Daniel 8:1

This chapter stands as the irrefutable example of genuine predictive prophecy at its most excellent achievement. Nobody, but nobody, can deny the obvious meaning of this prophecy. Even the most outspoken critical enemies freely admit the true meaning of the chapter, as did Herbert T. Andrews. He wrote:

"The interpretation of the vision which is given by Gabriel to Daniel is exceptionally clear, and leaves no manner of doubt that it refers to events of the Maccabean age. The ram with the two horns stands for Medo-Persia. The He-goat is the Greek Empire, the first horn representing Alexander the Great, and the four later horns the four kingdoms into which the empire later split up. The "Little horn" is Antiochus Epiphanes. His attack upon the Jewish religion is clearly described."[1]

The only support for the critical proposition that this is "prophecy written after the fact," based on the absurd proposition that the Book of Daniel was written about 165 B.C. (in the times of the Maccabees), is their arrogant, imaginative assertion to that effect. We have referred to that assertion as "absurd." Why? Every line of the Book of Daniel is in the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament.; and it was translated into the Greek language in the year 250 B.C.. What better proof could there be that Daniel was written long, long before the times of the Maccabees which are so accurately described herein?

There are also many other remarkable proofs of the divine origin of these remarkably vivid prophecies.

For example, if Daniel had been written in the times after Alexander appeared upon the historical horizon, any writer of that period would most certainly have made the ram, and not the goat, to have been the Greek kingdom. Why? Because Alexander wore a ram's horn on his crown; and this writer has seen gold seals in the Metropolitan Museum, New York City, carrying the image of Alexander the Great with his invariable ram's horn. "Alexander wore that horn in support of his boast that he was the son of Jupiter-Ammon."[2]

Then again, there is that story in Josephus which we mentioned in the introduction that when the High Priest of Jerusalem showed Alexander this chapter in the Book of Daniel, he spared the city from the punishment which their behavior had surely merited, and even extended the most amazing privileges to Jerusalem and the Jews. Some would question that story; but we accept it as the only reasonable explanation of what most surely happened in those events.

In the light of known facts, therefore, we find it,somewhat incredible that an alleged Christian author would declare that:

Daniel is a straight piece of historical writing cast in the form of prophecy![3]

We fully agree with the words of many of the old commentators, for example, those of Gaebelein, who stated that:

"Here indeed is history prewritten, for all of these things were revealed while the Babylonian Empire was still flourishing. No wonder that critics and kindred infidels have tried their very best to break down the authenticity of this book."[4]

Daniel 8:1-2

"In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai."

It is not necessary to suppose that Daniel was actually physically in Shushan for this vision, because the text clearly says that his being there was "when he saw." Furthermore, at the end of the chapter, when he took up his regular business with the king he was not in Shushan, but in Babylon.

From time to time, critics in their vain efforts to discredit the prophecy have complained that in the time here cited, namely in the third (and last year) of Belshazzar, Shushan had not then been constructed, or that it was not in the province of Elam, etc., etc. Those interested in pursuing such nit picking criticisms will find all of them thoroughly refuted by C. F. Keil.[5] His unequivocal conclusion was that, "The vision stands in intimate relationship to its contents and also to the time at which the revelation was made to Daniel."[6]