daniel 8 and Daniel 7 refer to Greek and Roman antagonists, respectively. One arises in the 2nd century B.C., and the other in the latter part of the 4th century A.D.. Conflating the two requires that we suppress what the text itself is telling us.
And the text itself is telling us not to conflate them.
By communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:10, was an idolater, eo ipso, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolaters. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days (Christ-mass, Easter, etc. – ed.), bishopping, bowing down to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, etc., are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ’s enemies, and the very trophies of antichrist, — we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord’s redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the temple of God like the synagogue of Satan?”
– A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, in George Gillespie’s Works volume one (emphases added), p. 80
But alas! Satan envied our happiness, brake our ranks, poisoned our fountains, mudded and defiled our streams; and while the watchmen slept, the wicked one sowed his tares: whence these divers years bygone, for ministerial authority, we had lordly supremacy and pomp; for beauty, fairding; for simplicity, whorish buskings; for sincerity, mixtures; for zeal, a Laodicean temper; for doctrines, men’s precepts; for wholesome fruits, a medley of rites; for feeders we had fleecers; for pastors, wolves and impostors; for builders of Jerusalem, rebuilders of Jericho; for unity, rents; for progress, defection. Truth is fallen in the streets, our dignity is gone, our credit lost, our crown is fallen from our heads; our reputation is turned to imputation: before God and man we justly deserve the censure of the degenerate vine; a backsliding people, an apostate perjured nation, by our breaking a blessed covenant so solemnly sworn. Yet, behold! when this should have been our doom, when all was almost gone, when we were down the hill, when the pit’s mouth was opened, and we were at the falling in, and at the very shaking hands with Rome; the Lord, strong and gracious, pitied us, looked on us, and cried, saying, “Return, return, ye backsliding people; come, and I will heal your backslidings.”
– Andrew Cant, THE NATIONAL COVENANT: EXHORTATION AT INVERNESS in The Covenants And The Covenanters by James Kerr
http://www.truecovenanter.com/bullinger/bullinger_05_01_the_catholic_church.html
TrueCovenanter.com Editor’s Introduction.
What do Protestants know about being Catholic? Truly, according to the proper sense of this term, Authentic Protestants are the very best Catholics, and the only Catholics who may lay claim to Apostolic doctrine, or pass the trials of the Fathers, who laboured to define the character of true Christians as distinct from both heretics and schismatics. So here, we have a sermon by a Protestant Reformer, in which the Catholic Church is described and defined. Not, indeed, that Romanist society, whose head is the Antichrist: but that Heavenly and Holy Society, whose head is the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who choose to read, will easily learn how very much Protestants know about being Catholic.
Modern Protestantism, it must be admitted, is rather different from what was established in the times of our Reformers. So many congregations are both mis-united and dis-jointed in the loose system of denominationalism fostered by the civil toleration of false religion. No society of any sort can lay claim to being The Catholic Church, though many congregations, more or less, partake of its character and constitute its present existence in the world. Our own edification is hindered by the confusion, and those in darkness doubt they discern any light in the midst of our obscurity. Lamentation is called for, but the comfort and safety of toleration & indulgence seem so hard to lament. Can we really stand against these things? Trace your history. Read the whole story, with all its causes and effects. You must stand against these things, in favour of established churches and a united Catholic Church. The old Covenanter testimony was very much about this. It is true, they opposed many other sincere Christians of many other kinds. But the reason was quite simple: many Christians, of many kinds, conceded that the Catholic Church’s order and unity should be bartered away for the sake of political expediency and personal safety.
Can the Catholic Church still be a light in the world, and do for the world what the Lord Jesus Christ left us here to do? The last part of this question necessitates a positive answer. Our common Lord Jesus Christ will not fail. His purposes shall be accomplished. But they shall be accomplished by way of the means he has prescribed. Not the conspiracy of disunity, but the cooperation of unity; Not diligence in human inventions, but faithfulness in divine institutions; not the heat of ignorant devotion, but the light of doctrinal truth; not a spirited rapture of licentious practice, but a spiritual dedication to holy walking; these will be the distinguishing features of a redeemed Church whose presence will serve a useful purpose in this world. We may not expect it to be otherwise. Our mission has but one Author. He sent not many servants to carry out divers errands. He gave a single commission, for a work like himself and his working, to be carried out by a company of renewed souls whom he himself united together in faith and practice. We may read the Great Commission again, and see how it is expressed. Matth. 28.19,20. And we should bear in mind what else he said several lessons earlier, in Matth. 19.9, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
2015.08.15::JTKer.
Thx again Tim.
I had never heard of the word “intercalation” before! It was an education.
Hi Tim
My friend and I are stumneling again.
You say
“A three and a half year period therefore will always include at least one intercalary month in order to make it 1,260 days long.”
I understand, that the Jews have to add a Month “in order to achieve” those days, that they have lost.
you say “in order to make it 1,260 days long.”
My understanding/missunderstaning:
if the first year has 354 Days (12 moths) and teh second also and the third 384 (13 Months), and thelast half year 6 Months with 177 days = 1268,5 Days.
how do you come to 43 months =1260 Days
the question is basicly simple: how can 43 Months be 1260 Days, because when i calculate, i come to 1268,5.
I im sure im making a mistake, but i need your help…
Hi, Alessandro. The error is not yours, but mine. There is a simple explanation that I overlooked in some of my discussions of the lunisolar calendar, and the use of that calendar to describe time that elapses between festivals and the use of that calendar to describe elapsed time in terms of months.
The 2,300 days of Daniel 8, for example, describe the time that elapses between Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah. That is an example of the lunisolar calendar being used to record time that elapses between festivals. There is no discussion of months in that elapsed time.
1,263 1/2 days of Revelation 11 is similar in that it refers to a period of time that elapses between the 63 AD Festival of Booths that begins at 9 AM on the 15th of the 7th month, and an event in 67 AD that occurs at 9 PM 6 days before Passover on the 14th of the 1st month. The passage of time is intrinsically tied to the dates of the Festivals, and yet, as you will notice and have already noticed, the total elapsed time between the Festival of Booths on the 15th day of the seventh month and the Festival of Passover on the 14th day of the 1st month is not 1,260, although they are undoubtedly 3 1/2 years apart. Technically speaking, the total elapsed time between those two festivals 3 1/2 years apart is 1,269 days, not 1,260. Nevertheless, the light, the voice, the earthquake, the resurrection and ascent of the “witnesses” in Revelation 11 occurred 6 days before Passover at 9 PM (1,263 1/2 days later), and therefore the murder of the “witnesses” would have occurred 3 1/2 days prior, which is exactly 1,260 days after the Festival of Booths. What is more, the 42 months in chapter 11 is not a reference to the 1260 days of their testimony for reasons discussed here, and below.
The 42 months of trampling of Jerusalem in Chapter 11, on the other hand, is an example of tracking the elapsed time simply in terms of the number of months between two events. Those 42 months are not described as 3 1/2 years or 1,260 days, but were in fact a literal 42 months, beginning on the 7th of Iyar in 67 AD, and ended on the 7th of Elul in 70 AD, a 3 year and 5-month period, as detailed in Episode 24 of the Danielic Imperative, which is actually closer to 1,230 days. That is an example of 42 months referring to the elapsed time taking place in terms of months, but not in terms of days or years. Recognizing this fact is why we can say that the trampling of Jerusalem and the testimony of the two witnesses cannot be concurrent time periods, since they are of different durations.
I did not sufficiently work these matters out in my analysis. And to your point, you are quite correct: 43 months equals about 1,269 days. From this we can say that 1,260 days is not 42 months (it is closer to 43), and 42 months is never 3 1/2 years (it is only 3 years and 5 months). It was wrong for me to say that 42 months is always 1,230 days or that 43 months is always 1,260 days or that 44 months is always 1,290. What we may say with certainty, rather, and what I should have said in the podcast, is that a reference to a 3 1/2 year period having 1,290 days is evidence of two intercalary months in that 3 1/2 year period, and because of that, we know that the 1,290 days or “time, times and an half” of Daniel 12 are literal because intercalation is only necessary when we are speaking of literal days.
The 2,300 days, too, are literal because they include the literal 1,290 days of the second half of the 70th week.
Likewise, the 42 months of Revelation 13, and the 1,260 days and the 3 1/2 years of Revelation 12 must refer to a prophetic period of 1,260 years, because there is no way a literal 1,260 day period could ever be 42 months, and 42 months is never 3 1/2 years. Therefore, the time period must be prophetic, 1,260 years long.
These things are indeed true and can be deduced from the Scriptures, although your calculations do indeed show that my representations were too broad in their implications.
I appreciate the question very much and it is right on point.
Thank you very much. Very very very much.
I will listen both (Rev 11) Podcasts again. Today and Tomorrow. After that i will quickly write you again here.
I have to do this for understand 100% of what you wrote.
But thats nice, i like it 🙂
Again, THANK YOU!
Ok Tim, i see.
I just have to study all the refernences in detail. But i see your point. Especially the time periods between the Festivals. They are amazing.
I understand your reasoning. And for now, to me, it makes sense!
But of corse, i must study them carefully, so that i can understand them so much, that i also can EXPLAIN them.
Its a lot of work, but your clarification below, was very very helpful.
Now i can continue my study.
Thanks a lot, you know, it means a lot to me.. 🤝🏻!
What about James Attenbury’s argument that Daniel was using the Persian calendar (360 days) instead of the Hebrew one (354/355 days)?
In that case, 1,260 is a 3.5 year 42 month period (with 0 intercalary months), while 1,290 is a 3.5 year, 43 month period (with 1 intercalary month). That would imply that both periods are literal and not prophetic.
I think we can rule out the Persian Calendar because (I infer) Daniel’s elapsed times appear to occur between the dates of Jewish festivals, which are inextricably linked to the Jewish Calendar rather than the Persian Calendar. The best illustration of this is the 2,300 days between Rosh Hashana on the first day of the 7th month in 170 BC and the first Hanukah in 164 BC on the 25th of Chislev.
As I observe here, The Ashes of Isaac, the elapsed time “is often 2,268 or 2,269 or 2,270 days from Rosh Hashanah in one year, until Hanukah six years later, as long as there are only two intercalary months in that time span, depending of course on the length of each year. But when there is a third intercalary month within that time span—as there certainly would have been in the time under consideration, because the second half of the Seventieth Week was 1,290 days long—then the total number of days from Rosh Hashana in one year to the first day of Hanukah 6 years later is 2,298 or 2,299 or 2,300, depending of course on the length of each year.”
Because the elapsed time occurs between two Jewish calendar dates, the intervening calendration would also be Jewish. And because the 1,290 days of Daniel 12 occur within the 2,300 days of Daniel 8, and conclude on the same day as the 2,300, the 1,290 days of Dan 12 must also be a Hebrew calendration.
We see this again in the 1,263 1/2 days from the beginning of the testimony of the two witnesses of Revelation (beginning with the Feast of Tabernacles at 3 PM and concluding 6 days before passover at 3 AM when the Jews were known to gather to purify themselves (John 11:55-12:1), which I address in a podcast here: SRR 128 The Danielic Imperative (25) The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, Part 2.
These “proofs,” of course, are self-referential. I do not deny that I am referring to my own analysis to support my thinking. My intent is merely to point to the evidence I used to arrive at the conclusions I have. The 1,260 days, the 1,290 days, the 2,300 days of Daniel, and the 42 months and 1,260 days of Revelation 11 all appear to elapse between significant Jewish calendar days, ruling out a Persian calendar. The additional significant point is that the elapsed times were revealed to Daniel, not postulated by him. For James Attenbury to be correct, we’d have to assume not that Daniel was using a Persian Calendar, but that the angels of Daniel 7, 8 and 12 were using a Persian calendar, which (to me) seems implausible.
Tim,
Thanks for your answer. That’s quite helpful and was exactly the missing information I was looking for. You clarified how time intervals were measured between festivals.
In my recent article, I approached the issue from a different angle. According to some historical references, the 360-day Old Persian Calendar was primarily used in the Eastern part of the empire, while in the West the empire adopted the Babylonian 354-/355-day calendar.
The critical point, from my perspective, is that the Hebrews were conquered by the Babylonians. Centuries later, the Hebrews would have the same 354-/355-day calendar that they received from the Babylonians. There is no historical evidence that they ever temporarily used the 360-day Persian calendar.
When the Medo-Persians under Cyrus conquered Babylon (~538 BC), they adopted the Babylonian calendar. After Cyrus you had 8 years under Cambyses II and Bardiya before Darius the Great. Under Darius, the empire adopted an official standardized procedure for intercalation using the Babylonian calendar as its basis in 503 BC at the very latest, possibly earlier.
Assuming that Daniel 9’s Darius is the same Darius, that means they were operating in the very regime that codified in law the 354-/355-day calendar with an intercalation cycle over a repeating 19-solar-year period.
What struck me was this: From Nebuchadnezzar onward, Daniel was apparently the head of the magicians/astrologers. He served, at least, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius. It seems to me that Daniel—given his prominent role as head of the astrologers—would have been actively involved, if not outright in charge, of the official calendar and intercalation methods for two empires. I wonder if Daniel was, at least partially, responsible for Darius codifying it in legal form.
Peace,
DR
“we* need your help”
Alessandro and Leandro
From Switzerland