History and Fiction: The Second Great Awakening and the Visions of Joseph Smith

Thesis

            The Second Great Awakening was a time of religious fervor that instigated many to reconnect with or join for the first time a church.  However in the wake of this spiritual stirring, a young man of simple means named Joseph Smith founded Mormonism.  Claiming to have experienced heavenly visions providing guidance and wisdom to found a new religious system, the records of this time, as well as Joseph Smith’s own writings provide for the modern reader satisfactory evidence to determine the validity of Joseph Smith’s prophet-hood based on the requirements of Deuteronomy 18:22 as compared to the unambiguous happenings of history.  Historical records indisputably testify that Joseph Smith was wrong about his account of history (which is written in a book attributed by Mormons with the authority of scripture) on many points and therefore is disqualified as a true prophet of God, consequently and necessarily qualifying himself as a false prophet.  This paper will not address why these errors occur, as that is out of the scope of this writing.  Sufficient for our purpose will be to show that these errors do in fact occur.  The implications will thus be self-evident.

Critical Interaction

            Starting off with a clear determination of time frame of the Second Great Awakening is necessary if one is to have a foundational knowledge of the events of this time.  To remain focused on our task, we will not discuss any of the surrounding influences, effects, theology, etc. of the Second Great Awakening.

            Marking the traits of this second awakening as “a sudden increase in Christian devotion and living,” Justo L. Gonzalez places the Second Great Awakening at the close of the eighteenth century into the beginning of the nineteenth century.^[1]  Gonzalez goes on to explain the traits of this widespread movement, “Attendance at worship increased markedly, and many spoke of having had an experience of conversion.”^[2]  The effects of this movement are felt throughout New England for decades, as Gonzalez attributes the founding of several Christian societies to the influence of the Second Great Awakening, some founded even as late as 1826.^[3]  Jonathan Hill is far more tolerant in his assessment of how long the Second Great Awakening lasted, attributing its influence to the founding of the Seventh-day Adventists in 1863, as well as the teachings of Joseph Smith.^[4]

            Within the time frame of the Second Great Awakening, which we now know encompasses at least 1800-1863, it must also be established when a local revival within the vicinity of Manchester, NY took place.  This is referent to Joseph Smith’s claim that “Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion.”^[5]  Since this does not outright refer to a date, there is some reconstruction that must be done.  From Joseph Smith, in a record of what is said to be inspired, inerrant scripture, we read:

I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont . . . My father, Joseph Smith, Sen., left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) county, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father's arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario^[6]

From this section of Mormon scripture one may deduce that Joseph Smith was born December 25, 1805, his father (Joseph Smith Sr.) left Vermont in young Joseph’s tenth year (or thereabouts).  Assuming exactly ten years, this would yield Joseph Smith Sr.’s arrival in Palmyra, NY in roughly spring 1815/1816.  Joseph Smith honestly indicates here the non-exact nature of his recollection (e.g. or thereabouts).  From this point it is another 4 years until Joseph Smith Sr. once again moves his family out of Palmyra, to Manchester, NY, beginning with nearly the entire year of 1815 yields a date presumably around the 1818/1819 timeframe.  In verse 5 of the Joseph Smith History presented in The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith references “the second year after our removal to Manchester.”  This would indicated that the “unusual excitement on the subject of religion” experienced by Smith in Manchester, according to these scriptures, and his own testimony, takes place in 1820 at the latest.

            This is troubling because the overwhelming consensus of the facts from all other sources testifies to the falsehood of the historical recitation from Joseph Smith’s own pen regarding not only his own history, but the date of the “unusual excitement.”  James R. White catalogs a long list of governmental records from varying sources countering the dates of the Joseph Smith history found in The Pearl of Great Price.  First he cites a record of “warning out” from Norwich, Vermont dated March 15 , 1816.^[7]  This “warning out” typically happened extremely quickly if a family was not of “obvious means,” so that the town wouldn’t be overburdened by the responsibility of care for too many needy families.^[8]  Already this presents a slight problem, for it shows that the Smiths were in Vermont until at least March of 1816.  Allowing that to be subsumed under “thereabouts” we move on to the Palmyra road tax records White cites, indicating road usage by individuals over the age of 21 in Palmyra.  Joseph Smith Sr.’s name appears in these records 1817 to 1822, as does Joseph’s brother Alvin’s name appear in 1820 (Alvin turned 21 in 1819).^[9]  This irrefutably shows that Joseph Smith’s reconstruction of these dates is in error by virtue of the fact that for one to appear on the road tax record one must have been a resident of that community.  However, Smith does accurately communicate when the revival broke out in relation to his family moving to Manchester (i.e. two years), as we will now see the date of the local revival firmly established to be 1824/1825.

            Wesley P. Walters in his 1969 article, New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival firmly establishes through multiple sources and public records that the revival spoken of by Joseph Smith could have happened at no other date than 1824/1825.  In support of this thesis he levels several historical facts against the claim in the Pearl of Great Price that, according to Joseph Smith, this revival took place in 1820.  He cites testimony from a Mormon insider, Oliver Cowdery, who says, “...revival broke out under the preaching of a Mr. Lane, a presiding elder of the Methodist church.”^[10]  This is significant because Mr. Lane was the minister who presided over the Methodist church in the time of the revival in question, and is the one Cowdery admits was the instigator of the revival.  Historical church records show that Rev. Lane was not assigned to the Ontario district where Palmyra is located until July of 1824.^[11]  Also, another church leader by the name of Reverend Stockton is historically connected not only to the events of the revival, but also to the writings of William Smith.  Walters recounts William Smith’s testimony that Joseph Smith Sr. did not like Rev. Stockton because it was him who presided over the death of their son/brother Alvin and suggested that he might have gone to hell for having never been a member of a church.^[12]  The familiarity of this man to the Smith family, as has been evidenced, presents a problem because he too was not assigned as Pastor to the Presbyterian Church in Palmyra until February 18, 1824.^[13]  His presence at this funeral and a wedding November 26, 1823 were during visits he paid to the area, and are cataloged in newspapers that refer to him as Rev. Stockton of Skaneateles,” referring to the town where he was a Presbyterian elder.^[14]

            So any revival that included both of these men (Lane and Stockton) who are so intimately associated with the events described in the Pearl of Great Price could be none other than the 1824/1825 revival in Ontario county.  Further support of this date is evidenced by the fact that the churches in this area saw no significant gain in new converts during 1820, when Joseph Smith suggests a revival was taking place.  In point of fact, a revival without perceivable and commensurate increase in church attendance via conversion could not rightly be called a revival.  This much is admitted by Joseph Smith in his classification of “great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties.”^[15]  Walters reports that by September 1825 the Presbyterian church had seen 99 converts, the Baptists had seen 94, and the Methodists, from whose influence the revival is reported to have broken out, saw 208.^[16]  In 1820 the Presbyterians reported no significant increase, the Baptists gained 6 by way of Baptism, and the Methodists reported a loss of 6.^[17]  One is forced by the evidence to conclude that nothing noteworthy regarding revival happened in 1820 and instead admit that the events attributed by Joseph Smith in Mormon scripture to 1820 truly happened in the latter part of 1824 and into 1825.

            What does that leave one to conclude about the revival tale in the Pearl of Great Price?  Remembering that we are not seeking to answer the question of “why,” we must conclude that the account of this event as Joseph Smith tells it is indeed false.  Since Joseph Smith’s false account is part of canonized Mormon scripture, one is forced to impute the same false assessment to at least the Pearl of Great Price. 

            The situation becomes more dire if it is realized that, as White describes, “if the revivals do not take place until [winter] 1824, and the first “spring day” that Smith can go into the woods to pray is in the spring of 1825, what happens to the “second vision” that supposedly takes place on September 21, 1823?”^[18]  If this most foundational account of Mormon faith is wrong, and is based on a prophetic vision claimed by Joseph Smith, then wouldn’t this impute the totality of Mormon “revelation?”  Perhaps one could extent Smith some leeway, crediting this error to a simple lapse in memory regarding the date.  This would seem fair, but is one’s willingness to make this allowance in agreement with Biblical texts whose authority and historical coherence has been maintained and demonstrated for centuries?

            In Deuteronomy 18:22 we read, “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”  The meaning of this is plain in the terms of the future (e.g. “see if what he says comes true”).  One also may observe the implication of this passage for the accurate recollection of events being described as past.  It is certain that one who did not accurately reconstruct historical events would not have been acknowledged as a prophet of God.  Indeed Deuteronomy 18:22 tells us, “You need not be afraid of him.”  Or in today’s vernacular, “don’t believe him.”

            Even with the consideration of the Biblical criteria for prophetic testing, if allowance is still to be extended to Smith in permitting these errors, perhaps the following further evidence of Joseph Smith’s error will be adequate to relieve further doubt of his prophetic inadequacy.

            Given the sequence of events described in The Pearl of Great Price where Smith claims that his father “moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario” around 1818 or 1819, it would be safe to assume that Joseph Smith’s sister Lucy Smith was with them in this move.  And Smith admits as much by the statement “with his family” and then the proceeding qualification of “his family including eleven souls,” the listing of which includes young Lucy.  The problem with this is that Lucy was not born until July 18, 1821.^[19]  So here, in revered Mormon scripture we have a blatant contradiction of historical facts, such as cannot be reconciled with any version of reality.

Conclusion

            As I stated in the beginning of this paper, the implications of this are self-evident.  First it is evident that Joseph Smith recorded his dates wrong, or perhaps changed them at a later date of editing.  This fundamentally denies him access to the scriptural office of prophet.  From this it is therefore deduced that because Joseph Smith does not fulfill the requirements to hold the office of prophet, nothing he wrote or taught should be considered authoritative.  Furthermore, what he wrote and taught should be examined on the basis of true scripture (Genesis-Revelation) to determine its validity, and in the spirit of Deuteronomy 13:1-3 should be examined as to the identity, nature, and character of God.  From such examination the totality of Mormon scriptures must be either accepted or rejected on that grounds.  The evidence shows that they must be rejected as false, just as Joseph Smith’s status as prophet must be rejected as false.

            Though Joseph Smith’s recollection of some of the events of the Second Great Awakening are accurate and history has secured the significant influence of the Mormon people, this does not translate to a determination of truth.  Indeed, truth speaks when the actual turn of events is accurately reconstructed, as we have done here.  The end has come to this: if Joseph Smith was any type of prophet at all, he was a false one.  This is not to comment on his intensions or sincerity, but nonetheless carries real and far-reaching consequences for the modern Mormon Church.  Whether or not pride and devotion will allow Mormons to weigh the evidence will only be decided one Mormon at a time.

---

^[1]                 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, (NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), 326.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4]                   Jonathan Hill, Handbook to the History of Christianity: A Comprehensive Global Survey of the Growth, Spread, and Development of Christianity, (Oxford, England: Lion Publishing, 2006), 344.

^[5]                 Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History. Extracts From the History of Joseph Smith the Prophet, History of the Church Vol. 1, Ch. 1-5, Verse 5. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

^[6]           Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History. Extracts From the History of Joseph Smith the Prophet, History of the Church Vol. 1, Ch. 1-5, Verse 3. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

^[7]           James R. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, (AL, Solid Ground Christian Books, 1993), 102.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10]               Wesley P. Walters, “New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival,” Dialogue, Vol. 4, No. 1, (1969), 61.

^[11] Ibid., 63.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15]               Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History. Extracts From the History of Joseph Smith the Prophet, History of the Church Vol. 1, Ch. 1-5, Verse 5. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

^[16]               Wesley P. Walters, “New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival,” Dialogue, Vol. 4, No. 1, (1969), 66.

^[17] Ibid.

^[18]               James R. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, (AL, Solid Ground Christian Books, 1993), 104.

^[19]                   “Family of Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith: The First Family of the Restoration,” Ensign, (December, 2005) http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/12/family-of-joseph-smith-sr-and-lucy-mack-smith-the-first-family-of-the-restoration?lang=eng#footnoteSTAR2-25912_000_003 (accessed March 7, 2012).

The Significance of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11

​The historicity of the prophecy in Daniel 11 is well established and could hardly be associated with any other time than that of the Maccabean revolt. So specific is this prophecy, describing in detail the conflicts of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, the Persians and the Syrians, that at the point where it diverts from prophecy now considered history to prophecy still future, the reader is challenged to understand not only where that distinction takes place but also what the still-future meaning could be.  Even so, one is not left without sufficient evidence and Biblical cross-reference to make an accurate and thorough appraisal of the data.  Indeed, by imposition of Biblical and historical data, I hope to show why Antiochus IV Epiphanes can not be considered the king referred to in verses 36-45.  Instead only the Antichrist fits the totality of the description foretold at the end of Daniel 11, as other scripture and history supports.

Exegetical/Critical Interaction

​Since the preceding verses (Dan 11:1-20) do not specifically deal with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but do provide meaningful context, they will not be a primary focus and will only be used referentially.
​After a long lineage, we first come across Antiochus in Dan 11:21 as the most likely candidate fitting within the interpretive context.  The one here described as "contemptible" is also referent to the little horn of Dan 8.  These two descriptions alone do not undeniably identify the successor in v.21 as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ruling immediately after Antiochus III of 11:9-19 and Seleuvuc IV Philopator of 11:20, but it would be decidedly difficult to fit another person or real world series of events into the prophecy without serious difficulty, especially considering the lack of difficulty in interpreting these verses in light of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid conflicts.  Consequently, Antiochus IV is most obviously the "contemptible person" of v.21.  As J. Dwight Pentecost says in his commentary on Daniel in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, "He took to himself the name Epiphanes which means 'the Illustrious One.' But he was considered so untrustworthy that he was nicknamed Epimanes which means 'the Madman.'"  Miller agrees with Pentecost on this point as he cites the same testimony from Polybius' Histories (26.1.1).
​Antiochus IV's interpretive identification is further secured by the fact that he "has not been given the honor of royalty."  By right of birth, Antiochus IV's brother, Demetrius I Soter was entitled to the throne.  Antiochus IV was able to seize power because his brother was being held captive in Rome, and was only able to keep the throne by virtue of his success routing an invasion from a foe whose identity is unknown, and by influencing key political powers in Syria.  By this it is evident that even the manner of Antiochus' assumption of the throne is accounted for, being described as "through flatteries."  Other evidence of Antiochus' identity in these verses is of the same nature: (11:22) he destroyed (deposed) "the prince of the covenant", presumably Onias III; (11:25-27) he warred against Egypt (king of the south) in 169, (11:23) defeating them by deception and with few people, (11:28) and returned to his country with the wealth of his defeated foes via Palestine where he looted the temple (heart set against the holy covenant);  (11:29-30a) in 168 B.C. unsuccessfully engaged in a second campaign against Egypt; and indeed desecrated the temple by not only "abolish[ing] the daily sacrifice" and all other quintessential Jewish rituals but also by setting up an Idol to Zeus on 15 Chislev (December) 167 B.C. while sacrifices to this pagan god were offered before the idol on the temple alter, as described in Dan 11:31 as "the abomination the causes desolation."  The overwhelming nature of the correspondence between the Dan. 11 prophecy and the historical data surrounding Antiochus IV Epiphanes asserts itself to be as close as anything may come to indisputable.
​With Antiochus IV Epiphanes now positively identified, the next task is to determine the significance he plays within the Biblical context.  To answer this question we must determine where, if at all, Antiochus ceases to be referred to and if so, who is spoken of after Antiochus departs from the scene.  Some like Paul Niskanen in his article Daniel's Portrait of Antiochus IV: Echoes of a Persian King base their argument upon a presupposition that Antiochus is referred to throughout the rest of Daniel 11, beginning in v.21 and on through v.45.  Niskanen does not interact with the relevant scripture (i.e. whether another person is in view starting with v.36 or if this continues to be Antiochus, and why) to positively show that Antiochus is indeed the one who continues to be addressed in verses 36-45.  Namely, this treatment does not suffice to satisfy evident reason as Antiochus is seen immediately prior to v.36 honoring Zues in v.31.  This much at least is admitted by Mercer in his article The benefactions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Dan 11:37-38: an exegetical note according to the same observation.  So Niskanen recognizes that both scripture and history agree that Antiochus cannot be the one to whom v.36-45 refer, and yet for decidedly different reasons than Mercer.  
​Niskanen desires to attribute the entire latter portion of Daniel 11 to a Persian called Cambyses, the account of whom is recorded by Heredotus of Halicarnasses.  This becomes a rather difficult position to maintain if Dan. 11:41 and other such verses that don't lend themselves to an Egyptian context are taken into account.  In the case of Cambyses, the "Beautiful Land" would be made to refer to Egypt as that land where Cambyses desecrated temples and massacred many people.  This is cumbersome since it is the temple associated with Yahweh and the worship therein which makes the land "beautiful."  The beauty spoken of in v.41 is solely dispensed by Yahweh upon His people in the land He had chosen, which could in no way be confused with Egypt.  Neither does Niskanen take into account that both "the king of the north," and "the king of the south," are referred to in those terms throughout v.36-45, and that there seems to be an introduction of a third character, against whom both the king of the north and the king of the south resist in battle (Dan. 11:40).
​Since Niskanen does not allow for the possibility that the king in Dan. 11:36-45 is by design of God, and communicated as such by prophetic utterance, not Antiochus, his argument becomes labored and largely irrelevant.  However what Niskanen and Mercer do help us to establish is that Antiochus IV Epiphanes exits the context of our passage by v.36.
​More than establishing that Antiochus is not the king referred to in v.36 and on, J. Paul Tanner unpacks the details of the "three king theory" in his article Daniels "King of the North:" Do we Owe Russia an Apology?  As I alluded to while interacting with Niskanen's work, there seems to be a third king introduced in v.36 described as "the King."  This is significant because until v.36 both the northern and southern king have always been referred to by association with their geographic location (i.e. north/south).  The realization of this third king becomes increasingly important to the meaning of v.40 where the king of the north and the king of the south both war against "the king" of v.36.
​Considering any interpretation of Dan. 11:36-45 as lacking where only two kings are recognized based on Tanner's thorough exegetical interaction of the relevant texts, the strengths of a three-kings approach are self-evident as the only plausible or critically allowable assertion derived from Dan. 11:36-39.  The only criticism raised against this approach is that the king of the north and the king of the south until v.36 were seen incessantly warring against one another.  However a plausible and likely solution is given by Tanner in the fact that though these two kings indeed are adversaries, history routinely reports of violent adversaries uniting for a brief period in opposition of a mutual threat.  This situation is not represented in the text, though it is an apt explanation why two otherwise vicious adversaries are seen in v.40 united against a common foe.
​So by imposition of the Hebrew based syntax, and the lack of counter evidence disallowing the existence of only three kings within Dan. 11:36-45, it is also undeniably established that there is certainly another character being referred to in the context of the latter portion of Dan. 11 and that Niskanen's desire to find Antiochus in these verses while rejecting the section's historicity,represents a failure to meaningfully engage with the Hebrew syntax and so the context.  Indeed it is not necessary to find Antiochus in these verses because the evidence bares out that an entirely different person is here described.
​Still endeavoring to answer the question of Antiochus' significance, the question is now: who is it that is being described in Dan. 11:36-45?  Starting from what has already been disproven, it must not be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, nor can it be Cambyses.  Pentecost and Miller, whose commentaries have been cited in this paper, as well as the majority of Biblical scholars agree that the one in view here is none other than the Antichrist himself.  Allowing the explicit statements in scripture determine the application of implicit statements in support of this assertion, it is appropriate to look back to the "little horn" of Dan. 7:8 and "the ruler" of Dan. 9:26.  Here, the context is instructive in the identification of "the king" of v.36.  In chapters 7-9 reference is consistently made to end times and the things that come immediately before that time, and then again in chapter 12.  Dan. 10 and 11 are sandwiched between descriptions of end time events.  Furthermore, George M. Harton in his article An Interpretation of Daniel 11:36-45 agrees that Dan. 12:1 is an indication of the temporal setting that influences the context of both chapter 11 and 12, while he also appropriately points out that v.35, by its reference to "the time of the end" effectively brings to an end the previous flow of dealings with the gentiles and opens a new sequence within the context of the end times in v.36.  This places the over-arching context within the framework of the last days and so the identification of Antichrist in Dan. 11:36 is at least allowable, if not preferable.  The antichrist is the only feasible identification of one who fits within this context; even so, this does not positively identify Antichrist but makes him a likely candidate.  Among the ones who have been associated by scholarship with this label (Antichrist) are ones such as Herod, Constantine, the Pope, and Napoleon.  And though the demeanor of these rulers would correspond with some of the aspects of the king of v.36-45, Harton points out, "none but the Antichrist can measure up to the temporal qualifications of livving 'at that time' in the 'time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation at that time' (12:1)."
​Due to the inadequacy of the counter exegesis and thus the impossibility of the contrary, v.36-45 must refer to none other than the Antichrist, within an eschatological framework as Dan. 12:1 and the natural break at Dan. 11:35 require.  By deduction this also answers the question of the identity of the king of the north in 11:36-45.  It is not needed that we positively identify who this is, nor can we, though it is necessary to point out that because this section is embedded within an eschatological context, the king of the north at this point is most certainly not Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  This is supported by the understanding that there is necessarily a large break in time between v.35 and v.36.
​Left with the somewhat subjective question of Antiochus Epiphanes' significance, one is driven outside of the immediate context of Dan. 11 to other eschatological texts such as Dan. 7-9 in search of answers.
​In the angelic interpretation (Dan. 8:15-26) of Daniel's vision (Dan. 8:1-14) we see the distinction made between Antiochus and the one to "take his stand against the Prince of princes," this passage lending itself in support of the three kings scenario I described above.  Additionally this helps to establish the role (significance) of the "stern-faced king" of Dan. 8:23.  Pentecost comments as to the significance of Antiochus as he is referred to in Dan. 8:15-26 and 11:21-35, "There is no question among expositors that Antiochus is in view in this prophecy. What was prophesied was fulfilled literally through him.  However, the prophecy looks beyond Antiochus to a future person (the Antichrist) of whom Antiochus is only a foreshadowing. "  Pentecost goes on to further accentuate the correspondence between Antichrist and Antiochus's foreshadowing:
"From Antiochus certain facts can be learned about the forthcoming desecrator: (1) He will achieve great power by subduing others (v. 24).  (2) He will rise to power by promising false security (v. 25).  (3) He will be intelligent and persuasive (v. 23).  (4) He will be controlled by another (v. 24), that is, Satan.  (5) He will be an adversary of Israel and subjugate Israel to his authority (vv. 24-25).  (6) He will rise up in opposition to the Prince of princes, the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 25).  (7) His rule will be terminated by divine judgement (v. 25).  So it may be concluded that there is a dual reference in this striking prophecy.  It reveals Israel's history under the Seleucids and particularly under Antiochus during the time of Greek domination, but it also looks forward to Israel's experiences under Antichrist, whom Antiochus foreshadows."
​It is important to note that Pentecost's position assumes an eschatological context and so upon the justifiable basis we have established here in this paper Pentecost's application of Antiochus's significance is acceptable.  For an application that is more local to the second century B.C., Miller writes, "God disclosed this historical summary to the prophet to prepare the Jewish people for the coming crisis - Antiochus's persecution.  Biblical revelations of the future are given by the Lord to his people to exhort faithfulness, to encourage during difficult days, and to comfort in suffering."  While this indeed is couched more in the second century B.C., there is necessarily a sense in which God's preparing of His people uses the Aorist tense.  Through consideration of the eschatological context one sees God's preparing to be taking place in time, yet with ongoing implications referent to the future.  This is what Miller was suggesting in the above quote.  That is to say that God's is now (then, B.C.) and continually preparing His people for times of crisis, both in temporal and eschatological senses.  This is witnessed in Dan. 11 as Antiochus foreshadows the Antichrist, the coming of whom was a distant event but also a current allegorical reality for the second century B.C. Jew.

Conclusion

​The idea that Dan 11 is eschatological, which is inherently prophetic and thus a supernatural work of God to tell history before it happens, is one that causes within many a desire to intellectually war against an equitable assessment of relevant material.  Evidence of this tendency can perhaps be seen in Niskanen's interaction with this passage of scripture.  There are unfounded presuppositions in statements such as, "The account in Daniel is therefore unhistorical in spite of Porphyry's best attempts to rehabilitate it," an assumption Niskanen comes to by assuming, though never defending, that Antiochus is the one described in Dan. 11:36-45.  The evidence has shown this to be false, and so it is necessarily a false conclusion that Daniel is therefore unhistorical.  Niskanen admits that Antiochus never engaged in, or at least there is no record of  a third campaign to Egypt.  But instead of considering that another king could be present in Dan. 11:36-45 he continues to conclude prematurely that at this point Daniel departs from historical record.  
​Upon calling Dr. Niskanen, I found that though it superficially seems that this position is in conflict with a positive view of Biblical inerrancy, he assures that the sense in which this statement was intended is such that Dan. 11:40-45 is not historical in that it refers to future events.  Even so, one is left confused as to why this was not blatantly and in no uncertain terms spelled out for the reader.  At first glance this statement, and the deductions it supports, lends itself as ammunition, giving the illusion of authoritative evidence in the attempt to refute the principle of Biblical inerrancy.  All one could accurately fault Dr. Niskanen with is that perhaps his position could have been stated more clearly.  However the implications of such a statement are clear.
​Be that as it may, the premise still stands that Antiochus cannot be any of the kings in view in Dan. 11:36-45 because the section is necessarily eschatological.  As such, neither can Cambyses be any of the kings referred to based on the same evidence.  Clearly there is only one person who fulfills the prophecy in vv.21-35 and that is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and an entirely different one for the fulfillment of vv.36-45 who is the Antichrist.  The significance of these two is that the former foreshadows the latter in both nature and deed, though not to the same degree, nor in the same temporal setting.
​The more theocentric significance to this passage stretching in meaning and context from Dan. 8 to the end of the book and indeed throughout the Bible is that God has ordained for certain things to happen, and to glorify Himself by means of those events.  Apart from being exegetically unfounded, one is also hard pressed to associate such a suitably God-centered significance to any of the other views mentioned in this paper.  Saying this does not prove the untruthfulness of those views for each does contain elements of truth, but rather seeks to subordinate them in credibility to that view scripture seems to clearly indicate, and what an accurate and thorough survey of the evidence and meaning produces.  The two (the Bible, and evidence) are in concert with each other, as always.
 
 
 

Bibliography
 
1.  Mercer, Mark K. "The benefactions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Dan 11:37-38: an exegetical note." Master's Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 89-93. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 12, 2012).
 
2.  Tanner, J Paul. "Daniel's "king of the north" : do we owe Russia an apology?." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 3 (September 1, 1992): 315-328. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 12, 2012).
 
3.  Harton, George M. "An interpretation of Daniel 11:36-45." Grace Theological Journal 4, no. 2 (September 1, 1983): 205-231. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 12, 2012).
 
4.  Niskanen, Paul. "Daniel's portrait of Antiochus IV: echoes of a Persian king." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66, no. 3 (July 1, 2004): 378-386. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 12, 2012).
 
5.  Miller, Stephen R. “Daniel.” The New American Commentary Vol. 18. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

6.  Pentecost, J. Dwight. "Daniel." The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communications Ministries, 2000.