The Little Horn in Daniel 8

Daniel can be very difficult book to interpret for the average layperson. It can be ambiguous at times, even to Biblical Scholars. That is why there is so much disagreement on some details. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the different views on Daniel 8:9-27, more specifically the views on the little horn mentioned in this passage. All of the references to animals and horns in Daniel can be confusing. There are two "little horns" mentioned in Daniel; one is in Chapter 7 and one is in Chapter 8. These two "little horns" are not related in any way however. The little horn of Daniel 7 is grouped with 9 other horns, all of which are on the fourth beast, which has been thought to represent ancient Rome. Most scholars think that the 10 horns on the beast in chapter 7 is part of a Revived Roman Empire that takes place in the future. Out of 10 kings (horns) in Chapter 7 the "Little Horn" will rise up to take over the new Roman empire as the future anti-Christ. It is easy to see how having so many horns and animals mentioned in Daniel can make interpreting the book a frustrating task. The horn this paper is interested in is the one in Daniel 8. This "little horn" in Daniel 8 has caused much discussion amongst Bible Scholars. This paper seeks to answer three essential questions to studying this passage in Daniel. The first question to be examined is: "Who exactly was or is the Little Horn?" The second question that must be discussed is: "How much of the vision in Daniel 8 is fulfilled history and how much is prophecy?" The final question is: "How long was the reign or period of the Little Horn?" These questions must be answered in order to understand the context of this passage in Daniel and how the vision affects our view of history.

There are three main views put forth as to the identity of the little horn of Daniel 8. The first view thinks that the little horn is the future anti-Christ. The second view proposes that the little horn represents a major ruler during the time of the future anti-Christ. The third view thinks that the little horn represents Antiochus Epiphanes IV who can be considered a type for the future anti-Christ. Most conservative scholars have held the notion that events of the little horn are far in the future because liberal scholars have tried to date the book of Daniel to reign of Antiochus in 175-164 B.C. Liberal scholars automatically assume that a prophecy can't be told around the sixth century B.C. and come true during Antiochus' reign because that would give the Book of Daniel (and the Bible) creditability. Therefore it is much easier in the minds of Liberals to assume Daniel wasn't prophesying but rather telling the story of his oppressed people. Some conservatives responded by trying to refute the idea that little horn is Antiochus IV and rather a figure such as the anti-Christ. It is important to note that the little horn is part of a larger horn that broke off into four horns. In Daniel's vision he sees a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes coming from the west to attack and defeat the ram with two horns. Daniel 8:8 tells us that "The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven." Verse 9 says that out of one of those four horns a smaller one came up. The majority of commentators view the goat as Greece and the Ram as the Medo-Persian Empire based on Daniel 8:20-21. If you conclude that the goat was Greece then it is easy to come to think that the large prominent horn on the goat was most likely Alexander the Great. Alexander did march from the west to systematically defeat the Persian army and establish a new empire. He did die at the peak of his power just like verse 8 describes after totally eradicating the Persian threat in 323 B.C. Joseph also wrote that the Jewish priests came to greet Alexander as he was passing through Jerusalem. They supposedly showed him the book of Daniel and told him that he was the large horn. The priests also reassured Alexander that he would succeed in conquering the Persians. (Henry v. 20-22) They also told him that Therefore he matches the description of the large horn. That leaves us the question of who are the four horns that came after Alexander's death. Daniel 8:22 helps us understand what the four horns represent. The verse states the interpretation of Daniel 8:8 when it explains that the four horns represent the Greek Empire being divided up into four kingdoms that don't have the same amount of power that Alexander held. We know that Alexander's empire was divided into four kingdoms- Seleucus obtained Babylon and Syria, Ptolemy got Egypt, Antipater got Greece, and Antigonus received Lysimachus. (Wesley Chapter 8) This is more evidence that points to Antiochus being the little horn because he was the 8th king in the Seleucid dynasty, which reigned over Seleucus. So far it is hard to say that the little horn is a future figure; verses like 8:19-25 seem to interpret the vision in Daniel as history from our point of view in time. To Daniel these events would be in the future. However, Daniel 8:26 might be an indicator that the events of the little horn took place far past Daniel's lifetime. The angel warned Daniel to keep what he has seen a secret because they related to events that would took place "many days in the future". Exactly how long is "many days" from the time Daniel received the vision can be argued. If you believe that Daniel prophesied in the sixth century B.C. "many days" would mean hundreds of years depending on what event that was prophesied you are referring to. If you believe that the little horn is the anti-Christ, the "many days" could be interpreted to be thousands of years. The word "many" is vague and verse 26 doesn't give it any context that could help us identify an exact length of time. In further reference to the idea of the little horn being the anti-Christ, the switch from near future to distant future in verses 22-23 doesn't make any sense. The four kingdoms obviously took place in the near future (From Daniel's time period). So how can the little horn be placed in the very distant future since it rose out of one of the four kingdoms? While this subject is confusing, it makes the most sense Biblically for the little horn of Chapter 8 to be Antiochus IV. It still fits in with relationship between Daniel and Revelation because Antiochus serves as a type or model for the future anti-Christ. Antiochus blasphemed against God and he persecuted God's people. The future anti-Christ will do the same except on a much larger scale. Daniel 11:1-35 corresponds with the Seleucid Era and with the reign of Antiochus IV. (Yamauchi 16) Therefore we can be quite certain that the little horn is indeed Antiochus IV.

The second big question that needs to be explored is: how much of Daniel's vision is fulfilled history and how much is still prophecy (yet to be fulfilled). There are three major views propagated by scholars who view Antiochus as the little horn. The first is called the Historical view. The Historical view thinks that Antiochus fulfilled all of the prophecies in the chapter. The second view is called the Historical-Futurist view. This view thinks that verses 9-14 were fulfilled in Antiochus, but verses 23-25 are going to be fulfilled in the future, probably by the Anti-Christ. The last view is called the Typological view. This view states that verses 9-25 were all fulfilled by Antiochus but he serves as a type for how the future anti-Christ will reign. The Typological view is very similar to the Historical view, except for the fact that it sees Antiochus as a type for the future anti-Christ. The Historical view thinks Antiochus is purely a historical figure that has nothing to do with future prophecy. The Historical-Futurist view is probably the least acceptable view since it puts a break in the text. Verses 21-22 describe verses 5-8, so it would make sense chronologically and linguistically that verses 23-25 describe verses 9-14. The text doesn't indicate anywhere that the king mentioned in verses 23-25 would not take rise to power soon after the four kingdoms arose. Therefore it makes sense that if Antiochus were represented in verses 9-14 as the "little horn" in the vision, he would also be represented in the interpretation of that vision as the "king". The remaining two views (Historical and Typological) barely differentiate. The Typological view seems to work because Antiochus does do things that the book of Revelation tells the anti-Christ is going to do. Antiochus can't be proven to be represented in scripture as a type for the horrific events that will take place under the anti-Christ, but it seems to fit the correlation between the books of Daniel and Revelation. The Historical view isn't necessarily wrong in of itself; it is an incomplete view of the passage. When Daniel wrote his book almost all of the events he wrote about were to be fulfilled in a time after his death. Therefore technically everything Daniel wrote down was prophetic and not historical, even though liberal scholars would like you to believe otherwise. Liberal scholars tend to think that Daniel lived during the time of Antiochus IV and therefore he was just a reporter, not a prophet. All three views go against the idea that Daniel lived in the second century B.C.

The last question that must be examined is- "How long did the little horn reign?" Verse 14 tells us that the little horn will be in power for "2,300 morning and evenings" before the temple will be restored. There are three views as to how long 2,300 mornings and evenings are in this verse. The first view thinks that the period of the little horn is 2,300 years. The second view believes that the 2,300 mornings and evenings equals 1,500 days. The third view is the most literal and it takes the 2,3000 mornings and evenings as 2,300 days. The first view is widely held amongst Seventh-Day Adventists and was debunked in the 1800's. The famous story of the Great Disappointment should remind us of Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36 when he says that "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Jesus is of course speaking of the second coming, which is an event that people have been speculating about since the first century A.D. The first view, which views the days as years, was made into a mathematic formula by William Miller; in which he calculated the return of Christ to be March 22, 1844. It didn't happen and then the date was revised by Ellen G. White to be October 22, 1844. That date became famously known as "The Great Disappointment" and that view was proven utterly false. The second view assumes that "evenings and mornings" refer to evening and morning sacrifices done by the temple priests. Therefore they think that there are 2,300 sacrifices held back (due to Antiochus defaming it) until the temple is cleansed. Two sacrifices a day means that the period would have been 1,150 days or 2,300 divided by two. Those that hold to this view also point out that Daniel 11:11-12 points to a time period shorter than 2,300 days, more specifically 1,290 and 1,335 days. The Hebrew word `ereb is used for "evening" and Boqer is used for "mornings" in Daniel 8:14. 'Ereb literally means "evening" or "sunset" and Boqer literally means "mornings" or "sunrise", there is no context in this phrase or the verse that leads us to believe the idea of sacrifices was included. (Brown) Therefore the most straightforward reading of the text yields the interpretation that these 2,300 "mornings and evenings" were literally 2,300 days. From this we know that Antiochus reigned and defamed the temple for six years, three months, and 15 days. (Beza 8:14)

It is plain to see that many passages of Daniel can be difficult to understand. Their interpretations have been argued about for centuries. If we want to properly study Daniel or any other book of the Bible for that matter, we must first put aside any biases we have and let the text speak for itself. The Bible is a selective book therefore it can be hard to fully formulate our ideas on any given subject matter because there might not be enough written about that subject. The Little Horn in Daniel might not have been as fully explained, as we might have liked. It would be easier for us if the angel explained to Daniel that the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes IV, instead of just calling him "a stern-faced king". Unfortunately the Bible doesn't give us such a luxury. It is up to us to find the context and meaning of any passage we want to study in scripture. That is why it is important why we know who the little horn was, what he did, and how long he reigned. It gives a greater cultural context and even more insight into eschatology. We can know more about Antiochus IV by studying works about him from his time period therefore giving us a glimpse into the character of the future anti-Christ. Improperly interpreting scripture can also have devastating consequences such as what happened to Millerites in the 19th century. People's faith in God was shaken because of a false view of the 2,300 days in Daniel 8. The Great Disappointment not only shook the faith of Christians, it also gave those who mocked Christianity more ammunition for discrediting the Bible. The Great Disappointment coupled with Darwin's "Origin of the Species" published in 1859 marked a turning point in Christianity. If we are not careful on forming our views on Eschatology and other important theological issues we can confuse other Christians and turn non-believers away from the faith just as easily as others have gone before us.

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Daniel," vol. 7, In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Daniel 8". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". gen.cgi?book=da&chapter=008>. 1600-1645.

Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for `ereb". "The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon". .

Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Boqer". "The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon". .

Fausset, A. R., A.M. "Commentary on Daniel 8". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible". . 1871.

Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Daniel 8". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible". mhc-com.cgi?book=da&chapter=008>. 1706.

Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Daniel 8". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". srn.cgi?book=da&chapter=008>. 1917.

Wesley, John. "Commentary on Daniel 8". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible". wes.cgi?book=da&chapter=008>. 1754.

Wilson, Robert Dick. Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Classic Defense of the Historicity and Integrity of Daniel's Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Baker, [1917], 1979

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980): 13-21. JETS on-Line.