Daniel - Lesson 20

Dr. Tremper Longman III
Daniel ot666-20
The Fourth Vision (Daniel 11)
Lesson Transcript

Tremper Longman III [00:00:00] So now we come to the vision itself. And as I say, it's different in nature from particularly Daniel seven and eight, both of which like animations to animals in one sort of another. Here we have references mainly in the body of the vision to a King of the North and the king of the South. The opening is going to look forward in the more immediate future to the remainder of the Persian period and then the rise of Alexander. But then most of the detail is going to be mentioned in reference to a king of the North and the king of the South. And I will describe what these refer to when we come to it. But here I'll point out that this type of prophecy, this type of speaking about the future is not uncontested. In the ancient area east, if not widely attested. I know of one text. Again, I've mentioned various texts that I studied for my doctoral dissertation already, but another one is a what's called the dynastic prophecy. And it's can it's concerning a different time and a different area of the Near East. But it too talks in terms of various kings arising and not king of the North King the South, but a king will arise. Then another king will arise unnamed kings, because after all it is talking about the future. I would suggest that the dynastic prophecy is not true prophecy. I would also suggest that the dynastic prophecy is actually a work of political propaganda supporting a particular political perspective. But there is this kind of formal similarity that's interesting to note. Now, in a sense, a prophet can't win, right? You know, if if a prophet speaks in a way where the prophecy comes true. Well, of course that fails, then the prophet is a failed prophet. But if the prophecy comes true, then many people who don't believe in the possibility of supernatural prophecy are then suspicious that it was written after the fact. And that's particularly the case for a couple of reasons for Daniel Chapter 11. And one of the reasons is the level of detail with which Daniel 11 will anticipate various people and also various actions that take place. And it's also, to be fair, connected with the idea that there's some question about how this prophecy ends. So I'll address that when we come to the end. The other thing I want to say in advance is it's possible that in my description of these prophecies as I talk about how they are fulfilled, that I'm going to overwhelm you because I'm overwhelmed myself with a variety of strange names of various Greek rulers and happenings in the period between in the third and to the second century B.C. And I guess I'll just say that I don't have all of these names embedded in my mind. I'm going to be using some notes that I have to remind myself. This is not a period of history that I'm a specialist in like the earlier periods that we've been talking about. So I'll write many of the names up on the board, if you're interested or if you want to. You could always look at my how to read Daniel, the chapter on this where I talk about these various figures and their actions as I'm going to talk about them today. So, again, don't feel overwhelmed and an awful lot of the names are like, it's like Ptolemy, the first, Ptolemy the second, Ptolemy the third, Ptolemy the fourth. And they often have what are called cog moments. That is like we saw with Antiochus Epiphanes, who will feature at the end of this chapter. He's called Epiphanes by his supporters and epiphany. By his detractors. And so again, what I want you to get, though, is the fact that Daniel 11, very accurately and reliably describes events that happened from the time of Daniel all the way down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and. In my view, and in many other people's view, well beyond that, that Antiochus Epiphanes in this chapter very clearly becomes a kind of type of the Antichrist. He's such an egregious, horrific person that I think it suggests itself to be used for a picture of the Antichrist. So here we go. Here we go. It begins in Daniel, chapter 11, verse two When it says, Now, then I tell you the truth, three more kings will arise in Persia than a fourth who will be far richer than all the others. When he is gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the Kingdom of Greece. Okay, so here's the problem with that is discover. I mean, I think it's very accurate. Is particularly very accurate when we come to the kings of the north and kings of the South here there is an issue which is, hey, there are plenty more than just four more kings of Persia before the time of Alexander the Great. Okay, so what is this referring to? Three. Yeah, four. There are, there are a couple of ways of understanding this reference, and one does take it in connection with specific rulers. Indeed, the next four rulers of Persia, namely brief reign by a man named Smerdis, and then a brief reign by Cambyses. And then finally, a longer reign by Darius, who would be the first three references. And then the fourth is described as a very rich man who stirs people up against the Kingdom of Greece. Now, this would be a good description of the fourth king, Xerxes, whom we know of from the book of Esther. Xerxes was very rich. I mean, we can tell that from both the Book of Esther plus Greek writings about the Persian period, most notably by the famous Greek historian, is often called the father of history writing, namely Herodotus, who writes about Xerxes reign and searches as the one who mounts the first campaign against Greece. So maybe that's the what's going on. It's not interested in talking about all the Persian rulers who follow after Xerxes going down to Alexander, but rather passes over that, but wants to talk about a king who initiates the fight against the Greeks. So that's one way of understanding and another way of understanding. It is more literary. We have a certain type of literary form in the Hebrew Bible, which is also found another ancient near Eastern literature. It's called a numerical parallelism, where you might say something like you find at the beginning of the book of Amos, you know, for the Three Sons of Damascus. Yes, for four. And then it mentions one. And it's a way of saying a whole bunch. There are a whole bunch of them. We're just going to mention one. It's not saying there are only literally four. So maybe. But we passed quickly from the Persian period to two. Alexander in one verse, then a mighty king will arise who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. I think that's a reference to Alexander the Great. After he has risen, his empire would be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. We talked about this in reference to Daniel Chapter eight, that after he dies, his sons don't inherit his kingdom, but rather it's split up in a struggle between his four main generals. And it says it will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised because the empire will be uprooted and given to others. So all this is kind of background to what I think is the main interest, which is the following period of time between the rise of the Dado Kai and Antiochus Epiphanes. The fourth, the King of the South, is the king of the Ptolemaic kingdom headquartered in Alexandria. The King of the North is clearly a reference to the Seleucid King, whose capital is in is in Antioch. Okay, so. So let me read a paragraph and then let me look at it from historical retrospect and say how it actually worked itself out in history. Remember what I'm reading? And the biblical text says, from Daniel's sixth century perspective, looking into the future, it's talking in general terms. And then when I describe its fulfillment in actual history, I'm doing it looking at it through the prism of what ancient sources tell us about this particular period of time. So we read the king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the King of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance. But she will not retain her power and he and his power will not last. In those days, she will be portrayed together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her. So this is talking about the beginning of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empire. It's talking about the King of the South. The Ptolemaic one becomes strong. One of his commanders will become even stronger, but then they'll become allies. And then the daughter of the Ptolemaic King will go to the King of the North to make an alliance. But then she loses her power. So how might we think that worked out in retrospect? So in this what we might call first around Daniel 11 five through six of the Kings of the South, the Ptolemaic Kingdom in the North describes how the first king will grow in power. But he'll have a commander who grows even more powerful. Here the reference is to the first Ptolemaic King the King who gives his name to the dynasty. Ptolemy the first. He's the king of the South. And his commander is Seleucus the first. And he's gone. So Seleucus the first went to Egypt in the midst of a conflict with another general of the deceased, Alexander, who doesn't feature as a king of the north or the south. It was Antiochus kind of for a while. Antiochus for a while had kind of represented Alexander's interests. But then there was a conflict between them all. So Ptolemy and Seleucus together, defeated Antiochus and then established the Seleucid capital at Antioch. Palestine, which with its capital in Jerusalem, is right smack and in the middle between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdom. And they struggle over control of Jerusalem, which is why these two particular kingdoms are a focus of this prophecy. Supposed to go to the Seleucid kingdom. But Ptolemy initially took it. Seleucus and his successors, though, never concede that that Jerusalem should be part of the Egyptian kingdom. And so conflict breaks out over a long period of time. The daughter of the king of the South, who we heard will try to form an alliance with the North but fails as a reference to Berenice. Who's the daughter of another Ptolemy the second who is a member of the royal family. She was given in marriage. Berenice was given in marriage to a grandson of Seleucus, in an attempt to establish a dynastic marriage and sort of seal an alliance. That's the way ancient peoples often sealed an alliance we might remember as Solomon tries to do this by marrying all these foreign women, which he shouldn't have done so, but the grandson whom she married had been divorced from his first wife, a woman named Laodice. Who eventually reconciled with her former husband but then assassinated him. There's a lot of interesting intrigue going on between these two royal houses and within them. And then she assassinated him, but also killed Berenice and her son. So this alliance failed. As the prophecy suggests, the daughter of the King of the South does not maintain her power. Okay, let me get a little board room here. So we move on. Now in verses 7 to 10. We read one from her family line reference to Berenice will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress. He will fight against them and be victorious. He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the King of the North alone. Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the King of the South, but will retreat to his own country. His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress. In this section, we hear of a family member of the previously mentioned Daughter of the King, namely Berenice, and its probably are almost certainly a reference to Berenice’s brother. Yet another Ptolemy, Ptolemy the third. Who took the throne in Alexandria in 246 B.C.. And he warned against the new king of the North. I told you there were a lot of Ptolemies and a lot Seleucuses. This is Seleucus the second again. And he's the son of Laodice who had assassinated Berenice. So he was he was you could see how much hostility would exist between these two families. But he was successful. And in good ancient near Eastern practice. We talked about this before in reference to Daniel chapter one. He took the idols and the other ritual paraphernalia from Syria back to Egypt. Remember that kind of captured the flag mentality that was practiced at this time? But eventually the North attacked the South. While not victorious. The North did recover lost land at this time. Daniel 1:10, says that the son of the king of the North Seleucus the second, that's the king of the north. Seleucus the third is his son. Who reigned 227 to 223. And then his and then his successor, Antiochus the third, 223 to 187 B.C. swept into the South as far as what's called the fortress. Now there's some question what the fortress is. It may be a reference to Gaza, south of Jerusalem. Which means fortress. But then the king of the south. Okay, now we're to Ptolemy, the fourth. To be a little more creative in their names. Be more helpful. Or you could just say Ptolemy. Ptolemy the fourth. He, according to Daniel, 11:11, fought the King of the North, Antiochus the third, in a battle that has come to be known as the Battle of Raphia. Which happened in 217 B.C. The King of the South won. But his victory was very short lived because the King of the North came back and pushed back against the south. All right. A little more board space here. Are you getting the impression that this prophecy was pretty accurate? And again, why some people who don't think that supernatural prophecy is possible is are saying that it's written after the fact. So let's read the next paragraph. So now we read. In those times, many will rise against the king of the South. This is first for team and following those who are violent among your own people. Full rebellion, fulfillment of the vision, but without success. Then the King of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the south will be powerless to resist. Even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. The invader will do as he pleases. No one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the beautiful land and will have the power to destroy it. He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the King of the South. And it will give him a daughter and marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom. But his plans will not succeed or help him. Then he and then he will turn his attention to the coast lands and will take many of them. But a commoner will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back on him. After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country, but will stumble and fall to be seen no more. What are we to make of this? Verse 14 and following. So the King of the North then faces an uprising in the form of native Egyptians who rebelled against foreign Greek leadership. Remember, these are the Ptolemies are Greek. Their ruling over Egyptians. But 1114 refers to what turns out to be rebellion against a foreign Greek leadership made by Egyptians. The next section versus 15 to 19 speaks of the growing power of the King of the North, a very important figure, a man named Antiochus the third. But then his eventual failure. First 19 he will stumble and fall to be seen no more. The passage mentions this success, though, in the beautiful land, which we've seen that expression before, is referring to Palestine with its main city and Jerusalem. He did give his daughter his daughter name Cleopatra. There are a lot of Cleopatra's. So to the king of the south at the time. So she marries Ptolemy, the fifth. But this is also another attempt at a kind of dynastic marriage. But it fails since his daughter. And this happened more than once in the ancient areas where they marry, you know, a king marries off his daughter to somebody else. The daughter sometimes becomes a spy and an agent for the father's kingdom. The daughter turned her loyalties and affections to the south. Daniel, 11:17, seems to refer to this when it says his plans will not succeed or help him. And she becomes the major power in the South after her husband died. And when she died in 182 B.C., her son. Ptolemy, the six. Became king of the South eight years later. So the section concludes in verse 21 with the successor to the King of the North loses the fourth, whose reign comes to an end because of a tax collector, of all things, a man named Heliodorus. And he dies around the time of his younger brother Antiochus the fourth. Or he dies around the time Antiochus, the fourth is freed from his being a political hostage in Rome, which is suspicious in terms of Antiochus the fourth and his brother Seleucus. And so in the next big section versus 21 to 35, we turn to this contemptible person, as he's called in Daniel. Namely, Antiochus Epiphanes the fourth. So now we come to the next major section of this prophecy that's found in Daniel chapter 11, and it covers versus 21 through 35. And we'll see that it's referring to, as he's introduced in verse 21, a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. And so this is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes the fourth. Whom we've talked about a bit in relationship to Daniel Chapter eight. And he's described as one who has not been given the honor of royalty. So the story is that he was a political hostage in Rome and. Around the time he's released his brother, who was the leading natural candidate to succeed his father, Seleucus the fourth is killed. And what makes it doubly suspicious is the fact that Seleucus’ son, replaces Antiochus in Rome as a political hostage. So it seems to be some kind of plot to place Antiochus on the throne. Then it says he will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure and he will seize it through intrigue. So it's a hostile takeover of the Seleucid kingdom. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him, perhaps a reference to the Seleucid Army. And then both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. Now it's a little bit perhaps dischronologized, but the Prince of the Covenant may be a reference to the high priest at the time in Jerusalem, namely Onias the third whom we know that Antiochus, later in his reign, deposed us and put his own pro Hellenistic candidate into the high priesthood, a man named Menelaus. It goes on to say, after coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully and with only a few people. He will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his father's nor his forefathers did. So Antiochus was successful in terms of expanding the Seleucid empire, and then he distributes plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses, but only for a time. We are already getting an indication that, though Antiochus is successful, that there will be an end to his to his reign with a large army, he will stir up the strength and courage against the King of the South. I think this is a reference to the king of the south of the time. Ptolemy, the six, the King of the South will wage war with a large, a very powerful army. But he will not be able to stand because the plots devised against him, those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him. And this seems to be a reference to a plot with in the Ptolemaic kingdom on the part of two people who were part of the king's entourage who undermined the kingdom. His army will be swept away and many will fall in battle. The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. This is a little unclear too. It could be a reference to one or two things either Antiochus the fourth and the fourth, and Ptolemy, the six sitting down trying to work something out but failing. Or it could be a reference to a struggle within the Ptolemaic kingdom between Ptolemy the sixth and Ptolemy the seventh, who were brothers. I guess it's a little bit like George Foreman, who named all of his kids George Foreman. But I don't know whether you know that, but he had George Foreman one, two, three, all the way to eight. And so I don't know why that came into my mind, but yeah, so we're not exactly sure. But then it goes. The king of the north will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the Holy covenant. Now, now attention is turning to Antiochus antipathy toward Jerusalem. He will take action against it and then return to his own country. At the appointed time. He will invade the south again. But this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coast lands will oppose him and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the Holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the Holy Covenant. Now, this is interesting. This reference to ships from the Western Coast lands is a reference to Rome. Rome is appearing on the scene for the first time and will eventually, in the middle of the first century B.C., will displace the Greek powers as the occupiers of Palestine. But this is a reference to a scene that we learned about elsewhere from other sources where a Roman senator serving as a council appears before Antiochus in front of his armies, apparently IV. So you can picture this senator showing up in his Roman robes. And from the description I read, it was just a small group of people accompanying him. But he goes up to Antiochus, this rather volatile person from everything that we can figure out who is marching with his armies on Egypt. And apparently he took his foot, that is the Roman senator, and drew a circle around Antiochus and then said, Your next step is back north. And you can imagine that was not greeted well by Antiochus. And as he goes back, he takes out his aggressions and frustrations against the Jews in Jerusalem. And this is the occasion when he crucified 5000 Jews in the city. So, yeah, so pretty horrific person. You could see why this figure kind of. Indelibly made his negative mark in the. Minds of God's people. So now back to verse 31 His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. And we saw this alluded to in Daniel Chapter eight, where Antiochus desecrates the holy of holies within the temple. Let me read the rest of the verse. Then they will set up the abomination that caused the desolation. And as I mentioned earlier, this does seem to be a reference to a meteorite dedicated to zoos placed in the temple and accompanied by sacrifice of a pig. With flattery, he corrupt those who have violated the covenant. But the people who know God will firmly resist him. We know from the Book of Maccabees and other sources that there were Hellenized Jews. There were Jews who actually supported Antiochus. His perspective and again, this meant Allah as fellow would have been one of them. And so that seems to be what the references to those who have violated the covenant. But then there are those who resist him, those who are wise. Now, this is an interesting term that will pop up later to mask. It's not it's coming from a root cycle, which means to have insight or in this in this context, to have insight or to be wise. They're the insiders. They're the ones who Daniel is writing to. Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. So they remain faithful. They teach the truth, but they also are persecuted. When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. Some of the wise will stumble so that they may be refined, purified, made, spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time. So now we move to a further description of Antiochus epiphany. Where it doesn't completely correlate to what we know historically, which may be a symbol along with other things within the next couple of paragraphs, to signal that Antiochus is kind of transforming into a type of the Antichrist. As we move to the next section versus 36 to the end of the chapter, we're still with Antiochus Epiphanes, the fourth. But we have a transition toward the end, which suggests that we're going from Antiochus. Epiphany is the fourth to a who is being treated as kind of a type of future evil person and the end. So I tend to talk about this as a type of the Antichrist, and there are a few reasons why I think this is a reasonable way to understand these verses. And the first is that as I read through it, you're going to notice that Antiochus is going to start being described in virtually mythical language. He's going to take on a much larger than life role in the way that he's described. This was pointed out by the Catholic scholar Richard Clifford, even though he doesn't agree with the way I and other sort of traditional interpreters of Daniel Chapter 11, read the text. You know, a second reason is that you'll also notice that we'll start using the language of that. And now the end could be the end of Antiochus life. But I'm suggesting that in this context it is moving further toward the end of time. And that because as we're going to see in the opening section of Chapter 12, which is still part of the vision, it's going to be talking about the maskilim being raised to life. And one of the clearest kind of one of the clearest descriptions in the Old Testament of the afterlife. And so all those things, I think, make it reasonable to go in that direction in terms of understanding what we're getting at the end of Daniel Chapter 11. So let me read through it with you. The King will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every God, and we'll say unheard of things against the God of God. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed for what has been determined must take place. He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors. So it's not just, you know, your way he shows no regard for, but even his own ancestral gods, or for the one desired by women. Now, this is an interesting reference that may be a reference to the Mesopotamian God, Thomas, who was particularly the focus of women's religious fervor. He's a dying and rising God, but they also had a Syrian counterpart named Adonis. So? So that might be what that enigmatic phrase is referring to. Normally guard any God, but will exalt himself above them all. So here's Antiochus taking on godlike proportions, which might also parallel those those spiritual powers that oppose God. Instead of him, he will honor a God of fortresses, a God unknown to his ancestors. He will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. I can't give a name to the God of fortresses that may be simply a kind of homage to his own military might. He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign God and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. At the time of the end, the King of the South will engage him in battle and the King of the North will storm out against them with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the beautiful land. Many countries will fall, but e the Moab and the leaders of Amman will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries. Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt with the Libyans and Cushite and submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will purchase royal tents between the seas at the beautiful Holy Mountain, yet he will come to his end and no one will help him. So this seems to suggest that he will die on land, whereas other traditions suggest that he actually died by drowning himself after a defeat at sea. So those who want to be suspicious of biblical prophecy are unwilling to make that transition from, you know, speaking about Antiochus before this, the fourth speaking about the Antichrist curse, the New Testament picks up this type of language in reference to the Antichrist. The New Testament would lead us in this direction. But yeah, so we have to acknowledge the issue. The real what would make it a lot clearer is if we had a transitional statement, but we don't. And it's but I still think it's the best view to understand that Antiochus epiphany is the fourth this horrific ruler in the second century who is the object of this prophecy of the time. And Daniel becomes a figure for the Antichrist. And then. And in that sense, this passage is an example of what we were talking about earlier. That is the prophetic viewpoint is. Looking? Well, I think there's a common term for it called telescoping. That and I think the references, even though it's a bit of a complicated references to kind of a collapsible telescope, that when you look through it collapsed and then you stretch it out, you the prophetic viewpoint may be when it's collapse, but then the fulfillment is when you stretch it out. Or as one of my professors a half a century ago explained at a prophets perspective, it's like looking across mountains of the same height and not being able to see the valleys between. So that's what we may be dealing with in this passage. So now that I'm through Daniel 11, I'm happy to take any questions, if there are any, and do my best with them. 

Audience Member [00:45:12] So I understand the idea that we're transitioning. Yeah, I think there are many prophecies in Isaiah, the one in particular that speaks of most people consider the speaking of Satan, but it starts out as a prophecy against the King of tire. 

Tremper Longman III [00:45:30] And then Right. 

Audience Member [00:45:31] Moves towards K. Right. So I accept the whole idea as general. But here, like in verse 4243, they seem to be relatively specific, extends his power over Egypt. But by the way, not some of the lands, you know, which would be considered Palestine in 41 and then in 43, you know, over the gold and so on, and Libyans and Cushite. And so is there anything in history that would suggest these things? 

Tremper Longman III [00:46:03] Yeah, actually, and I, I should have mentioned that that that's also part of the issue of. Thinking that this is in reference to the historical Antiochus, because as far as we know, and I think we would know, he never actually, as a king, successfully took over Egypt in this regard. So, you know, maybe it's using earthly language to refer to sort of a future spiritual thing, but that that is a bit of a. So I guess in terms of a tape, you. You're still speaking in a way that is suggestive beyond earthly realities or historical realities. But also it's given and kind of what's the right word. In historical language or something like that. It may be looking to the future, but looking at it, I mean, I'm obviously stumbling here because I also say in my commentary that anybody who doesn't acknowledge that there are some issues here with either interpretation, you have a problem, let me tell you. My problem with my friends who opt for the idea that this actually is a kind of failed prophecy. And again, they're my friends and they're evangelicals. They have a high view of scripture. But let me tell you their argument, and I'm thinking here of John Golden, gay in his Daniel commentary, or William Nelson, who is my colleague at West Matt, who wrote a commentary, and Ernst Lucas in the Apollo, they argue that what we have here well, let me differentiate their view first from Sibley Town or Sibley Town. His view is quite simply, no human being could ever know history with this amount of detail. And therefore this has to be prophecy after the fact. And you know, no one who believes in supernatural prophecy or Isaiah's claims in the forties that what differentiates away from the other gods is that he does know the future. So over John Golden, Gay and Bill Nelson's views are radically different from theirs. I want to say from his I want to say that right from the start what they do is they appeal to an ancient near eastern genre of prophecies that are after the fact, including the dynastic prophecy. And they say this is a well known genre and therefore would have been understood by the original audience as doing this. In other words, try and giving comfort to. Giving comfort to contemporaries around the time of Antiochus Epiphanes by talking about Antiochus his death. That would come soon. And his death did come soon, but not quite in the way that Daniel suggested. Now, my problem with that is I studied that genre as part of my doctoral dissertation. I mentioned I studied the dynastic prophecy. There's a whole subgenre of fictional Akkadian autobiographies, which include the dynastic prophecy, the Marduk prophecy, the show me prophecy and work prophecy in a text given the exciting name text A but. And all these are. They all are what Jon and Bill are saying. They are prophecies that are written after the fact, but they always have an attempt at a real prophecy at the end. The problem of appealing to that genre though, and saying that everybody would have recognized it is actually those prophecies were trying to fake their audiences out. And there is deception involved in that type of writing, which keeps me from going in that direction. And I'd rather struggle with the with the issues that we have been struggling with than to go in that direction.