Page:06.CBOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.B.vol.6.LesserProphets.djvu/59

Antichrist, the great enemy arising out of the last world-kingdom. Along with these resemblances there are also points of dissimilarity, such e.g., as this: the period of continuance of the domination of both is apparently alike, but in reality it is different. The activity of the prince who took away the daily sacrifice, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, was to continue 2300 evening-mornings (Dan 8:14), or, as the angel says, 1290 days (Dan 12:11), so that he who waits and comes to the 1335 days shall see (Dan 12:12) salvation; the activity of the enemy in the last time, i.e., of Antichrist, on the contrary, is for a time, (two) times, and an half time (Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7), or a half  (Dan 9:27) - designations of time which have been taken without any exegetical justification to mean years, in order to harmonize the difference.
Accordingly, Daniel does not prophesy the appearance of the Messianic redemption after the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, but announces that the fourth world-kingdom, with the kingdoms growing out of it, out of which the last enemy of the people of God arises, would first follow Antiochus, who belonged to the third world-kingdom. This fourth world-kingdom with its last enemy is destroyed by the judgment which puts an end to all the world-kingdoms and establishes the Messianic kingdom. Thus the assertion that the special destination of the prediction only goes down to Antiochus Epiphanes is shown to be erroneous. Not only in the visions Daniel 2 and 7 is the conduct of the little horn rising up between the ten horns of the fourth beast predicted, but also in Dan 11:36-45 the actions of the king designated by this horn are as specially predicted as is the domination and rule of Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan 8:9., 24f., and in Daniel 11:20-35.
These are all the grounds worth mentioning which the most recent opponents of the historical and prophetical character of this book have adduced against its genuineness. It is proved from an examination of them, that the internal arguments are of as little value as the external to throw doubts on its authorship, or to establish its Maccabean origin. But we must go a step further, and briefly show that the modern opinion, that the book originated in the time of the Maccabees, which is set aside by the fact already adduced (pp. 505f.), the use of it on the part of Zechariah and Ezra, is irreconcilable with the formal nature, with the actual contents, and with the spirit of the book of Daniel. 1. Neither the character of the language nor the mode in which