5.2 - Glossary


(Work in progress.)

(Work in progress.)

As a work-in-progress, the glossary presently consists of an unedited collection of notes gathered from various sources.

5.2.1 - Abomination of Desolation

“The key to understanding the term ‘abomination of desolation’ is to be found in the prophecy of Daniel where there are three, or possibly four, references to it: Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; and possibly 8:13. The various Hebrew and Greek terms rendered abomination and abominable carry the idea of something abhorrent, detestable, disgusting, foul, horrible, and impure, and therefore repugnant and unlawful on that account. . . . One of the Hebrew words translated ‘abomination,’ shiqquts, is most frequently used as a description of heathen gods. For example, in 2Chr. 15:8 it is translated ‘abominable idols,’ while in 2K. 23:13 it describes Ashtoreth, ‘the abomination of the Zidonians,’ and Chemosh, ‘the abomination of the Moabites.’ Since shiqquts is the term Daniel uses in Dan. 9:27; 11:31; and 12:11, the strong inference is that the abomination of desolation is an idol placed in the temple in Jerusalem. Desolation (the word is plural in the Greek of Mat. 24:15 and Mark 13:14) signifies a laying waste. Abomination always causes desolation, disaster, and judgment. The presence of an abomination, an idol or anything else the Lord has denounced as repugnant to Him, renders a place unfit for the presence and service of the Lord. . . . The entire phrase, the abomination of desolation, then, obviously refers to an idol, or false god, and its worship, placed in the temple of God and causing desolation. . . . Those who see ‘the abomination of desolation’ fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans appeal to Luke 21:20. They hold that the wording ‘when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is night’ explains the desolation of Mat. 24:15. However, this argument misses the mark. Luke 21 does not record the same discourse as Matt. 24. It precedes the Matthew account. It was given in the temple (Luke 21:1), whereas Mat. 24:12 was given after ‘He went out and departed the Temple’ (Mat. 24:1) ‘as He sat upon the mount of Olives’ (Mat. 24:3). The discourse in Luke 21 coincides with Mat. 24 as far as v. 11. That is, Luke 21:7-11 corresponds with Mat. 24:3-8. Then the two portions diverge. Luke 21:12 specifically states that the rest of the discourse is a retrospect—that the Lord goes back to what happens before all the things He has just spoken about. Matthew 24:9 clearly indicates that in His second discourse He continues His prophecy of future events, without any retrospect. This yields two important conclusions. First, in view of this, it is impossible to equate the Roman armies compassing Jerusalem to destroy it with ‘the abomination of desolation.’ Second, the prophecy of ‘the abomination of desolation’ remained to be fulfilled after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. . . . The abomination of desolation, therefore, is the final and greatest eruption of idolatry, as the Antichrist sets up his abominable worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and proclaims himself to be God.”1

5.2.2 - Accession Year

The year in which a king assumed the throne. Accession-year dating is a chronological method of numbering a king’s years that does not count his first partial (accession) year. “Since a king would be unlikely to die on the exact day ending a particular year and his successor take the throne on the first day of the following year, it was likely that the last year of a king’s reign was a partial year, and the rest of that year was served by the following king. Since both kings served part of a year, to whom was that year assigned? In some systems used in the ancient world, the year was assigned to the end of the reign of the previous king, and the partial year was not counted in the reign of the new king. Instead this was a sort of ‘year zero’ for the new king, called his accession year. This accession year system was typically used by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The non-accession year system was used by the kings of Israel, whose first dynasty was founded by Jeroboam I.”2 By way of contrast, “Non-accession numbering means that when a king died, that year was counted as part of his reign, but it was also counted in the total number of years of the king who succeeded him. In this way, a king who died one year after he started would be given [a reign of] two years instead of one which is the reason that reign length formulas use a number that is one less than the non-accession number.”3 “One general principle is that non-accession years are used when the years are measured from the start of a king’s coregency with his father.”4 See Counting Years.

5.2.3 - Afel

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Afel stem is considered a parallel to the Hafel. In some verbs in Aramaic, the prefixed ‘h’ of various stems was replaced by an aleph. Like the Hafel, the Afel is causative (i.e., the object of the verb is made to participate in the action of the verb).”5 See Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, Pael, Peal, and Peil.

5.2.4 - Amillennial

The amillennial view denies a literal Millennial Kingdom on earth (Rev. 20). It holds that the kingdom promises in the OT are fulfilled spiritually rather than literally in the New Testament church. Amillennialists usually consider the thousand years of Revelation 20 as a symbol indicating an “indefinite” period of time. Christ is seen as ruling over His kingdom through the church in the current age, a kingdom which is strictly spiritual. “The a- in amillennialism negates the term; hence, amillennialism means there will not be a literal, future millennium.”6 See Millennial Kingdom.

5.2.5 - Antichrist

“The final world ruler who opposes God and His Christ (particularly in relation to His deity), oppresses God’s elect (especially the Jewish people), and seeks to usurp the place of divine worship through desecration of the holy (especially Jerusalem and its temple) . . . According to 1 John 4:3, this antitheocratic, antisemitic spirit is characteristic of the present age, indicating that these are the last days . . . The designation Antichrist, appearing only in the epistles of John (1Jn. 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2Jn. 1:7), is made up of the Greek words anti (against, in place of) and christos (Christ), and indicates any agent of the Evil One (Satan) who acts contrary to or as a counterfeit of God’s Anointed, Who is destined to rule the world (Ps. 2:2, 6-8; 110:1-2; Isa. 9:6-7, et al.) . . . While the specific term antichrist may be rarely used, the Bible is filled with descriptive terminology of his diabolical and desecrating nature. Among the more obvious epithets are: little horn (Dan. 7:8), insolent king (Dan. 8:23), prince who is to come (Dan. 9:26), one who makes desolate (Dan. 9:27), despicable person (Dan. 11:21), strong-willed king (Dan. 11:36), worthless shepherd (Zec. 11:16-17), man of lawlessness, and the son of destruction (2Th. 2:8), the beast (Rev. 11:7; 13:1; 14:9; 15:2; 16:2; 17:3, 13; 19:20; 20:10).”7

5.2.6 - Apocrypha

1. The 14 books of the Septuagint included in the Vulgate but considered uncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Roman Catholic canon accepts 11 of these books and includes them in the Douay Bible. 2. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons. 3. apocrypha. Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity.”8 “The Roman Catholic Church’s claim that these writings of the Apocrypha are inspired must be rejected for the following reasons . . . [which see]”9 “The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach), Baruch, 3 Ezra (=1 Esdras), 4 Ezra (=2 Esdras), The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151. All of these except 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) are present in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX); 2 Esdras is found in the Latin translations of the Old Testament and was used by many early church fathers. While the Greek Orthodox use 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151, the Roman Catholic Church does not.”10

5.2.7 - Armilus

A figure of Jewish legend whose characteristics are partially derived from biblical teaching concerning the Antichrist. “Legendary name of the Messiah’s antagonist or anti-Messiah. Armilus appears frequently in the later Apocalyptic Midrashim, such as Midrash Va-Yosha, Sefer Zerubbavel, and Nistarot shel R. Shimon b. Yohai. He is also mentioned in the Targum pseudo-Jonathan, Isa. 11:14 and in the Targum Yerushalmi A (Deut. 34:3). Armilus is first mentioned otherwise in Saadiah Gaon’s Emunot ve-De’ot (Ma’amar 8), apparently under the influence of Sefer Zerubbavel. The legend of Armilus thus originated not earlier than the beginning of the geonic period. Its basis, however, is the talmudic legend of Messiah the son of Joseph, who would be slain in the war between the nations prior to the redemption that would come through Messiah the son of David (Suk. 52a). In Otot ha-Mashi’ah (Midreshei Ge’ullah, p. 320), there is reference to ‘the Satan Armilus whom the Gentiles call Antichrist’ but this is no proof of Christian influence. . . . This Armilus will deceive the whole world into believing that he is God and will reign over the entire world. He will come with ten kings and together they will fight over Jerusalem, and Armilus will slay Nehemiah b. Hushi’el, who is Messiah the son of Joseph, as well as many righteous men with him, and ‘Israel will mourn for him as one that is in bitterness for his only son’ (cf. Zech. 12:19–12). Armilus will banish Israel ‘to the wilderness’ and it will be a time of unprecedented distress for Israel: there will be increasing famine, and the Gentiles will expel the Jews from their lands, and they will hide in caves and towers. . . . God will war against the host of Armilus . . . Then there will be a great deliverance for Israel and the kingdom of Heaven will spread over all the earth.”11 See Antichrist.

5.2.8 - Atbash

“The Atbash cipher is a particular type of monoalphabetic cipher formed by taking the alphabet . . . and mapping it to its reverse, so that the first letter becomes the last letter, the second letter becomes the second to last letter, and so on. . . . The name derives from the first, last, second, and second to last Hebrew letters (Aleph-Tav-Beth-Shin). . . . Several Biblical verses are described by commentators as being examples of Atbash:

Jeremiah 25:26 - ‘The king of Sheshach shall drink after them’ - Sheshach meaning Babylon in Atbash (שׁשׁקךְ [ššqk] = בבל [ḇḇl]).

Jeremiah 51:1 - ‘Behold, I will raise up against Babylon, and against the inhabitants of Lev-kamai, a destroying wind.’ - Lev-kamai meaning Chaldeans (לבקמי [lḇqmy] = כשׂדים [ḵśḏym]).

Jeremiah 51:41 - ‘How has Sheshach been captured! and the praise of the whole earth taken! How has Babylon become a curse among the nations!’ - Sheshach meaning Babylon (שׁשׁקךְ [ššqk] = בבל [ḇḇl]).”

5.2.9 - Babylon

See Babylon.

5.2.10 - Babylonian Chronicle

“A reliable source, unique to Babylonia, is the Babylonia Chronicle, which relates specific events in each year. The major Chronicles extant are: 1. Sargon of Agade-Kaštiliašu (ca. 2350-1600 B.C.). 2. The Babylonian Chronicle: Nabonassar-Šamaš-šumukīn (747-648). 3. Esarhaddon Chronicle (680-667). 4. Chronicle of the Years 680-667. 5. Nabopolassar-Nebuchadrezzar II (626-595). . . . 6. Neriglissar 3 (556). 7. Nabonidus (555-539). 8. Various Seleucid Chronicles and King Lists (306-175). In these such events as the fall of Nineveh (612), the siege of Harran by Neco II with Assyrian help (609), the Babylonian defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish and the overrunning of Syria and Palestine (605), the Egyptian defeat of the Babylonians (601), the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II (Mar. 16, 597 B.C.), and the fall of Babylon to Cyrus (Oct. 29, 539 B.C.) are independently attested from extrabiblical sources.”12

5.2.11 - Belshazzar

The last king of Babylon who was killed when the city was captured by the Medes and Persians (Dan. 5:30-31). Belshazzar had been known only from the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7–8) and from Xenophon’s Cyropœdia until 1854, when references to him were found in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. . . . When Nabonidus went into exile (550), he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of his army.”13 See Daniel 5.

5.2.12 - Bel

See Marduk.

5.2.13 - Berossus

See Berosus.

5.2.14 - Berosus

Berosus was a Chaldean Priest of Belus residing at Babylon . . . About 268 B.C., he wrote a history of Babylonia in Greek, beginning from Creation unto his own time. Preserved in quotes within the works of Apollodorus (B.C. 144), Polyhistor (B.C. 88), Abydenus (B.C. 60), Josephus (A.D. 37-103), and Eusebius (Ad 265-340), only fragments of this work remain. Berosus says he obtained the materials for his history from the archives of the temple of Belus.”14 “According to Tatian, Berossus was a priest of Bel/Marduk in Babylon (and therefore probably at the temple complex of Esagil) who was born during the reign of Alexander the Great (331–323 BC) [Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 36]. Tatian also reports that Berossus composed a history of Babylonia in three volumes for the Seleucid king Antiochus I (281–261 BC). According to Vitruvius, Berossus eventually took up residence on the island of Cos in the Mediterranean (then under the rule of Ptolemaic Egypt), where he is said to have opened a school of astrology [Vitruvius On Architecture 9.2.1; 9.6.2]. The work for which Berossus is famous (known to modern scholars by its probable original title of Babyloniaca) was written in Greek and described Babylonian history in considerable detail from its mythical beginnings to the start of the Hellenistic period.”15 The works of Berosus are no longer extant, but known to us by fragmentary and indirect sources.16

5.2.15 - Cambyses

“Achaemenid king of Persia (reigned 529–522 BC), who conquered Egypt in 525; he was the eldest son of King Cyrus II the Great by Cassandane, daughter of a fellow Achaemenid. During his father’s lifetime Cambyses was in charge of Babylonian affairs. In 538 he performed the ritual duties of a Babylonian king at the important New Year festival, and in 530, before Cyrus set out on his last campaign, he was appointed regent in Babylon.”17

5.2.16 - Chaldean

“The Chaldeans were a warlike, aggressive people from the mountains of Kurdistan. Apparently they were Haldians (or Khaldians), the inhabitants of Urartu, that is, Ararat or Armenia. The ancient Chaldeans are mentioned in the Babylonian inscriptions. They began to appear in Assyrian notices in the reign of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 B.C.), though their existence as a people goes back well beyond 1000 B.C. . . . It was not until about 625 B.C. that Chaldean power began to assert itself over Assyria. Nabopolasser at that time rebelled against Assyria and established the new Babylonian Empire.”18

5.2.17 - Chrysostom

“John Chrysostom [c. 349-407], the ‘Golden Mouth’ as he was nicknamed for his oratorical skills, was born in Antioch to a pagan father and a Christian mother . . . Chrysostom was ordained priest in 386 and for the next 12 years established his reputation as the leading preacher in Antioch. . . . In 398 he was taken without his prior consent to Constantinople to be made bishop of the metropolis. Chrysostom’s reputation as a preacher attained new heights during the six years he was in office, but it was a period beset with difficulties, some of them of his own making, leading to his final deposition and exile in 404. . . . Chrysostom was exiled to the town of Cucusos in Armenia, where he received many of his followers. Never in good health from his early days of asceticism in the mountains around Antioch, Chrysostom died on his way to further banishment in Georgia. . . . Many authentic sermons of Chrysostom’s have survived, and some of them show his defence of social justice and the dignity of women in marriage. In recent years he has come to the attention of a wider audience through inexpensive translations of his works published by St Vladimir’s Seminary Press in New York. This has enabled a new generation of readers to appreciate the depth of his pastoral concern for the lives of ordinary believers and to see for themselves what made him such a popular preacher in his own day.”19

5.2.18 - Coniah

See Jehoiachin.

5.2.19 - Cyril of Jerusalem

Early church father (c. 310-386) and bishop of Jerusalem. “Cyril was praised by the Synod of Jerusalem (381–382) as one ‘who fought a good fight’ against the Arians. He placed emphasis on Christ’s death and resurrection as the foundation of the Christian faith. Cyril also advocated the veneration of relics and the ‘holy places,’ and he was one of the first to teach that the bread and wine during Holy Communion changed into the actual ‘body and blood’ of Christ (a doctrine called transubstantiation).”20

5.2.20 - Cyrus

“Conqueror who founded the Achaemenian empire, centered on Persia and comprising the Near East from the Aegean Sea eastward to the Indus River. He is also remembered in the Cyrus legend—first recorded by Xenophon, Greek soldier and author, in his Cyropœdia—as a tolerant and ideal monarch who was called the father of his people by the ancient Persians. In the Bible he is the liberator of the Jews who were captive in Babylonia.”21

5.2.21 - Cyrus Cylinder

“The Cyrus Cylinder is a small clay barrel with a cuneiform text that was discovered at Babylon in 1879, and was subsequently deposited in the British Museum— though another fragment of the same cylinder which had passed through the antiquities market into the Yale Babylonian Collection was identified nearly a hundred years later by P.-R. Berger.4 Although scholars debate the exact find spot of the Cyrus Cylinder,5 its barrel shape is typical of dedicatory inscriptions that were placed in the foundation deposit of a construction project, and the text indicates that it was composed on the occasion of the rebuilding of the inner wall of Babylon (lines 38-45).6 However, the discovery in 2010 of two fragments of a tablet excavated in or near Babylon with the same text shows that the Cyrus Cylinder was more than just a building inscription—it was an imperial decree, meant to be displayed and disseminated for propaganda purposes. More than half of the text is narrated in the first person by Cyrus, which leaves no question as to its origin and viewpoint.”22 “The Cyrus Cylinder is a boastful and propagandistic inscription that freely slants and distorts history in order to support the personal and political aims of Cyrus. The Cylinder does not present pure fabrications, but it does distort and exaggerate what actually happened. As a propaganda piece, it appeals to the popular belief in the ancient world that the fall of kings was due to impiety, and the rise of kings was due to their piety.”23

5.2.22 - Darius

The ruler over Babylon when it fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus after the reign of Belshazzar (Daniel 5:30-31). It was during the reign of Darius that Daniel was placed in the den of lions. For more details concerning the identity of Darius, see Darius the Mede.

5.2.23 - DSS

DSS is an acronym for the Dead Sea Scrolls. A collection of scrolls and fragments of scrolls discovered in a region Northwest of the Dead Sea and often associated with the Qumran community which lived nearby. The scrolls include early witnesses to the form of the Hebrew Scriptures prior to the time of Christ.24

5.2.24 - Eliakim

See Jehoiakim.

5.2.25 - Eusebius

Eusebius of Caesarea (as opposed to Eusebius the bishop of Nicomedia) was born circa A.D. 260 [died in 339 or 340 A.D.25] and is best known as the “Father of Church History.” He wrote a history of Christianity covering the first three centuries among many other important works. His work was enabled by his position as a research librarian in a large private library of some 30,000 volumes. His patron, Pamphilus, was tortured, imprisoned, and martyred in 303 before the rise of Christianity under Constantine whereupon Eusebius was made bishop of Caesarea. Upon the death of Constantine, Eusebius began writing his autobiography which was interrupted by his own death approximately two years later at the age of almost 80. We are indebted to the writings of Eusebius for much of what we know about the early Christian church.26

5.2.26 - Evil-Merodach’s

King of Babylon and son of Nebuchadnezzar who reigned briefly from 562-560 B.C. “His reign was marred by intrigues, some possibly directed against his father so that Berossus . . . stated that ‘he governed public affairs in an illegal and improper manner.’ . . . This led to his assassination by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. The age of [Evil-Merodach] at his accession is not known but he could well have been of an age to have been associated earlier with the aging Nebuchadrezzar as heir-apparent or co-regent . . . ”27 See Kings of Babylon.

5.2.27 - Exegesis

The practice of interpreting the biblical text according to a set of hermeneutical principles. The goal is to derive an accurate understanding of the author’s intended meaning within the passage.

5.2.28 - Golden Rule of Interpretation

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.—The Golden Rule of Interpretation, D.L. Cooper”28

5.2.29 - Great Tribulation

The Great Tribulation is a historically-unique period immediately preceding the Second Coming of Jesus characterized by the intense persecution of believers, and especially believing Jews. Jesus indicated that the event which marks the beginning of the Great Tribulation is the abomination of desolation “spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Mat. 24:15; Mark 13:14; cf. Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). Scripture reveals the duration of the Great Tribulation to be 3.5 years, the last half of the seventieth week of Daniel (Dan. 7:25; 9:27; 12:7; Rev. 12:6; 13:5). “Both the Time of Jacob’s Trouble (Jer. 30:6-7) and the Great Tribulation (Mat. 24:21) are described as the unparalleled time of trouble. Since there can only be one such time, both will cover the same time period. The Great Tribulation will begin in the middle of the seven-year 70th week. We know this because Jesus indicated that the Great Tribulation will begin with the abomination of desolation (Mat. 24:15-21), which will take place in the middle of the 70th week (Dan. 9:27). . . . Since the Great Tribulation will begin in the middle and terminate at the end of the 70th week and will cover the same time period as the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble will also cover the entire second half of the 70th week.”29 This period is also known as the Time of Jacob’s (Israel’s) Trouble (Jer. 30:7). “The Scriptures indicate that the Day of the Lord, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, and the Great Tribulation have several things in common. First, the concept of trouble or tribulation are associated with all three . . . Second, the concept of an unparalleled time of trouble is identified with all three [Joel 2:1-2; Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1 cf. Mat. 24:21] . . . Third, the term ‘great’ is used for all three . . . Fourth, the concept of birth pangs is associated with all three . . . Fifth, the expression ‘that day’ is used for all three . . . Sixth, Israel’s future repentance or spiritual restoration to God is associated with all three . . . These comparisons demonstrate that several of the same concepts and terms are associated with the Day of the Lord, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, and the Great Tribulation . . . they indicate that the Day of the Lord will cover or at least include the same time period as the Time of Jacob’s Trouble and the Great Tribulation.”30 See Foreshadowing the Great Tribulation, Seventy Sevens, Preservation of Israel, and the commentary on Daniel 9:24.

5.2.30 - Hafel

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Hafel stem indicates the causative sense of verbs. That is, the subject of the verb in the Hafel stem causes the object of the verb to participate in the action of the verb as a sort of ‘undersubject’ or ‘secondary subject.’ ”31 See Afel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, Pael, Peal, and Peil.

5.2.31 - Hasidim

A transliteration of the Hebrew חֲסִידִים [ḥăsîḏîm] (Ps. 149:1) meaning “kind ones” or “pious ones,” based on the word חֶ֫סֶד [ḥeseḏ] meaning “kindness”32 and translated as “saints” (NKJV, KJV, ASV) or “godly” ones (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET). Also “the name of a group of participants in the Maccabean Revolt mentioned in 1 Macc 2:42; 7:14; and 2 Macc 14:6 (RSV ‘Hasideans’).”33

5.2.32 - Hermeneutics

The set of principles by which reliable interpretation of the biblical text may be made. The goal of these principles is the proper Exegesis of the text. Examples of hermeneutical principles could include: (1) assigning a literal meaning to the text except where context clearly indicates otherwise; (2) understanding the historical context of the passage; (3) paying close attention to the grammatical structure of the passage.

5.2.33 - Herodotus

“A fifth-century-B.C. Greek historian called ‘the father of history,’ who was initially a student of geography and ethnology. His historical research took him to Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, and Egypt. Employing the accounts of eyewitnesses, plus his own accounts, archeological findings, traditions, and other written material, he attempted to probe the causes of important events; however, the limitations of his outlook place him at a distance from modern historiography.”34 Herodotus, whose travels extended from 464 to 447 B.C., is believed to have visited Babylon in early manhood, only some eighty years after its capture.”35 “He is not only our chief source for Median and Persian history, but also gives us invaluable information about ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Scythia. . . Herodotus was above all a raconteur of entertaining stories. The fact that he himself did not believe an account did not deter him from relating an interesting tale. At times he gives several contradictory stories. . . . There are some passages in Herodotus which classicists have rejected as entirely fabricated, such as the celebrated ‘Constitutional Debate’ (3.80–88), during which three conspirators discussed the respective merits of three forms of government . . .”36 “Herodotus was born around 44 BC in Halicarnassus, a Greek city on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor that was then under Persian control.7 Although little is known about his life, it is clear from his work (sometimes left untitled; sometimes called the Histories or The Persian Wars) that he traveled widely.8 The history he records ends in the 420s BC, which is probably when he died. According to Marincola, ‘the main time of composition for Herodotus’s work was from the 450s into the 420s’ [John Marincola, Greek Historians, Greece & Rome: New Surveys in the Classics, no. 31 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 24]. Herodotus wrote about seventy-five to a hundred years after the death of Cyrus and about 150 years after his birth—too long afterward to interview firsthand witnesses, yet recently enough to hear stories which were still circulating orally.”37

5.2.34 - Hifil

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The hifil stem indicates the causative sense of verbs. That is, the subject of the verb in the hifil stem causes the object of the verb to participate in the action of the verb as a sort of “undersubject” or “secondary subject”. In the sentence ‘Bob caused the car to crash,’ the direct object [car] participates in the action that the subject [Bob] caused.”38 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, and Peal.

5.2.35 - Hiphil

A Hebrew verb stem which typically denotes causative active action. “The Hiphil stem is used to express causative action with an active voice. For example, the verb מָלַךְ [mālak] means ‘he was king’ or ‘he reigned’ in the Qal stem. The Hiphil form, however, is הִמְלִיךְ [himlîk] and means ‘he caused to reign’ or ‘he made (someone) king.’ ”39 Other Hebrew verb stems include Qal, Piel, Pual, Hophal, and Hithpael.

5.2.36 - Hippolytus

Hippolytus (c. 170 - c. 236 A.D.) was the first ‘antipope’ (schismatic bishop of Rome). . . When Callistus became bishop in 217, Hippolytus left the church and (probably) was elected bishop of Rome by his influential supporters. This schism persisted until 235, when Roman authorities found both pope (now Pontian) and antipope (Hippolytus) guilty of preaching the gospel. They were sent to the extermination mines of Sardinia. This led each of them to abdicate his episcopate and reestablish fellowship. Both became martyrs on ‘death island.’ . . . Hippolytus was the most significant theologian in Rome during the third century, producing books, commentaries, and topical treatises.”40 “This Hippolytus, a famed church father, was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was in turn a follower of Polycarp, the personal disciple of John the Apostle.”41

5.2.37 - Hitafel

An Aramaic verb stem, “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Hitafel is the reflexive counterpart to the Afel stem, which is considered a parallel to the causative Hafel stem. Like the Afel, then, there is a causative nuance to the Hitafel (i.e., the object of the verb is made to participate in the action of the verb). As a reflexive, though, the subject of the Hitafel verb acts upon or with respect to itself.”42 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, Pael, Peal, and Peil.

5.2.38 - Hithpael

A Hebrew verb stem which typically denotes intensive reflexive action. “The Hithpael stem is used to express an intensive type of action with a reflexive (or sometimes passive) voice. For example, the verb חָבָא [ḥāḇāʾ] means ‘he hid’ in the Qal stem. The Hithpael form is הִתְחַבֵּא [hiṯḥabbēʾ] and it means ‘he hid himself.’ ”43 Other Hebrew verb stems include Qal, Piel, Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, and Hithpael.

5.2.39 - Hithpeel

An Aramaic verb stem. See Hitpeel.

5.2.40 - Hitpaal

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Hitpaal is the reflexive counterpart to the Aramaic Pael stem, which expresses the bringing about of a state; that is, the object of the verb’s action ‘suffers the effect’ of the action. As a reflexive form, the subject of the Hitpaal acts upon or with respect to itself.”44 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpeel, Pael, Peal, and Peil.

5.2.41 - Hitpeel

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Hitpeel is the reflexive counterpart to the Aramaic Peal stem of simple action. The subject of the Hitpeel therefore acts upon or with respect to itself. Note that so-called Hitpeel forms of hollow verbs are actually Hitafel forms (see Hitafel).”45 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Pael, Peal, and Peil.

5.2.42 - Hophal

A Hebrew verb stem which typically denotes causative passive action. “The Hophal is the passive form of the Hiphil. The Hophal stem, therefore, is used to express causative action with a passive voice. For example, the Hiphil verb הִמְלִיךְ [himlîk] means ‘he made (someone) king.’ The Hophal form is הָמְלַךְ [hāmelak] and it is translated ‘he was made king.’ ”46 Other Hebrew verb stems include Qal, Piel, Pual, Hiphil, and Hithpael.

5.2.43 - Irenaeus

Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 200) wrote his most famous work Against Heresies in opposition to Gnosticism, a major theological threat to the Church in the second century. His writings against the Gnostics are among the earliest which appeal to the New Testament as having apostolic authority. He was appointed bishop of Lyons, France in A.D. 177-178.47 Crutchfield gives the following dates for Irenaeus: 120-202.48

5.2.44 - Jeconiah

See Jehoiachin.

5.2.45 - Jehoahaz

An ungodly king of Judah, the son of Josiah. See King #4 - Jehoahaz (Shallum). He reigned in 609 B.C.

5.2.46 - Jehoiachin

An ungodly king of Judah, the son of Jehoiakim. See King #2 - Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Coniah). He reigned 598-597 B.C.

5.2.47 - Jehoiakim

An ungodly king of Judah, the son of Jehoahaz. See King #3 - Jehoiakim (Eliakim). He reigned 609-598 B.C.

5.2.48 - Jerome

Jerome (c. 345 - c. 419) was a scholar and monk most famous for translating the Scriptures into Latin to produce the Vulgate. He was a prolific writer who produced a number of other works, including commentaries on various books of the Bible such as the book of Daniel.49

5.2.49 - Josephus

TODO: write this entry.

5.2.50 - Josiah

The last godly king of the southern kingdom of Judah. See King #5 - Josiah. He reigned 641-609 B.C.

5.2.51 - LXX

Roman numerals designating “seventy” and representing the Septuagint, which see.

5.2.52 - Maccabees

“Among the Apocrypha are two historical books that relate events in Jewish history during the Hellenistic era which followed the fall of Persia to the forces of Alexander the Great . . . These books, 1 and 2 Maccabees, chronicle the turbulent times of the second century B.C. that saw faithful Jews resisting the forced Hellenization of Judea by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.) and the rise of the Jewish priestly Hasmonean dynasty starting with Mattathias (d. 166 B.C.) and his sons Judas Maccabeus (d. 160 B.C.), Jonathan (d. 142 B.C.) and Simon (d. 134 B.C.).”50

5.2.53 - Marduk

TODO: write this entry. The Babylonian god Marduk is also known as Bel (Jer. 50:2; 51:44).

5.2.54 - Masoretic Text

The Hebrew text which underlies most modern translations of the Old Testament. The term Masoretic is a reference to the work of the scribes who preserved the text. In the 6th or 7th century the Masoretes augmented the original Hebrew consonantal text with a system of surrounding accents by which the vocalization (vowel sounds) of the text could be denoted and preserved.

5.2.55 - Millennial Kingdom

The thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, centered at Jerusalem. Also called the Messianic Kingdom because the Messiah will rule as King during this time. This period is mentioned throughout the OT (e.g., Isa. 2:1-4; 9:6; 11:1-16; 65:18-25; Jer. 23:3-8; 31:31-40; Eze. 35:15-28; Dan. 2:34-45; Dan. 7:13-14, 27; Mic. 4:1-8; 5:2-5; Zec. 8:1-17; 14:1-9) and in many NT passages (e.g., Mat. 19:28; Mat. 25:34; Luke 1:33; Acts 1:6-7; 1Cor. 15:24; 2Ti. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 20:4-6). For additional information on the Millennial Kingdom, see https://SpiritAndTruth.org/teaching/5-37.htm and [Anthony C. Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ : A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, Vol. 2 (Rev. 15-22) (Camano Island, WA: SpiritAndTruth.org, 2004), 4.11].

5.2.56 - Millennium

See Millennial Kingdom.

5.2.57 - MS

Abbreviation for “manuscript.”

5.2.58 - MSS

Abbreviation for “manuscripts.”

5.2.59 - MT

Within this commentary, “MT” stands for the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (not to be confused with the “MT” sometimes used to designate the Greek Majority Text of the New Testament).51

5.2.60 - Nabonidus

King of Babylon and father of Belshazzar. See Kings of Babylon.

5.2.61 - Nabonidus Chronicle

“The so-called ‘Nabonidus Chronicle’ (which is about Nabonidus, not composed by him), is contained on a moderately damaged literary tablet with an Akkadian text which describes historical events during, and immediately after, the reign of Nabonidus.36 It is part of the Babylonian Chronicle Series, a long series of documents compiled from more detailed accounts which describe Mesopotamian history chronologically from the eighth to third centuries BC.”52 “It seems clear enough from an analysis of its text that the Nabonidus Chronicle, though dispassionate in tone, intends to portray historical events in a way which is positive toward Cyrus and negative toward Nabonidus.”53 “There are strong reasons to disbelieve the Chronicle’s claim that Nabonidus was captured in Babylon (3.15-16). According to Xenophon [Cyropaedia 7.5.29-30] and Daniel (Dan 5), Belshazzar was the king who was in Babylon when the city fell, and he was killed on the night when the city was captured. According to Berossus, Nabonidus fled to Borsippa after being defeated in the field by Cyrus. Cyrus captured Babylon first, then marched to Borsippa, where Nabonidus surrendered.65 The Nabonidus Chronicle seems confused on this point, since it states that Nabonidus fled and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle, but then says that Nabonidus was captured in Babylon after withdrawing.”54

5.2.62 - Nabopolassar

King of Babylon and father of Nebuchadnezzar.55 Nabopolassar himself claimed to be a native of Babylonia but to have not been a member of a recognized royal ruling family . . . while a youth . . . In his titulary he never gives his father’s name, probably because he was not of the previous royal line in Babylonia which had been interrupted for more than a century by Assyrian appointees. . . . Two references to possible ancestors of Nebuchadrezzar occur in economic texts. One is to an Ilu-bāni father (i.e. ancestor) of Nebuchadrezzar dated to the twentieth year of Nabopolassar (606/605 B.C.), the other to Tābiya ‘father of Nebuchadnezzăr’ in . . . 654 B.C. . . . if these texts refer to the same Nebuchadnezzar, they would indicate a possible ancestry gong back to Nabû-nāṣir.”56 See Kings of Babylon.

5.2.63 - Nebuchadnezzar

King of Babylon and eldest son of Nabopolassar.57 During his reign, Daniel and his companions were taken captive and deported to Babylon. Thereafter, the kingdom of Judah was made subject to Babylon. After a series of Deportations to Babylon, Jerusalem was finally placed under siege and destroyed. See Historical Setting. According to the historian Abydenus, Nebuchadnezzar was of Assyrian descent.58 See Kings of Babylon.

5.2.64 - Nebuchadrezzar

An alternate spelling of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 39:1, 11; 43:30; Eze. 29:18). Both Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar occur in the Bible, “the more frequent Hebrew נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר [neḇûḵaḏneṣṣar] and its LXX counterpart Ναβουχοδονοσορ [Nabouchodonosor] is usually taken to be a later, and by some corrupt, form of the contemporary Babylonian Nabû-kudurri-uṣur. However, the writing of the name with n is possibly attested in an Aramaic tablet dated to Nebuchadrezzar’s thirty-fourth year. There is no need then to assume that Nebuchadnezzar reflects an Aramaic pronunciation since the shift r>n occurs in other transcriptions of names in Babylonian. In the Old Testament Nebuchadrezzar, the less common Hebrew נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר [neḇûḵaḏreṣṣar] is used in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is a near transliteration of the Babylonian royal name . . . and . . . may indicate a closer contact with the name as pronounced.”59 See Nebuchadnezzar.

5.2.65 - NT

“New Testament.” The 27 books of Matthew through Revelation.

5.2.66 - OG

The Old Greek text of the Septuagint in distinction from the subsequent translation of the Book of Daniel by Theodotion. 60 Jerome notes that the Theodotion version of Daniel became the predominant version accepted by the early church, “it was not according to the Septuagint version but according to the version of Theodotion himself that the churches publicly read Daniel.”61 See Septuagint, Theodotion. (We do not consider the OG version to be a reliable translation, but refer to it in places where it provides insight into how the Hebrew text may have been understood by early translators.)

5.2.67 - OT

“Old Testament.” The 39 books of Genesis through Malachi. Also known by the Jewish name Tanak.

5.2.68 - Pael

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Aramaic Pael stem expresses the bringing about of a state. The object of the Pael verb’s action ‘suffers the effect’ of the action.”62 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, Peal, and Peil.

5.2.69 - Peal

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Aramaic Peal stem is the stem of simple action.”63 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, Pael, and Peil.

5.2.70 - Peil

An Aramaic verb stem. “In Biblical Aramaic, ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is, stems convey grammatical ‘voice’ relationships. The Peil stem is the passive counterpart to the Aramaic Pael stem, which is the stem of simple action. That is, the subject of the Peil receives the action of the verb.”64 See Afel, Hafel, Hifil, Hitafel, Hitpaal, Hitpeel, and Pael, and Peal.

5.2.71 - Piel

A Hebrew verb stem which typically denotes intensive active action. “The Piel stem is sometimes used to express an intensive type of action with an active voice. . . . For example, the verb שָׁבַר [šāḇar] means ‘he broke’ in the Qal stem. The Piel form, however, is שִׁבֵּר [šibbēr] and means ‘he smashed into pieces.’ ”65 “The fundamental idea of Piʿēl, to which all the various shades of meaning in this conjugation may be referred, is to busy oneself eagerly with the action indicated by the stem. This intensifying of the idea of the stem, . . . appears in individual cases as—(a) a strengthening and repetition of the action . . . The eager pursuit of an action may also consist in urging and causing others to do the same. Hence Piʿēl has also—(b) a causative sense.”66 Other Hebrew verb stems include Qal, Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, and Hithpael.

5.2.72 - Porphyry

“The most ancient assailant of the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecies of whom we have a certain knowledge, was the Neo-platonic Porphyry (died A. D. 304). In his fifteen books ‘against the Christians,’ which are known to us only through Jerome so far as they contain attacks on this book, he contends for its composition in Maccabean times, and for the forged character of its prophecies as mere vaticinia ex eventu [predictions made after the fact]. It is uncertain whether Jewish rabbins who opposed Christianity were his predecessors and instructors in this assertion, or not.”67

5.2.73 - Postmillennial

“Simply put, postmillennialism is a view of eschatology teaching that Christ ’s return to earth will occur at the end of the Millennium. . . . Postmillennialism . . . expects the gradual, developmental expansion of the kingdom of Christ in time and on earth. . . . Christ’s personal presence on earth is not needed for the expansion of His Kingdom. . . distinction should be made between liberals who promote a postmillennialism through humanism (i.e., the social Gospel of the past) and evangelical postmillennialism that promotes progress through the church’s preaching of the gospel and application of Mosaic Law. . . . Postmillennialism fails to account for the fact that if there is going to be a fulfillment of millennial conditions predicted in the Bible, it is going to be only as a result of a revolutionary intervention of Jesus Christ at His Second Coming in order to introduce new factors that are discontinuous with the present age.”68 See Premillennial. See Millennial Kingdom.

5.2.74 - Prayer of Nabonidus

An Aramaic composition found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q242) which relates the story of an illness suffered by the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus. The words of the prayer uttered by Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years . . . and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], ‘Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the name of the [Most High God’. And I wrote this]: ‘I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer at Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years [I] prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because [I believed] that they were gods . . .’69 Critical scholars suggest that Nebuchadnezzar’s malady, related in Daniel 4, draws from or distorts the account from Qumran, but this is unlikely.70 See commentary on Daniel 4:1.

5.2.75 - Premillennial

The premillennial view holds that Christ will return to earth literally and bodily prior to the millennial age (Rev. 19, 20). Upon His Second Advent, a kingdom will be instituted on earth wherein He will reign from Jerusalem on the promised throne of David. During this period, various promises associated with the OT covenants made with Israel will be fulfilled. These literal OT promises are not redirected to the church in the present age to be spiritually fulfilled. Although there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the manner of salvation, promises made to national Israel which remain unfulfilled will find their fruition during the reign of Jesus following His return to earth. The kingdom of God on earth is seen to be brought about by the dramatic and sudden intervention of God to actively overthrow the kingdoms of man and is not achieved solely through the spiritual work of the Church. See Millennial Kingdom. See Postmillennial. See Amillennial.

5.2.76 - Pseudepigrapha

“The Pseudepigrapha books are those that are distinctly spurious and unauthentic in their overall content . . . Although they claim to have been written by biblical authors, they actually express religious fancy and magic from the period between about 200 B.C. and A.D. 200. In Roman Catholic circles these books are known as the Apocrypha, a term not to be confused with an entirely different set of books known in Protestant circles by the same name . . . although at times Protestants have referred to these same books as the ‘wider Apocrypha,’ or ‘Apocalyptic Literature.’ Most of these books are comprised of dreams, visions, and revelations in the apocalyptic style of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. . . . The actual number of these books is not known certainly, and various writers have given different numbers of important ones. There are eighteen worthy of mention. . .”71 For a list of the pseudepigraphal books, see [Scott Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 358-359].

5.2.77 - Ptolemy’s

“Ptolemy (whose full name was Claudius Ptolemaeus) was an Egyptian of great learning and genius. He is famous as the author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy, which was universally accepted by men of science until supplanted by the System of Copernicus, devised in the 16th century, and improved later on by Sir Isaac Newton. Ptolemy has left on record a ‘Canon’ or list of Persian Kings from Alexander the Great of Macedon.”72

5.2.78 - Pual

A Hebrew verb stem which typically denotes intensive passive action. “The Pual is the passive form of the Piel. The Pual stem, therefore, is used to express an intensive type of action with a passive voice. For example, the Piel verb שִׁבֵּר [šibbēr] means ‘he smashed into pieces.’ The Pual form, however, would be שֻׁבַּר [šubbar] and is translated ‘he (it) was smashed into pieces.’ ”73 Other Hebrew verb stems include Qal, Piel, Hiphil, Hophal, and Hithpael.

5.2.79 - Qal

A Hebrew verb stem which typically denotes simple active action. “The Qal is the simple or basic verbal stem. Qal verbs are active in voice, though a few passive forms do exist. The Qal stem also exhibits the simple or unnunaced type of action.”74 Other Hebrew verb stems include Piel, Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, and Hithpael.

5.2.80 - Scripture Safety Net

The notion that Scripture Upholds Scripture in such a way that the meaning of a passage within an individual book of the Bible is anchored within the entire corpus of Scripture. This serves to uphold the genuineness of passages when under attack because they do not stand in isolation, but are corroborated by numerous other passages (and authors) within Scripture.

5.2.81 - Septuagint

A Greek translation of the Old Testament commissioned at Alexandria, Egypt. “It was in that period (c. 250-c. 150 B.C.), that the Hebrew Old Testament was being translated into Greek, the first time it had ever been extensively translated. The leaders of Alexandrian Jewry had a standard Greek version produced, known as the LXX, the Greek word for ’seventy.’ It was undoubtedly translated during the third and/or second centuries B.C. and was purported to have been written as early as the time of Ptolemy II in a Letter of Aristeas to Philocartes (c. 130-100 B.C.).”75 “The Pentateuch, the earliest and the fundamental part of the Old Testament Canon, was translated first of all, and, according to the letter of Aristeas, this took place during the rule of Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). . . . The translation of the Pentateuch was followed by that of the other books. The translation of these latter was evidently the work of a great number of different hands. . . . As the prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus shows, there was in existence towards the end of the 2nd century B.C. a Greek translation of the whole, or at least of the essential parts of the OT. There is no reason for us to doubt that the LXX text of that period was in general agreement with our present-day LXX text.”76 “Sociologically it bore witness to the breakdown of international barriers and to the dissemination of the Greek language as a result of the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Jewish settlers in the cosmopolitan city of Alexandria, forced by circumstances to abandon their language, nonetheless clung tenaciously to their faith. For them the translation of their sacred law into Greek was of utmost significance in safeguarding their religion as well as in satisfying their liturgical and educational needs. Conversely, for the gentile world this translation served as an introduction to Jewish history and religion.”77 “The LXX [of Daniel] has survived in only one manuscript, Codex Chisianus, transcribed about the tenth century, and this document has revealed that the LXX was periphrastic in nature and marked by the presence of textual expansions. At an early period it was displaced in the Christian Church by the more literal version of Theodotion, which was used principally by the Church Fathers. . . . The LXX and those versions that followed it . . . inserted a lengthy passage after Daniel 3:23, known as the Song of the Three Young Men, found in English versions of the Apocrypha. In the LXX, . . . the apocryphal Story of Susanna appeared as a thirteenth chapter, . . .”78 “Some scholars use Septuagint (often in quotation marks) to refer only to the Pentateuch while others intend the term to include the entire collection of Jewish-Greek scriptures (1–3 above), reserving the rubric Old Greek (OG) for those books which are translations from Hebrew.”79 The Old Greek (OG) version of the LXX is to be distinguished from that of Theodotion. For additional information, see OG, Theodotion, and [Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005)].

5.2.82 - Seventy Sevens

A period of time following the Babylonian Captivity during which the purposes of God in relation to the Jews and Jerusalem are brought to fulfillment (Dan. 9:24-27). See Seventy Sevens.

5.2.83 - Seventy Weeks

See Seventy Sevens.

5.2.84 - Shallum

See Jehoahaz.

5.2.85 - Tanakh

The Jewish Old Testament consisting of the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Kettuv’im) = “TNK.” The Tanakh contains the same writings as the English Old Testament, but arranged in a different order.

5.2.86 - Theodotion

“According to early Christian writers, there was a historic Theodotion variously identified as an Ephesian proselyte to Judaism (Irenaeus), and an Ebionite (Jerome) who worked toward the end of the 2d century c.e.”80 “Because there are characteristically ‘Theodotion’ readings from Daniel in the works of authors who lived before his time, it would appear that Theodotion drew upon a version which long antedated him, and which he revised.”81 “[Theodotion] lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161–180).”82 “Early in the Christian era the version of Daniel that goes by Theodotion’s name displaced the LXX version, which was an extremely free rendering of the canonical Daniel. . . . It seems certain, however, that this second-century Theodotion was preceded in his work of revision by a person of the 1st cent B.C. or 1st cent A.D., styled ‘Ur-Theodotion’ by modern scholarship. The reason for this postulate is the appearance of ‘Theodotionic’ readings in writings antedating the time of the activity of the second-century Theodotion. Some of these readings are found in the NT (cf. the quotation in 1 Cor. 15:54 of Isa. 25:8, which corresponds exactly to that of Theodotion).”83 “McLay . . . states “There is ample evidence that [Theodotion] was translating independently from OG. . . . [Theodotion] has his own pattern of translation equivalents for vocabulary sharing the same domain (eg. knowing, wisdom) and his own way of resolving conflicts when two words are collocated that he normally renders by the same lexeme. That Th’s translation pattern is substantially his own is also verified by the numerous HL [Hebrew language] and translation equivalents employed by [Theodotion] that are not shared with OG. . . . [Theodotion] consistently makes his own contextual guess, rather than follow OG, when he does not understand MT. Finally, we have seen numerous omissions against MT and OG that would not be there if [Theodotion] were revising OG toward MT. For these reasons, we can affirm that in the book of Daniel, the available evidence supports that [Theodotion] is an independent translation of MT and not merely a revision of OG.”84 Jerome indicated that the early church preferred Theodotion over the OG, “I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ . . . We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion.”85 “The Greek translation attributed to Theodotion is especially problematic. . . . One peculiarity is his penchant for transliterating (i.e., using Greek letters to represent the sound of the Hebrew) rather than translating certain words, such as the names for animals and plants. His translation of the Book of Daniel supplanted that of the ‘Septuagint’ (better, the Old Greek), which was widely regarded as defective. . . . Some argue that the characteristics of [Theodotion’s translation of Daniel] do not fit those found in materials otherwise attributed to Theodotion. Moreover, doubts have been raised about the usual view that [Theodotion’s translation of Daniel] is a revision of the Old Greek.”86

5.2.87 - Times of the Gentiles

The phrase “Times of the Gentiles” refers to the period within history during which Israel lacks a ruler on the throne of David. During this period, Israel is generally under Gentile dominion. However, the key element is whether the Davidic throne is in Israel’s midst and occupied by a legitimate king in the line of David. Scripture reveals that there will be no more Davidic rulers in Israel until the Messiah, Jesus Christ, takes up His reign at the Second Coming (e.g., Mat. 25:31). See Times of the Gentiles.

5.2.88 - Typology

Branch of biblical interpretation in which an element found in the OT prefigures one found in the NT. The initial one is called the ‘type’ and the fulfillment is designated the ‘antitype.’ Either type or antitype may be a person, thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently refers to salvation. . . . Some examples may serve to identify some biblical types and antitypes: Jesus said to Nicodemus, ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up’ (John 3:14; cf. Num. 21:9). The Passover lamb (Ex. 12:1-13, 49) is a type of Christ (1Cor. 5:7) The rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness (Ex. 17:6) prefigures Christ (1Cor. 10:3, 4).”87 “We have examples of NT interpretation of OT history as being typical of NT events (Mat. 12:40; Luke 17:26; John 3:14; 1Cor. 3:7ff.; 1Cor. 15:22; Gal. 4:22ff.; Heb. 3-10). With such an extensive inspired use of typology it would be vain to deny its validity. It is important to note that types are truly historical. They are not mythological occurrences that are adapted by the NT writers to signify a spiritual truth. Indeed, their spiritual significance depends upon their historical reality.”88 Caution is needed in the identification and use of types by teachers today because we lack the inspiration which inerrantly guided the NT authors. Types cannot establish doctrinal truth. They serve to augment or enhance our understanding of truths already set forth by specific statements within Scripture. Concerning typology within Daniel, see Foreshadowing the Great Tribulation, Preservation of Israel, and Image of God or Beast?.

5.2.89 - Vaticinium ex eventu

A Latin phrase loosely translated as, “foretelling after the event.” The phrase is often used by critics of book of Daniel who believe that the accuracy of Daniel’s predictions can only be explained if the predictions were written after the events they portray. This viewpoint reflects a denial of the supernatural and rejects the possibility that God—who is outside of time—could know something before it transpires and choose to communicate that to a chosen man.

5.2.90 - Vulgate

“The Latin edition or translation of the Bible made by Saint Jerome at the end of the fourth century A.D., now used in a revised form as the Roman Catholic authorized version.”89

5.2.91 - Xenophon

“We pass on next to the Cyropœdia of Xenophon, one of the latest works of that historian, written about 960 B.C., a hundred years or so after Herodotus’ visit to Babylon.”90 “Xenophon (431-355 B.C.)—the Cyropœdia is his most important work from the standpoint of information concerning the fall of Babylon [Cyropœdia IV, 6: VII, 5].”91 “Xenophon’s works were written after he was exiled by Athens and settled by the Spartans on a private estate in 394 BC. His Hellenica records events as late as the mid-350s BC, and thus Xenophon wrote approximately thirty to sixty years after Herodotus. . . . Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (Κύρου παιδεία [Kyrou paideia], ‘The Education of Cyrus’) is a biography of Cyrus, told in chronological order from the birth to the death of the great king.”92

5.2.92 - Zedekiah

The last ungodly king of Judah, the uncle of Jehoiachin. See King #1 - Zedekiah (Mattaniah). It was during his reign that Jerusalem was destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He reigned 597-587 B.C..


1Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, 3rd (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 3-4.

2Andrew E Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011), 38-39.

3Rodger C. Young, “Tables of Reign Lengths from the Hebrew Court Recorders,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 48 no. 2 (Evangelical Theological Society, June 2005), 226.


5Michael S. Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005), s.v. “Afel.”

6Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 380.

7J. Randall Price, “Antichrist,” in Mal Couch, ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996), s.v. “Antichrist.”

8 American Heritage Online Dictionary, Ver. 3.0A, 3rd ed (Houghton Mifflin, 1993), s.v. “Apocrypha.”

9James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), 338-339.

10J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1995, 2007), 357.

11Jacob Klatzkin, “Armilus,” in Geoffrey Wigoder, ed., Encyclopedia Judaica CDROM Edition, Version 1.0 (Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1997), s.v. “Armilus.”

12Donald J. Wiseman, “Babylonia,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979, 1915), 1:398.

13Michael Levy, ed., Britannica 2012 Deluxe Edition CDROM, s.v. “Belshazzar.”

14Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to Basics, 4th ed (The Woodlands, TX: KingsWord Press, 1993, 1999), 199.

15Stephen Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (PhD diss., TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2014), 144-147.

16Unfortunately, the Babyloniaca is no longer extant as originally written. Fragments exist, but it appears that nearly all surviving fragments of the Babyloniaca do not preserve the text exactly as Berossus wrote it. Most are based on an abridgment of the text (with minor changes) by Alexander Polyhistor (first century BC); or, in some cases, on an abridgment by Juba of Mauretania (ca. 50 BC–ca. AD 23).158 In addition, Poseidonios of Apamea (first century BC) excerpted some astronomical and astrological material from Berossus. None of these three abridgments survives directly, however. Poseidonios of Apamea is sparingly quoted by a handful of writers. Josephus (late first century AD) and Abydenus (second century AD) transmit some material quoted from Polyhistor, with abridgments and possible interpolations of their own.159 The fragments of Abydenus are, in turn, preserved mainly in quotations found in the Chronicle and Preparation for the Gospel of Eusebius (early fourth century AD). Eusebius may also quote directly from Polyhistor in places, though in an abridged form. A few other small fragments of the Babyloniaca survive through quotations by various writers, once again following a twisted path of excerptions from excerpters. According to Burstein, the Chronicle of Eusebius is ‘our principal witness for books one and two of the Babyloniaca.’ The Chronicle, a universal and comprehensive chronology of world history, also does not survive as originally written. The Chronicle was redacted in several forms and translated into several languages soon after the death of Eusebius, and some scholars argue that it was revised by Eusebius himself during his lifetime. There are only fragmentary remains of the original Greek text, but an ancient Armenian translation (dating at least as early as AD 600) preserves most of both volumes of the Chronicle. To summarize the situation, the Armenian translation is the only extant witness for the quotations of Berossus in the Chronicle. The text-critical position of the Babyloniaca is thus nearly as complex as could be imagined. The greater part of the extant Babyloniaca has been pieced together from an Armenian translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, which contains material abridged from Abydenus, which was abridged from Alexander Polyhistor, which was abridged from Berossus. In addition, there exists the Greek text of certain passages in Josephus, which are an abridgment of Alexander Polyhistor, which are an abridgment of Berossus.”—Ibid.

17Levy, Britannica 2012 Deluxe Edition CDROM, s.v. “Cambyses II.”

18Merrill Frederick Unger, R. K. Harrison, Frederic F Vos, and Cyril J. Barber, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988), s.v. “Chaldean.”

19Ken Parry, “Chrysostom,” in T. A. Hart, ed., The Dictionary of Historical Theology (Carlisle, United Kingdom: Paternoster Press, 2000), 127-128.

20J. Newton, “Cyril of Jerusalem,” in J. D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort, eds., Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 188.

21Levy, Britannica 2012 Deluxe Edition CDROM, s.v. “Cyrus II.”

22Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, 85-86.

23Ibid., 95.

24 [James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 2003)] [Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1999)]

25Raymond Philip Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1929, 2008), 6.

26Glen F. Chestnut, “Eusebius of Caesarea,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, c1992, 1996), 2:673-676.

27Donald J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1985, 2004), 9.

28J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), 44.

29Renald E. Showers, Maranatha, Our Lord Come (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995), 23-24.

30Ibid., 41-42.

31Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology, s.v. “Hafel.”

32F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 339.2, 338.2.

33John Kampen, “Hasidim,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, c1992, 1996), 3:66.

34G. Wyper, “Herodotus,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979, 1915), 2:699.

35Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1923), 122.

36Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Herodotus (Person),” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, c1992, 1996), 3:180.

37Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, 16-17.

38Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology, s.v. “Hifil.”

39Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), 126.

40James D. Smith, “The Gallery—Wordsmiths of Worship,” in Christian History: Worship in the Early Church, vol. 37 (Carrol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 1993), s.v. “Hippolytus of Rome.”

41James O. Combs, Mysteries of the Book of Daniel (Springfield, IL: Tribune Publishers, 1994), 133.

42Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology, s.v. “hitafel.”

43Pratico, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 126.

44Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology, s.v. “Hitpaal.”

45Ibid., s.v. “Hitpeel.”

46Pratico, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 126.

47Everett Ferguson, “Irenaeus: Adversary of the Gnostics,” in John D. Woodbridge, ed., Great Leaders of the Christian Church (Chicago, IL: Houghton Mifflin, 1993), 43-47.

48Larry V. Crutchfield, “Revelation in the New Testament,” in Mal Couch, ed., A Bible Handbook to Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001), 24.

49Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr.) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 407, 1958).

50Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, 215.

51“The division of the Hebrew [Masoretic Text, MT] into chapters is different from that of standard English versions in two places: Dan. 3:31-33 is part of chapter 4 in English (Dan. 4:1-3), and Dan. 6:1 is included at the end of chapter 5 in English (Dan. 5:31). This then causes all of the English verse numbers to be different from those of the Hebrew in chapters 4 and 6.”—Andrew E Steinmann, Daniel (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2008), 63.

52Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, 100.

53Ibid., 107.

54Ibid., 112.

55Our Nebuchadnezzar is ‘Nebuchadnezzar 2’.“It was Nebuchadnezzar I (1124-1103 B.C.) who ushered in the new rise to prominence of Babylonia. After hime the next significant ruler was Nabunasir (747-734 B.C.), which led to the first of the new dynasty of Babylonian rulers, Nebopolassar (625-605), the father of Nebuchadnezzar II.”—Thomas A Howe, Daniel in the Preterist’s Den (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008), 45.

56Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 6-7.

57“In the year he began reconstruction work on the Etemenanki ziggurat Nabopolassar refers to Nebuchadrezzar as his ‘eldest son’ . . . and the Babylonian Chronicle called him ‘the chief son, the crown-prince . . .’ Nebuchadrezzar always described himself as ‘the legitimate/true heir of Nabopolassar and commonly in his standard brick inscriptions as ‘the first (or chief) son’ . . . or simply as ‘son’ . . . of Nabopolassar.”—Ibid., 5.

58“Abydenus says that Nebuchadnezzar thought he descended from Belus (Assyrian), that is from the Assyrian Pul. [Eusebius, Gospel, book 9. c. 41 (456d)] Isaiah states that the Assyrians built Babylon . . . (Isa. 23:13).”—Isaac Newton, Larry Pierce, and Marion Pierce, eds., Newton’s Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1728, 2009), 97.

59Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 2.

60“The Old Greek survives in a few manuscripts, but at an early time, the translation attributed to Theodotion replaced it in the church. Thus many more manuscripts of the Theodotion version survive. For a long time, the Old Greek was known only through one Greek manuscript, which was a copy of Origen’s Greek Hexapla text, Codex Chisianus (manuscript 88). To this day this manuscript is the only nearly complete copy of the Old Greek version of Daniel. More recently, pre-Hexaplaric manuscripts of the Old Greek tradition have been brought to light, enabling a critical edition of the Old Greek to be republished in revised form in the Göttingen Septuagint series in 1999.”—Steinmann, Daniel, 63-64.

61Hieronymus, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr.), s.v. “Prologue.”

62Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology, s.v. “Pael.”

63Ibid., s.v. “Peal.”

64Ibid., s.v. “Peil.”

65Pratico, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 125.

66Wilhelm Gesenius, E. Ernest Kautzsch, and Arthur Cowley, eds., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1910, 2003), 141.

67Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in John Peter Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880), 20.

68Thomas Ice, “Postmillennialism,” in Mal Couch, ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996), 307, 308, 310.

69Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1962, 1997), 573.

70“J. T. Milik considers the work to be older than Daniel, but a late-second or early first-century B.C.E. date seems to be less adventurous.”—Ibid. Vermes believes Daniel predates the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242) and was “inspired by” Daniel. [Ibid., 429]

71Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1986), 262-262.

72Philip Mauro, The Wonders of Bible Chronology (Washington, DC: Eerdmans, 1933, 2005), 5.

73Pratico, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 125.

74Ibid., 124.

75Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 503.

76Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: With Morphology (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996, c1979.), lvi.

77S. K. Soderlund, “Septuagint,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979, 1915), 4:400.

78Roland K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1969, 1999), 1134.

79Melvin K. Peters, “Septuagint,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, c1992, 1996), 5:1093.

80Peters, Septuagint, 5:1098.

81Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1134.

82Soderlund, Septuagint, 4:404.


84Steinmann, Daniel, 66.

85Jerome, “Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus,” in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume III: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, Etc (New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1882), 516-17.

86Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 41.

87Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, eds., Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 2:2110.

88Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, s.v. “Type, Typology.”

89American Heritage Online Dictionary, s.v. “Vulgate.”

90Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, 123.

91Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, 4.

92Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, 28-29.

Copyright © 2008-2021 by Tony Garland
(Content generated on Sat Apr 24 15:16:39 2021)