An Exegesis of The Little Horn of Daniel 8

Andrews University
Digital Commons @ Andrews University
Master's Theses Graduate Research
1953
An Exegesis of the Little Horn of Daniel 8

Reuben Lynn Hilde
Andrews University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses
Recommended Citation
Hilde, Reuben Lynn, "An Exegesis of the Little Horn of Daniel 8" (1953). Master's Theses. 60.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses/60
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital
Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
JI WHITE LIBRARY
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN
HERITAGE. ROOM
LI.1 ii E'H0 N OF 1,-)Riq EL g
AN EXEGESIS OF THE LITTLE HORN
OF DANIEL 8
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Washington, D. C.
In Partial Etlfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Department of Bible and Systematic Theology
THE LIBRARY
S.D.A. Theological Seminal
6830 Laurel St., N. W.
Washington 12, D.C.
by
3 7( 141 n E.13„.k--
„
Reuben Lynn Elide (4, •
August 1953
Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

267 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION . . . • •
The problem 0•••••.•••••••• 1
Statement of the problem . . . . . . . . . 1
Importance of the study . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Definitions of terms used . . . . • • . • . • 3
The great horn. . . . 3
The four "notable' horns . . . . . 3
The little horn • . . . • • • • 6 ••••••• 3
Fl an of procedure ••••••••••••••••• 4
Study of past and present views • . . . • • • e • • 4
Description of the little horn analyzed . • . . . 4
Historical and modern views measured • • 5
Sources . . . . . • . • • • • • a • • • • • • 6
VIEWPOINTS ON THE LITTLE HORN . • • 4 ••• 8
Appendix A . . . . • • . • • . • .6061 0 8
App endix B . . • • •••••••••••••• 9

An analysis of the two charts . • . . • 9
AN EXAMINATION OF ANTIOCH:US EPIPHANES . • • • • Si 10
The examination . . . . . 41.e. 6 6 • .
The little horn comes from one of the four horns • 10
Exceeding greatness of the little horn . . . . . . 12

iii
PAGE
Direction of activity . . . . .. . .. 16
Apersecuting power . . .. . . . . . .... . ..• 16
Self-exaltation of the little horn • . . . . .. 18
The little horn and the daily . 19
Truth cast to the ground . . . . , . ..... 21
Success and craft of the little horn. . 22
The transgression of desolation . . . . . . . . . . 23
At the end of 2,300 days . 25
Daniel 8:14, a prophecy .. . . . . 26.
The 2,300 evenings-mornings 26
The proposed 1,150 days . . . . . . 27
Temple desolation not fulfilled . . . . . . . . 27
The time of the end . . . . 0 . . • . ,28
End of the world? . .. 28
End of Judaism? . .•..•••. . 29
Time for the Messiah? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
End of Seleucid kingdom? . . • • . . , . 29
In the latter time of their kingdom . . . . . • • . 29
A king of fierce countenance . . •. . . . . . . 30
Dark sentences of the little horn .. . . . . . . . 31
Power of the little horn . . . . . . . 32
Against the Prince of princes . . . . . . . . . 34
The little horn broken . , . •• 34

iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Summary and conclusions . • • • • 4b,0 •• • • • 35
The results . . .••••••...•. . .. 36
Conclusion . . . . . . . . i • • • • • • • • . 36
MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE LITTLE HORN . . 64.6.•••••• • 37

Mohammedanism examined . • • . . • . . • 37
Out of one of the four horns • 4.6...••••••• 37
Exceeding greatness of the little horn . • . • • . 0 38
Direction of activity . . . . • . * . . 39
The remaining evidence ••• • • •....• . • • .8* 41
Summary and conclusions . •••••••••••••••• 43
TWO OTHER VIEWPOINTS EXAMINED . . ••••••••••• • 45
A future Antichrist . . ••••••.••• . . 45
The test applied . . . • • • 6 46
Conclusion . . • ...• •...•..•••••••••• 47
The Papacy . . •.••••••....••••••••.• 48
The examination . •••••••••••••.••••• 48
Conclusion . . . . •••••• 4..•••..••••• 49
V.L. PAGAN AND PAPAL RomE . *** •••••••••••• 51
Pagan and papal Rome combined . . . 51
The validity of combining the two . • . . . • • . . . • 51
Bible testimony ** • O eo•••••••• 51
The testimony of history • . • .. • • • • • • . • . . • 53

The test applied . . . . . . . O . . • • di • • . • 57

CHAPTER PAGE
The little horn from one of the four horns . . • .. 57
The certainty of three kingdoms. . • . . . . . 57
Why not Thrace? ••......•.•.• . • . 58
Pergamum, the fourth kingdom . . . • OOO 60
Rome and the four kingdoms . . 0 . . . . . . . . 63
Rome from Pergamum • . . . . • • . . . . * . . 65
The little horn exceeding great . . . . . . • . 67
The direction of activity of the little horn . . 69
The little horn a persecuting power . . . . . 71
Self-exaltation of the little horn . . . . . . . 75
The little horn and the daily . . . . . . . . . 77
Truth cast to the ground . . . . 81
Success and craft of the little horn ... . . . 83
The transgression of desolation . • . . . . 85
At the end of 2300 days . . . . . . . . . . 87

The time of the end . .••.••• OOOOOO 91
In the latter time of their kingdom . • . . . • 93
The little horn, a king of fierce countenance . 94
The dark sentences of the little horn . • 4 • 6 95
Power of the little horn . • . . . . . 99
The little horn against the Prince of princes • )99
The little horn broken . . • ..,...• • • 6 101
Summary and conclusion • • • • • • • • • • • • • 101

Conclusion . . • . . 102

vi
CHAPTER PAGE
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . ..• • 103
Conclusion . • • . . . • • 1014
. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . • • . • • 4 . . . . . . . . . 0 4 . . . 106
APPENDIX .A . . . ** *** . . :. • . 4 • * • • • .• . • . 122
APPENDIX B .••.•••,....•• . • • . . 6 . * . . . . 138
APPENDIX C . . . . . . 6 . . '• . . . . . . . •• • • . . . . 149
APPENDIX D . 0 . . . . . .. . . . 0 . 0 . • . 1 • . . . . . 160

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
in the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel a vision is recorded

that left Daniel sick and astonished. He was unable to understand its
meaning fully.' Occupying a prominent place in the vision of the eighth

chapter is a "little horn, which waxed exceeding great.n2 As for the
vision itself, Daniel was shown in order: a ram, a "he goat," annota-
bleu horn, four horns which came up when the "notable" horn was broken,
and finally, the little horn that arose out of one of the four horns .3
It is this little horn tat provides the problem of this study.
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. To a large extent the meaning of

=Mir ilmillimffiwo
this vision is made clear in Daniel 8:20-22; however, the little horn
symbol is not discerned so readily. It is the purpose of this study
to find the answer to the question that comes to the mind of one who
reads the eighth chapter of Daniel: Who is the little horn of
Daniel 8?
Daniel 8:27.
2 Daniel 8:9.
3 Daniel 8:4-3-14.

2
Importance of the study. In building a structure that is to
withstand the elements of nature and of time, the architect must be
certain that the structure is built upon a solid foundation. With-
out this foundation, the building would crumble. Likewise, if a
mathematician were to start on an involved problem with the assump-
tion that two plus two equals five, the result would be unfortunate.
No matter how meticulous he may be fram that point on, he would come
forth with the wrong answer.
In the light of these two illustrations the student may view
the problem of the little horn of Daniel 8. The little horn of
Daniel 8 is of *foundation importance.)A large portion of the
Bible may be understood only as it is *built" upon the correct inter-
pretation of this little horn. And, if the Bible student will begin
his "prophetic problem" with a premise that is sound and true, he
will find, as he Journeys through the Scriptures, that truth will
coincide with truth, prophecy will blend with prophecy, the light
of gospel truth will shine brighter, and in his own heart, the stu-
dent will experience a greater love for his Saviour.2 Therefore,
this study is important, not only as a means of arriving at doctri-
nal truth, but also as a means of enriching the student's Christian
experience.
Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, p. 148.

2
2 Peter 1:19.

3
II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
In general, the terms used in this study are nontechnical;

however, a few of these terms can be confusing to the reader, unless
clarified. These terms are as follows:
The great horn. The great or "notable,* horn, referred to in

Daniel 8:8, is not the little horn under consideration in this study.
This great horn is located between the eyes of the he goat, and it is
defined as the first king of Grecia.1
The four "notable"' horns. The little horn is not numbered, as
one of these four horns. These four horns are the horns that suc-
ceeded the "notable" horn, the first king of Grecia. They are desig-
nated as four kingdoms that *shall stand up out of the nation, but
not in his power."2
The little horn. The little horn of Daniel 8:9 is the problem
of this study. This little horn is sighted as coming up out of one
of the four horns.3 A similar little horn is mentioned in Daniel 7:8,
but it has been the purpose of this study to delimit the problem so
that the little horn of Daniel 8 might be studied with greater clar-
ity. The little horn of Daniel 7 has been referred to only when it
1 Daniel 8:5, 21.
2 Daniel 8:22.
3 Daniel 8:9, 23.

4
was felt that it was an aid in clarifying the problem under con-
sideration.
III. PLAN OF PROCEDURE
Study of past and present views. A study has been made to
ascertain that which men throughout history have taught or believed
concerning the little horn of Daniel 8. In connection with this
it was felt necessary also to study the teachings of modern writers
on this subject. The results of these studies are discussed in
Chapter
Description of the little horn analyzed. It was felt that
before the little horn could be identified properly, a careful study
must be made of the chapter in which the little horn is found. There
are a number of statements in Daniel 8 which describe the character-
istics and activities of the little horn. A complete picture of the
little horn can be seen only as these statements are brought together
and viewed as a composite picture. These factors from Daniel 8 which
identify the little horn are the following:
The little horn comes out of one of the four horns.

Daniel 8:9.
The little horn grows exceedingly great. vs. 9, 10.

The direction of activity of the little horn is toward
the south, toward the east, and toward the pleasant
land. v. 9.
L. The little horn is a persecuting power. vs. 10, 21k, 25.

5
He exalts himself, even to the position of equality with
Christ. vs. 11, 25. •
The little horn takes away the "daily" and casts down
the sanctuary. vs. 11, 12.
The little horn casts the truth to the ground. v. 12.
The little horn succeeds and prospers through crafti-
ness. vs. 12, 24, 25.
He is connected with the transgression of desolation.

v. 13.
At the end of 2,300 days the sanctuary is cleansed.

v. 14.1
The vision of the little horn extends to the time of the

end. vs. 17, 19, 26.
The little horn comes up in the "latter end" of the king-
doms of the four horns, "when the transgressors are come
to the full." v. 23.
The little horn is described as a "king of fierce counte-
nance." v. 23.
He understands dark sentences, or riddles. v. 23.
He is mighty, but not by his own power. v. 24.
The little horn stands up against.the Prince of princes.
v. 25.
The little horn is broken without hand. v. 25.
Historical and modern views measured by the seventeen points

of Daniel 8. A number of interpretive views on the little horn have .
been propagated. It is logical to subject each of these views to the
1 The Revised Standard Version has, "two thousand and three

hundred evenings and mornings;" further examination of this point is
taken up later in the study. See. page 25.

6
test of the seventeen identifying factors, for it is essential that

to be correct a viewpoint pass the test of each one of these points.
This is a severe test, but' it could hardly be otherwise, for a number
of men, or powers, may fit the description of six or eight of these
points, and yet fail to fulfill the remaining specifications. There-
fore, it has been the plan of this study to apply this seventeen-point
test to the various teachings on the little horn. Only that person
or power that passes on every point of this test can provide the answer
to the question: Who is the little horn of Daniel 8?
It is not necessary to consider these seventeen points as com-
ing strictly in a chronological order. In fact, it is, perhaps, better
not to insist on an exact chronological sequence, for in so doing,
certain truths may pass by unnoticed. A correct approach would le to
consider these seventeen points as parts of a picture. When all of
these points are placed together in a correct relationship to each
other, a true picture of the little horn power is seen.
Sources. The sole source for this study is the book of Daniel.
It is taken for granted in this study that the book of Daniel is a pro-
phetic book written by Daniel in the sixth century before Christ. It
is not an attempt to establish the early authorship of the, book, nor
to meet the arguments of the critics. It is taken for granted that
Daniel's prophecy portrays only facts.
Due to the variety of viewpoints on the little horn, it has
been necessary to investigate several eras of history. Among the

7
eras investigated were the period following Alexander the Great,
the Maccabaean period, the last years of the Jewish state, the early
period of the church, the Medieval period, and the rise of Moharmied-
anism. For most of these eras there is ample source material. The
sources used in this study are listed in the bibliography.

CHAPTER II
VIEWPOINTS C THE LITTLE HORN
To facilitate the study of the problem at hand, two charts have
been made. The first chart reveals what has been taught by men down
through history. It has been incorporated into this study as Appen-
dix A. The second chart lists the beliefs of modern writers, and is
listed as Appendix B.
Appendix A. In Appendix Al which deals with the historical view-
points, it will be noted that a column is included which lists the views
of commentators of the past on the little horn of Daniel 7. These data
have been included in the chart because comparatively few of the men
of past centuries discussed the little horn of Daniel 8 by itself.
They thought in terms either of the little horn of Daniel 7 alone, or
of the two chapters as dealing with the same power. Occasionally, as
is seen in the chart, a man distinguished between the little horn of

Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8. Not until the latter half
of the eighteenth century, however, did men begin to distinguish more
definitely between the two. This chart, Appendix A, has been developed
through the study of the comprehensive works of L. E. Froom on the his-

tory of prophetic interpretation.
See LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of 011r Fathers,

4 vols.

9
Appendix B. Appendix B is not an exhaustive study of all
modern writers on the little horn of Daniel 8. It is a survey of
ninety-four different writers who deal with this subject. It is
believed that this list of wrSters provides an adequate cross section
of present beliefs concerning the little horn of Daniel 8.
An Analysis of the two charts. An analysis of the two charts

reveals the following statistics on the various viewpoints held:
Little Horn Appendix A Appendix B Total

(HisOricalT (Modern)
Antiochus Epiphanes . . . . . 11 66 77
Mohammedanism . . . 23 3 26
Future Antichrist . . • . . . 5 11 16
Papacy . . . . 14 1 15
Rome .• .e . . 9 3 12
Pagan & Papal Rome . • 6 . 5 3 8
Other viewpoints . . . . .
Kingdom of Seleucidae . . 3
Frederick II . . . . . . 1
Antiochus and Antichrist. 1
Not Mohammedanism . . . . 1
Not Antiochus Epiphanes . 1
Adolph Hitler . . . . . . 1
Mohammedanism in the east 1
and Popery in the west .
TOTAL • • • . • -71 —92. 1 3
This analysis discloses several facts of interest, but only

those facts which are germane to the problem of this study will be dis-
cussed here. Important to this study is the fact that six major view-
points are listed in this analysis. However, the fifth viewpoint listed
is not altogether clear. With some writers, Rome may mean the kingdom

10
of Rome proper. With others, uRomanism,n or the Papacy, may be meant.
Still others may mean a combination of Pagan and Papal Rome, as listed
under the sixth viewpoint. At least this much is certain: Five major
viewpoints that stand out are:
Antiochus Epiphanes.
Mohammedanism.
A future Antichrist.
Papacy.
Pagan and Papal Rome.
As is noted in this analysis, other viewpoints have been promul-
gated. It is not intended here to pass by these opinions with a liter-
ary shrug, but a superficial examination shows them to be untenable.
For example, one has taught that the little horn was Frederick II.1
Another writer has declared the little horn to be Adolph Hitler.2
These are examples of what happens when writers interpret prophecy only
in the light of events current to their own time. It is likely that
the writer who named Adolph Hitler as the little horn would today declare
himself to have been mistaken. Nevertheless, to insure complete satis-
faction, as the major theories are examined in the light of the seven-
teen identifying factors of Daniel 8, the reader would do well to make
a mental application of these tests to these Pother viewpoints'',
In the chapters that follow, the major viewpoints on the little
horn of Daniel 8 are examined in the order listed on this page.
1 See Appendix Al number 34.
2-`See Appendix B, number 8.

CHAPTER III
AN EXAMINATION OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHARES
By far the most widely accepted theory is that the little horn
of Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes. So general is this belief that
one writer was led to say, nAll agree that this was Antiochus Epi-
phanes,n1 In view of the information in Appendix B, this statement
is not true; nevertheless, Appendix B does reveal that approximately
seven out of ten expositors believe that Antiochus was the little
horn of Daniel 8.
Was Antiochus this little horn? It is the purpose of this
chapter to test the Antiochus Epiphanes viewpoint by the seventeen-
point standard outlined in the first chapter ;of this study.
I. THE EXAMINATION
1. The little horn comes out of one of the four horns, nAnd
M•MMMM ONM.1 MW•••MM. •Mb.M 4=0MI
out of one of them came forth a little horn.n2 This is the first
clause introducing the little horn of Daniel 8., The antecedents of
"them" are clearly the four notable horns of the previous verse.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to get the background
to the rise of the little horn. Daniel 8:20-22 gives the interpreta-
tion needed. In his vision Daniel had seen a ram, which represented
1 Matthew Henry, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, IV, 1273.
2 Daniel 8:9.

11
the kings of Media and Persia. He saw next a "he goat," which repre-
sented the king, or kingdom of Grecia.. The great horn between the
eyes of the goat was the first king. This first king was Alexander
the Great.1 After the death of Alexander, his kingdom was divided
into four parts, or four kingdoms. Whatever variances of opinion
there may be as to what four kingdoms are meant here, this much is
certain, three of these kingdoms were Macedonia, Egypt, and Syria.2
After Alexander, the horns depicted in Daniel 8 must neces-
sarily depict kingdoms. The reason is that the four horns are desig-
nated kingdoms, Daniel 8:22, and the little horn following them, comes
"out of" one of them. This is not the same situation as seen in the
description of Alexander, for he is never described as coming "out of"
the goat, but is described as a part of the'goat. A horn rising out
of a horn which is described as a kingdom would depict a kingdom ris-
ing out of a kingdom.
Antiochus Epiphanes was a king of Syria from 175 to 163 B.C.

As mentioned above, Syria was one of the four kingdoms that came up
after Alexander. This was the kingdom of the Seleucid 4ynasty, Antio-
chus being the eighth in a line of eighteen rulers.3
1Benjamin J. Mondics, *Breakup of the Grecian Empire," (unpub-

lished Master's thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,
Washington, D.C., 1951), p. 10.
2 Ibid., pp. 35, I8, 5L. This problem, will be discussed further
in the ch471-Fr dealing with Pagan and Papal Rome.
3 S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, editors,

The Cambridge Ancient History, VII, 988. (See Appendix D, Figure 1.)

12
The text for this first point states that a little horn came
out of one of them, that is, out of one of the four kingdoms. The
Hebrew word for nout of" is min. This Hebrew word is a preposition
"expressing the idea of separation, hence out of, from, on account of,
off, on the side of, since, above, than, so that not."1 In connection
with this, the verb used in this portion of the verse is yaza which
means, Ego, or come out."2 Thus, the text means literally, "From
one of the four horns a little horn came out." How, if each of the
four horns is a kingdom,3 then the picture here is that of a dis-
tinct power coming gout of" one of these kingdoms. Where' does Antio-
chus fit into the picture? Antiochus was a part of the Syrian horn.
He was the eighth king in the Seleucid line. In this first portion
Pf the examination the evidence is against Antiochus Epiphanes. It
cannot be said that Antiochus was a king of Syria, and at the same
time a distinct power, a little horn that "came out of" Syria. His-
tory reveals that Antiochus was never anything other than a Syrian
king in the line of the Seleucids.4
2. The little horn grows exceedingly great. The Hebrew words
1
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, editors,
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 577.
40•1 amail,mrgsbmare 40M..ww•oft...Ww.O• em.lmo
2 Ibid., p. 422.
3 Daniel 8:22.
4 See Appendix I), Figure 2.

13
for exceedingly great are la t!gdal-ygthtr, nand grew great in excess,
exceedingly.n1 When compared with the ram of verse four, and the he
goat of verse eight, it will be noticed that the little horn power
exceeds the other two in greatness. The ran became great, the he goat
grew very great, and the little horn waxed exceeding great, or great
in excess.
Keeping in mind the fact that the power of Alexander is repre-
sented as very great, it is interesting to observe the status of his
successors: "Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it,
four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.n2
It has been seen previously that Syria was one of these four horns,
and that Antiochus was one of the eighteen Syrian rulers. This Syrian
power, with Antiochus Epiphanes as one of its kings, does not rank in
greatness with the very great he goat, for the text says that four
stood up, but not in the power of the he goat; but, on the other hand,
the little horn waxed exceeding great. The little horn goes beyond
the very great, and is classified in the superlative degree as exceed-
ing great. Once again the evidence is against Antiochus Epiphanes.3
However, this "internal" evidence is not sufficient. Does his-
tory reveal that Antiochus Epiphanes reached the height of exceeding

greatness?
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, op. cit., p. 452.
2 Daniel 8:22.
3 See Appendix D, Figure 3.

14
Perhaps the clearest light is shed on the relative greatness
of Antiochus through the famous "circle in the sand" incident. Con-

cerning this event Polybius writea:
At the time when Antiochus approached Ptolemy and meant to

occupy Pelusium, Caius Popilius Laenas, the Roman commander,
on Antiochus greeting him from a distance and then holding out
his hand, handed to the king, as he had it by him, the copy
of the senatus-consul, and told him to read it first, not
thinking it proper, as it seems to me, to make the conventional
sign of friendship before he knew if the intentions of him who
was greeting him were friendly or hostile. But when the king,
after reading it, said he would like to communicate with his
friends about this intelligence, Popilius acted in a manner
which was thought to be offensive and exceedingly arrogant.
He was carrying a stick cut from a vine, and with this he drew a
circle round Antiochus and told him he must remain inside this
circle until he gave his decision about the contents of the
letter. The king was astonished at this authoritative proceeding,
but after a few moments* hesitation, said he would do all that
the Romans demanded. Upon this Popilius and his suite all grasped
him by the hand and greeted him warmly. The letter ordered him
to put an end at once to the war with Ptolemy. So, as a fixed
number of days were allowed to him, he led his army back to
Syria, deeply hurt and complaining indeed, but yielding to cir-
cumstances for the present.'
This incident occurred on the second expedition of Antiochus

into Egypt.2 His ambition to control Egypt was quelled by the "stick
diplomacy" of a more powerful government. Antiochus recognized that
he was dealing with a government more powerful than his own, for Dio
Cassius states: "Antiochus then in fear raised the siege."3
Polybius, The Histories, XXIX. 27. 1-9, in The Loeb Class-

ical Library, VI, 89791. (Hereinafter The Loeb ClaggrcirrilEFF57
. be referred to as LCL.)
Tar
2
James S. Riggs, A History of the Jewish People, pp. 20, 21.
GEMMOMP.
3 Dio Cassius, Mots Roman History,- XX, Zonaras 9, 25. (LCL.

II, 361.)

5
Another picture of the relations of Antiochus with Rome is
given by ',ivy, who writes:
The king (Antiochus) begged that the alliance and friendship
which had existed with his father might be renewed with him too,
and that the Roman people would give him any orders which were
proper to give to a king who was a loyal and faithful ally; he
would fail in no performance of duty.1
This information reveals a submissiveness on the part of
Antiochus that would not be displayed were he the stronger of the
two powers. That his submissiveness was motivated by fear rather
love is seen in the words of Josephus : "King Antiochus, then,
returning from Egypt through fear of the Romans, marched against the
city of Jerusalem."2
In considering further the greatness of Antiochus Epiphanes,

it will be noted that he does not rank at the head even in his own
Selucid line. It was Antiochus III, the father of Antiochus Eloi-
phanes, who was the most famous of his line.3 Dio Cassius referred
to Antiochus Epiphanes as "Antiochus, the son of Antiochus the Great0114
With the exception of the characters involved, a comparable statement
would be: "This is Mr. Eisenhower, the son of President Eisenhower."
The lesser known is associated with the more famous individual.
1 Livy, Livy With An

English Translation By B. O. Foster,
XLII. vi. 6-8. -TMITY117309.)
2 Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII. v. 246.

(LCL, VII, 125. Hereinafter this work of josars will be referred to
ag-Ltiquities.)
3 "Antiochus, Encyclopaedia Britannica, II, 72.

4 Cassius, op. cit., XX, Zonaras 9, 25. (LCL, II, 359, 3.612,0

16
In view of the brief historical picture just presented, Antio-
chus cannot be classified as "exceeding great."
The direction of activity of the little horn. The record
states that the little horn waxed exceeding great, "toward the south,
and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.01 Palestine is
pictured in a number of Scriptures as a good land, or pleasant land.2
Therefore, the direction of activity of the little horn is toward the
south, toward the east, and toward Palestine.
Antiochus fares well in this part of the examination. A state-
ment by Josephus has shown that Antiochus campaigned in the south
against Egypt, and then he turned against Palestine.3 This proud
Syrian king was on a campaign in the east at the time of his death,
so it can be said that his activities were in the directions speci-
fied for the little horn; however, he did not wax exceeding great in
these activities.4
The little horn is a persecuting power. The little horn
casts down some of the host to the groundl it destroys wonderfully,
1 Daniel 8:9.
2 Exodus 3:8; Deuteronomy 8:7; Psalm 106:24.

3 Josephus, loc. cit.
4 2 Maccabees IX. 1, 2. (R. H. Charles, editor, The Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 143. HereinMer this work
be referred to as7FailM, hoc. and Pseude.) See Appendix D, Fig. 4.

17
and by peace destroys many.1 The word "wonderfully," comes from the
Hebrew word 2212, which means "be surpassing, extraordinary, wonder-
ful, incomprehensible."2
No one could read the history of Antiochus and still deny that
he persecuted. When the Romans checked his plans with regard to
Egypt, Antiochus "directed his energies immediately to a war of exter-
mination against the Jewish religion.0 At Jerusalem he began this
work with a vengeance. The writer of 2 Maccabees states: "In the
IMP
short space of three dgys eighty thousand were destroyed, forty thou-
sand of them in close combat, and as many again were sold into
slavery."4 This program of extermination was not merely a matter of
killing an enemy in battle, but it was an orgy of cruelty that was
carried out upon women and children as well as men. This is por-
trayed by the writer of 1 Maccabees, who says:
And according to the decree they put to death the women
who had circumcised their children, hanging their babes round
their (motherst),Inecks, and they put to death their (entire)
families, together with those who had circumcised them. . . .
And exceeding great wrath came upon Israel.5
An immediate conclusion would be that Antiochus destroyed
Daniel 8:16, 24, 25.

2 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, op. cit., pp. 810, 811.
3 Emil SchUrer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of
Jesus
- Christ, M
First DiviST717,770572037----
4 2 Maccabees V. 14. (Charles, Apoc. and Pseude. I 139.)
5 1 Maccabees I. 60-64. (Charles, Apoc. and Pseude., 1, 71.)

18
"wonderfully." The picture is a terrible one; yet, before this des-
truction could be classified as surpassing or extraordinary, it would
have to be compared with the destruction carried on by the other powers
to be considered. For the present it is sufficient to say that Antio-
chus was a persecutor, but whether or not he surpassed all others in
this matter remains to be seen.
5. He exalts himself to the point of equality with God. "He

magnified himself even to the prince of the host's,
' Here the little
horn is seen asserting himself so that he comes up=on a level with
Christ.
Antiochus was too early to know directly of Jesus, but he
wanted people to think of him as a god. On his coins he is described
as "Epiphanes or Theos Epiphanes, 'God Manifestina On a letter from
the Samaritans to Antiochus were the words: *To King Antiochus Theos
Epiphanes," God manifest.3
Others did not hold the same opinion of him, for Antiochus
became known as "Epimanes," which means "the mad man." This title
was given to him because of his unpredictable conduct.4 Nevertheless,
Daniel 8:11, 25.

2
E. R. Bevan, "Syria and the Jews," in The Cambridge Ancient
History, VIII, xvi, 499. (Hereinafter The CatEgNge Ancient matzu
will be referred to as CAH.)
3 Josephus„ op. cit. XII. v. 258, 9. (La, VIII, 133.)
4 Polybius, op. cit., DTI. 1. 1. (LCD, V, 4810

19
Antiochus magnified himself, allowed himself to be called Antiochus
Theos Epiphanes, and therefore passes this portion of the test. He
exalted himself to the point of equality with Godt
6. The little horn takes ImIthe daily and casts down the
sanctuary. The Scripture states: "by him the daily (saarificea was
taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.01
If Antiochus is remembered by posterity for any one act, it is

that he defiled the sanctuary at Jerusalem. The indignant writer of
1 Maccabees wrote:
And Antiochus, after he had smitten Egypt, returned in the one

hundred and forty-third year, and went up against Israel and
Jerusalem with a great army. And in (his) arrogance he entered
into the sanctuary, and tot* the golden altar, and the candle-
stick for the light, and all its accessories, and the table of
the shewbread, and the cups, and the bowld, and the golden cen-
sers, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden adornment
on the facade of the Temple, and he scaled it all off. . . .
And having taken everything, he returned to his own land.2
Josephus describes at length how Antiochus performed several
infamous acts. Antiochus carried off the treasures of the temple,
forbade the daily sacrifices, plundered the city? built a pagan altar
upon the temple-altar, and there sacrificed swine.3 In the temple
Antiochus set up an image of Zeus Olympic*, and it is believed that the

image may have displayed the features of Antiochas himself.4
1 Daniel 8:11, 12.

2 1 Maccabees I. 20-24. (Charles, Apoc. and Pseude., 1, 69.)
3 Josephus, op. cit., xII, v. 248-54:.. (LCL, VII, 127-31.)
4 Bevan, "Syria and the Jews,m CAH, VIII, xvil 508.

20
This, of course, was enough to earn for him the lasting hatred of
the Jews.
From the evidence cited, it would seem that Antiochus Epiphanes
surely fulfills this particular specification, that of taking away the
daily sacrifice and casting down the sanctuary. However, there are
two points to consider before drawing the conclusion that Antiochus
meets the requirements of this portion of the test.
The first point is this: Antiochus did not cast down the tem-
ple building. It is true that he desecrated it by his ignominious
activities, but he did not cast down the building itself. The histor-
ian Craetz,emphasizes this fact: What induced the madman and his
wild troops to spare the Sanctuary? They did not destroy it, because
Antiochus wanted the Temple for another purpose.111
The second fact to consider is this: The Bible speaks of two
sanctuaries, an earthly, and an heavenly sanctuary. 2 Therefore, it
cannot be, taken for granted that the earthly sanctuary is the one meant
in Daniel 8.
This much can be concluded at this point: Antiochus did dese-
crate the earthly sanctuary, but he did not destroy it. As for the
heavenly sanctuary, it is doubtful that he had any effect upon it to the
extent that he disturbed Christian theology. Therefore, it remains
1 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, I, 454.

2
Hebrews 9:1-3, 11.

21
to be seen whether or not Antiochus or another power best fulfills
the requirements of this point. The comparison can be made when the
other powers have been investigated.
7. The little horn casts the truth to the ground. Daniel 8:12
ssys: "And it cast down the truth to the ground."
The activities of Antiochus, as mentioned under the previous

section, reveal that hewas attempting to remove the religion of the
Jews and replace it with a false system of worship. His avenues of
attack were: (a) the profanation of the Jewish Sabbath; (b) prohibition
of circumcision; (c) enforced eating of unclean meats; (d) the sacri-
fice of unclean animals. It was an attempt to make them forget their
beloved law and get in step with the Hellenistic world.1
But the activities of Antiochus against the Jews can be des-
cribed merely as an attempt. He, did not succeed in casting the truth
to the ground. This is revealed in the words of Renan:
But Judaism presented an invincible opposition. In attacking

it, Epiphanes struck against a rock. . He vainly sought
to suppress Judaism, and force the Jews to acts they held to be
idolatrous.2
Once again the evidence is against Antiochus Epiphanes. He did

not succeed in his ambition to destroy the Jewish religion; therefore, he
fails to meet the requirement stated in this portion of the examination.
1 1 Maccabees I. 44,
50. (Charles, Apoc. and Pseude. I, 70.)
2 Ernest Renan, History of the People of Israel, p, 264.

.m.11•00.11../W6 emben

22
8. The little horn succeeds and prospers through craftiness.
This description is found in Daniel 8:12, 24, 25: "And it practised,
and prospered . . . and shall prosper, and practice, . . . he
shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.0 In these three texts the
word for prosper is zallih; and, being in the Hiphil form of the verb,
the force of the word is to "make prosperous, bring to a successful
issue.01
Few historians would deny that Antiochus practiced deceit;

however, it is not proved so readily that he succeeded in the things
he endeavored to accomplish. It will be sufficient to recall the
three directions in which Antiochus directed his activity, and then
see how history evaluates his program. His activity was directed
toward the south, Egypt, toward the pleasant land, Palestine, and
toward the eastl arnais.2
As for the activities of Antiochus in the south, the historian

Alexander says:
Antiochus, enraged at the failure of his design upon Egypt,

but not daring to resist the Roman power which was now growing
formidable in Greece, where Paulus EMilius had just obtained a
great victory over the Macedonians, turned his wrath against
Judea.3
1 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, op. cit., p. 8S2.
2 Polybius, op. cit., I. 9. 1-4. (LOL, VI, 177.)
3 Archibald Alexander, A History of the. Israelitish Nation,

P. SOO.

23
This Syrian king fared little better in the direction of Pales-
tine. Rostovtzeff writes:
One of the few attempts made to carry on propaganda by force

was made by Antiochus IV in Judaea; and it ended in utter failure;
for it provoked a violent reaction of nationality among the Jews;
which led to almost complete isolation in religion and manners.1
The unfortunate Antiochus fared even worse in the east. He
attempted to capture the rich treasures at Elymais, in Persia, but he
was routed in battle, and returned with heaviness of heart.2 Schtrer
sums up the picture when he says that Antiochus was no less unfortunate
in the east than his generals had been in Judaea.3
Whether the direction was south, toward Palestine, or the east,
history has stamped failure upon the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes.
He was unable to "bring to a successful issue" in any direction.
Therefore, Antiochus fails to meet the requirement stated in this
eighth point.
9. The little horn is referred to as the transgression of deso-

lation. Besides the term "transgression of desolation" found in
41100WWWWW.~
Daniel 8:13, there are similar terms found in other texts. 4 These
other texts usually refer to the "abomination of desolation," a term
1 M. Rostovtzeff, A History of the. Ancient World, I, 381.
2 1 Maccabees VI. 1-4. (Charles, Apoc. and Pseude., I, 870
3 Schtrer, op. cit., First Division, I, 222.
4 See Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11.

24
which is practically synonymous with "transgression of desolation.v
These terms have been applied to Antiochus Epiphanes because of
his activities against the Jews and against their temple in particular.
Antiochus was looked upon as a Satanic figure because he claimed to be
God, he had caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and had set up
an image in the temple. The two parts to the name of this image were
said to represent "abomination" and "desolation."1 Therefore, it has
been developed that Antiochus Epiphanes was the one who set up the
"abomination of desolation." This is the most generally accepted
viewpoint today.2
One outstanding piece of evidence, however, renders the above
vieWpoint untenable. It is the statement of Jesus. The Master said:
"When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whose, readeth, let him under-
stand.)"3
It is plain that Jesus spoke of the "abomination of desolation"
as future. Antiochus lived before Christ; therefore, as far as Jesus
was concerned, Antiochus did not represent the "abomination of deso-
lation." However strong the arguments may be for Antiochus on this
point, they do not hold up in the presence of the statement of Jesus.
1 Bevan, "Syria and the Jews," CAH, VIII, xvi, 511.
2 Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament,

PP. 752, 759.
3 Matthew 24:15.

25
For one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, it is inconceivable
that Jesus could have been mistaken or careless on this point. The
failure. of Antiochus on this point is complete.
10. At the end of 2 300 days the sanctuary is cleansed. The

vision des es with the words of Daniel 8:14: "Unto two thousand and
three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The

Revised Standard Version renders this verse: "For two thousand and
three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be res-
tored to its rightful state."
It is often taught that this is a period of 1,150 days, 2,300
days divided by two, because of the two sacrifices each day, one in
the morning, and one in the evening.1 In turn, this 1,150 day period is
said to equal three and a half years; it is then applied to Antiochus
and the period in which he desecrated the temple. Montgomery declares
that the little horn "desecrates his [God's] sanctuary, and interrupts
the daily double sacrifice for 2,300 due celebrations."2 Obviously,
this is an attempt to make the period of the 2,300 evenings and morn-
ings equal in length to the period of three and a half times mentioned
in connection with the little horn of Daniel 7:25.
1 James A. Montgomery, "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on

the Book of Daniel," The International critical Commentary, XXII,
336.
2 /bid., pp. 324: 394.

26
Ancient as well as modern writers refer to the three and a
half years in which Antiochus caused the sanctuary to lie desolate.
Josephus says that Antiochus "plundered the temple and interrupted,
for a period of three years and six months, the regular course of the
daily sacrifices."1 Montgomery is in full agreement with Josephus,
for he declared that "no period in Jewish history so neatly fits the
cryptic allusions of our passage."2
The evidence for Antiochus seems conclusive at first, but does
this position, hold up under a closer scrutiny? The following facts
must be taken into consideration:
Daniel 8:14 is a prophecy. If the time period is taken as

literal days, then the year-day principle of prophecy is violated.3
The 2,300 evenings-mornings are not 1,150 days, but ?,300,
complete days. In the creation story of the first chapter of Genesis,
comparable terms are used. For example, the account says literally:
"and it was evening and it was morning, day one."4 Thus, creation
week is made up of six evening-morning units before the Sabbath, each
day with two parts. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that the
prophet was speaking of 2,300 evening-morning units, 2,300 complete
1 Josephus, The Jewish Whr, I. i. 32. (1,CL, 11, 17, 19. Here-
inafter this work will:1'1)e referred to as War.) ---
2 Montgomery, op. cit., p. 394.
3 See Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34.
4 Genesis 1:5.

27
days, each with two parts.
The proposed 1,150 days cannot be made to equal three and
a half years. By modern calendation the proposed 1,150 days falls
128 days short of being three and a half years. Nith the Jewish luni-
solar year of 354 days, the proposed period still falls short by eighty-
nine days. If the embolismic year of 384 days were included, as it
should be seven times in nineteen years, the margin of error would
be even greater.1 Therefore, the 2 300 day period is not the same as
the three and a half year period of Daniel 7:25.
The temple did not lie desolate for a period of three and
4•1•IMUM mminameaMMONMM ...•••••ft .MINNO0
.••••••••
a half years. The writer of the 1 Maccabees states:
And on the fifteenth day of .Chislev in the one hu4dred and

forty-fifth year they set up upon the altar an "'abomination of
desolation,“ . . . And on the twenty-fifth day of the month
they sacrificed upon the altar which was upon the altar of
burnt-offering.
This was the beginning of the pollution of the temple, and the
same writer reveals that it was three years exactly from the time of
this profanation that the temple was rededicated. 3 The sometimes
inconsistent Josephus stated this same fact in detail in another of
of his writings.4 A number of modern writers accept the fact that this
1 See F'room, Ibid., syllabus to Volume IV.
2 1 Maccabees I. 54-60. (Charles, Apoc. and Pseude., I, 70, 71.)
3 Ibid., IV. 52-4.
4 Josephus, Antiquities, XII. vii. 317-22. (LCL, VII, 165, 167.)

28
period was an even three years rather than three and a half years.1
It might be added that the proposed 1,150 days is too long a period
to fit this three year period with accuracy.
The assertion that the 2,300 evenings and mornings applies to
the period of the desecration of the temple by Antiochus does not bear
up under investigation.
11. The vision of the little horn extends to the time of the
.YONI.ft* UMMNIII=Mal•M•il SAAOMMib MYNI..61M.M.ft I.WWWI•MMIEM WIMMEMON 1.1000.= MOMM.M.
end.. Among the first words that Gabriel uttered . to Daniel are these:
"Understand, 0 son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the
vision."2 The little horn and the 2,300 days are the last portions
described in the vision; therefore, if the vision is to extend to the
time of the end, the little horn must also extend to the time of the
end.
It is impossible to find a suitable explanation for Antiochus
on this point. When Antiochus died in 163 B. C., 3 what important
era was brought to a close that would merit saying that he existed
"at the time of the end?"
(a) Was it the end of the world? The answer is self-evident,
and the question appears ridiculous.
1 Bevan, "Syria and the Jews," CAH, VIII, xvi, 515. See also
Julius August Bewer, The Literature of Old Testament, 415. And p.
see G. A. Smith, Jerugirem from the EarigsTimes, pp. 454, 455.
2 Daniel 8:17.
3
Bevan, "Syria and the Jews," CAH, VIII, xvi, 514.

29
Was it the end of Judaism? It has been shown previously
M..MOY •••..b .W•••• •.=.
how Antiochus failed in his attempt to end Judaism. Judas Maccabeus

reestablished the temple service, and a glorious era of Judaism began.
Was it the time for the Messiah? From the date of the death
of Antiochus, it is seen that the Messiah came over a century and a
half later.1
Did the death of Antiochus Epiphanes bring his own king-

dom to an end? The Seleucid kingdom lasted for another one hundred years
before it was reduced to a province of the Boman empire.2 Therefore,
it cannot be said that his death brought the Seleucid kingdom to an
end.
Perhaps other questions could be asked, but invariably the

answer would be in the negative. The vision of the little horn, if
applied to Antiochus, does not extend to the time of the end.
12. The little horn comes up at the latter end of the kingdoms
••••ftMnIIM 1•MOMMY•MMO ..1•••• •••INM .•nmOna ..••••••ftell•WW•
of the four horns when the transgressors are come to the full. The
statement in Daniel 8:23 is: 'And in the latter time of their king-
dam, when the transgressors are come to the full a king . . . shall
stand up.'
Generally this point is understood to mean that in the latter

part of the existence of the four kingdoms after Alexander, the little horn
1
See Appendix D, Figure 1.
2
Charles Rollin, The Ancient History, IV, 442, 443.

30
or king of fierce countenance comes up. But Antiochus (175-163 B.C.)
does not fit into this portion of the picture, because he does not come
up at the latter time of the four kingdoms. Two of the kingdoms may
have been near their end, but the kingdom of the Seleucids lasted for
another hundred years afterthe death of Antiochus, and the kingdom of
Egypt lasted even longer.1 The location of Antiochus in his own Seleu-
cid line would be approximately in the center of the years of that

kingdom, or just shortly following the middle years.2 Therefore Antio-
chus arrived on the scene too early to be the little horn.
13. The little horn is described as a king

- of fierce counte-
nance. In Daniel 8:23 the little horn is pictured as "a king of fierce
countenance."
It is doubtful that the propheay is pointing to the personal

appearance of an individual king. It is more likely that this text
should be accepted in the light of another prophecy that mentions na'
nation of fierce countenance."3 This does not do violence to the con-
text, for in verse twenty-one the rough goat is described as the king
of Grecia, when actually it is understood to be the kingdom of Grecia.
While the Jewish nation was being persecuted by Antiochus, they
must have looked upon him and the Seleucid government as a "king of
fierce countenance." However, outside the Jewish nation he did not
Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 34, 38, 142, 43.

3 Deuteronomy 28:50.

31
appear so dreadful. He was more often looked upon as being ridicu-
lous, and was referred to as Epimanes, or the Madman? Livy declares
that Antiochms was incapable of sticking to any station in life, and
did not seem to know what he wanted. Some said that he was playing
childish tricks, while others thought that he was unquestionably
insane. 2
Nevertheless, the prophecy was written from the standpoint of
the Hebrew, and if, as in the case of Antiochus, it is applied to
them, then it should be interpreted by the way in which Antiochus
looked to them. Therefore, it can be said that Antiochus meets the
requirement of this points for he and his forces presented a "fierce
countenance" to the Hebrews.
14. The little horn understands dark sentences. The last por-
tion of Daniel 8223 that adds to the description of the little horn is,
"a king . . . understanding dark sentences shall rise up." In the Hebrew
the word for understanding is mevin. This is a Hiphil participle from
the verb bin, which means to understand. The Hiphil form has the force
of causation. Therefore, the word actually means to give understanding,
make understand, teach.3 The word laidah is a feminine noun for riddle,
1 Polybius, lee. cit.
2 Livy, op. cit., XL'. xx. 1-5. aa, 3CII, 247, 2490
3 Brow% Driver, and Briggs, op. cit., pp. 106, 147.

32
enigmatic, perplexing sayings, or dark, obscure utterance.1 The
little horn, then, is "one causing to understand riddles," or, "one
who teaches dark or perplexing sayings.m
The little horn is a power that presents teachings that run counter
to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is the light of the worldland His word
is truth,2 but the teaching of the little horn is darkness.
If Antiochus Epiphanes can be looked upon as an apostle of Hel-

lenism, and he was that,3 then it can be said that he fulfilled this •
part of the examination. He put pressure upon the Jews to forsake
the code of their country and to abandon their customs in favor of
paganism).* It must be kept in mind, however, that the program of Antio-

chus in Palestinewas not a successful one; this was established under
point eight.' Furthermore, it must be noted that others have taught
that which is not truth, and therefore, it is not sufficient for a
power to be classified as the little horn because it passes on this one
point.
15. The little horn is mighty, but not by his own, power. "And
his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:" These words in
Daniel 8:24 are clear. The little horn is a power that grows mighty,
1 Ibid., p. 295.
2 John 8:12 and John 17:17.
3 Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus, II, 168.

4 Josephus, war, I. 1. 34. (LCL, II, 19.)

33
but it has help in doing so. It has been established previously, under
the second point, that Antiochus Epiphanes could not be classified as
mighty, or exceeding great. But here an additional problem comes up.
Did Antiochus have help in reaching the height that he did attain?
It is apparent that Antiochus did have the assistance of others

in ascending the throne. Eumenes, king of Pergamum, and the brother
of Eumenes were the instruments in this endeavor.1
During the reign of Antiochus, however, the evidence indicates

that alliances were made against him rather than his having received
an abundance of help from someone else. Rome intervened in behalf of.
Egypt against Antiochus, a fact demonstrated under point two of this

examination. When Antiochus was engaged in warfare against the Jews,
Judas Maccabeus made an alliance with Rome,2 hoping for aid against
Antiochus. It seems that whatever Antiochus did gain or accomplish,

he had to do it by his own. power. One of his final efforts was an
attempt to pillage money from the sanctuary of Artemis in Elymais.3
It is evident, from this final experience of his, that he did not have
financial backing from another power to aid him.
Not only can it be said that Antiochus did not become mighty,
but it can be said also that whatever power he did attain, it was gained
1 Graetz, op. cit., I, 4h3.

2 Josephus,
op* cit., I. I. 38. (la, II, 21.)
3 Polybius, op. cit., XXXI. 9. 1-4. (La, VI, 177.)

34
virtually unaided--with the exception of his ascendancy to the throne
itself.
The little horn

lormrim
stands up against the Prince MN.=
..Wromms ••••imimiamirt
of princes. wiwwww. •
In Daniel 8:25 the little horn is pictured as one who "shall also stand
up against the Prince of princes." It is a power that opposes Christ.
If it is meant here that the little horn stood up against Christ
during the sojourn of the Saviour here upon earth, then Antiochus
could not be considered on this point at all.
If on the other hand, it is meant that the little horn opposes
the divine plan of God, then Antiochus may be considered. With his
activities against the Jews and the4anctuary, he was opposing the Prince
of princes.1
On this point, judgment must be reserved as to whether or not

Antiochus best meets the description of the power standing up against
the Prince of princes. Certainly Antiochus was not successful in his
stand against the people of the Prince; his failure has been described
previously. However, when the other viewpoints are examined, a more
accurate conclusion may be drawn.
The little horn is broken without hand. The final des-

annoloond MomonOmmft 4.•11m mannommonla .miNm•I•mln•
criptive clause that aids in developing the picture of the little horn
is found in, the last part of Daniel 8:25: abut he shall be broken with-
out hand." A similar thought is expressed in Daniel 2:45 where a
1 Exodus 25:8 and psalm 77:13.

35
stone is cut out without hands. Mdithout hands" is the picture of
an activity taking place without human intervention. When the little
horn is broken, it is brought to an end without having been broken
by some other earthly power or individual.
Antiochus was apparently broken "without hands." There are

numerous descriptions of his death, with some variations as to detail,
but all agree that his life was not taken by another person. The
author of 2 Maccabees declares that the Lord smote him with a fatal
stroke, and he died a horrible death.' Josephus attributes his death
to the fact that he w as overwhelmed by his failures on every hand, and

in his despondency fell ill.2
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
For the proponents of the viewpoint of Antiochus Epiphanes,

the handwriting on the wall could be seen at the end of the first
point considered. The power represented by the little horn must fit
every description found in the eighth chapter of Daniel, for if this
were not the standardl the Bible must of necessity, be accepted as an
inaccurate book.
1
2 Maccabees IX. 4-29. '(Charles, Apoc. and Pseude., I, 144, 145.)
2 Josephus, Antiquities,
flI. ix. 354-7. (LCL, vii, 185, 187.)

36
The results. The results of the examination show that Antio-
chus failed utterly on eight important points; they were numbers one,
two, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, and fifteen. He passed, with-
out any reservations, on 6ply three points--numbers three, five, and
seventeen. These points dealt with the directions of his activity,
his self-exaltation, and his death. As for the six remaining points,
it could be said that Antiochus fits the description. These are points
four, six, seven, thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen. However, most of
these six points are of such a nature that they could fit other powers
which possess comparable characteristics. It is likely, therefore,
that another power will be seen to fit these points with an even
greater accuracy.
Conclusion. Antiochus Epiphanes is not the little horn of

Daniel 8. Notwithstanding the predominant number who have held to
the Antiochus Epiphanes viewpoint of the little horn, this viewpoint
must be rejected on the basis of the evidence that has been presented.
In a few instances the theory looks promising, but it fails to stand
up under Closer, investigation.

CHAPTER IV
MOHAIOIEDANIM AND THE LITTLE HORN
"'The abomination of desolation stood in the Holy place.' The

cradle of Christianity, Zion, the joy of the whole earth, was trodden
under foot, and utterly cut off from the sight of its devoted worship-
pers."). Mohammedanism had taken over the Holy Land and rendered it
inaccessible to Christians.
Could this power be the little horn described in Daniel 8?
Appendix A reveals that a number of expositors of the early nineteenth
century adopted the theory that Mohammedanism is the little horn. In

the twentieth century, however, Mohammedanism has given way to the
morepopular Antiochus Epiphanes viewpoint, considered in the previous
chapter. Regardless of the trend, if Mohammedanism is the little horn,
it will meet the requirements of the test as taken from the eighth
chapter of Daniel.
I. MOHAMMEDANISM EXAMINED
1. The little horn comes out of one of the four horns. It

..mMO•••ft• -•=10Mimimulme 4•Mm. ••••Milims •Lmim .m.hM•• ftimyeemftm 4..mdmmommm
has been shown that the four kingdoms that came out of the breakup
of Alexander's empire were absorbed by the Roman empire before the
first advent of Christ. 2
1 William Muir, The Caliphate, Its Rise, Decline, and Fall,

p. 150.
2 Tarn, loc. cit.

38
Mohammed was born about the year 570 A. D.1 With this fact
in mind, it is clear that Mohammedanism came up centuries too late to
fulfill this first requirement. With a gap of over six centuries
separating the Mohammedan power from the last of the four kingdoms,
it can only be concluded that Mohammedanism did not come from one of
the four horns.
2. The little horn grows exceeding great. On this point the

advocates of Mohammedanism have a strong basis on which to make their
claim.
Within a year of the death of Mohammed, Islam had gained con-
trol of the entire Arabian peninsula. 2 From that firm foothold the
Mohammedan power spread with rapidity. Syria was torn from the Byzan-
tines; Jerusalem fell in 638 A.D.; in 647 Alexandria surrendered;
Persia had been overrun; by 670 the Islamic soldiers had advanced as
far as Tunisia; and finally, by 732, one hundred years after the death
of Mohammed, Islam had carved out its dominion.3 Of this amazing
conquest, Zwemer wrote:
One hundred years after Mohammed's death his followers were
masters of an empire greater than Rome at the zenith of her
power. They were building mosques in China, in Spain, in Persia,
and in Southern India! The extent, the rapidity and the method
1 Samuel M. Zwemer, Islam: A Challenge To Faith, p. 29.

2 Muir, op. cit., p. 43.
3 Gustave E. Von Grunebaum$ Medieval Islam, A Study In Cultural

Orientation, pp. 4, 5.

39
of early Moslem conquest are a marvellous illustration of
their fanatic. zeal.
With such evidence there is no dewing that Islam grew to be a
formidable power. Where Antiochus was marked *failure,* Mthammedanism
may be counted a success. Whether or not Mohammedanism was greater
than Rome may be questioned. It is doubtful. Nevertheless, only pre-
judice could keep one from classifying Islam as a mighty power.
3. The direction of activity of the little horn. The direction
of activity has been designated as, *toward the south, and toward the
east, and toward the pleasant land.*2
Where history aided the proponents of the Mohammedan power as
the little on the previous point, here, history witnesses against them.
Muir describes the spread of Islam as follows:
Still, though nowhere in the Coran distinctly commanded,

universal empire was altogether in accord with the spirit of
the Faith . . . . fresh tribes arose and went. Onward and
still onward, like swarms from the hive, or flights of locusts
darkening the land, tribe after tribe issued forth aid has
northward, spread in great masses to the East and to the
West.3
This is not an isolated statement for muir states further:
*Towards the north and west, however, aggressive measures were con-
tinued.*4
1 Zimmer, op. cit., p. 55.

2 Daniel 8:9.
3 Muir, op. cit., p. 45. See Appendix I4 Figure 5.

4 Ibid., p. 61.

40
Portions of other statements by Muir are: "Leaving Abu °beide
and Khalid to renew the campaign northward,* and "Leaving a garrison
in Hims Abu Obeida resumed his northward march."1 It will be recalled
that it was this same writer, Muir, who referred to Islam as the "abom-
ination of desolation!, trampling the sanctuary under foot. Therefore,
when Muir emphasizes that the direction of activity of Islam was towards
the north and towards the west, it is not likely that he is trying
to prove that Mohammedanism is not the little horn; yet, his statements
do prove that very fact. The little horn travels southward and east-
ward; Mohammedanism travels northward, mesteard, and eastward.
Another significant statement is that of Von Grandbaum, who
said:
Since Europe, less self-contained than its adversary, never

quite ceased to look south and east, the powerful presence of
the Islamic world almost always loomed large in the Western
mind. 2
Europe looked south and east at a power looking north and west.
With the preceding evidence in mind, the question canes up: Why
did God, through Daniel, so specifically designate the direction of the
activities of the little horn? It is apparent that God knew that many
would identify the little horn with Mohammedanism or some other power
that appeared to be exceeding great. For like reasons other descriptions
of the little horn are given, so that when the power is found that fits
1 Ibid., pp. 108, 140.

2 Von Grunebaum, op. cit., p. 33.

every description, there can be no mistake. But, where a power, such
as Mohammedanism, appears to be great, and yet comes up at the wrong
time and travels in the direction opposite to the direction in which
the little horn travels, then that power cannot be the little horn
regardless of how powerful he may appear to be.
The remaining evidence. Having witnessed the failure of Moham-

medanism on two of the first three points, it is unnecessary to trace
in detail each of the remaining fourteen points, for the evidence that
has been presented is sufficient for a refutation of the viewpoint
that holds Mohammedanism to be the little horn.
It must be conceded that Mohammedanism does fit the description
of a number of the remaining points. For example, it can be said that
the Mohammedan power was a persecuting power, because its followers
were lovers of rapine, and they lusted after spoil.1
It can be said also that Mohammed has been exalted by his follow-
ers to a place equal to or even surpassing Christ. In the eyes of the
Moslem, Mohammed is a mediator2 and the greatest of all the prophets.
Christ is included as one of the six greatest prophets, but Mohammed
is "the last and the best.n3
1 Muir, op. cit., p. 44.

2 Zwemer„ op. cit., p. 48.
3 L. Bevan Jones, The People of the Mosque, p. 104.

h2
Mohammedanism during the Middle Ages couldbe described as a
king of fierce countenance, for the Christian world'looked upon the
Islamic power with hatred and fear.1
The teachings of Mohammedanism may be considered , as riddles,

or dark sentences. Concerning Jesus, they say that He is not actually
the Son of God. "God is but one God. Far be it from him that he
should have a sonin2 Furthermore, Jesus was not actually slain on
the cross, but one in His likeness took His place.3 As for the Holy
Spirit, when Christ made the promise concerning the Paraclete, He was
speaking of Mohammed.4 If ever teachings were devoid of truth and
light, these are; and they may well be classified as ndark sentences."
On the other hand, there are yet other points to which Mohammed-
anism does not apply.
Mohammedanism did not cast down the earthly sanctuary, for this
had long since been accomplished,5 and it did not come up at the latter
end of the four kingdoms after Alexander.

There is little evidence, if ally, to show that Mohammedanism was
"mighty, but not by his own power." The power engendered by Mohammedan-
ism appears to have come through its own fanatical ranks, and not through
clever diplomatic maneuvers with other powers. If there are those who
1 Al Koran, Chapter IV, p.. 72. (Translated by George Sale.)

2 Ibid., Chapter IV, pp. 70, 71.
3 Jones, op. cit., 4D. 70.
4 SchUrer, op. cit., First Division, II, 347, 308.

43
believe that Islam became powerful, not on its own, but through the
working of Satan, then the description could be applied to any evil
power that should arise. The description would be so general in its
implications that it would be of little use in helping to identify the
little horn power.
II. SUMMARY AND coNausIams
The Mdhammedan viewpoint of the little horn passed on some
of the points in which the Antiochus viewpoint failed completely;
and, conversely, Antiochus Epiphanes could apply to a few points in
which Mohammedanism does not fit at all. As an example, Mohammedanism
could be classified as a mighty power, whereas it was shown that Antio-
chus could not. Antiochus Epiphanes travelled toward the south, toward
Palestine, and toward the east, but Mohammedanism does not fit that
description.
The fact that these two powers passed on a few of the points
describing the little horn is important. It illustrates the necessity
of a power passing on every point, otherwise there could be a number
of little horns, each fitting a portion of the points found in the
eighth chapter of Daniel.
Conclusion. Along with Antiochus Epiphanes, Mohammedanism also

must be rejected. As Antiochus, Mohammedanism meets the descriptions

44
of some points, but it fails glaringly on others. Mohammedanism came
centuries too late, it arose in the wrong place, and traveled in the
wrong direction to be the little horn.

CHAPTER V
TWO OTHER VIEWPOINTS EXAMINED
The two viewpoints to be considered in this chapter are the
future Antichrist theory and the viewpoint of the Papacy as the little
horn. These two are considered in the same chapter, not because they
are considered as of little importance, but due to the fact that on
the first of these two viewpoints there is little that can be examined;
and, as for the second viewpoint, it mill be examined more fully in
connection with another power in the succeeding chapter.
I. A FUTURE ANTICHRIST
Even though a number of expositors consider the little horn to
be a future Antichrist, it is not to be assumed that they are all
agreed as to whom the term flAntichrist" applies.
One author taught that the future Antichrist will be a Napoleonic
Antichrist to rise "not later than 9 to 11 years before the End of this
Age." Andther commentator declared that the little horn will be the
last gentile ruler who shall reign for a short period as a universal
monarch after the rapture, when the church is taken away from the earth. 2
Still another writer declared the little horn to be a king of the latter
Michael M. Baxter, Forty Prophetic Wonders, pp. 58-66.

William Pettingill, Simple Studies in Daniel, p. 78.

46
times, and then added, as an after-thought, tithe devil is so often
described as a figure with horns.n1 Chamberlin states that the little
horn is a future Antichrist who will rule for seven years.2
in speaking of the little horn, Heslop said, "Antiochus was a John
Baptist of the Anti-Christ."3
It is not the purpose of this study to find out what is the
most feasible interpretation of this future Antichrist, but rather to
examine whether or not the little horn could be a future Antichrist.
If it were found that it could be a future Antichrist, then the next
logical step would be to find out which of these interpretations would
be the most logical.
The test applied. In general, the seventeen points outlined in

•••••• Ommiratil eima
Daniel 8 cannot be used objectively in testing whether or not a future

Antichrist could be the little horn. Due to the claim that the Anti-.
christ is future, it cannot be proved or disproved, for example, that
he will travel in the right direction, as is necessary to pass on point
number two. Many of the other points are equally impossible to prove
or disprove until the power has been seen in action, so that it can be
measured.
There is one point, however, that spells failure to the future
1 Walter Luthi, Daniel Speaks to the Church, p. 90.

41•••••..MINNONNY OmMEI•••=••••
2 Myron Holley Chamberlin, Comments on Daniel, pp. 176, 19B, 1911.
3 William Greene Heslop, Diamonds from Daniel, pp. 121, 122.

L7
Antichrist viewpoint, and that is the very first of the seventeen
points--the little horn comes out of one of the four kingdoms that
succeeded Alexander. If on this point Mohammedanism failed because
it came centuries too late, then the future Antichrist viewpoint is
even more of a failure, because it has not yet come--that is, accord-
ing to those who hold this viewpoint.
It is true also that a future Antichrist would be too late to
cast down the earthly sanctuary, if that sanctuary is meant in the
prophecy. If the heavenly sanctuary is meant, judgment would have to
be reserved untiVthe future Antichrist should arrive. If it is meant
that the little horn casts down both the earthly and the heaveily
sanctuary, then, of course, a future Antichrist could not fit into the
picture because of the destruction of the earthly sanctuary in the past.1
Conclusion. A future Antichrist cannot be the little horn of
Daniel 8, mainly for the reason that he fails to pass on the first point
of, the examination. This viewpoint of the future Antichrist would
necessitate disconnecting the little horn, separating it from the rest
of the prophecy, and putting a gap of hundreds of years between the
two parts. However, that is not the picture to be found in the eighth
chapter of Daniel. A future Antichrist would be too late to be the
little horn.
1
Scharer, loc. cit.

48
II. THE PAPACY
According to the combined analysis of. Appendices A and B, the
viewpoint of the Papacy as the little horn ranks fourth in number of
advocates. As witnessed previously, however, the number of advocates
means little, for the viewpoint must fit each of the seventeen points
making up the description of the little horn in the prophecy.
The examination. If, in this case, the advocates of the
Papacy as the little horn mean the Papacy as a separate entity, com-
ing up some time after Christ, then this viewpoint is doomed to failure
on the same grounds on which Mohammedanism and the future Antichrist
viewpoints fail. It comes up too late.
To those who believe that the little horn of Daniel 7 is the
Papacy, it must be demonstrated here that the little horn of Daniel 8
Could not be exactly synonymous with the little horn of the seventh
chapter.
Uriah Smith has given a clear picture of the unfolding of the
prophecy in the seventh chapter of Daniel. He has shown how the pro-
phecy unfolds, from Babylon to the judgment.1 ,When chapters seven
aad eight are placed side by side, the comparison reveals that the
two *little horns" cannot be absolutely synonymous. The following
parallel demonstrates this fact:
1
Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation,
PP. 105-47.

L9
Daniel 7 . Daniel 8
Smith Interpretation) (Ewnigl-Ta9:23)
(a) Lion . • . . Babylon (a) Not included in this prophecy.

Bear . . . . . Nedo-Persia (b) Rom . . • • • Medo-Persia
Leopard . . Greece (c) He-goat . • • • Greece
Four heads . . Four kingdoms (d) Four horns • . . Four king-
Ten horned beast . . Rome doms
Little horn Papal Rome (e) Little horn
JUDGMENT TIME CF THE EDI
In the above pars4e1 it can be seen that the little horn of
Daniel 8 covers the combined periods of the ten-horned beast plus the
little horn in Daniel 7. This is true because the Bible pictures the
judgment hour as coming at the time of the end.2
It is apparent also, that in Daniel 7 there is a period of
time that elapses between the four heads of the leopard and the little
horn. In Daniel 8, where the four horns are comparable to the four
heads of Daniel 7, the little horn comes directly out of one of the
four horns, or kingdoms.
Conclusion. To be consistent, the one whobelieves that the
Papacy is the little horn of Daniel 7 cannot believe that the Papacy
alone is the little horn of Daniel 8. If he follows Smith, he would
necessarily conclude that the little horn of Daniel 8 is a combina-
tion of Pagan and Papal Rome, for it covers the same period of time
as those two powers in Daniel 7.

2 See Revelation 14:6-3_5.

50
The more objective reason, however, for concluding that the
little horn of Daniel 8 is not the Papacy alone, is that the Papacy
comes up too late to be the 'little horn. It fails on the first

point of the examination.

CHAPTER VI
PAGAN AND PAPAL ROME
The advocates of Pagan and Papal Rome as the little horn are
fewer in number than those studied previously, but this viewpoint
merits careful consideration, especially since each of the previous
theories failed to measure up to the description of the little horn.
This chapter deals with the examination of the Pagan and Papal
Rome theory, but first the validity of combining Pagan and Papal Rome
under one symbol must be tested.
I. PAGAN AND PAPAL ROME COMBINED
The validity of combining the two. The first serious question

ailanam lainomm.
that this viewpoint must face is the following: Is it valid to com-
bine Pagan and Papal Rome under one heading such as a little horn?
The answer to this question comes from two sources, the Bible, and
history.
Bible testimony. The parallel between chapters seven and eight
in the book of Daniel reveals that the Bible has combined two powers
under one symbol. This was demonstrated by the parallel of the two
chapters in chapter five of this study. It will be profitable to
recall three items in this parallel:
(a) The four heads of the leopard in Daniel 7 and the four
horns of Daniel 8. are recognized as symbols representing the same

52
four kingdoms.1 Yet, a ten-horned beast succeeds the four kingdoms
in Daniel 7, and a little horn succeeds the four kingdoms in Daniel 8.
(b) Next, the little horn in Daniel 7:25 is described as one
who:
Speaks great words against the Most High.

Wears out the saints.
Thinks to change times and laws.
The little horn of Daniel 8 acts in the same manner:
Magnifies himself to the Prince of the host. v. 11.
Destroys the mighty and the holy people. v. 21.
Casts the truth to the ground. v. 12.
(c) The little horn of Daniel 7 ends at, the judgment, and the
little horn of Daniel 8 reaches to the time of the end. John the
Revelator shows that the judgment hour immediately precedes the second
coming of Christ; therefore, the judgment takes place in the time of
the end.2 Thus the terms would be synonymous.
As these three facts are brought together, it is established

that the little horn of Daniel 8 begins when the ten-horned beast of
Daniel 7 begins; it carries on the same activities as the little horn
of Daniel 7; and the little horn of Daniel 8 extends to the time of
the end as does the little horn of Daniel 7.3 ,
1 Froom, op. cit., I, 54, 126.
2 Revelation 14:6-15.

53
Therefore it can be concluded that the two symbols of Daniel 7
are combined in one symbol in Daniel 8. This does not prove who the
little horn is, but it does establish the fact that the Bible does com-
bine two powers under one symbol.
The testimony of history. Does history ever knit Pagan and

Papal Rome together in a close bond? Is there an adequate connection
between these two powers to merit their being considered together
under one symbol? There were at least ten steps ins: the development
of the Papacy out of Imperial Rome.
The Church at the political capital. This was the first

WiEtTEF-ortErhoman church, ana goes far to account
for the early beginning of the Papacy.
The acquiring of political power by the bishops under
Constantine. For all practiEr-gFposes the bisoi=
became functionaries of the Roman government.
The imperial throne moved to Constantinople in A. D. 330.
Ma the removal Or %Mate). the remaining great orrl=
cial was the pope, who quickly filled in the vacuum
created by the removal of the imperial court.
i.
The title "Pontifex Maximus." About 380, Graian, a
UEFIFElan emperor, resi
- netheXtle of Pontifex Maxi-
17
mus, or chief pontiff. When Grali4an resigned the title,
Pope Demasus assumed it. It had 'been applied to popes
earlier, but now the pope took it as his right.
The decree of Valentinian III, A. D. 445. This decree
me the pole the arbiter Efgr Znhe-Eishops, and required
that the Roman governors see to it that those summoned
before the pope's court be there.
(6) The removal of the emperor in the west, A. D. 476. With
'mss removal, tErPapacy unni-npe Leo I became the
strongest institution touching the lives of the people
of 'Western. Europe. Pope Leo 'I stands out as the strong
figure during the barbarian invasions.

514
The uprooting of the three Arian German tribes, A. D.
47-536. The nrindrfhe Birnpov —regiirirpro3tea by
antE70 Arian under the aegis of the emperor Zeno at
Constantinople. ,The last two were defeated by the armies
of the emperor Justinian. Thus three powers hindering
the development of the Papacy were put out of the way.
The Decree of Justinian.. The letter of Pope John acknow-
ledges the scree ofJustinian in which the emperor
recognizes the Papacy as the head of the churches, A. D.
533. The decree became effective at the expulsion of
the Ostrogoths from Rome in A. D. 538.
The towering figure of Grego I, A. D. 590-604. Gregory I
succeedea in establiEEing manbtbolicigi among the
Arian Christians and became the ruler of Italy.1
The tenth point, and likely the most significant, dates
back to about A. D. 350--the breakdown of the Roman pro-
vincial uystem. With heavy taxation, frgaiiEral
and local authority in some places broke
down, and in others it was all but paralyzed. The
bishops of the church were the surviving symbols of Roman
life and culture, and the maintenance of the commonweal
became in some degree the responsibility of these bishops.
They had to,,step into the breach to keep anarchy from
prevailing.
These steps in the development of the Papacy reveal that the
Papacy grew out of western Imperial Ram. Among other things it
received from Imperial Rome its seat, its power, its title, "Pontifex
Maximus, and its authority--financial civil, legal, and, in a degree,
spiritual.
1 Frank H. Yost, "Antichrist in History and Prophecy," Oar

Firm Foundation, I, 652-70. other points can be adduced, but TEEse
Tined above are sufficient to demonstrate the oneness of the Roman
picture in the transition from Pagan to Papal Rome.
2 Frank H. Yost, "Secular Activities of the Episcopate in Gaul

to 639," (A Doctor's dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska, NoveMber 17,.19!2), pp. 138-147.

55
As a result of studying these ten steps, the relationship of
Papal Rome to Imperial Rome may be thought of in two ways. First,
Papal Rome was the heir who 'received his inheritance from Imperial
Rome. Second, Papal and Western Imperial Rome may be thought of as
members of a team, especially in view of the tenth point. Western
Imperial Rome is the exhausted member, who, in his last efforts,
hands the baton to his successor, Papal Rome. This metamorphosis is
described by Seignobos:
The political misfortunes of the state therefore were in a

sense the fortune of the Church, and especially of the papacy.
It is hardly correct yet to speak of a papacy at this period,
for such an idea was still in the future. But the germs of the
enormous power of the Roman bishops were already sprouting.
And while Rome declined politically, she rose as a religious
centre. The removal of the emperor's residence from Rome to Milan
or Ravenna, and finally the cessation of the imperial office in
the west altogether, led to the bishop of Rome becoming the lead-
ing citizen in the old capital. And there has always been a gla-
mour about the name of Rome. A. mystic power has seemed to be in
and of her. And even the barbarians, while they no longer saw in
Capitol and Forum the seat of majesty, yet reverenced the Eternal
City, and Roman provincial and Gothic conqueror came to look upon
the bishop of Rome rather than the emperor of Rome as the centre
unity forthe west.1
Furthermore, the view presented in these ten points is supported
by Catholic writers and historians, consciously or unconsciously.
Among them is the historian, Alzog, who says:
In the alliance between the Papacy and the Empire, so essential

to maintenance of peace and the purity of morals throughout
Christendom, the spiritual authority increased in influence and
Charles Seignobos, History of the Roman People, (translation

by William Fairley), PP. 1438, 09.)

56
efficien0y in proportion as the imperial power waned and ceased

to be respected. It rose upon the ruins of Amperial power,
[italics supplied and became indispensable as a check upon
those disorders Which grew out of a contempt for the laws,
depravity of morals, and barbaric incursions.
Cardinal Manning contributes to the evidence that the Papacy
arose from Pagan Rome by demonstrating the "principle" of the "dona-
tion" of Constantine:
Therefore, in that day when the first christian emperor with-

drew himself into the far East, he abandoned Rome and Italy; and
the "donation" of Constantine, as it is called, expresses not
a fact, but a principle. Constantine signed no instrument of
donation; but the manner of conceiving and of speaking, in those
simple ages, so represented the providential fact of the donation
of God. God gave to the Vicar of His Son the possession of the
city in which thirty of his predecessors had sealed their testi-
mony with their blood. The donation of Constantine consisted
in the simple providential fact, that he departed from Rome to
Constantinople, moved by an impulse from God Himself. 2
With this cumulative evidence, the rise of the temporal power
of the Papacy is clarified; moreover, in view of the facts presented
it may be concluded that history, testifies to the feasibility of
considering the Roman empire and Papal Rome as a unit.
This does not prove the Pagan and Papal Rome theory of the
little horn. It demonstrates that it is historically accurate to con-
sider the two powers as a unit.
The Pagan and Papal Rome theory of the little horn must now
face the examination as outlined from Daniel 8. Having recognized
John Alzog, History of the church, II, 268, 269.
2 Henry Edward Manning,. The Temporal Power of the0.••••sorre

Vicar of
01•11.1=0 aMPNERWO
Jesus Christ,•
Inalmn.rtmeme mmdrabrmmr.a
pp. 12, 13.

57
Pagan and Papal Rome as a unit, it must be recognized that this view-
point passes on a given point, if one part, Pagan or Papal, of this
unit meets the specifications of that given point. For example, if
it is found that Pagan Rome develops toward the south, east, and plea-
sant land, it is not necessary to establish that Papal Rome did the
same.
II. THE TEST APPLIED
1. The little horn comes out of one of the four horns. In

.o.wwamemp MMIN NIMImlame *Nam .ftmlomM•• .•11ft• .14•11•MI
the chapter dealing with Antiochus Ipiphanes, the fact was stressed
that verse nine emphasizes separation: "From one of the four horns a
little horn came out." Daniel is told that these four horns are king-
doms, and that the little hormcomessfrom one of them.1
The certainty of 'three kingdoms. Before the Pagan and. Papal

Rome theory can be tested accurately on this point, it must be made
certain as to what four kingdoms are meant here in the prophecy of the
four horns. Of three kingdoms there is no question. Macedonia, Egypt,
and Syria are recognized by this thesis as kingdoms that arose out of
the kingdom of Alexander. History testifies to the importance and
prominence of these three powers.2 But the question arises: Which
is the fourth power represented by the four horns?
1 Daniel 8:22, 9.
2
John Pentland Mahaffy; The Story of Alexander's Empire,
pp. 89, 90; Rostovtzeff, op. cit., 1$ n5.

58
Thrace. Thrace is often accepted as the fourth kingdom in the
breakup after Alexander's empire;1 however, for several reasons this
viewpoint is not altogether satisfactory.
In the first place, when the division of Alexander's empire
took place in 301 B. C., Lysimachus was recognized as the head of
Thrace.2 When Lysimachus died, Thrace ceased to exist as an independ-

ent kingdom. It was absorbed by Syria and Macedonia.3 This reveals
that the kingdom of Thrace lasts for the duration of the life of one
king. When he died, the kingdom was absorbed by others. This view
necessarily places the emphasis upon the king, Lysimachus, whereas
the prophecy emphasizes that the four horns are four kingdoms.4
Since Thrace lasted merely for the duration of the life of its only
king, it hardly merits classification as one of the four kingdoms.
Furthermore, when the historian, Mahaffy, refers to three great
kingdoms, he includes Thrace in the territory of Macedon a.5 This is
important in view of the facts surrounding the rise of the little horn
as discussed on page58 of this thesis.
1flondi s op. cit., p. 35. See also Smith, op. cit., p. 155.
2 Mondics, loc. cit.
3 Ibid., p. 54.
4 Daniel 8:22.
5 Mahaffy, locy cit.

59
The battle of Ipsus in 301 B. C. is recognized as the time in
which the monarchy of Alexander was broken up and ceased to exist;1
but Jouquet observes:
Sosin 301, there was no longer an Empire; but the Hellenistic
world had not yet the appearance which it was to assume and to
keep daRnithrrong age ok fertirrEdMilliantFIVIIIEUE
Zrah went by in the East before the intervention of the arms
of Rome.
The same author adds that the crisis which began in 322 B. C.
may be regarded as ended shortly after the battle of Corupedion in.
281 B. C. From this it is clear that the crisis was not settled, and
the crystalization of four permanent kingdoms did not take place until
after 281 B. C. This is after the death of lorsimachus, and when
Thrace no longer existed as an independent power. From this testimony
it is untenable to include Thrace as one of the kingdoms represented
by the four horns.
Some • may feel that it is necessary to look for an early settle-
ment of the four kingdoms, such as in 301 B. C. after Ipsus, when Lysi-
machus, Cassander, Ptolemy, and Seleucus are the four;3 however, the
prophecy places the emphasis differently. Aocording to the prophecy,

the little horn comes up when the four horns mare come to the full;"
the antecedent of transgressors being the four horns.4
1 Rostovtzeff loc, cit.
2 Pierre Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization

of the East, p. 158.
3 mondics, op. cit., p. 35.
4 Daniel 8:22, 23.

60
The words come to the full carry the meaning of declared perfect,
amffsftiumm. ••••momb enwerNmir
made ready whole, in number.1 Therefore, when the little horn comes
up, the four horns exist as fully developed powers. The prophecy thus
emphasizes the fact that the four horns are in existence when the little
horn comes up. Few would contend for the appearance of a little horn
during the days of Lysimachus, king of Thrace; and after his day,
Thrace is no more an independent kingdom..
Therefore, Thrace could not be the fourth kingdom because:
It was too temporary in nature, lasting merely for the

duration of the life of one king.
Thrace arose early, but it was not in existence as a
power when the little horn came up.
Instead of coming nto the full" or developing into a

mature power, Thrace disintegrated and was absorbed
by powers other than the little horn power.
If Thrace were considered as a fourth kingdom, it
would necessarily place the emphasis upon king rather
than kingdom because of its temporary natuFg7- This is
contrary prophecy, which emphasizes kingdom.
Perggmum, the fourth kingdom. It was not until after 280 B. C.
that the four powers were fully developed. Then Pergamum emerges.
Rawlinson states:
After the death of Lysimachus, further changes occurred; but
the state of Pergamus, which sprang up at this time, may be
regarded as the continuation of Lysimachusis kingdom, and as
constituting from the time of Eumenes I. (B. C. 263) a fourth
1 B. Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p. 763.

61
power [italics, added] in the various political movements and com-
EIHMons of the Graeco-Oriental world.'
Tarn agrees with Rawlinson as to the fourth power:

By 275 three dynasties, descended from three of his [Alexan-
der's] generals, were well established; the Seleucids ruled much
of what had been the Persian empire in Asia, the Ptolemies
Egypt, and the Antigonids Macedonia. A fourth European dynasty,
not connected with Alexander, the Attalids of Pergamum, subse-
quently grew up in Asia Minor, at Seleucid expense, and became
great by favour of Rome.2
Tarn recognizes Pergamum as the fourth dynasty. But he states
that it was not connected with Alexander. Concerning this the follow-
ing facts must be noted: Lysimachus had entrusted Philataerus with
his treasure and the fortress of Pergamum. Philataeras betrayed Lysi-
machus and went over to Seleucus. In return, Philataerus was recog-
nized as the dynast of Pergamum.3 In this small beginning of Pergammi
it can be seen that there was a connection between Pergamum and Alexan-
der, Lysimachus being the connecting link.4
Some would doubt that Pergamum ever achieved the power necessary
to be considered one of the four kingdoms, but Rostovtzeff testifies
to the contrary:
And yet in our history of Greek civilization the insignifi-
cant Attalids loom larger than the greatest of the Seieucids.
1 George Rawlinson, The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, pp. 30, 31.
2 Tarn, op. cit.,

1.1111PONIMI
p. 6.
3 Cook, Adcock, and Charlesworth, op. cit., VIII, 590.
4 See unpublished paper of Wilfred J. Airey, uThe Four Itvisions
of Alexander's EmPire," (Unpublished paper, La Sierra college, Arlington,
California), 17 pages.

62
This must be ascribed not only to policy, to propaganda, and

endeavours to maintain their collaboration with Rome, but
also to a sincere enthusiasm for Greek civilization.
Jouguet recognizes also that Pergamum was not large, yet it
became great. Even though it was only 66,486 square miles at its
greatest, the Attends managed to make it yield great resources. Per-
gamum is rated a great state by the beginning of the second century.2
With the ascension of Attalus I to the rulership of Pergamum
(241-197 B.C.), Rostovtzeff could declare:
Pergamum was no longer to be merely a modest prosperous

dynasteia; it was now one of the great Hellenistic monarchies,
whose rulers steadily sought to dominate Asia Minor.3
It is true that it took time for Pergamum to grow Irma
little dynasteia to a full Hellenistic monarchy, but that is the very
picture that can be seen in the statement: "when the transgressors
are come to the full.n This is a process in which time is needed;
then, when the four kingdoms are fully developed, the little horn
comes up.
It is interesting to observe that Rostovtzeff lists the kings
of four Hellenistic dynasties. They are the Ptolemies, the Seleucids'
the Antigonids, and the Attalids. The Attend, were the kings of
Pergamum. This list reveals also that each of these four kingdoms lasted
1 M. Rostovtzeff, ”Pergamum," CAH, VIII, xix, 614.
2 Jouguet, op. cit., pp. 382, 388.
3 M. Rostovtzeff, "Pergamum," CAM, VIII, xix, 591.

63
well over one hundred years. Thrace is missing from the list.1
Therefore, the facts presented reveal that Pergamum may well be
classified as the fourth Hellenistic dynasty because:
Reliable historians refer to Perganum as the fourth

power of this period.
Pergamum acquired adequate greatness to be recognized as

a Hellenistic dynasty.
.
(c) Although pergamum needed time to develop to power it
cannot be disqualified, because the prophecy of Daniel 8
allows for a development tto the full" of these kingdoms.
(d) Pergamum lasted long enough to be recognized as a permanent

kingdom.
Succeeding pages of this study reveal that Pergamum

played an important role in the development of Roman
power.
Therefore, in :this study the kingdoms of Egypt, Macedonia,
Syria, and Pergamum are recognized as the four horns of Daniel 8.
Does the combined power of Pagan and Papal Rome come up out of
wnwremagma. er•ro ftmormmo.mr ...r.rromm re.wasme• =rm.
one of these kingdoms? Could it be that Pagan Rome in the west came
out of one of these kingdoms to the east of it?
If there is one thing that stands out in the history of the
Hellenistic countries during the latter part of the third and the
early part of the second centuries before Christ, it is the close
relationship that existed between Pagan Rome and Pergamum. Nearly
every advance of the Roman power was accomplished through the aid of
Pergamum.
1 CAH, VII, 988 (,append.ix).

64
When Rome was battling Carthage, its enemy to the south, in the
second Punic War (c. 217-200 B.C.)1 the latter was allied with Mace-
donia in the east. However, the combined Roman and Pergamene fleets
kept Macedonia from being of any material aid to Carthage.2 As a
result of the great war against Carthage, and the wearisome struggle
against Greece, Rome had gained a distant and an unexpected friend--
Attalus, king of Pergamum; abut they could not foresee the extra-
ordinary importance which this new friendship was shortly to assume. n3
A few years later, at the battle of Magnesia, the Roman and
Pergamene armies fought side by side against a common enemy. The
two allies were victorious over Antiochus the Great, but the chief
honor for the victory was due to Damenes of Pergmnum.4 This war
against Antiochus was actually instigated by Eumenes of Pergamum in
the first place.5 Eumenes was richly rewarded for this victory
against Antiochus„ but it earned him the dislike of the rest of. the
Hellenistic powers. Tarn says: "He grew great but was everywhere dis-
liked as being Rome's jackal, the traitor to Helleniam.116
1 Rollin 2 op. cit., I, 383.

2 Maurice
. Holleaux, ',Rome and Macedon: Philip Against the Romans,“
CAE VIII, v, 119, 124.
3 Ibid., VIII, v, 136.
4 Holleaux, 'Tome and Antiochus," CAH, VIII, vii, 222-224.
5 Ibid., V IT, 240.

6 Tarn, op. cit., pp. 25, 26.

65
It was the Perggmene king who urged -the destruction of Mace-
donia. Tarn says that "Eumenes alone was irreconcilable, and in 172
went to Rome in person to urge her to destroy Macedonia.141 Eumenes
was afraid of the reviving power of Macedon under Perseus, and he did
more than any other man to bring about the Third Macedonian War. 2
A little later, when Rome desired to see some one contemptible
on the gyrian throne, it was the king of Pergamum who ingeniously
produced the contemptible person required--Alesander Balas.3 The
crowning act of this close relationship took place in 133 B. C. when
Pergamum was willed to Rome. Strabo says:
Attalus, surnamed Milometer, reigned five years (138-133 B. C.)
died of disease, and left the Romans his heirs. The Romans pro-
claimed the country a province, calling it Asia by the same
name as the continent.4
Rome from Pergamum. It is felt by some that the Roman power

ilinakM•111•••••
comes .up out of Macedonia, because the prophet, seeing only the terri-
tory of the Alexandrian empire, first sees Rome emerging victorious
over Macedonia.5 This is not altogether satisfactory, hawever, for
that is as far as the reasoning on this point can be carried. This
view may be supplemented by the fact that the ,glorious heritage of Greece
1 Ibid., p. 28.
2 P. V. M. Benecke, "Rome and the Hellenistic States," CAH,

VIII, ix, 286.
3 Bevan, "Syria and the Jews," CAB, VIII, xvi, 522, 523.
4 Strabo, The Geography of. Strabo, MIL iv. 2. (LCL, VI, 169.)
5 Smith, op. cit., p. 158.

66
was passed on to Rome, but it is doubted that this would be sufficient
basis to say that Rome came out of Macedonia.
•
From the historical evidence presented, the conclusion is:

Rome did come forth from Pergamum. The reasons are as follows:
ameriamem= ••••=1.• •NNUMNYIsMM IMA/M0Piriam
Through Pergamene aid, Rome was victorious against Carthage.

Through Pergamum, Rome defeated Antiochus the Great.
Because of Pergamum, Rome fought the Third Macedonian
War, and subdued the first of the four Hellenistic powers.
Rome captured tie other Hellenistic powers but Pergamum
came as a gift. •
Alliance with thiS Pergamene "jackal" proved to be of
"extraordinary importance to Rome, for Rome, the power,
came out of this relationship.
The conclusion may be made as a paraphrase of the statement:
"Out of one of them came forth a little horn." The paraphrase is as
follows: "From the relationship with Pergamum the Roman power came
forth." To come out of Pergamum a conquest of Pergamum on the part of
Rome was not necessary. Far more significant is the fact that a power-
ful Rome developed out of this intricate relationship with Pergamum.
From the standpoint of negative evidence, the following fact
must be considered: History does not show another great power coming
up from one of these four kingdoms—Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and Per-
gamum. Therefore, Rome, through its intricate relationship with Per-
gamum, is the power coming up out of one of them.
Tarn, op. cit., pp. 34, 38, 42, 43.

67
It will be declared by some that Rome existed centuries before
this period and is far too early to be the power coming out of one of
these kingdoms. The answer to this is seen in this prophecy under
consideration. Greece, under Alexander, is pictured as succeeding
Medo-Persia; yet, no one would deny that Greece existed long before
that time. Neither would anyone deny that Rome existed previously,
but it did not exist as a world power. Unconsciously, the historian
presents the same picture:
During the.last years of Antiochus the Great, every mag-

netic needle in the East seemed disturbed. A new power was
entering on the world's stage. Rome, proud of having humbled
Carthage, was resolved that nothing without her permission
should thenceforth take place in countries bordering on the
Mediterranean.'
Pagan and Papal Rome, considered as a unit, pass on the first
point of the examination.
2. The little horn grew exceedingly great. Does this second
point apply to the Roman power? Did Rome grow great nin excess,"
beyond Medo7Persia„ and even beyond Alexander and his empire?
The witness of history testifies to the greatness of Rome.
Strabo declares that Rome started with only one city, and grew to
exceed all others:
This, then, is the lay of the different parts of our inha-

bited world; but since the Romans occupy the best and the best
known portions of it, having surpassed all former rulers of whom
1 Renan, op. cit., p. 232.
THE LIBRARY' \•
S.D.A. Theological Seminary
6830 Laurel St., N.W.
Digitized by theWashington
Center for12,Adventist
DA Research
68
we have record, it is worth while, even though briefly, to add the
following account of them.1
It is significant that Strabo says that Rome "surpassed all
former rulers." The former rulers would include Medo-Persia and Greece;
therefore, Rome may be classified as great in excess of the others.
In view of the prophecy under consideration, the following statement
by Polybius (c. 205-133 B. C.) is even more amazing:
How striking and grand is the spectacle presented by the

period with which I purpose to deal, will be most clearly appar-
ent if we set beside and compare with the Roman dominion the
most famous empires of the past, those which have formed the
chief theme of historians. Those worthy of being thus set beside
it and compared are these. The Persians for a certain period
possessed a great rule and dominion, but so often as they ven-
tured to oveRWTErboundaries of Asia they imperilled not
only the security of this empire, but their own existence. . .
The Macedonian rule in Europe extended but from the Adriatic
to the Danube, . . Subsequently, by overthrowing the Persian
empire they became supreme in Asia also. But though their empire
was now regarded as the greatest in extent and power that had
ever existed, they left the larger part of the inhabited world
as yet outside it. . . But the Romans have subjected to their
rule not portions, but nearly the whole of the world, and possess
an empire which is not only immeasurably greater than any which
preceded it, but need not fear rivalry in the future. 2
Livy claims that the Romans had beaten off "a thousand battle-
arrays more formidable than those of Alexander and the Macedonians.113
In another statement, Po.ybius declares that the subjugation of the
1 Strabo, op. cit., XVii. iii. 24. (LCL, VII, 209, 211.)
2
Polybius, 2E. cit., 1. 2. (LCL, I, 5, 7.)
3 Livy,
P.cit., IX. xix. 17. (LCL, IV, 241.)

69
whole world under the single rule of Rome was an event without any
parallel in the past.1
History is unanimous in presenting the overwhelming power of

the Roman empire. The exceeding greatness of this power can hardly
be refuted.
The other half of this Roman power, the Papacy, years later
also gained a position of power that was not to be exceeded. Newman
boasted that "Emperors bowed the head before the bishops, kissed their
hands and asked their blessing."2 A treatise, On the Power of the
Pope, written before 1325 A. D., saw no limit to the power . of the
Papacy.3 This is but a glance at the power attained by the Papacy
in the Middle Ages, but further evidence of papal power will be seen
in the discussion of other points in the examination. The evidence
for both Pagan and Papal power, as seen in history, is easily suffi-
cient to merit the rating, "exceeding great."
3. The direction of activity of the little horn. The direction

that the little horn must travel is south, east, and toward the pleasant
land, or Palestine.
1 Polybius„ op. cit., XXXII. viii. xia, 455 )

2 Newman$ op. cit. p. 32.
3 Harold J. Laski, "Political Theory in the Later Middle Ages,"

The Cambridge Medieval History, VIII, XX) 623.
4,==.0.••

70
To establish the direction of travel of the Roman power, it is
necessary merely to recheck the references dealing with Pergamum
under point number one. Along with this, Josephus gives the account
of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, indicating that Rome

traveled toward the pleasant land.1
By checking these conquests on the map, it can be seen that.

Rome traveled toward the south in defeating Carthage and Egypt, toward
the east in taking Macedonia and Syria, and it traveled toward the
pleasant land and took Palestine. The Roman power, therefore meets
the specifications of the third point.2
It may be asserted by some that Rome does not fit this descrip-
tion because it went west in capturing Spain, Gaul, and Britain. This
does not disqualify Rome in this prophecy for two reasons:

First the complete conquest of Spain took place during the
second Panic War (cir. 217-200 B. C.) and was considered by the Roman
general as merely a stage in the conquest of Carthaginian Africa, which
controlled Spain. True, Spain is to the west of Italy, but it was looked
upon as a means of gaining control to the south. This as the attitude
of Scipio, the Roman general, in his conquest of Spain: "He had considered
these as only so many steps by which to climb to a nobler enterprise,
1 Josephus, War, VI, ix, 409-34. (LCL, III, 495-507.)

71
and this was the conquest of Africa."1 The face of Rome was toward
the south.
Second, it is true that Rome went west in gaining control of
Gaul and in capturing Britain, but this was not accomplished until
the days of Caesar (cir. 58-44 B. C.).2 Rome had already become a
power in the Hellenistic world and these events in Gaul and Britain
were only incidental as far as the prophecy was concerned. The fact
is that Rome developed by traveling toward the south, east, and toward
Palestine. That it should later expand toward Britain does not dis-
turb or do violence to the prophecy of Daniel 8.
L. The little horn is a persecuting power. From 'Daniel 8:10,
24, 25, it is seen that the little horn destroys Godfs people, he des-
troys many by seemingly peaceful means, and he is described as one who
destroys wnderfully.
If, by lithe mighty and holy people, fl the Jewish race is meant,
then Rome stands accused as a destroyer of the holy people. In the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A. D. 70, Josephus claims
that 1,100,000 Jews lost their lives.3 Moreover, Josephus adds that
the victims outnumbered those of any previous visitation, human or
1
Rollin, op. cit., L
374. See also Arthur E. R. Boak, A His-
tory of Rome to 5b3'AZT1 pp. 88-97.
2
Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A. D., pp. 181-
185.
Josephus, op. cit., VI. ix. 420,421. (LCL, III, 07.)

72
divine.' This would indicate that the destruction at the hands of the
Romans exceeded that meted out by Antiochus Epiphanes.
Sixty-five years after the destruction. of Jerusalem, in the
rebellion under Hadrian, the devastation and massacre of the Jewish
people was even more terrible than in the days of Vespasian and Titus.2
Dio Cassius states the results:
Very few of them survived (Jews). . . . Five hundred and
eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and
battles, and the number of those that perished by famine,
disease and fire was past finding out. Thus nearly the whole
of Judaea was made desolate.
In 135 A. D. the Romans brought the Jewish nation to an end.

The words of Scherer show that Rome succeeded where Antiochus failed:
"the complete ethnicizing of Jerusalem was the actual accomplishment
of a scheme which previously Antiochus Epiphanes had in vain
attempted."1
Pagan Rome not only destroyed the Jewish nation but also per-
secuted the Christians. The Christian martyrs were so numerous that
Etwebius asked: ""How could one here number the multitude of the mar-
tyrs in each province, and especially of those in Africa and Mauretania,
Ibid., VI. ix. 428, 429. (La, III, 499.)

2
William Douglas Morrison, The Jews Under Roman Rule, pp. 203,
204.
3 Cassius, op. cit., LXIX. xiv. 1, 2. (LCL, viii, 449, 451.)
'Scherer, op. cit. First Division, II, 318.

73
and in Thebais and Egnot?" The same writer adds later: "And indeed
all these things were done, not for a few days or for some brief space,
but for a long period extending over whole years."2
A letter of Pliny shows that a large number of people, of all
ranks and ages, and of both sexes were included in the prosecution
and punishment meted out by the Roman government.3 The question could
well be asked here: "Why need I mention the rest by name, or number
the multitude of the men, or picture the varied tortures inflicted
upon the wonderful martyrs?"4
History records that Papal Rome, like its predecessor, became
a power that "destroyed wonderfully." Alzog, a Catholic historian,
must have shuddered as he wrote:
It almost freezes the blood in one's veins to be informed

that in the interval of three hundred years, three hundred and
forty-one thousand, or eleven hundred and thirty-six annually,
were condemned to capital punishment by the Spanish Inquisition.5
Llorente, at one time a secretary of the Inquisition at Madrid,
lists forty-four Inquisitors General, from • the notorious Torquemade
I Ewebius, The Ecclesiastical History, VIII, vi. 10. (LCL,

...1.1.101•••=1 GIMMIIMM
II, 269.)
2 Ibid., VIII. vi. 10. (LCL, II, 277.)
3 Pliny, The Letters of Pliny, Book X, Letter XCVI. (LCL, 44, 4050
4 Eusebius, op. cit., VIII. xii. 1, 2. (LCL, II, 287, 289

5 azog, op. cit., II, 986, 987.

74
to Joseph de Arce, a period of 325 years. He states that 31,912 per-
ished in the flames and 291,450 were condemned to severe penances.1
The conservative Schaff estimates that the victims of the Spanish
Inquisition outnumber those of heathen Rome, and that more Protestants
were executed by the Spaniards in a single reign, and in a single pro-
vince of Holland, than Christians in the Roman empire during the first
three centuries.2
The persecutions were not limited to Spain and Holland, however;
most of the rest of Europe felt the heavy hand of the oppressor. The
Albigenses in southern France were the special objects of the perse-
cution, and in A. D. 1244 their last refuge was taken.3 In the Pied-
montese Alps, the Waldenses suffered from cruel persecution, while
French Waldensianism was "well-nigh blotted out.04
Not satisfied with merely punishing those who were found guilty
of heresy, Innocent IV issued in 1252 the bull ad exstirpanda which
authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. This weapon
was used freely.5
1 Juan Antonio Llorente, The History of the Inquisition of Spain,

PP. 577-83.
2 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, 600.
3 Ibid., V, part I, 507-15.

4 Alzog, op. cit., II, 661, and Schaff, op. cit., V, part II, 513.
5 Schaff, op. cit., V, part I, 523.

75
The little horn is said to destroy many "by peace."1 The ful-
fillment of this description is seen in the method by which the Papacy
handed over the victims of the Inquisition to the civil authority for
punishment. Alzog describes the procedure:
Hence, once a person indicted for hertsy had been found
guilty, he was handed over to the civil authority for punish-
ment, with the however invariable prayer that "he might be spared,
and not condemned to death.n2
The "invariable" prayer was merely a form. The state inflicted
the punishment, but the Papacy was the destroyer—nand by peace" des-
troyed many.
The little horn is a persecuting pourer. Pagan and Papal Rome
have fulfilled that description. Pagan Rome destroyed the Jewish
nation; both Pagan and Papal Rome destroyed exceedingly, or wonder-
fully; and Papal Rome destroyed many "by peace."
5. The little horn exalts himself to the position of equality

with Christ. The record states that he magnified himself even to the
Prince of the host.3
The emperors of Pagan Rome claimed divinity. This divinity
was handed down from emperor to emperor. Radin recounts the pro-
cedure and the claims:
) e
The Roman empire was unique. The liuperator, or autoaptCrwp
was as new in conception as in title. Divinely established,
Daniel 8:25.
2 Alzog, op. cit. II, 982, 983.
3 Daniel 8:11.

76
the imperial dignity would be divinely maintained in those
who by their origin could claim an unbroken chain of divine
descent. He whom we know as Nero was on the monuments "Nero
Claudius Caesar, son of the god Claudius and great-grent
grandson of the god Augustus"; and the last was at all times
officially styled Divi filius, "son of the God."'
The claims of the papal power were equally blasphemous. Where
the pagan emperor claimed the title, "son of the God," the claims
of the papal power went even farther. In the catechism of the Coun-
cil of Trent are these words:
For whereas priests and bishops are the interpreters and
heralds of God, who are commissioned in his name to teach
mankind the divine law and the precepts of life, and are the
representatives on earth of God himself, it is plainly impos-
sible, therefore, to conceive a function more exalted; and
justly, therefore, are they called not only angels, but also
gods, holding as they do anongst us the power and might of the
immortal God.2
The claim, then, is that the priests and bishops are as gods,
and/they hold the power and might of God Himself.
The Bible states that "there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"3 but Liguori, the author
of a textbook for priests sags; "The priest should be holy, because
he holds the office of dispenser of the sacraments; and also because
1 Max Ratan, The Jews Among the Meeks and Romans, p. 29)4.
2 Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chapter VII,

Question T17713Mkrertranslation, 157313.)
3 1 Timothy 2:5.

77
he is a mediator between God and sinners.01 This some writer also
states that St. Bernadine of Sienna referred to the power of the

priest as the power of the divine person.2
The scribes and Pharisees of the Bible brought forth a truth

when they asked: too can forgive sins, but God aloner3 But,
according to Liguori, the priest can do the same:
Priests are called Vicars of Jesus Christ, because they hold

his place on earth . . . The priest holds the place of the
Saviour himself, when, by saying FIE to absolvo,ff he absolves
from sin . . . A To pardon a single sin requires all the omni-
potence of God.P.
More could be written concerning the claims of this Pagan

and Papal power, but, from the statements presented it is clear that
thit power has exalted itself to the position of equality with Christ.
6. The little horn takes away the daily and casts down the
M•ble.imosmo .ownitUm iftbrimemo.a emawm..m•
sanctuary. It will be recalled that the Bible speaks of two sanc-

tuaries, the earthly and the heavenly sanctua24.5,
The earthly sanctuary was brought to an end under Pagan Rome.

Antiochus Epiphanes had stopped the. services for three years, but he
had never destroyed the temple itself. Under Rome, the destruction
Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, pp. 27, 28.
2 Ibid.,
41...mesay
p. 33.
3.Luke 5:21.
4 Liguori, op. cit., p. 35.
5 Hebrews 9:1-3, 11.

78
was complete and permanent. During the siege of Jerusalem by Titus,
the daily sacrifices in the Temple had to be suspended,' perhaps due to

the famine and the lack of men. In August of 70 A.D. toward 'the close
2
of the siege, the Temple was destroyed by fire.
Under Hadrian, Jerusalem and the Temple were purposely left in

ruins,3 and Milman declares: "Rufus is said, by= the command of Hadrian,
to have driven the plough over the ruins of Jerusalem.n4
It is evident that, Pagan Rome cast down the earthly sanctuary,

but has an earthly power trodden under foot the heavenly sanctuary? A
brief picture of the work of Christ will aid in answering this question.
The earthly sanctuary was merely a shadow, or type, of the great
sanctuary in heaven.5 The priests of the earthly sanctuary were to be
6 Instead of presenting the
superseded by Christ the great High Priest.
blood of animals for the remission of sins, Christ presents his own
blood, shed in behalf of sinners.? Not as earthly priests, who sacri-
1 G. H. Stevenson and A. Momigliano„ nRebellion, Within the

Empire n CAI, X, xxv, 862.
2 Josephus, op. cit., VI. iv.
254-66. (I 1, III, 4149-53.)
3 Morrisonl op, cit., p. 179.
4 Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews from the Earliest
Period Down to Modern Times 3, 437. ----
5 Hebrews 10:1.
6 Hebrews
Hebrews 9:13,14.

79
ficed animals, daily, Christ offered. Himself once for all,
1 and now
lives as the Mediator between God and man.2 He lives continually to
make intercession for all those who come to God through Him.3 There-
fore, as the writer of Hebrews says, man can come'boldly to the throne
of grace, because this High Priest has experienced all that Mali has
experienced, yet without sin. Through the merits of this Priest, man
finds forgiveness, 'mercy, and salvation. Moreover, according to the
apostle Peter, there is no other way this can be accomplished)
Papal Rome has established an earthly priesthood and claims
that through these priests forgiveness is obtained. Liguori declares
that it was not necessary for Jesus to die to save the world, but He
died to institute the priesthood.5
The forgiveness obtained from these priests is as valid as if
it came from Jesus Himself. Liguori claiMs:
Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a con-

fessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest
to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent,
Mate absolvoln the priest would likewise say over each of his
penitents, nEgo t absolvo„u and the penitents of each would be
equally absolved.
I Hebrews 10:10.
2 1 Timothy 2:5.
3 Hebrews 7:25.
14 Acts it:12
5 Liguori, op. cit., p. 26.
6 Ibid., pp. 28-9.

80
Moreover, this power virtually teaches that the sacrifice of
Christ once for all was not enough, for through the mass the priest
1
creates ,his Creator and offers Jesus Christ in sacrifice. There on
the altar, God Himself is in subjection to this earthly priest, and

2
they do with Him as they please. Liguori declares: "The angels
abide by the order of God, but the priests take him in their hands,
distribute him to the faithful, and partake of him as food, for them,-
selves."3
The Papacy has thus substituted an earthly priesthood for the
heavenly ministry of Christ. When this power caused men to look to
someone on this earth for forgiveness, it turned the eyes of the
people away from the work of Christ as High Priest in the heavenly
sanctuary. In this manner the heavenly sanctuary has been cast down
and trodden under foot. The emphasis limb placed upon the pawer of
earthly priests and the extreme importance of,the mass, and men lost
sight of the importance of the work of. Christ -- and, perhaps, lost
sight, of the work of Christ altogether.
Once again Rome, Pagan and Papal, has fulfilled the specifica-
tions. It has passed the sixth point,: for it not only overthrew the
earthly sanctuary, but it has also trodden the heavenly sanctuary
under foot.
1 Ibid. pp. 25,32.

2 Ibid., pp. 26-7.
3 Ibid., p. 27.

81
7. The little horn casts the truth to the ground. If a power
.••••••••
has met the terms of the preceding point, it is inevitable that it
should meet the terms of this one also, for the ministry of Christ in
behalf of sinners is a truth that is basic to the Christian faith. The
Papacy did cast the truth to the ground:
Scripture alone is not sufficient. Tradition, it is
claimed, is older than the Scriptures, and more reliable. Tradition
is the only adequate exponent of the doctrine of Christ and the only
competent interpreter of the Scriptures. Individual men are not capable
of interpreting Scripture correctly.1
In contrast to this teaching, the Bible declares that the Scrip-.
tures are capable of making man 'liaise unto salvation,"2 and, conversely,
the Scriptures warn against certain traditions*3
Mariolatry. For the mother of Jesus it is claimed that she
is human, yet divine. Peter of Blois even declared that "if Mary were
taken from heaven there would be to mankind nothing but the blackness
of darkness."
The least that can be said of the doctrine of Mariolatry is that
it is extra-biblical. The most that can be said is that it is
1 Alzog„ op. cit., pp. 362-3. See also Gibbons, op. cit., p. 82.
2 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
3 Mark 7:7,8.
4 Henry Charles Lea, A. History of the Inquisition of the Middle

Ages, 597.

82
blasphemous. Outside of the.Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there is
no other Divine Person found in the Bible.1
Prayer to the saints. This practice was not only prominent

A
in medieval times but it is also practiced today.2
From two viewpoints at least, this teaching is contrary to

truth. In the first place, there is no mediator other than Christ,3
and, secondly, prayer to the saints necessarily contradicts the Bible
teaching on the unconscious state of the dead.4 Saints are not media-
tors and dead saints cannot be prayed to, for they know nothing.
The observance of Sunday. Perhaps the most prominent viola-

tion of truth advocated by the Papacy is the veneration of Sunday.
Sunday keeping is non-biblical, as Gibbons admits:
But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you
mill not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of
Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the ligious observance of Sat-
urday, a day which we never sanctify.
A list of other teachings and their ramifications could be

studied, such as the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences,
the state of the dead, and others but sufficient has been presented
to reveal that the Papacy has "cast the truth to the ground." When
this power admittedly observes a Sabbath contrary to the Sabbath 'of the
1 Matthew 28:19.
2 James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 160. 110th edition.
3 1 Timothy 2:5.
Ecclesiastes 9:5,6. et al.
5 Gibbons, op. cit., p. 89.

83
law of God, it has cast the truth to the ground, for the Psalmist said:
"Thy law is the truth.?
8. The little horn succeeds and prospers, through craftiness,

.11MMMOINII
The success and power of Pagan Rome was a source of pride to the ancient
Roman historians. l2It had started from a small beginning, but through
warfare and clever statesmanship, it ascended to the rulership of the
world.3
However, it is the Papal portion of this Roman power that es-
pecially fits the description--"he shall cause craft to prosper in
his hand.n4
The success of Papal Rome is seen in her power. Early in her
history the church at Rome was rich, and well known for her liber-
ality.5 By the middle ages the popes were the supreme arbiters of the
6
nations. Under Hildebrand, the pope became powerful enough to put the
most prominent kings under the ban.7 The Papacy reached its peak of
1 Psalm 119:1142.
2 Polybius, op. cit., I. i. LCL, I, 3
3 Strabo, loc. cit.

Daniel 8:25.
5 M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope During the Middle. Ages,

1,95. =11011Ma• 4.03Miel, =•PIMM
6 Ibid., II, 19.
7 William Ernest Beet, The Medieval Papacy and other Essays,

osmamelsanames.
p. 132.

81
success under the illustrious Innocent III who claimed the empire of
1
the mad. Cardinal Newman pointed with pride to the number of times
the popes had exercised power over emperors.2
The craft by which the church prospered and sustained its power
is seen in at least two instances.
The first has already been mentioned in connection with the per-
secutions; that is the practice of the church of turning over the im-
penitent and the relapsed to the secular arm for punishment. In each
case the church prayed that death or mutilation of the prisoner might
be avoided. The historian says; "This adjuration was invariably dis-
regarded, and the Church knew that it always would be."3 This crafty
forMula freed the church outwardly from being responsible for the
shedding of blood; but the moral responsibility was still on the
shoulders of the church.
But the most profitable form of craftiness practiced by the.
Papacy ms the selling of indulgences. Schaff writes:
Here is the origin of the indulgences so called, that is the

remission of venial sins by the, payment of money and on condition
of contrition and prayer. The practice was justified by the schol-
astic theory that the works of supererogation of the saints con-
stitute a treasury of extra-merit and extra-reward which is under
the control of the pope. . . the popes found it a convenient
means for promoting their power and filling their treasury. ,Thus
the granting of indulgences became a periodical institution.4
1 H. C. OlDonnoghue, The History of the Church and Court of Rome,

I, 170.
2 Newman, 22. cit., P.
3 A. S. Turberville, "Heresies and the Inquisition in the Middle
Agesc. 1000-1305," The Cambridge Medieval History, VI, XX, 724.
ONIMMPAS.P.N.1.1 vIMEEPO.O.D.D.Imeins* ftsift. nerd!
4 Schaff, 2E. cit., Iv, 384-5.

85
For one pope, the sale of indulgences grew a little complicated
so he had coffers set up in the churches throughout Christendom. In
this may. the pious could help the dhurch carry on its private wars
while they saved their own souls.1
Another crafty practice in the church was simony. This practice
of buying or selling, ecclesiastical preferment penetrated every fibre
of the church, and it seems to have been more of a benefit to indivi-
duals than to the church as a whole. If simony is defined as accepting
favors from an emperor, then it perhaps benefit6d0 the church finan-
cially, but it ruined the church spiritually. Lea speaks of it as
!'the corroding cancer of the Church throughout the whole of the Middle
Ages.”2
In evaluating the Papacy in the light of this portion of the
examination, the verdict must be--the Papacy was prosperous and power-
ful, and it prospered through craftiness.
9. The little horn is referred to as the transgression of.41.•
desolation. The Revised Standard Version reads: "For how long is the
vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that
makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be
trampled under foot?"3It could be stated then, that the little horn
commits the transgression, or sin, that makes desolate.
Lea, op. cit., I, 45.
2 Ibid., III, 624,627.

3 Daniel 8:13, R.S.V.

86
It has been shown previously that Pagan Rome brought ,about the
1
final overthrow of the earthly sanctuary in A.D. 70. Jesus prophesied
of this destruction of the temple nearly forty years before it happened;
but most significant is the fact that He called the power that would do
2
the destroying, "the abomination of desolation." Therefore, Pagan Rome
is definitely the abomination of desolation, for it was the power to
accomplish the destruction of the Temple.
However, in the text referred to in the eighth chapter of
Daniel, the question is asked, "For how long . . is the giving over
of the sanctuary . to be trampled under foot?"3 This question
gives the picture of the sanctuary being trampled under foot for a long
period of time, as denoted in the words, "for how long."
It was established under the sixth point that the Papacy
trampled the heavenly sanctuary under foot by taking away from the
eyes of men the true mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly sanc-
tuary, substituting for it a false system of priesthood. This dreadful
sin made the heavenly sanctuary desolate in that the people turned from
the heavenly sanctuary and availed themselves of the forgiveness and
salvation that they thought was to be found in the false system of
priesthood that had been set up.
Josephus, War, VI. iv. 254-66. (LCL, III, 44943.)

2
Matthew 24:145.

87
In other words, the Papacy commits the transgression, that makes
desolate the heavenly sanctuary. Therefore, Pagan Rome, in its rela-
tionship to the earthly sanctuary, and Papal Rome, in its relationship
to the heavenly sanctuary, are classified as abominations, that make
desolate.
10. At the end of 2,300 days the sanctuary is cleansed. The
advocates of the Antiochup Epiphanes theory have, applied this period
to the time during which the sanctuary was desecrated by Antiochas
Epiphanes. , This was shown to be untenable, howaver so another ex-
planation must be found./
To begin with, the text does not say that the little horn lasts
,2,300 days. It says merely, uUnto two thousand and three hundred days;
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."2 At the end of. the 2,300 days
the sanctuary, that has been trodden under foot, will be cleansed.
Daniel .8 does not give a starting period, hence this portion of the
prophecy' remained a mystery to Daniel: He was assured that it was

3
true, but no one understood it.
In the next chapter Daniel seeks an explanation of the 2,300 day
period; this is revealed by his stutr of the book of Jeremiah. 'In
fact, his combined program of stuting the Scriptures and praying re-
veals several pertinent facts:
See chapter three, point ten of this stud, ptigte2

2 Daniel 8:11k
3 Daniel 8:26,?.

88
) Daniel is concerned abut the time element of the prophecy
of the eighth chapter.'
b) Daniel thinks that the 2,300 days has to do with thR length
of time the earthly sanctuary remain desolate.4
) Daniel did not know the starting point of the vision, and
was mistaken concerning its meaning because the angel.
Gabriel came to give him the understanding that he did not
possess.
The picture in the ninth chapter of Daniel is that of a prophet

mho, after studying the matter of the 2,300 days, thinks that the
2,300 days is the period of extension of the captivity in Babylon. He
thinks .that the sanctuary in Jerusalem will be desolate that much
longer, and he prays to the Lord to defer not. He beseeches the Lord
to remember the sanctuary that is desolate back in Jerusalem.
When the angel declares that he has came to. give Daniel under-
standing, one important fact emerges--Daniell whose burden has been
the earthly sanctuary, is mistaken, and needs understanding. The
2,300 days do not pertain to the earthly sanctuary; therefore, there
is but one sanctuary that it could be dealing with, and that is the
heavenly sanctuary, the great antitype after which the earthly was
copied.4
After inviting Daniel to consider the vision, Gabriel explained
Daniel 9:2.
2 Daniel 9:17,19.
3 Daniel 9:21,22.
4 Exodus 2S:8,9.

89
the first seventy weeks of the 2,300 days, and then declared that the
1
prophecy begins with the decree to restore and build Jerusalem.
The decree that marks the starting point of the 2,300 days was
2
issued in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. This is known to be the
decree because the prophecy stipulates that it must be the decree to
restore and to build Jerusalem. According to Jewish reckoning this
seventh year of Artaxerxes can definitely be dated from the fall of
458 B.C. to the fall of 457 B.0.3 After a four month journey by Etra,
4
the decree went into effect. Thus the decree to restore and build
Jerusalem went into effect in the year 457 B.C.--the starting point of
,the 2,300 day prophecy.

If the 2,300 days equaled just three and a half years, then this
prophecy would extend, merely, from 457 B.C. to about 454 or 453 B.C.
The prophecy would fade into insignificance. However, in Bible
prophecy, the principle of a day for a year must be followed, because
5
this is the instruction found in the Bible. Therefore, the 2,300
days are 2,300 years. From 457 B.O. the 2,300 years reach to 1844 A.D.
--then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
1 Daniel 9:24,25.
2 Ezra 7:8,11-28.
3 Archeological discoveries have established this date as ac-
curate. See Siegfried H. Horn, "The Seventh Year of Artaxerxes I," The
Ministry For World Evangelism, 26:23-25,45,46, June, 1953. See also
Siegfried. =and Lynn H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra7.
Ezra 7:8-11.
5 Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6.

90
What sanctuary was cleansed in 1844 A.D.1 The earthly sanctuary
was no longer in existence after its destruction by the Romans under
Titus; therefore, the only sanctuary that could be referred to is the

1
heavenly sanctuary.
In what la was the heavenly sanctuary cleansed in 1844? There
are two answers to this vital question:
The sanctuary is restored to its rightful place. "Then shall
the sanctuary be restored to its rightful state."2Through the cen-
turies Papal Rome had continued to trample upon the heavenly sanctuary,
but in 1844 a little body of Christians came forth with the true light
on the. sanctuary. Christ, the High Priest of the true tabernacle, had
entered into His work in the Most Holy place prior to His return to
earth.3The sanctuary light began to shine upon the world; the eyes of.
men were once agaiti turned to the. true High Priest, and the sanctuary
was restored to its rightful state.
The antitypical Day of Atonement began. In the earthly
sanctuary, which was patterned after the heavenly, there were two ser-
vices, the daily and the yearly.4 In the yearly service, which took
place on the tenth day of the seventh month, the sanctuary was
1Hebrews 8:1,2.
3 Froom, op. cit., Syllabus, II, 107.
4 Hebrews 9:6,7.

91
reconciled or cleansed of all the sins of the people that had been re-
1
corded there during the year. On that day also, the people were to
afflict their souls, for if they failed to do so, they would be cut off.2
In other words, the Day of Atonement was a day of judgment.
Whereas the day of restoration or cleansing of the earthly
sanctuary took place on' the tenth day of the seventh month, the dgy of
restoration or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary was to begin at the
end of 2,300 years, in the year 1844. As the typical Day of Atonement
was a day of investigation and judgment, the Antitypical Day of Atonement,
beginning in 1844, began a Divine investigation, known to many as the
Investigative Judgment. This is why that little group in 1844 could cry
out, "the hour of his judgment is come."3
Therefore, the 2,300 days extend down to the time when the great
Investigative Judgment began in the heavenly sanctuary. This time
prophecy establishes the fact that the sanctuary of God and the work of
Christ is the central message of the eighth chapter of Daniel. The
power trampling down the' sanctuary of God and establishing its own
counterfeit system is none other than the Papal power.
11. The, vision of the little horn extends to the time Maw!
of maamtm
the
end. Had the 2,300 days been interpreted as literal days, the vision
1 Leviticus 16:20-34.
2
Leviticus' 23:26-29.‘
3 Revelation 14:7.

92
could not have extended to the time of the end. However, with the ap-
plication of the year-day principle, the prophecy reaches to 1844. The
years since that date can be classified as the tine of the end because:
This antitypical Day of Atonement is a day of investigative
judtment, as established under the tenth point. The judgment hour

1
immediate1y precedes the return of theord.
Following the 1,260 year tine period of the seventh chapter
of Daniel, the judgment sits.2 - It has been established that these

1,260 years extend from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D.3 Now, by 1844, the
prophecy of Daniel 7 had been engulfed; therefore, since that prophecy
reaches to the time of the end, the 2,300 day prophecy does the same,
since it reaches even beyond the prophecy of the seventh chapter.
The years since 1844 fit the description in the Bible of
the 'last days."4

Therefore the vision of the little horn, with the 2,300 years
ending in 1844, extends to the time of the end. Although inflicted with
a deadly wcund„)the Papal power revived, and has extended into the time
1 Revelation 1:6,7,13,14.
2 Daniel 7:8,9,25,26.
3 C. Mervyn Maxwell, 'film Exegetical and Historical Examination of
the Beginning and Ending of the 1,260 Days of Prophecy With Special
Attention Given to A.D. 538 and 1798 As Initial and Terminal Dates,"
p. 103. See also Smith, 22:. cit., pp. 143-45.
4 For the description of the last days, or the time of the end,
see the following texts: Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians
2, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, James 5:1-8, 2 Peter 3:3-5, and Daniel 12:4. Other
texts may be used to supplement this list.

93
of the .end. Consequently, the Pagan and Papal viewpoint has met the
requirement of this point in the examination.
12. The little horn comes up in the latter time of the kingdom
of the four horns.
The proponents of the Antiochus theory of the little horn would
perhaps assert that since Antiochus arose too early to fit this de-
scription, the Rome theory should also be dismissed, because Rome was
a power in the Hellenistic world during the days of Antiochus. There-
fore, if Antiochus is too early, Rome is too early.
The argument is not valid, however. Antiochus was an individual
who ruled from 175 to 163 B.C. His death in 163 B.C. is too early to
'be considered the "latter time" of the four kingdoms, the last of which
1
came to an end more than one hundred years later.
On the other hand, with Rome the situation is different. Rome
was a power in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes--but a growing power
which was to develop into an "exceeding great" power.
In the latter part of the third century before Christ, Romels
friendship with Pergamum was inaugurated.2 From then on, Rome made its
presence felt in the Hellenistic world. Through the cooperation. of
this "jackal,"3 /Fergamurn7 Rome became increasingly powerful. The
four Hellenistic Kingdoms were taken up successively--Macedonia an
Boak, op. cit., p. 209.

2 Ibid., p. 565.
3 Tarn 2E. cit., pp. 25,26.

94
168 B.C., Pergamum in 133 B.C. (willed to Rome by Attalus III), Syria
1
in 64 B.C., and finally, Egypt in 30 B.C. Tarn gives a summary of
the development:
In 212 Rome began to take part, at first tentatively, in
Hellenistic affairs, and ultimately absorbed the whole Mediter-
ranean world,- 'Alie last independent state, Egypt, coining to an
end in 30 B.C.'
From a small beginning, Rome had grown to be a mighty power. In
30 B.C., when the last of the four Hellenistic Kingdoms had come to an
end, Rome stood forth as the little horn "which waxed exceeding great."3
13. The
__ little horn is described as a king of fierce counte-
•••••••••••••••=0.1 .MINda .1016...0.11•11.W
nance. It has been suggested that this "fierce countenance" does not
01.11.1.41.01.M101.11
refer to the looks of an individual, but to the appearance of a nation

or great power.4 A persecuting power appears dreadful to those who
are being persecuted and oppressed.

Livy refers to the Samnites who turned in panic from the Roman
hordes because of the blazing look in the eyes of the Roman soldiers.5
Yet, the real fierceness of the Romans was'seen, for example, when this
power devastated Jerusalem, and later destroyed the Jewish nation
1 Ibid., pp. 29-43. See also Boak, op. cit., pp. 174,209.
2 Ibid., p. 6
3 The investigator would ask the indulgence of his readers to
consider further the portion of Daniel 8:23 which has been translated
"in the latter time." This problem, mtich is taken up in Appendix C,
deals with the possibility of the Hebrew word denoting locality rather
than time.
4 Deuteronomy 28:50.
5 Livy, op. cit., VII. xxxiii. 16,17. (LOL, III, 477.)

95
entirely. Kuenen says that "the devastation caused by the war was
frightful."/ The "fierce countenance" was seen also when this power
lit up the dark night with human torches--Christians "were burned to
serve as lamps by night," while the cruel Nero "gave an exhibition in
his Circus."2
Moreover, the countenance of the Roman power must have appeared
rather "fie'rce" to Antiochus also, when Caius Popilius Laenas drew a
circle around Antiochus„ and then demanded that Antiochus make up his
mind before he should leave the circle.3
Thus Pagan Rome presented a "fierce countenance," to the world,
and to the people of God in particular. Little need be said of the
Papacy, except to say that to the countless victims of her oppression
she must have presented a dreadful picture.
14. The little horn understands dark sentences. This phase of
the prophecy compares favorably with the prophecy found in Deuteronomy
28:49,50. The latter prophecy is designated as Pagan Rome therefore,
the application of this phrase in Daniel 8:23 to Pagan Rome is in order.
Furthermore, this description applies also to Papal Rome.
As demonstrated previously, the word for understand is in the
Hiphil form of the verb; thus the meaning is literally, "he causes to
1 A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish

State, III, 290,291.
2 Tacitus, Annals, XV. xliv. (LCL, IV, 285.)
•
3 White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 467.
4 Polybius, op. cit., XXIX. 27. 1-9. (ILL, VI, 89,91.)

96
understand," or "teaches," ',dark sentences, riddles, or perplexing
sayings. t11
The Gospel is represented in the Bible as light, 2 and Jesus is

referred to as the "Light of the world."3 Therefore, one who teaches
"dark sentences" is one who teaches that which is error and whose
teachings run counter to the teachings of Jesus. As demonstrated in
the seventh point in this chapter, the Papacy has cast truth to the
ground and has taught "dark sentences" in its place.4
If one looks upon the term Mark sentences" as meaning, more

specifically, ',riddles," or "perplexing wings," then the Papal teach-
ing on the infallibility of the pope presents a typical example of such

riddles or perplexing sayings.
Gibbons presents the meaning of the doctrine of Infallibility:
Rat, then, is the real doctrine of Infallibility? It simply
means that the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, by virtue of the promises of Jesus Christ, is preserved
from error of judgnent when 4e promulgates to the Church a
decision on faith or morals.'
According to Priori, two conditions are necessary before a
statement can be infallible. He says:
Behold, then, the two necessary conditions for the use of the
privilege of infallibility:
1 See chapter III, point fourteen, p. 31.

2 Isaiah 60:1-3.
3 John 8:12.
4 For this evidence see part II, point seven of this chapter,
p. 81.
5 .
Gibbons, 22. cit., p. 123.

97
(1) The object of the decision must be a doctrine relating
to Faith and Morals.
(.2) The Pope must declare ex cathedra . .
The two conditions must beN=6 together. Suppress one and
there is no ex cathedra definition / Unite them and it becomes
an infallibl7= ogErrdefinition.J.
The above statement reveals that Priori thinks infallibility is
a 'privilege" that can be "used." Gibbons states further that the in-
fallibility of the Popes "does not signify that they are inspired" and
that it "does not extend to the natural sciences, such as astronomy or
geology."2 Newman points out that infallibility acts principally or
solely in two channels, in direct statements of truth, and in the

condemnation of error. 3
It is admitted readily that the pope can sin, but in speaking

ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals he cannot make a mistake.4
Weninger feels that he clinches the matter when he declares that it is
idle to argue against the teaching of the infallibility of the pope.5
Even with this briefpicture one is perplexed by the doctrine.
Questions come to the minds of many who read these statements, but the
doctrine remains a riddle unsolved. Gladstone inquires:
Will it be said, finally, that the Infallibility touches only
matter of faith and morals? Only matter of. morals! Mill am of
I Marino Priori, Rome and the Pope, p. 95.

2 Gibbons, op.. cit., pp. 121-3.
3 Newman, 2E. cit., p. 151.
4 Priori, op. cit., p. 100.
5 F. X. leninger, On the .A6222122Acal and
Infallible Author .t
of the Pope, pp. 282, 283.

98
the Roman casuists kindly acquaint us what are the departments
'and functions of human life which do not and can not fall within
the domainiof morals? If they will not tell us, we must look
elsewhere. •
It might be asked further, why this limited infallibility? How
can a sinful man, without claiming inspiration, be incapable of erring
in faith and morals, but at the same time able to commit an error in
another field?
The doctrine puts the church itself in a dilemma. Having once
spoken ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals, the pope has set
down a doctrine, technically, that could never be changed by the
church, for then the ex cathedra statement would prove to be fallible.
The act of declaring a statement ex cathedra is as wonderful as
the act itself--it signifies the power to turn infallibility on and
off. The doctrine perplexes the minds of thinking men.
This doctrine of papal infallibility, joined to the other doc-
trines referred to previously, classifies the Papal power as a teacher
of dark sentences and riddles.
But of all 'dark sentences," the darkest has to do with the
mass. The conservative Christian will recognize that his only hope
of salvation is in the light that shines from the cross of Calvary.
Yet here is a puffer, professing to be the vessel of truth, that covers
the importance of the cross, and exalts the work of sinful man. This
is emphasized in the teachings of Liguori:
lc E. Gladstone, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on

Civil Allegiance, A Politi Expostulation1 p. 27=

99
All the honors that the angels by their homages, and men by
their virtues, penances, and martyrdoms, and other holy works,
have ever given to God could not give him as much glory as a
single Mass . . . . St. Bonaventure says that in each Mass God
bestows on the world a benefit not inferior to that which he con-
ferred by his incarnation . . . Moreover, St. Thomas teaches that
. . a single Mass brings to men the same benefits and salvation
that was produced by the sacrifice of the cross. St. John
Chrysostom says: "The celebration ofia Mass has the same value
as the death of Christ on the cross."a.
Ren the death of Christ is thus obscured, the inevitable result
is darkness. The Papal power, therefore, causes to understand dark
sentences.
Z. The little horn is mighty, but not by his own power. To
see the fulfillment of this point, it is necessary, merely, to review

2
point number one of this chapter.
It was seen that Pagan Rome was aided indirectly by Pergamum
against Carthage, that Rome won at Magnesia. over Antiochus' III because
of Pergamum, that Rome went to war against Macedonia through the in-
stigation of Pergamum, and that Rome acquired the kingdom.of Pergamum
as a gift from Icing Attalus III. Therefore, the picture is clear;
Pagan Rome became mighty, "but not by his own power."
16. The little horn stands up against the Prince Of princes.
lhen Christ was born in Bethlehem, king Herod the Great was on
the throne in Judaea. This proud king was given his rule by the Roman
1 Liguori, op. cit., pp. 209-11.
2 See part II, point one, and the section answering the question:
Does the Pagan and Papal Rome power come up out of one of these
kingdoms?

100
1
government, but he was fearful that this new King of the Jews would
take his crown. Angry because his first plan failed, Herod killed all
the children of Bethlehem and vicinity who were two years old and under.2
In this incident Pagan Rome is seen standing against the Prince of

princes.
It was the vacillating Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator,
who turned Jesus over to the angry mob to be crucified.3 Again Rome
stood up against the Prince of princes.
During the early years of Christianity, Pagan Rome continued to
stand up against the Prince of princes by oppressing and persecuting

the followers of the Gospel.4
The more subtle opposition to Christ, however, is seen in the
work of the Papacy. It is not necessary to stand in outward opposition
to Christ in order to fulfill the requirement of this point. Now, in
this examination of the Pagan and Papal power it was seen in the sixth
point5 that the Papacy set up a system of priesthood that took the eyes
of the people off the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.
Hence, the earthly priesthood of the Papacy stands in place of, or
instead of the High Priest in the true tabernacle. Even as a counter-
felt coin is against the law of the laid, this counterfeit priesthood,
Rollin, op. cit., IV, 467.

2 Matthew 2:16.
3 Matthew 27, and Mark 15.

4 See part II, point four of this chapter, p.71.
5 See section II, point six of this chapter, p. 77.

101
regardless of its outward holiness, is against the work of Christ.
Therefore, the Papal powerl -as well as the Pagan, stands up against the
Prince of princes.
17. The little horn is broken without hand. The Papacy is
still in existence, therefore it cannot be declared to have fulfilled
this. point. However, that the Papacy will be destroyed without hand
there can be no doubt. The Pagan and Papal power has met the require-
rents of the previous sixteen points so completely that it could

hardly do otherwise on this last point.
Moreover, the description of the little horn identifies it as
the wicked power opposing Christ and His work until the time of the
end. But When the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
the record states: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the
Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy
with the brightness of his coming: "1 The Papacy- will be broken without
hand. Not before the second advent can this point of the examination
be fulfilled.
III. SUMMARY MD CONCLUSION
Before the Pagan and Papal Rome viewpoint could be examined it
was necessary to establish the feasibility of combining Pagan and Papal
Rome under one symbol. Having accomplished this through an example in
the Bible and from historical references, this viewpoint was ready to
1 2 Thessalonians 2:8, A.V.

102
be examined.
Before the first point could be examined fully, it was necessary
to determine which powers were symbolized in the four horns. These
four powers were found to be Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and Pergamum.
The examination proceeded through the entire seventeen points.
Conclusion. The Papal and Pagan Rome viewpoint has met the
requirements of each of the seventeen points in the examination. It
has done that which none of the other viewpoints were able to do; it
has passed the examination from every approach. Therefore, the com-
bined power of Pagan and Papal Rome is the little horn of the eighth
chapter of Daniel.

CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In searching for the power that would fulfill the description of
the little horn of Daniel 8, it was deemed important, first, to dis-
cover the more prominent theories that have been set forth on this
subject. Through the development of two charts, it was found that
five major viewpoints stood out. These were, in the order of their
occurence: 1) Antiochus Epiphanes, 2) Mohammedanism, 3) A future
Antichrist, 4) Papacy, 5) and Pagan and Papal Rome.
The next step was to measure these teachings by the seventeen
point description found in Daniel 8. If one of these theories were to
meet the description on each of the seventeen points, it could be none

other than the little horn. If, 'however, none measured up to the
standard, it would be necessary to search elsewhere to find the answer
to the problem.
The viewpoint of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn seemed
to be the most feasible to the largest number of expositors. Certain
descriptions in Daniel appeared to fit Antiochus perfectly; however,
on closer examination it was found that very few points could apply to
the Syrian ruler. In some of the seemingly strong points of proof for
Antiochus glaring inaccuracies were found. Antiochus did pass on a
few points which, however, could be applied to any of a number of
powers, if taken separately. In the majority of points in the

104
description Antiochus failed completely. It was found necessary to .
look elsewhere for the fulfillment of the prophecy.
The next three powers had one thing in common--they each came up
too late to meet the time specification required. Mohammedanism had
some characteristics that fit rather closely, but in other points the
discrepancies were outstanding. An example of the failure of Mohexa-
medanism is seen in the directions in which it traveled--opposite the
directions in which the little horn traveled.
Almost dramatically, the last viewpoint, and the one with the
fewest number of advocates, the combined power of Pagan and Papal Rome
was found to meet each one of the seventeen specifications making up

the description of the little horn. The Papacy alone could not fit,
for it came up too late. Pagan Rome, on the other hand could not be,
by itself, the little horn, for it did not extend to the time of the
end. However, the combined Pagan and Papal power spans the ages and
meets every description of the little horn.
. CONCLUSION
With the evidence in, there is but one conclusion: The little
horn is Pagan and Papal Rome. Unless history were re-written, no other
power of the past could qualify as the little horn. Neither could a
pacer of the future qualify, for the little horn must have its roots
in the past.
This conclusion is of special significance to Seventh-day
Adventists, and to conservatives in generale

105
To Seventh-day Adventists this conclusion is significant because
an important pillar of their faith stands secure. Had the little horn
been Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 2,300 days just a period of three and
a half years, then the doctrine of the judgment hour beginning in 1844
would have crumbled. There would be no foundation for the Three Angels'
Messages. But Antiochus proved to be a failure; the Pagan and Papal

power is the little horn; the judgment message did go forth in 1844 in
verity; the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist faith is solid, and

it cannot be moved.
To the conservatives ingeneral, this conclusion gives a certain

reassurance that the word of God does prophesy of the future. The book
of Daniel is not merely a history written by a nationalist Jew against
Hellenistic invaders. This conclusion is a step in establishing the
Bible as a modern Book written' fOr modern man and his needs.
As a result of investigating this problem, other topics for study

have come up. A. more extensive study of ghArith, the topic discussed in
Appendix C, and the words derived from it could be made, with special
emphasis upon the use of these words geographically. The relationship
of this eighth chapter to the eleventh chapter of Daniel, an admittedly

controversial topic, could be studied. This ground has never been
marked "forbidden" by the Lord, although it should be treated both
carefully and prayerfully. Finally, a study of the meaning of the word
"cleansing" in relationship to the sanctuary could be studied from the

point of view of the Jewish writers. With these suggestions this study
is brought to a close.

BIBLIOGRAMY

BIBLIOMAPHY
A. EXEGETICAL SOURCES AND REFERENCES
Abbott-Smith, G., A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Third

edition; Edinburgh, sO3EnEd: T. & T. Unik, 19.447-7512 pp.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and

English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: At the Clarendon
Press, 1.977-7127 pp.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Translated into English; with notes,

by Theodore Alois Buckley. GeorgeRoutledge and Co., 1852. 591 pp.
Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New

Testament. New York: The MacMi1lan dompany, 17477-356 pp.
Davidson, B., The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. London:

Samuel Bagster. and Sons Limited, n. d. 7b14 pp.
Gesenius Is Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures.

Translaec
rriEtriddifions Inc776-Frectrais-riom the Aahorts
Thesaurus and other works, by Samuel Prideaux Tregelies. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1905. 884 pp.
Holy Bible, The American Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson
&—s-Fir
is, 1901. 922 and 285 pp.
Holy Bible, The Authorized King James Version. New York: Oxford
Un=versity Press, 1611. 1215 pp.
Holy Bible, The James Moffatt Version. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1935. 1039 and 329 pp.
The Koran: Commonly called the Alkoran of Mohammed. Translated into

English from the Original Arabic, With Explanatory Notes Taken
From the Most Approved Commentators. To which is prefixed A
Preliminary Discourse, by George Sale. London: Frederick Warne
and Company, n. d.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 4 vols.;

A new edition; Oxford: At the ClasenaatilsigaT1725-0
Swete, Henry Barclay, editor, The Old Testament in Greek According to

the Septuagint. 3 vols.; TE*Tnige: At the Uniiigity Press, 1Y34.

108
Wigram, George V., The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of
the Old Testament. 2 vols.; second edition, revised; London:
Walton and Maberly, 1860.
B. HISTORICAL SOURCES
Arrian, History of Alexander and Indica, with an English Translation by

E. 1=7;36F6n. 2 vols.; The Loeb Classical Library, London:
William Heinemann, 1929-33. -----
Cassius, Do, Dio's Roman History, with an English Translation by
797BM; The Loeb Classical Library; London:
Earnest Ca/7
William Heinemann, 1914.
Charles, R. H., editor, The Apoc ha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament inEn glish72 vo s.; ORrard: At the ClarendonYiTis,
1913.
EUsebius, The Ecclesiastical History, with an English Translation by
Kirsopp Lake. 2 vols.; The Lab Classical Library; London:
William Heinemann, 19149.
Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works, with an English Translation by
H. St. J. Thackeray. Uvols1; The Loeb Classical Library;
London: William Heinemann, 1926719777
Livy, Livy, with an English Translation by B. O. Foster. 13 vols.;
ThTneb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 193941.
Pliny, Letters, with an English Translation by William Melmoth.
Revised by W. M. L. Hutchinson. 2 vols.; The Loeb Classical
Library; London: William Heinemann, 1931.
Plutarch, The Lives, translated by John Langhorne and William Langhorne.
7 vols.; LEEn: Printed by A. J. Valpy, 1831, 1832.
Polybius, The Histories, with an English Translation by. W. R. Paton.
6 vols.7 The Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann,
1922-7. ---
Scott, S. P., editor and translator, The Civil Law. 17 vols.;
Cincinnati, Ohio: The Central TrUE Uaii5anY7Executor of the Estate
Samuel P. Scott, Deceased, Publishers, 1932.
Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, translated from the
Greek. 7 vols.; London: -Henry G. Bohn, '1653.

109
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, a New Translation from the Greek.
London: Samuel BagiEFF50 Sons, 1816. 4118 pp.
Strabo, The Geograplly of Strabo, with an English Translation by Horace
Leonard Jones. IS volET-The Loeb Classical Library; London:
William Heinemann, 1917-44.
Tacitus, The Histories and The Annals, with an English Translation by
Clifford. Moore and Join NFRE6a. 1 vols.; The Loeb Classical
Library; London: William Heinemann, 1937.
Theodoret and Evagrius, A History of the Church, Translated from the
Greek. London: Henry G. Bohn, 254. WO pp.
C. SECONDARY SOURCES
Airey, Wilfred J., "The Four Divisions of Alexander's Empire." An

unpublished paper. La Sierra College, Arlington, California. 17 pp.
Alexander, Archibald, A History of the Israelitish Nation. Philadel-
phia: William S. riata
-
r1853.
7117 620 pp.
Alzog, John, History of the Church, F. J. • Pabisch and Thomas S. Byrne,
translators. 3 vEls.; New Benziger Brothers, 1912.
"Antiochus," The Encyclopedia Americana, II, 35,36.
"Antiochus," The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th edition, II, 72.
Arnold, Thomas., The Caliphate. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press,
1924. 223 pp.
Beet, William Ernest, The Medieval Papacy and other Essays. First
edition; London: "Mules H. Kerr, 19*14. 33.4 pp.
, The Rise of the Papacy, A.D. 385-461. First edition; London:
CharlFi-H. Ken:7,7710. 321 pp.
Bevan, Edwyn Robert, The House of Seleucus. 2 vols.; London: Edward
Arnold, Publisher to the India Office, 1902.
Boak, Arthur E. R., A. History of Rome to 565 A.D.. Revised edition;
New /ork: The Lac Company, 1758. 476 pp.
Bury, J. B., et al., editors, The Cambridge Medieval History.
Vols. VI, VII, VIII. New ualc: The MacMillan Company, 1932-6.

110
, The Student's Roman Empire. New York: Harper,& Brothers
Publishers, 1893. 638 pp.
Chandler, Samuel, The History of Persecution. London: Printed for
J. Gray, at the Cross Keys in the Poultry, 1736. 468 pp.
Cook, S. A., F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, editors, The
Cambridge Ancient History. Vols. VII, VIII, IX, X. Caaffdge:
At the University FiFir,-1927-34.
Duchesne, Louis, Early History of the Christian Church From Its
Foundation to-ZEZ-tnd of the TER Century. 3 vols.; al--
edition; New 77krlongmans, Green &Company, 1911.
re
Froom, Le Roy Edwin, The Pro hetic Faith of Our Fathers. 4 vols.,
No. IV as yet unilElis e Washington D: C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 19116-50.
Gibbons, James Cardinal, The Faith of Our Fathers. 110th edition;
Baltimore, Maryland: 751-EIEWFcomparly, 1917. 428 pp.
Gigot, Francis E., "The Book of Daniel," The Catholic Encyclopedia,
IV, 622.
Gladstone, W. E., The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil
Allegiance; A. MiticalExpostulatnn. New York: Harper &
Brothers, Publishers, 1875. 172 pp.
Gosselin, M., The Power of the Pope During the Middle .422, Trans-
lated by Matthew Kelly. 2 vols.; Baltimore, Maryland:
J. Murphy & Company, 1853.
Graetz, Heinrich, History of the Jews. 6 vols.; Philadelphia: The
Jewish :Publication Society of7Wrica, 1940.
Grey, Edward McQueen, Old Testament Criticism. New York: Harper &
Brothers, PublisheR, 192). 252 pp.
Hefele, Charle6 Joseph, A History of the Christian CouncilsFrom
3
The
Original Documents. 5 votes.; second edition; Edinburgh;---
Scotland: T. & Clark, 1876-96.
Horn, Siegfried H., and Lynn H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7. Wash-
ington, D. C., 1953. 160 pp.
Horn, Siegfried H., "The Seventh Year of Artaxerxes The Ministry
For World Evangelism, 26:23-25,45,46, June, 1953.

111
Jones, L. Bevan, The People of the Mosque. London: Student Christian
Movement Press, 17527j27 pp.
Jouguet, Pierre, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the
East, translated by M. R. Dobie. ilerYoFEF Alfred A. Kno7,7928.
040 pp.
Kohler, K., Jewish Theology Systematically and Historically Considered.
New Yorks Th7 MacMillan Company, 1928.505 pp.
Kuenen, A., The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State,
translated from the Dutch by Alfred HeeMlle7.—j VrErs7 London:
Williams and Norgate, 1875.
Lea, Henry Charles, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.
3 vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers, i&U.
Liguori, Alphonsus de, edited by Rev. Eugene Grimm, Dignity and Duties
of the Priest; or, Selva. New York: Benziger Brothers,7rinters
17) the Holy ApoiTo1377ge, 1888. 480 pp. Approbation, Elias Fred.
Schauer, Sup. Prov. Baltimorensis. Baltimore, Maryland, August 15,
1888.
Llorente, Juan Antonio, The History of the Inquisition of Spain.
Second edition; London: Printeef of Geo. B. WhitterVT827.
583 pp.
Mahaffy, John Pentland, The Story of A3exander's Empire. New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sonslrum---533-pp.
Manning, Henry Edward, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Second edition; LoMin: Burns Lambert I7 ParViaFStreet,
1862. 255 pp.
Maxwell, C. Mervyn, "An Exegetical and Historical Examination of the
Beginning and Ending of the 1260 Days of Prophecy With Special
Attention Given to A.D. 538 and 1798, As Initial and Terminal
Dates." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary, Takoma Park, Viraihington, D. C.: 1951.
Mears, John W., From Exile to Overthrow: A History of the Jewish
People. Phirdelph—Tr: Presbyterian Board of PuToTicatii177. 81.
475 pp.
Milton, Henry Hart, The History of the Jews from The Earliest Period
Down to ModernTries. 3 vols.; Neirriirk: A. C. Armstrong and
gOli; 11193.--

112
Mondics, Benjamin J., "Breakup of the Grecian Empire." Unpublished
Master's Thesis; Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,
Takoma Park, Washington, D. C.: 1951
Morrison, William Douglas, The Jews Under Roman Rule. Second edition;
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 797 426 pp.
Muir, William, The Caliphate, Its Rise, Decline and Fall. Third
edition; London: Smith, Mier & cagivlugu.--678 pp.
Newman, John Henry, The Pope: How Far Does He Control Conscience? How
Far Does He InteM-re With Mizensha*-7 New-7737k:
- The Catholic—
Book Exchange, 1904. app.
OtDonnoelue, H. C., The History of the Church and Court of Rome: From
the Establishmenra Christianity under constaiTai,-Eo-TE Present
Time. 2 vols.; London: IL Tegg and J. Mason, 1846.
Priori, Marino, B4ne and the Pope. Indianapolis, Indiana: Eternal
Light Publishing Company, 1925. 109 pp..
Pusey, E. B., Daniel The Prophet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Pub-
lishers, 1865. 519-pp.
Raclin, Max, The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans. Philadelphia: The
Jewish PUEliarloirrociFg ZrAirer175., 1915. 1421 pp.
Rawlinson, George, The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy. New York: Dodd,
Mead & Compahy,-TEM. VW:
Renan, Ernest, History of the People of Israel from the Rule of. the
Persians to that of- heGreeks. Vol. IV; Boston; Roberts
Brothers
Riggs, James Stevenson, A History of the Jewish People. 4 vols.;
New York: Charles SFrIBEgiT5 Tia,-1921.
Rollin, Charles, The Ancient, History. 4 vols.; New York: John B.
Alden, Publisher, 1665.
Rostovtzeff, M., A History of the Ancient World. 2 vols.; Oxford:
At the Clarendon Press, 79367
Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church. Vols. IV, V part
V part II, VI; New !rk: Charles Scribnerts Sons, 1911-15.
Scharer, Emil, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus
Christ. Second edition; 2 Div., 5 vols.; New Y5777 Charles
gall:Eerie Sons, n. d.

113
Schuckburgh, E. S., Greece From the Coming of the Hellenes to A.D. 14.
New York: G. P.-TaTam's Sons, 1903: Ta6 PP.--------
Seignobos, Charles, History of the Roman People)Translation by William
Fairley. New York: HenryHolt and 1908. 528 pp.
Spence-Jones, H. D. M., The Early Christians in Rome. New York: John
lane Company, 1911. -79 PP.
Von Grunebaum, Gustave E., Medieval Islam, A Study in Cultural
Orientation. Chicago: TheTariggity of Chicago tress, 1916.
365 pp.
Weninger, F. X., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the
Pope, When Te-aaing the FillEralTInd on His Relation to a General
Councir--kew'rork: D. & J. a:alter & Company, 266. 36E PP.
White, Ellen G., Gospel Workers. Revised edition; Washington, D. C.:
Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1944. 534 pp.
$ Patriarchs and Prophets. Mountain View, California: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1913. 793 pp.
Yost, Frank H., "Secular Activities of the Episcopate in Gaul to 639."
Doctor's. Dissertation; The University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska, November 17, 1942., 359 pp.
Yost, Frank H., "Antichrist in History and Prophecy," Our Firm Founda-
tion. - Vol. I; Washington, D. C.:• Review and Herald Pu=shing
Asociation, 1953. 736 pp.
Zwemer, Samuel 14., Islam: A Challenge to Faith. Second revised
edition; London: Marshall Brothers, LTD., Publishers, 1909.
295 PP.
D. BIBLIOCRApHY FOR APPENDIX B
Alleman, Herbert C., and Elmer E. Flack, editors, Old Testament Commen-
tary. Philadelphia: The Nuhlenberg Press, 1977 79-5-57
Anderson, Robert, Daniel in the Critics' Den. New York: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1902.--Igrpp.
Auchincloss, W. S., The Only Key to Daniel's Prophecies. New York:
D. Van Norstrand . Company Scientific Book Publishers, 1904: 207 pp.

114
Battenfield, John Adam, and Philip Yancey Pendleton, The Great Demon-
stration, A Harmony of all the Pro hetic Visions of tE- Ho
Ohio: The tandard
S u shang Company, 1-91147762 pp.
Baxter, Michael M. , Forty Pro hetic Wonders. New York: The Christian
Herald Bible HouTF,- 19 . PP.
Bever, Julius August, The Literature of the Old Testament. Revised
edition; New York: Columbia UniverTgy-Pfess, 1933. 14.6)4 pp.
Blair, Edward Payson, The Acts And Apocalyptic Literature. New York:
Abingdon-Coke sbury-Tiria7--194-6. 160 pp.
Bloomfield, Arthur Edward, What Daniel Knew About Hitler. First
edition; Rochester, NeTOrk: The Interstate Evangelistic Asso-
ciation, Inc., 1936. 72 pp.
Boutflower, Charles, In and Around the Book of. Daniel. London: Society
for Promoting Chrrit37-n Kx
—iat71;dge, 1923. 314517
Briegleb, Gustave A., The Layman's Handbook of Daniel. Los A.ngeles:
Publisher not given, 1923. 1314 pp.
Butler, James Glentworth, The Bible-Work. The Old Testament. Vol. DC;
New York: The Butler Mle-Work Company, 1374. 657 pp.
Carroll, Benajah Harvey, "Daniel' and the Inter-Biblical Period," An
Interpretation of the. English Bible. Vol. IV; New York: Flering
H. Revell Company, 191. 257 577
Chamberlin, Myron Holly, Comments on Daniel. Second edition revised;
Los Angeles: Paul C. Brown Printing Company, 1932. 309 pp.
Charles, Robert Henry, editor, The New Century Bible. Vol. XIX; New
York: Henry. Frowde, OxfordMiversity Press, American Branch,
1913. 152 pp.
Cheyne, T. K., and J. Sutherland Black, editors, Encyclopaedia Biblica.
4 vols.; New York: The MacMillan Company, 16)9.
Childe, Frederick W., Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation Compared.
Los Angeles: Publisher? Published by request, 1927. 9ti pp.
Cobern, Camden McCormack, Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. VIII;
New York: Eaton & Mains, 1901.
Cohen, Simon, "Daniel," The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia III, 465.

us
C mpanion Bible. London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press,
1932. 1914 and 227 pp.
Cornill, Carl Heinrich, Introduction, to the Canonical Books of the Old
Testament, translated by G. H. Box. New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1907. 556 pp.
Creelmar4 Harlan, An Introduction to The Old Testament. New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1927: 73 PP.
Darter, Francis M., The Time of the Dad. Los Angeles: Wetzel Pub-
lishing Company,-1707-295 PP. -
Deane, H., Daniel: His Life and Times. New York: Anson D. F.
Randolph & Compaq: 11773.--70-667
De Haan, Martin Ralph, Daniel The Prophet. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishinillarie71947. 539 pp.
De Moss, Jas. A. A Look Through The Lens of Pro hecy. Cincinnati,
Ohio: The StairdaM lu
blishing67imp,79 . pp.
Dods, Marcus, et al., editors, An Exposition of the Bible. Vol. IV;
Hartford, Connecticut: The S. S. ScRabirCaTaR771910. 922 pp.
Driver, S. R., "The Book of Daniel," The Cambridg
e Bible for Schools
and Colleges. Vol. 26; Cambridge: At he niversity-Fiess, 1936.
Dummelow, J. R., editor, A Commentary, on The Holy Bible. New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1940. 1'072 PP.
Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors,
The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New 'York: Abingdon-Cokesbury
PYiss, 1929. 1452 pp..
"The Book of Daniel," The Encyclopedia Americana, VIII, 454.
Fisher, Harriet I., The Story of Daniel. Findlay, Ohio: Fundamental
Truth Publishers, n.77177 pp
Fowler, Henry Thatcher, A History of the Literature of Ancient Israel
from the Earliest Tines to 135-11C New Ark: 7111TEMITER---
765any, 1927. 3927F. -
Gaebelein, A. C., The Prophet Daniel. New York: Publication Office
"Our Hope," MI. 22d 1457-----
(Insberg, Harold Louis, Studies In. Daniel. New York: The Jewish
Theological Seminary of Aneina, 194b. 92 pp.

116
Glenn, William Newton, Things Foretold, Past, Present, and Future.
Oakland, California: Pacific Press PUEiiiiiniTiimpany, 1903.
112 pp.
Gore, Charles, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors,

A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1.92d. 143 pp.
Gortner, J. Narver, Studies in Daniel. Springfield 1, Missouri:
Gospel Publishing House,-I9140. 204 pp.
Gray, James M., Christian Workers' Commentary on the Old and New
57 -WI pp.
Testaments. New York: Fleming H. Revell Comii35y, 191-
Hastings, James, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible. t vols.; New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1873.---
Havernick, Heinrich August Christ., "The Book of Daniel," A. Cyclo-

paedia of Biblical Literature, I, 618,619.
Hawley, Charles Arthur, The Teaching of Apoe ha and Apocalypse.
New York: Association Press, 1923: pp. -
Hennings, E., Daniel the Prophet in the Latter Days. Brooklyn,
New York: The doWirant PubliZing COn7Fny, 1920. 560 pp.
Henry, Matthew, A Commentary on the Holy Bible. Vol. IV; London:

Marshall BroThers„ Limite71757--g8I-7-1520 pp.
Herbermann, Charles G., et al., editors, "Daniel," The Catholic
Encyclopedia, IV, 622.
Heslop, William Greene, Diamonds from Daniel. Second edition; Grand
Rapids 6, Michigan; Baker BoZrffou7571946. 186 pp.
Irwin, Clarke Huston, editor, The Universal Bible Commentary. London:
The Religious Tract Society, 19213. 575 pp.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, David Brownl A Commentary Critical,
Experimental and Practical on the Old and ifew Testaments. 6 vols.
Grand Rapids„-MIehigan: lArm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1945.
Jenkins, Ethel Stout, The Time of the End. Washington D. C.:
Publisher not listed, 174. 355pp.
Kent, Charles Foster, The Student's Old Testament. 6 vols.; New/brk:
Charles Scribnerts-nns,1910.

117
Kip, Abraham Lincoln, The Prophecies of Daniel. New York: The
Knickerbocker Pres-6, 1919. 244 PP.
Kolvoord, John and Moses E. Kellogg, The Vision of the Evening and The
Morning. Battle Creek, Michigan: No publisgi-listed, 19077 ---
n9 PP.
Lange, John Peter, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, translated
from the German and edited bni-YErliirgilaff. 25 vols.; New York:
Charles Scribnerfs Sons, 1915. Vol. XIII.
Larkin, Clarence, The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: Published by
Rev. Clarence Larkii-rEgt., 1777:- 267 pp.
Lattey, C., The Book of Daniel. Dublin, Ireland: Browne and Nolan
. Limited. The RicNiss Dublin, 198. 143 PP.
Lee, James Vir., editor, The Self-Interpreting Bible. 4 vols.:
St. Louis, MissouriTM. D. Thompson Publishing Company, Publishers,
1905.
Leupold, Herbert Carl, EXposition of Daniel. Columbus, Ohio: The
Wartburg Press, 1949. 549 PP.
Luthi, Walter, Daniel ,peaks to the Church, translated by John M.
Jensen. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augiburg Publishing House, 1947.
140 PP.
McFadyen, John Edgar, Introduction to. the Old Testament. Fourth
edition; London: Hodder and STOialiEoi-c1909. 356 pp.
Manson, Thomas Walter, editor, A Companion to The Bible. New York:
Charles Scribner f s Sons 19'47. 515 pp.
Mauro, Philip, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Revised
edition; SwengarizZinsWanraT Elle Truth Depot, I. C. Herendeen,
1944. 279 pp.
Montgomery, James A., flA Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Daniel„ff The International Critical Commentary. Vol. XXII;
New York: CMles Scribnerfs EM-7-1721. 488 pp.
Morgan, George Campbell, The Analyzed Bible. Vol. II; New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1908. 285 pp.
Mueller, John Theodore, editor, The Concordia Bible. St. Louis,
Missouri: Concordia Publishing Souse, 194b711491 pp.

118
Myers, Thomas, editor, Calvin's Commentaries. Vol. IXV; Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmanrs Publishing Company, 1948. 409 pp.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, The Expositor's Bible. Vol. XIII; New York:
A. C. Armstrong an'rgon, 1906. 33.477
°esterley, William Oscar Emil, and Theodore H. Robinson, An Introduction
to the Books of the Old Testament. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge. Nev c: The. MacMillan Company, 1941.
454 pp.
Orr, Jams, et al., editors, The International Standard Bible Encyclo-
paedia. Vol. II; Chicag37- The Howard-Severance Company, 1930.
669-1376 pp.
Peake, Arthur S., and A. J. Grieve, editors, .A Commentary on the Bible.
New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1742. 1014
Petrie, Arthur, The Message of Daniel. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Christian Pan:cations, rnc., 1947. 159 pp.
Pettingill, William, Simple Studies in Daniel. First edition; Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania: blished by Fred Kei.key, 1909. 117 pp.
Pfeiffer, Robert H., Introduction to The Old Testament,. First edition;
New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941. 917 pp.
Porter, Frank Chamberlin, The Messages of the Bible. Vol. VIII; New
York: Charles Scribne-Fri Sons, I. —567-57
Rand, Howard B., Study in Daniel. Haverhill, Massachusetts: Destiny
Nblishers, 1977 753 pp.
Robinson, T., The Preacher's Complete Homiletic Commentary on the Old,
TestamentrVol. 5tIX; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Coraparq, n U77"
323 pp.
Rowley, H. H., Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book
of Daniel. -TaTcrifT,—Eirgignar UnivriatF=Wales Pre Board,
1735. 195 pp.
Scofield, C. I., editor, The Holy Bible. New York: Oxford University
Press, American BrancE717177 1370 pp.
Slotki, Judah J., Daniel Ezra and Nehemiah, Hebrew Text and English
Translation wit an London: The
Soncino Press, 1915. 278 pp.

33.9
Smith, George Adam, Jerusalem, The Topography, Economics and History
11M••••••
from the Earliest Times to A. D. 70. 2 vols.; New YTS: A. C.

Armstrong and Son, .
Smith, Harry Framer, The Unveiling of the Priest-Judge. Philadelphia:
Published by Westbrook Publishing Comiali,79=83 pp.
Smith, Uriah, Daniel and the Revelation. A special edition; Nashville,
Tennessee :r` Erblishing Association, 1944. 830 pp.
Soares, Theodore Gerald, The. Origins of the Bible. First edition;
New York: Published by Harp
eTE Bragr717,141. 277 pp.
Spence, H. D. M., and Joseph S. Exell, editors, The Pulpit Commentary.
Vol. XXIX; New edition; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company,
n d. 349 pp.
Stevens, W. C., The Book of Daniel. Oakland, California: Hebron
Home Office,-19157251
Stirling, John, editor, The Bible For Today. London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 19141. 1235 15157—
Talbot, Louis T., The Prophecies of Daniel in the Light of Past,
Present, and Firure Events. US Angeles: By ran T. TMot
Pastor, Cch of the Open Door, 1940. 320 pp.
Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic Civilization. Second edition; London:
Edward Arnold & Company, 1936. 334 pp.
Torrey, Charles Cutler, "Bools of Daniel," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
fourteenth edition, VII, 29.
Townsend, Jewett C.., The Modern. Approach to the Old Testament.
Boston, MassachuseVs: The Stratford Company, Pablishers, 1934.
239 pp.
Vuilleumier, John, Future Unrolled or Studies on the Prophecies of
Daniel. Boston, Massadhusetts: Richard G. Badger, Publisher,
The Gorham Press, 1928. 201 pp.
Wilson, Dorothy F., "Daniel," The Teachers? Commentary. 1 vol.;
New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1932. 430 pp.
Wilson, Joseph D., "The Book of Daniel," The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of .Religious Knowledge, III, 79'•

120
Wilson, Luther H., The Lost Dream. n. p.; no publisher, copyright,
1907.. by Luther H. Wilson. 240 pp.
Wilson, Robert Dick, Studies in the Book of Daniel, Second Series.
New York: Fleming H. Ref61173mTEER,-19387286-157-- ---
Wright, Charles H. H., Daniel and His Prophecies. London: Williams

and Norgate, 334 1906.
-75 ---
Young, Edward Joseph, The Prophecy of Daniel, A. Ccamentary. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans 'Publishing Company, 190.
330 pp.
t.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
An Historical Development of the Teachings

On The Little Horns Of Daniel 7 and 8. The Source
For This Appendix Is L. E. groom, Prophetic Faith
Of Our Fathers, Four Volumes

Little Horn Little Horn Volume
NO.
4INMIONE.
Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
1 Daniel 6th Hebrew. Babylon Persecuting Fierce King 1-128-31
Cent. Power
B.C.
Jesus Christ A.D. Christian Palestine Abomination 1-145
of Desolation
3 Flavius Josephus c.100 Jew Palestine Antiochus Epiphanes 1-201

& Rome (Later thought Rome
the fulfiller)
Epistle of Barnabas c.150 Author a ',Black One!' - -a 1-210-11

Christian little king.
5 Irenaeus c.202 Christlan Lyons, France Antichrist Antichrist 1-246,47
Hippolytus c.236 Christian. Porto, Italy Antichrist,. Aht1ochus 1-273-77

Jew from the Epiphanes
tribe of Dan
7 Tertuilian 0.240 Christian Carthage Three horns, 1-259

N. Africa little horn,
&32 times spans
period between
advents
Origen c.254 Christian Alexandria, (filled with Antichrist 1-317,20

Egypt enigmas & as the son
dark sayings) of the Devil
kA)

No. Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
9 Cyprian 43.258 Christian Carthage, Antichrist 1-335

N.Africa Epiphanes
--a type
10 Porphyry c+304 Syrian. Syria Antiochus 1.-329,782
Sophist Epiphanes
Neoplatonic
Philosopher
11 Victorinus c.304 Christian Pettau— Antichrist 1-341,44

near modern (looked for
Vienna a Raman
Antichrist
12 Lactantius 0.330 Christian Nicomedia— Antichrist 1-356,57

in Asia Minor (a powerful
northern enemy)
13 Jacob Aphrahat c.350 Christian Persia Antiochus Epfr Romans 1-40,4

phanes
14 Athanasius 373 Christian Alexandria, Antichrist 1-392

Egypt (Constantius
—the image of
Antichrist)
15 Ephraim Ephrem) 373 Christian Edessa, Antiochus Antiochus 1-406

Syria Epiphanes Epiphanes
16 Cyril 386 Christian Jerusalem, Antichrist 1-413

Palestine

No. Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 &t *Fage
17 John Chrysostom. 407 Christian Constantin- Antichrist I-4428
ople
18 Jerome 420 Christian Rome and Antichrist I-413
Palestine
19 Polychronius 430 Christian Syria Antiochus 1-432,31
Epiphanes
20 Augustine d.43o Christian N. Africa Antichrist 1-486
21 Theodoret 457 Christian Syria Antichrist 1-453
•
22 Gregory d.6o4 Catholic " Italy Antichrist 1-522

(forerunner
is Antiochus
--a future antichrist
--a Jew from tribe of Dan)
23 Andreas 7th Greek Caesarea -in Antichrist 1-570
Cent. Christian Cappadocia, (will ornament
A.D. Asia Minor himself with the
title of king of
Romans)
21 "Sargis d tAbergafi 7th An Ethiopian False Messiah 1-574
Cent. Ms.
A.D.
25 Venerable Bede d.735 Catholic Englaid Antichrist I-613

Little Horn Little Horn. Volume
No. `Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
26 Saadia ben Joseph c.942 Jew Gaon of Sura King!' 11-201
Babylonia
27 Jephet Ibn. Ali Halevi 10th Jew (Karaite)Palestine Mohammedanism Mohammedanism II-207
Cent:
A.D.
28 Rashi (Solomon ben d.1105 France Titus 11-210
Isaac)
29 Guibert 0.1124 Catholic Puy, France Antichrist 1-790
30 Abraham Ibn Ezra d:1167 Jew Spain Titus 11-211
(Karaite-
leanings)
31 Joachim of Floris d4.1202 Catholic Italy Future king Antichrist I-702
(Spiritual (whose type
Antiochus held)
32. Maimonides (or Moses d.12014 Jew Spain and. Jesusi II-215
ben. Malmon) Egypt (Regarded Jesus
as false pro-
phet)
33 Eberhard. II d.1246 Catholic. Germany Papacy 1,798-800
34 Pseudo-Joachim c.1248 Anonymous Frederick II Frederick II 1-726
Commentaries Writings (He is a forerunner of Antichrist)
35 Thomas Aquinas d.12714 Catholic Italy Antichrist Antiochus and I-656 1;-)
a
Antichrist

No. Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 8c Page
36 Pierre Jean dIOli d.1298 Catholic France Antiochus 1-776

(Spiritual) Epiphanes
(also 2300 days
as years)
37 John of Paris d.1306 Catholic France Antiochus 1-782

Epiphanes
38 John IVtlif c.1379 Catholic England Papacy—

then. Lollard Antichrist
39 Hantm Galipapa c.1380 Jew Spain.- Antiochus 11214

Epiphanes
(Preterist--
Antedates Alcazar
by three cents.)
40 Walter Brute 0.1393 Christian England "Bishop of Rome" II-76,77

(Lollard)
41 Don Isaac Ben Judah d.1508 Marrano Portugal Papacy Romans 11-227,30
Abravanel (Christianized & Spain.
Jew)
Martin Luther 1522 Protestant Germany papacy, Turk Papacy 11-261,68

not always (Antiochus a
consistent symbol)
43 Johann Oecolampadius 1530 Protestant Switzerland Papacy
44 William Tyndale c 1536 Protestant England Papacy 11-356 t5

No. Interpreter Date Religion place Daniel 7 Daniel 8. & Page
1543 Protestant Germany Mohammedanism Antiochus 11-289 90
45 Philipp Melanchthon
Epiphanes
as a type of
the Papacy
46 Andreas Osiander 1545 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-299
47 George Joy 1545 Protestant England Papacy 11-362

48 John Knox 1547 Protestant Scotland Papacy 11-453
49 John Bale 1550 Anglican England Papacy 11-397
50 Michael Servetus d.1553 Unitarian Spain Papacy 11-440
Switzerland
Germany
51 Nicolaus von Amsdorf 1554 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-305

52 Heinrich Bullinger 1557 Protestant Switzerland Papacy Papacy 11 343-44
53 Johann Funck 1558 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-309

54 Virgil sons . 1560 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-314
55 Alf onus Conradus . 16th Protestant Italy and Papacy 11-319

Cent Switzerland
56 John Jewel 1562 Anglican England Papacy 11-410
57 Jean(John) Calvin d,1564 Protestant France Julius Caesar 11-436 co

Switzerland and" other Caesars
Thomas Bacon Anglican England Papacy 11-403

58 c.1567
- Little Horn Little Horn Volume
No. Interpreter Date Religion place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
59 Georg Nigrinus 1570 Protestant Germany Pope & Turk 11-329 .
60 David Chytraeus 1572 Protestant Germany Papacy 11...331
61 Thomas Rogers 1577 Anglican England Papacy 11-405
62 Nikolaus Selnecker 1579 Protestant Germany Turk 11-.324
63 Thomas Cranmer 1582 Anglican England Papacy 11-347

(Antiochus,
a figure of
Antichrist)
6)4 Tobias Stimmer d.1584 Protestant Switzerland Papacy 11-347
65 Edwin Sandys d.1588 Anglican England Papacy 11-419
66 Francisco Ribera 1590 Catholic Salamanca. Future Antiochus 11-489093

Spain - Antichrist Epiphanes
67 Robert Ballarmine 1593 Catholic Italy A single king 11-499

(Antiochus eras
a figure of)
68 James I (King) 1600 Anglican England Papacy 11-541
69 George Downham 1603 Protestant England Papacy Papacy 11535
70 George Pacard 1604 Protestant France Papacy 11-628
71. Hugh Broughton 1607 Protestant England Antiochus I1-565

Epiphanes

72 Luis de Alcazar d.1613 Catholic Spain Antiochus 11-5o8
Epiphanes
Thomas Brightman 1614 Protestant . England Papacy 11-517

73
714 Joseph Riede 1631 Protestant England Papacy . 11-545
75 Henry Archer 17th Protestant England Papacy 11-567,68

cent.
76 Johann Heinrich d.1630 Protestant Germany Literally-- 11-610
Alsted Antiochus Epiphanes
In type—Roman antichrist
77' John Cotton 1639 Protestant America Papacy 111-37,38

78 Roger Williams 1644 Protestant America Papacy III-252
(Baptist)
79 Ephraim Huit 1644 Protestant America. Turkish State Antiochus 111-63 64

—however, Epiphanes-
Papacy is
Antichrist
80 Thomas Parker 1646 Protestant America. Papacy 111-68
81 John Tillinghast 1655 Protestant England Papacy 11-570

82 Manasseh ben Israel d. 1657 Marrano Holland Mohanmiedanism 11-238 I-,
0
83 Pierre de Launay d.1661 Protestant France Papacy 11-633
84 Henry More 1664 Protestant England Papacy 11-564
No. Interpreter. Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
85 Samuel Hutchinson 1667 Protestant America Papacy 111-102
86 Increase Mather 1669 Protestant America Papacy

(Congrega-
tionalist)
87 Johannes Cocceius d.1669 Protestant Germany Papacy Antiochus 11-614,15

Epiphanes
88 William Sherwin 1670 Protestant England Papacy
89 Thomas Beverly 1684 Protestant England Papacy 11484
90 Pierre Jurieu 1687 Protestant France Papacy 3.639
91 true Cressener 1689 Anglican England Papacy Ii-593, 96
92 Nicholas Noyes 1698 Protestant America Papacy
William Lawth 1700 Protestant England Papacy Anti ochus 11-670, 71

93
Epiphanes-
a type of
papal antichrist-
94 Bpbert Fleming, Jr. 1701 Protestant Scotland, Papacy 11-6145

Netherlands
Cotton Mather 1702 Protestant America Papacy 111-155 -

95
(Congrega-
tionalist)
96 Georg Hermann 17.02 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-702

Giblehr
97 William Whiston 1706 Protestant England Papacy 11-673

No. Interpreter Date Religion Place Little Horn Little Horn Volume
Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page .
98 Heinrich Horch 1712 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-699-700
99 "An Exposition of 1719 Turks 11-657 .

the Revelationsu
100 William Burnet 1724 Protestant America Papacy 11-170
101 Sir Isaac Newton 1727 Protestant England Papacy Rome 11-.661,662
102 Jonathan Edwards 1739 Protestant America Papacy 111-184
(Congregational)
103 Johann Albrecht Bengel 1740- Protestant Germany Not ,ratio— 11-713
chus Epiphanes
104 Berlenberg Bible 1743 Germany Papacy 11-703

105 John Willis on 1745 Protestant Scotland Papacy 11-729
106 Thomas Newton 1754 Protestant England restern Rome Rome u-685
107 Thomas Pyle d.1756 Protestant England Papacy 11-680
108 Sayer Rudd M. D. d.1757 Protestant England Papacy 11-681
109 Ezekiel Cheever 1757 Protestant America Papacy 111-252
110 Aaron Burr 1757 Protestant America Papacy 111-199
(Presbyterian) A3
111 Isaac Backus 1767 Protestant America "Bishop of Rome n 111-252

(Baptist)

No0 Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
112 Johann Philipp Petri 1768 Protestant Germany Turks Typically, II-715
Anti ochus,.
(but principally
prophetic days, yrs.)
113 Samuel Mather 1769 Protestant America Papacy 111-179

(son of Cotton)
114 John Gill d01771 Protestant England papacy 11-683
115 Hans wood 1787 Protestant Ireland Papacy Papacy 11-721
116 Benjamin Gale 1788 Protestant America Papacy 111-217

117 Christian G. Thube 1789 Protestant Germany Papacy 11-777
118 James Bicheno 1793 Protestant England Papacy 11-747

119 Samuel Hopkins 1793 Protestant America Papacy Pagan and 111-219
(Congregational Papal Rome
120 Samuel Osgood 1794 Protestant America 1,Popen 111-222,23

(1260 yrs linked
to Mohammedan power)
121 William Linn 1794 Protestant America Papacy 111-228

(Presbyterian)
122 David Austin 1794 Protestant America Papacy 111-241
123 George Bell 1795 Protestant England Papacy 11-743
124 Joshua Spaulding 1796 Protestant America Papacy III 234

N. Interpreter Date Religion Place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & page
125 David Simpson 1797 Protestant England Papacy 11-775

126 Edward,King 1798 Protestant England Papacy 11-767
127 Richard Valpy 1798 Protestant England Papacy 11-771
128 Jean G. de la 1800 Protestant England Papacy Papacy 11-688
Flechere
129 Joseph Galloway c.1803 Protestant America and Not a type 11-781
England of the Pope
but of a political
power
130 William Hales 1803 Protestant- Ireland papacy 111-332

131 G. Stanley Faber 1804 Protestant England Papacy. Mohanmedanism III-340, 41
132 Joseph Prie stley d.1804 Protestant England Papacy 11-746

133 Thomas Scott 1805 Anglican. England papacy First held-- III-348,49
Romans
Later, Mohammedans
134 Andrew Fuller 1810 Protestant England Papacy 111-353

(Baptist)
135 Adam. Clarke 1810 Protestant Ireland flPopedanu 111-355

(Methodist) and England
136 Samuel Toovey 1813 Protestant England Papacy 111-356

137 Charles David Mait— 1813 Protestant England papacy Papacy 111-362,63
land
138 William eunninghame 1813 Protestant England Papacy Romanism 111-286,

366,69
139 James Hatley Frere 1815 Protestant England papacy Mohammedanism 111-387,88
140 William. Burgh 19th Protestant Ireland Future 111-281
Cent.
A.D.
141 "Jewish Expositor" -tiBtr England Mohammedanism III-426
1816
142 "Jewish Expdsitoru "C" England Moharrilnedanism 111-428
143 'William C. Davis 1818 Protestant America Papacy Roman Empire 111-393,95
(Presbyterian)
3)01 Peter Roberts d01819 Anglican Ireland PapaGY 111-408
145 P. Bolton. 1819" England Papacy Mohammedanism 111-426
146 Archibald Mason 1820 Protestant Scotland Papacy 111-397
(Presbyterian
147 John Bayford 1820 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism III-409,10
148 Henry Gauntlett 1821 Protestant England Papacy 111-431
149 Joseph Wolff 1822 Protestant England & Papacy Roman Empire 111-4751744
(Jewish birth) Germany

150- John. Fry 1822 Protestant England. Papacy Mohanmedanism. 111-1490=192

11
151 John Aquila Brown 1823 J, Protestant England Mohammedanism I11-14.06

152 Pierre Jean Agier 1823 Catholic France "Christian Rome" 111-484, 85
(Jansenist)
153 Edward Cooper 1825 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism 111-538,39

154, Samuel R. Maitland 1826 Protestant England. Future Not Mohamme- 111-281
danism
155 Edward Irving 1826 protestant Scotland Papacy Mohammedanism 111-521,22

& England
156 George Croly 1827 Protestant Ireland Papacy~ 72414
157 Edward T. Vaughan 1828 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism 111-524.8
158 Thomas Keyworth 1828 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism. III-553

(Congregational)
159 Gerard Thomas Noel 1828 Protestant England Papacy Iii-744

(Baptist)
160 Alexander Keith 1828 Protestant Scotland Papacy Mohammedanism 111-624,26
161 "Dialogues on 1828,29 (Views of the participants Papacy 111-457

Prophecy" of the Albany Park Prophetic
Conferences)
162 Robert Vaughan 1829 Protestant England Papacy 1114556

(Congregational)
163 Alfred Addis 1829 Protestant England Papacy 111-557

No. Interpreter Date Religion place Daniel 7 Daniel 8 & Page
164 John Hooper 1829 Anglican England Papacy III-564
165 William Pym 1829 Anglican England Papacy Similar to II_T-571,72

Papal Horn
of Daniel 7
166 Philip Allwood 1829 Protestant England . :Papacy 577
167 - Lt. C. H. nOod 1829 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism III-616 , 74)4
168 Henry Drummond 1830 Protestant England Papacy 11I-108
169 William Jones 1830 Protestant England Papacy 111-512

(Baptist)._
170 Edward. Hoare 1830 protestant Ireland Papacy Mohammedanism III 581T86
(Episcopal)
171 James A. Begg 1831 Protestant Scotland Papacy 111-561

172 11illiam Digby 1831 Protestant Ireland Papacy 111-587
173 James Leslie 1831 'Protestant Scotland Papacy
174 Joshua William Brooks 1831 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism I11-606
175 William Thorp 1831 Protestant England. Papacy
176 John Cox. 1832 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism 11I-627,7-

(Baptist)
177 Matthew Habershon 1834 Protestant England Papacy Mohammedanism 111-635

No. Interpreter Date Religion place Daniel ' 7 Daniel 8 & Page
178 Daniel Wilson 1836 protestant England Papacy Papacy ni.621, 744
& India
179 Louis Gaussen 1837 Protestant Switzerland Pap'acy Mohammedanism 111-692
180 Joseph. Tyso 1838 protestant England Future Future 111-732
Antichrist
181 Johann Heinrich 1839 Protestant Germany papacy 111-703,784
Richter
182 William E. Girdle- d.1840 Protestant England Mohammedanism 111-433
stone
183 Charlotte Elizabeth 1840 Protestant England Papacy 111-644
184 James H. Todd 1840 Anglican Ireland Future 111-661
185 John Henry Newman 1814.1 Anglican, England Future 111-667
then Catholic
186 Thomas R, Birks 1843 Anglican England Papacy Roman. Empire 111-711,12
187 John Cumming 1843 Protestant Scotland Papacy III-714,44
188 u1843” Chart 1843 . Boston papacy Rome, Fagan s-Ir-29
General Conference and Papal
189 Edward Bishop Elliot 1844 Protestant England papacy Mohammedanism 111-720,21
t.a.)
190 Charles Fitch d.1844 Protestant America Papacy Rome 5-11-18
(Presbyterian)
191 Joseph Baylee 1845 Protestant Ireland Papacy 111-729

192 William Miller d.1849 Protestant America Papacy 111-729

(Baptist)
193 Sylvester Bliss d.1863 protestant America Papacy S-II-'21
(Congregational)
194 Lo D. Fleming Protestant America Papacy Papacy S-II-21
(Christian)
195 J. B. Cook Protestant America Papacy S-11-24

(Baptist)
196 Richard Hutchinson Protestant Canada Papal and S-11-24

(Wesleyan) Pagan Rome
197 James 'White d.1881 Baptist America Papacy Papal and S-11-128
(Later S.D.A-) pagan Rome
198 Hiram Edson d.1882 Protestant America Papacy papal and S--II-137
(Later S.D.A.) Pagan Rome
199 Josiah Litch d01886 Protestant America Papacy Papacy.
(Methodist)
200 David Arnold d.1889 Methodist America Rome s-11-140

(Later S.D.A.)
201 Henry Edward manning d. 1892 Catholic England Future anti- 111-735
christ, but
applies it to
Turk.in east, and
to Protestant
rejection of mass
in the west
S. - Syllabus
S.D.A. - Seventh-day Adventist Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research
APPENDIX B
This Appendix Is A Survey Of The Modern Teach-
ings On The Little Horn Of Daniel 8. Most Of The
Books Listed In This Appendix Were Published In
The Twentieth century; However, The Authors, In
Some Cases, Are Of An Earlier Date. The Wbrks Listed
Here Are Not Necessarily The Works Of Outstanding
Scholars. The Purpose Of This Appendix Is To Get A
General View Of The Twentieth Century Viewpoints
On The Little Horn Of Daniel 8.

Teaching on Page and
Author Book or Commentary Year Little Horn
1. Alleman, H.C., and E.E. 00T. Commentary, 1 vol. 1948 Antiochus Epiphanes 790
Flack
Anderson, Robert Daniel in the Critics Den 1902 Antiochus Epiphanes 96
Auchincloss, W.S. The Only Key to Daniel's pro- 1904 King. of the Seleu- 148
phecies cidae
L. Battenfield, J.A. St The Great Demonstration 1914 Mahomet 156
Pay. Pendleton
Baxter, Michael M. Forty Prophetic Wonders 1918 A Napoleonic Antichrist 58,66
(Future)
Bewer, Julius August The Literature of the 0.T. 1933 Antiochus Epiphanes 415
Blair, Edward. Payson The Acts and. Apocalyptic 1946 Antiochus Epiphanes 101
Lj.terature
Bloomfield, Arthur Edward Mat Daniel Knew About Hitler 1936 Adolf Hitler 44
Boutfiower, Charles In and Around the book of 1923 AntiochuS Epiphanes 14
Daniel
Breigleb, Gustav A. The Layman's Handbook of 1923 Antiochus Epiphanes 53
Daniel
Butler, James G. The Bible-Work. The 0.T. 1894 Antiochus Epiphanes IX-289-
Vol. IX 91
Chamberlin, Myron Holley Comments on Daniel. 1932 Future Antichrist 193,4
(to rule 7 yrs.)

Author Book or Commentary year Little Horn Volume
Carroll, Benajah Harvey "Dan. &Inter-Bib* Pd.," from 1915 Antiochus Epiphanes IV-101
An Interp. of Eng. Bible
Charles, Robert Henry The New Century Bible, vol.UX 1913 Antiochus Epiphanes XIX-86
15* Cheyne, T*K., & J. Suther- Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 12. 1899 Antiochus Epiphanes 1-1006
land Black
16* Childe, Frederick W. Prophecies of Dan. and Rev. 1927 Antiochus Epiphanes 26
Compared
Cobern, Camden McCormack Commentary on the O.T. vol. 1901 Antiochus Epiphanes 378,9
VIII
Cohen, Simon (Landman, ed.) "Daniel," The Univ. Jew. Ency. 1941 Antiochus Epiphanes III-465
vol. III
The Companion Bible 1932 Still Future (not 1195
Antiochus)
Cornill, Carl Heinrich. Intro. to the Canonical Bks. 1907 Antiochus Epiphanes 383-90
of the 0. T.
Creelman, Harlan An Intro. to the 0. T. 1927 Antiochus Epiphanes 295
Darter, Francis M. The Time of the End 1928 Pagan & Papal Rome 186,7
Deane, H. Daniel: His Life and Times n.d. Antiochus Epiphanes 141
Dods, Marcus, ed. et. An Exposition of the Bible, 1910 Antiochus Epiphanes iv-415 r
vol. IV
De Haan, Martin. Ralph Daniel The Prophet 1947 Antiochus Epiphanes 223

Author or Editor Book or Commentary Year Little Horn Volume
26. De. Moss Jas. A. A Look Through the Lens of 1903 Pagan & Papal. Rome 98 9
Prophecy
27. Driver, S. RA "The Bk. of Dan.," The Cam- 1936 Antiochus Epiphanes XXVI-115
bridge Bible, vol. XXVI.
28. Dummelow, J.R., ed. A Commentary on the Holy Bib. 1940 Antiochus Epiphanes 539
1 vol.
29. Eiseln, F.C., Edwin Lewis, The Abingdon Bible Commentary 1929 Antiochus Epiphanes 755
& David S. Downey, eds.
"The Bk. of Dan.," The Ency. 1951 No teaching on little VIII-454
Americana, vol. VIII horn
Fisher, Harriet I. The Story of Daniel n.d. Antiochus Epiph. a type 84-6
--fut. Antichrist
Fowler, Henry Thatcher A Hist. of the Lit of Anc. 1927 Antiochus Epiphanes 385
Israel
Gaebelein, A. C. The Prophet Daniel 1911 Antiochus Epiphanes 97.
Ginsberg, Harold Louis Studies in. Daniel 1948 Antiochus Epiphanes 42
Glenn, Wha, Newton Things Foretold, Past, Pre- 1903 Kingdom of Rome 96
sent, and Future
Gore, Charles, H.L. Gould, A New Commentary on Holy 1928 Antiochus Epiphanes 552
& Alfred Guillaume, eds. Scriptures
Gortner, J. Narver Studies in Daniel 1948 Antiochus Epiphanes 123
Gray, James M. Christian Workers' Comment. 1915 Antiochus Epiphanes 272

on the 0. and N. T.
Author or Editor Book or Commentary year Little Horn Volume
Hastings, James, ed. A Dictionary of the Bible, 1898 Antiochus Epiphanes I-556
vol. I
•
Hawley, Charles Arthur The Teaching of Apocrypha & 1925 Antiochus Epiphanes 32
Apocalypse
Hennings, E. Daniel the Prophet in the 1920 The Roman Power 146
Latter Days
Henry, Matthew A Canmentary on the Holy Bible 1925 Antiochus Epiphanes IV-1273
vol. IV.
Herbermann, Charles G. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 Antiochus Epiphanes IV-622
et.al.
..mm•••• MOWN.
vol. IV
Heslop, WM. Greene Diamonds Fran Daniel 1946 Antiochus Epiph., a 121,2
John the Bapt. of the Antichrist
Irwin, Clarke Huston The Univ. Bible Commentary 1928 Antiochus Epiphanes 308
Jamieson, R., A.R. Fausett, A Comment, Crit., Exper. & 1945 Antiochus Epiphanes IV-426
& David Brown Pract. on the O. & N.T.
vol. IV
Jenkins, Ethel. Stout The Time of the End 1944 Papacy in the Near 37-44
Future
Kent, Charles Foster The Students' Old Test., 1910 Antiochus Epiphanes 440,41
vol. III
KtP, Abraham Lincoln The Prophecies of Daniel 1919 Antiochus Epiphanes 143

50, Kolvoord, John & Moses The Vision of the Evening and 1907 Antiochus Epiphanes 71, 75
E. Kellogg the Morning
Lange, John Peter A Comment. on the Holy Script. 1915 Antioch. and his predec- XIII-175
vol. XIII essrs.,Antioch.III
Seleucus Nicator
Larkin, Clarence The Book of Daniel 1929 Last Roman emperor at 2 )4.7-9
time of end
Lattey, C. The. Book of Daniel 1948 Antiochus Epiphanes 82
Lee, James W. ed. et al. The Self-Interpreting Bible 1905 Moham. in East; popery 1399
in Lbst
Leupold, Herbert Carl Exposition of Daniel 1949 Antiochus Epiphanes 345,6
Luthi, Walter Daniel Speaks to the Church 1947 A king of the latter 90
times
McFadyen, John Edgar Introduction to the 0.T. 1909 Antiochus Epiphanes 321,22,25
Manson, Thomas Walter A Companion to the Bible 1947 Antiochus Epiphanes 73
Mauro, Philip The Seventy Weeks & the Great 1944 Antiochus Epiphanes 116
Tribulation
Montgomery, James A. "A Critical and Exeget. Cam. 1927 Antiochus Epiphanes XXII -333
on the Bk. of Dan, The
Inter. Crit. Com. vol.22
61.* Morgan, George Campbell The Analyzed Bible, vol. II 1908 Antiochus Epiphanes 11-166
62. Mueller, John Theodore, ed. The Concordia Bible 1946 Antiochus Epiphanes 982

Myers, Thomas, ed. Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 1940 Antiochus Epiphanes xx\i-95
XXV
Nicoll, W. Robertson The Expositor's Bible, vol. 1908 Antiochus Epiphanes X111-259
XIII
Oesterley, W.O.E. An Introd. to the Bks. of the 1941 ,Antiochus Epiphanes 336
0.T.
Orr, James, et al., eds. The Inter. Stand. Bib. Ency. 1930 Not stated. Leaves to 11-786
0101.11. 411M•
Vol. II. to Commentaries

Peake, Arthur S. & A.J. A Commentary on the Bible 1942 Antiochus Epiphanes 530
Grieve, eds.
Petrie, Arthur The Message of Daniel 1947 Antiochus--the great 85-90
type of fut. antichrist
Pettingill, William Simple Studies in Daniel 1909 A future antichrist 78

Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introd. to the 0.T. 1941 Antiochus Epiphanes 751
Porter, Frank Chamberlin The Messages of the Bible, 1905 Antiochus Epiphanes VIII-140
vol. VIII
Rand, Howard B. Study in Daniel 1948 Mohammedanism 207,8
Robinson, T. A Homiletic Comment. on the nod. Antiochus Epiphanes XIX-170

Bk. of Dan," The Preachers'
Camp. Ham. Com. on the O.T.
vol. XXX

Teaching on page and
Author or Editor Book or Commentary Year Little: Horn Volume
Rowley, Harold Henry Darius The Mede and the Four 1935 Antiochus Epiphanes XIX-170
World Empires in the Bk.
of Daniel
Scofield, C. I., ed. The Holy Bible — "The Sco— 1917 Antiochus Epiphanes 137
field Biblen
Slotki, Judah J. Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah 1915 Antiochus Epiphanes 66,67
Hebrew text & Eng. trans.
Smith, S.A. Jerus. from the Earliest Times 1908 Antiochus Epiphanes 453-4
to A.D. 70, vol. II
78'. Smith, Harry Framer The Unveiling of the priest-- 1941 Historically Antiochus, 73
Judge finally, future anti—type
of Aatiochus
Smith, Uriah Daniel and the Revelation 19)4)4 pagan & Papal Rome 172
Soares, Theodore Gerald The Origins of the Bible 1941 Antiochus Epiphanes 144-9
Spence, H. D.M. & Jos. The Pulpit Comment. vol.xxix n.d. Antiochus Epiphanes xxix-241,42
S. Exell, eds.
Stevens, U. C. The Book of Daniel 1915 Future Antichrist 109,115,141
Stirling, John, ed. The Bible For Today 1941 Antiochus Epiphanes 889
Talbot, Louis T. The Prophecies of Dan. in the 1940 Antiochus Epiphanes 204
Light of- Past, Pres., and
Future Events
Tarn, Mr. Mr. Hellenistic Civilization 1936 Antiochus Epiphanes 185

Teaching on page and
Author or Editor Book or Commentary Year Little Horn Volume
Torrey, Charles Cutler "Bk. of Dan," Encyclopaedia 1939 Antiochus Epiphanes VII -29
Britannica, vol. VII
Townsend, Jewett C. The Modern Approach to the 1934 Antiochus Epiphanes 177-9
O.T.
VUilleumier, John Future Unrolled or Studies on 1928 Roman Empire 105
the Prophecies of Daniel
Nilson, Dorothy F. "Daniel," The Teachers Can. 1932 Antiochus Epiphanes 215
900 Nilson, Joseph Da "The Bk. of Dan.," The New 1909 Antiochus Epiphanes III-349
Schaff-Herzog Encyc. of
Relig. Know., vol. III,
Nilson, Luther H. The Lost Dream 1907 mohamedanism 79
Wilson, Robert Dick Studies in the Book of Daniel 1938 Antiochus Epiphanes 258
930 Mright, Charles H.H. Daniel and His Prophecies 1906 Seleucid Kingdom 188
94. Young, Edward Joseph The Prophecy of Daniel, A Com- 1949 Antiochus Epiphanes 170_
mentary

APPENDIX C
AN INVESTIGIITION OF THE WORD
aliarith

APPENDIX C
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE WORD alaArith
It is the purpose of this stud to investigate the possibility

of using the Hebrew word %With to denote location in Daniel 8:23.
This word is generally used to denote time, but on occasions may
designate place rather than time. It comes from the root word a4Xr.
This in itself is significant because of the meaning of other words
stemming from alAr.
The following parallel reveals that the words stemming from
allar are very much alike in meaning. This parallel reveals the usage
of these words in the King James version:
a4or %rm aharith AlgorWnith her
7angrward after after eAd buck another
back after that afterward hindermost again another
back part after ward come, to last backward man
backside again following last end following
backward away from hinder latter next
behind back hindermost latter end other
hereafter back from hindmost latter time strange
hinder part backside last length
time to come behind latter end posterity
without beside rereward remnant
by utmost residue
to follow uttermost reward
forasmuch uttermost
from
hereafter
hinder end
to outlive
posterity
to persecute
pursuing
remnant
seeing
since
thenceforth
with

151
This parallel reveals that four of these.Words are very much
alike in meaning. They are !ka, V49rOn, and Ibirith. Each

of these words gives the connotation of: afterward, backside, behind,
hinder part, back, hinder end, following, hindermost, hindmost, utmost,
uttermost, or last end. The significance is even greater when viewed
from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. In this version, the
first three of these words are translated west, west side, west of,
and western. The instances are as follows:
) Isaiah 9:12, "Philistines on the west" ahor

KJV--"Philistines behind"
Judges 18:12, "It is west of Kiriath-jearim"

KN--"behind Kirjath-jearim."
Exodus 3:1, "to the west side of the wilderness" fr
KJV--"to the backside of the desert,"
(d) Deut. 11:30, "west of the road,"

KJV--"by the way,"
() Eze. 41:15, "which was at the west,"

KV--"which was benind it."
(f) Zech. 6:6, "go toward the west country"

KJ0--"go forth after then"
(g). Deut. 11:24, "to the western sea," ,anon

KJV--"unto the uttermost sea"
Deut. 34:2, "the Western Seal!'

KJV--"unto the utmost sea,"
Joel 2:20, "into the western sea;"

KJV--"toward the utmost sea,"
Zech. 14:81 "to the western sea,"

KJV--utoward the hinder sea,"
(k) Job 18:20, "They of the west" .
KJV--"They that come after him:"

.152
The word allor, which is used only once in.the above list to
denote west, is used opposite led'elm in Job 23:8 and Psalm 139:5.
In the first text, idedgM is translated forwardl and a4or is translated
backward, in the Revised Standard Version. In Psalm 139:5 the same
two words are translated before and behind. This is significant
because kedgm is a word for east in the Hebrew. An example is Genesis
4s•Www~ImIma MatmiloYeam
2:8 which says that the 111,ord God planted a garden eastward in Eden;".
Therefore, where east is thought of as before in Hebrew, west is
thought of as behind.
Bringing the above facts together, the following picture deve-
lops:
Where the first three words of the four are translated

west, western, west side, or west of in the RSV, they are translated
behind batkside, uttermost, hinder, and after in the KJV. This latter
list is practically identical to the list given under %With.
In each of the instances where these three, words are trans-
lated west or western, they are used geographically. Therefore, if

a4Arith can be found to be used geographicallylsince it means hindermost,
uttermost, and latter end (as listed under (a), it also could denote the
western end or west.
A sea is a topographical feature. In Deuteronomy 11:24 the
W. •
two versions translated 4aron western (H V) and uttermost (KJV). The
0.1111 .1 •
word waJalrith is used geographically in Psalm 139:9 where the KJV speaks
woommkwINW1.0....1.

153
the "uttermost parts of the sea." This denotes location. To the Hebrew,
looking toward the great Mediterranean or Western Sea, this could denote
the very western end.
A kingdom is also a matter of place. Some may feel, however,
that the word alkhuth must be translated "rule," or "reign," instead
of "kingdom." This would necessarily make the translation of the text
temporal. However, this same word, m'lkhuth is found in Daniel 8:22,
Daniel 9:1, and in Daniel 10:13, and is translated in these texts, "king-
doms," "realm," and "kingdom," respectively in the KJV. The RSV gives
the same translation for Alkhath in the above texts. Moreover, in
Daniel 9:1, alkhath can mean nothing but the geographical extent of
the kingdom.
Therefore, in Daniel 8:23, in view of the above facts, the text
could well be translated: "in the western end of their kingdom, when
the transgressors are come to the full. To view this text with com-
plete fairness, the following reasoning may be followed:
In plus latter end plus days could denote only time, or

Win the latter Ws."
In plus latter end plus sea could denote only pcation,

or "in the afermost parra the sea."
In plus latter end plus kingdom could denote either time

6F location, therefore it could mean "in the latter time
of their kingdom" or "in the uttermost part," or "western
part" of their kingdom.
In view of the historical facts, the latter interpretation

is the more accurate one.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that if in three words the
words hindermost, utmost, or behind mean west, then the fourth word

154
when translated hindermost or utmost would also denote west, providing
that the situation is geographical and that the context allows it.
Does rare usage annul the conclusion? It will be stated by some
that the word ualArith is found only in Psalm 139:9 to denote location;
•••01110.1111.411111=0.1•111111
therefore, it is very unlikely that Daniel 8:23 could denote location.
To this the following answer can be given: The word Mr is
found about 687 times in the Old Testament. In the Revised Standard
Version it is translated after 398 times, follow 9L times, afterward

L7 times, behind 44 times; a number of translations follow, and then it
is translated west only 5 times. Does this mean that the five times
that it has been translated west are mistakes? Not at all, for if it
is a geographical situation and the context demands west, it cannot
be translated otherwise. The same holds true for the word Urith.
Regardless of the fact that it is used to denote location only in
Psalm 139:9, it cannot be said that it must mean time in that situation.
The fact that Daniel 8:23 can be translated to denote location is a
very strong argument in itself that it should be thus translated, be-
cause in the great majority of cases where TualOrith is used to denote

time, it could mean nothing else in those situations.
The words alaor and lairon are also used but a few times to
denote western or west; therefore, it can well be reasoned and con-

cluded that even though frith is used but rarely to denote location
it does not weaken the argument that it can be translated west or
western in Daniel 8:23.

155
Another objection to the translation of ual•Arith as "western"
in Daniel 8:23 may be that Daniel uses yam for "west" or "western"
in other parts of the book; therefore, if Daniel meant that this
verse should {:'denote "western" he would more likely have used yam
instead of Vtarith.
A satisfactory answer to this may be found in the book of
Isaiah. In the RSV the word "west" is found in Isaiah 9:12; 11:14;
••••••=6
45:6; 49:12; and 59:19. However, only in Isaiah 9:12 is the word
a4or used. In the other verses Isaiah uses either yam or ma'crab.
This fact does not make the translation of abor as "west" in Isaiah
9:12 incorrect. The same would hold true in the book of Daniel. If
Isaiah has the liberty to use more than one word .to denote "west,"
Daniel, the wisest in the realm of Nebuchadnezzar, must not necessar-
ily be restricted to the use of yam when referring to "west."
Does the Septuagint permit the interpretation of location in

Daniel 8:23? The words of this text in the Greek are: epT eschatOn
tEs basileias. It will be recognized that eschat6n is in the geni-'
tine case. Dana and Mantey state this fact: "Thus epi with the bon-
tine signifies general position, while with the genitive it signifies
actual contact. "1
In Acts 1:8 and in Acts 13:47 the word eschatos is in the
genitive case, and it is translated as location and not time.
1H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the

Greek New Testament, p. 74.

156
Therefore, the word in Daniel 8:23, which is in the genitive case,
could very well be translated as to signify location. This much is

certain, when the little horn is presented as coming up in the utter-
most part of "their kingdom," it cannot mean that it comes up on all
sides of their kingdom--it comes up in one place, and the most logical
and most consistent interpretation would be the west, as found in the

other texts listed in the Hebrew.
The word eschatos is used 113 times in the Septuagint in that

part of the Septuagint that corresponds with the Hebrew text. It is
used to denote location at least twenty-four times. Even more sig-
nificant, it is used to denote location in Psalm 139:9 where the Hebrew
word Ikarith denotes location.

.1101111•••••••••••6•11.•••••
Finally, where the RSV translates Joel 2:20; and Zechariah 14:8
as "western seal" the word in the Septuagint is eschatos. Therefore,

even though the ASV is not translated from the Septuagint, this word
may well' be translated western.
The conclusion then is is that the Septuagint not only does not
hinder the translation of Daniel 8:23 as "in the western part," but
it actually helps to strengthen the interpretation.

It must be added that the classical Greek usually used escha-
tos to denote place rather than time.

-.1.M.••••••
Conclusion. The interpretation of Daniel 8:23 as "in the western

158 6'4'.
end of their kingdom" can be supported by both the Hebrew and the
Greek.
Significance of 'western" in Daniel 8:23. With the application

of UArith as "western," the text would read: "in the western end of
their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of
fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up."
With this rendering of the text, only one of the five major
views on the little horn of Daniel 8 could qualify as the little horn.
That power is Rome. The others arose in the east.
A comparison of prophecies. An interesting, if not conclusive,

comparison maybe made of this prophecy in Daniel 8:23 with the pro-
phecy of Deuteronomy 28:49,501 In Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 467,
the prophecy of Deuteronomy is applied to Pagan Rome. In this thesis

Pagan and Papal Rome have been established as the little horn of Daniel 8.
With these two texts applied to the same power, an interesting parallel
mfr be drawn:
Deut. 28:491 50—fla nation whose tongue thou shalt not
understand"
Daniel 8:23 --"understanding d ark sentences"
Deut. 28:49,50--"a nation of fierce countenance,"
Daniel 8:23 --"a king of fierce countenance,"
(c) Deut. 28:49,50—ma nation against thee from far, fromINEMF M
the end of the earth,m

Daniel 8:23-- nirdirrater end of their. kingdom"
In part (c) of the parallel Deuteronomy 28:49,50 is stressing
locality. If the two prophecies are agreed in (a) and (b), it is likely

159
that they agree in (c). In view of this, Daniel 8:23 would denote
locality--"in the latter end," or "western end."
The force of the argument for lharith as "western" is not, how-
elet••••N•m•Milamniin
ever dependent upon the parallel cited above. In fact, the purpose
•
of this entire study of aharith is not to assert dognatically that
I4Arith must be "western," but merely to investigate the possibility
mminrd.d.m.••011.••••
of interpreting Arith as western. The writer feelasthat the possi-

bility has been substantiated, and that the interpretation of 1/4ahArith
1
1
as "western" in Daniel 8:23 is feasible.
Most of the material of this appendix has been gathered through

the study of George V. Wigram, The Englishmants Hebrew and Chaldee Con-
cordance of the Old Testament, 27o1s., and the MFE-OrEiddle and Scott
for the septa agiff: The Swete edition of the Septuagint was referred to.

APPENDIX D
CHARTS AND MAPS

161
THE SELEUCIDS
B. C.
Seleucus I Nicator =280
Antiochus I Soter 280-262/1
Antiochus II Theos .261-247
Seleucus II Callinicus 247-226
Seleucus IV Philopator 226-223
Antiochus III (the Great) 223-187
Seleucus IV Philopator 187-175
Antiochus IV Epiphanes . .. 175-163
Antiochus V Eapator 163-162
Demetrius I Soter 162-150
Alexander Balas 150-145
Demetrius II Nicator 145-139/8
Antiochus VI Epiphanes . OO . .. . . . 139/8-129
Demetrius II Nicator . 6 6 129-125
Cleopatra Thea 125-121
Antiochus VIII (Grypus) 125-121
Antiochus VIII (Grypus) 121-96
Antiochus IX (Cyzicenus) .. . 115-95
Figure 1.

162
- -LITTLE HORN
loutof. one
thee
---Antioohus
a part of one
of the four
horns
Four horns, four Kingdoms

After Alexander
Great
horn -Alexander the Great

163
LITTLE HORN
"waxed exceeding great"
beyond his power
c) Greatest
Ant iochu9
ruler Four Kingdoms
of one
of these pnot in his
kingdoms power"
He Goat
b) Greater Gracia
"waxed very great"
Ram
Medo-Persia
a) Great
"became greats
Figure 3,

014
1

N
vCT-t
JUDGMENT
BABYLON Mepa-PeRsiA GREece P (suit K IN MKS' Rome PAPACY
LroN arAn Lrormito Foult HEAP S TEM M441111 SEVST L ITTL WAN
Time OF THE END
moo- pERsm GREE C "tiff Kul
RAM HE eorrr rot R H 0 Rivs L 1111nE R

-4
•
N
Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research ON
-.3

An Exegesis of The Little Horn of Daniel 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Exegesis of The Little Horn of Daniel 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Exegesis of The Little Horn of Daniel 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Master's Theses Graduate Research

An Exegesis of the Little Horn of Daniel 8

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses

LI.1 ii E'H0 N OF 1,-)Riq EL g

AN EXEGESIS OF THE LITTLE HORN

Presented to the Faculty of the

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

of the Requirements for the Degree

Department of Bible and Systematic Theology

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

App endix B . . • • •••••••••••••• 9

AN EXAMINATION OF ANTIOCH:US EPIPHANES . • • • • Si 10

The examination . . . . . 41.e. 6 6 • .

The little horn comes from one of the four horns • 10

Exceeding greatness of the little horn . . . . . . 12

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE LITTLE HORN . . 64.6.•••••• • 37

The testimony of history • . • .. • • • • • • . • . . • 53

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

At the end of 2300 days . . . . . . . . . . 87

Summary and conclusion • • • • • • • • • • • • • 101

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

in the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel a vision is recorded

meaning fully.' Occupying a prominent place in the vision of the eighth

Statement of the problem. To a large extent the meaning of

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, p. 148.

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

In general, the terms used in this study are nontechnical;

The great horn. The great or "notable,* horn, referred to in

The four "notable"' horns. The little horn is not numbered, as

1 Daniel 8:5, 21.

3 Daniel 8:9, 23.

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

III. PLAN OF PROCEDURE

Study of past and present views. A study has been made to

ascertain that which men throughout history have taught or believed

concerning the little horn of Daniel 8. In connection with this

it was felt necessary also to study the teachings of modern writers

on this subject. The results of these studies are discussed in

Description of the little horn analyzed. It was felt that

before the little horn could be identified properly, a careful study

are a number of statements in Daniel 8 which describe the character-

istics and activities of the little horn. A complete picture of the

and viewed as a composite picture. These factors from Daniel 8 which

identify the little horn are the following:

The little horn comes out of one of the four horns.

The little horn grows exceedingly great. vs. 9, 10.

L. The little horn is a persecuting power. vs. 10, 21k, 25.

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

He is connected with the transgression of desolation.

At the end of 2,300 days the sanctuary is cleansed.

The vision of the little horn extends to the time of the

Historical and modern views measured by the seventeen points

1 The Revised Standard Version has, "two thousand and three