The Four Kingdoms of Daniel: A Defense of the "Roman" Sequence with AD 70 Fulfillment. John S. Evans. Xulon Press: 2004. 442 pp.

Introduction:

One of the most contested prophetic books of the bible is the Book of Daniel. At the heart of this debate stands the question of the date of its writing and the identity of the four kingdoms of its prophecy. Was it authored by a real prophet named Daniel in the early part of the 6^th century B.C., or should the book be interpreted as a pseudepigraphal [1] production of an unknown author contemporaneous with the time of the Maccabean period in the years 167-164 B.C.?

Scholars following a critical-historical method often prefer the latter date, making the book of Daniel less a historic prophecy of events and more a contemporary commentary on the state of affairs for the Hebrew people during the Maccabean period and the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty. In other words, according to the historical critical scholar, it is not prophecy but reflection.

By establishing the identity of the four kingdoms of the Danielic prophecy and by the employment of historical and internal considerations, Evans aims to inspire a new generation of scholars to forfeit the approach of the critical historical scholar and embrace a more conservative stance by affirming the Book of Daniel as a true, prophetic book written hundreds of years prior to the fulfillment of its prophecies.

We will proceed with our review of Evans’ writing by examining the areas of historiography, methodology, style, and then conclude with some personal evaluations.

Historiography:

Evans approaches his material unabashedly from a conservative, evangelical perspective. In his introduction he quickly seeks to establish his position against what he considers to be the "liberal" scholars of the critical historical ilk. For Evans, the ways of such liberalism have thrived in an increasingly secular civil society that has spilled over into both private and public universities’ regardless of religious affiliation (or lack of it). He writes,

Academia’s prevailing biblical paradigm is, of course, a consequence of the general secularization of society whose origins can be traced back several hundred years to such events as the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun. The process of secularization was already far advanced before it gained decisive momentum after the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of the Species in 1859 (p. 20). 

Much of the reason for Evans’ embracing divine inspiration is due to his early encounters with what he calls the "one-sided treatment" of the Book of Daniel by critical historical scholars (Evans’ "liberals"). Driven to disprove their theories and to establish an early date for the writing of the Book of Daniel, Evans, a former University of Alabama finance professor, began a twenty-plus year effort to state his case. The results of this search he has published as Four Kingdoms.

Writing as a partial preterist, the dual thrust of Evans’ work is to sufficiently prove that the Book of Daniel was indeed prophetically written by Daniel in the 6^th century B.C., and that the majority of its contents was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. [2]

Central to Evans’ thesis is a synopsis of the four kingdoms as presented in Daniel chapters 2 and 7. It is his position that if one can establish the progression of the kingdoms according to the "Roman" sequence (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome) versus the "Greek" (Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece) as argued by critical historical scholars, then the case for inspired prophecy can be established.

This is important for Evans as he aims to turn others away from what he calls the "methodological naturalism" of many contemporary scholars back to the belief in the direct intervention of God in history. To accomplish this, Evans provides a detailed history of Judea during the period of 167-164 B.C. and enumerates why the events of this time could not logically be those under discussion by Daniel. In Evans’ view, there is no escaping Rome as the final, dominant kingdom to be dealt with in God’s plan for his people. For Evans, the futurist position to the Book of Daniel needs to give way to that of "partial preterism," a view he feels more logically represents the Danielic events as seen in the destruction of Jerusalem and eventual downfall of Rome.

To accomplish this, Evans invests a great deal of space in meticulously laying out the history of world events, many of which take him into technical waters as he wrestles with issues such as Daniel’s 70 weeks, the identity of the son of man and of the four beasts, the little horn and the time of the great tribulation.

Methodology:

The main source utilized by Evans to converse with the critical historical scholars he opposes is the work of John J. Collins. [3] Other ‘liberal’ scholars receiving mention include a commentary on the Book of Daniel by James A. Montgomery [4] and the co-authored work by Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella. [5] Evans admits that though he cites "a few other works by other critical scholars, [he makes] no claim to have consulted all of their important works." Nevertheless he has, in his opinion, "sampled enough of their literature to be confident in [his] statements about it" (pp. 43-44).

Strangely, in favor of his view, Evans lists as his primary research a reliance upon "ten books by conservative scholars" (p. 44) along with several hours "surfing the net" (p.43). An admitted reliance upon scholarship with which one has an a priori agreement and the nearly unverifiable material available on the World Wide Web hardly seems likely to impress the critical scholarship he adamantly seeks to influence or refute. Evans’ work, which makes only scant reference to scholarly journals (one suspects he would dismiss them as "too liberal") is better suited for popular consumption than it is for the scholarly audience he would most like to address.

Evans’ use of primary source documents is also alarmingly deficient. Given the breadth of existing scholarship on Daniel it is evident that this field is calling for more than cursory overviews of well-known historical sources. Treatment of the book, regardless of the claims one expects the research to support, demands investigation into primary source documents such as the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts from Qumran, applicable linguistic evidence from the Masoretic Text and a comparative look at the Septuagint. Likewise, the secondary sources that Evans cites (books, articles) are limited and often themselves fall into the category of tertiary sources (books and articles that supply a synthesis of secondary sources, i.e., popularly written works).

This lack of resources is problematic in light of the high standards Evans sets for his own work. He states, "My primary goal in writing this book has been to provide a refutation of those views that goes beyond what any other conservative writer has provided" (p. xi, emphasis mine). And again, "This book constitutes a small step toward achieving a reformation of biblical interpretation that will ultimately, perhaps rapidly, allow conservative Christians to regain the voice in academic circles that has been denied to them for decades" (p. 38). [6]

Style:

These liabilities, and Evans’ shrill defense of conservative concerns, give the book a somewhat dated feel. Critical historical scholars are lumped into the cultural milieu of a secular society where truth is meaningless and the advance of Darwinism has eroded Christian resolve. Evans echoes the sentiment of many conservatives in his concern that this Christian "weakness" is that it has surrendered the war of ideas (which always seems to be a code name for a war of ideologies) to Islamic extremism. 

Evans notes, "Overcoming the reigning secular paradigms of our academic and media elites will be difficult. It is quite noticeable, however, that the left-wing and liberal political parties and movements with which these elites tend to ally themselves are becoming less ideologically coherent and evermore defined by what they are against than by what they are for" (p. 37). He seems oblivious to the possibility that conservatives such as himself might well suffer from a similar myopia.

The difficulty with this kind of dualism is that it has the tendency to eclipse valuable insights offered by authors who do not seem to fall on the preferred side of the theological fence. Given his tendency in this regard, it seems ironic that Evans would offer the following about the fiery furnace account in Daniel 3: "…others, of whom I am one, believe that this story grew more fantastic with the telling over the course of several centuries and should not be taken as being literally true in all respects" (p. 19).

If Evans is willing to make concessions to the development of this pericope, why can he not offer latitude to scholars with differing perspectives? Evans’ view that the events of the fiery furnace as written in the Book of Daniel may not necessarily be "true in all respects," for many, will place little room for differentiation between himself and the critical historical scholars he attempts to refute. Evans would be well served, perhaps, to dispense with his adversarial tone in favor of a more conciliatory dialogical approach.

What is admirable about the book is its flow. If one is predisposed to Evans’ view, it is well argued and ample historical and internal biblical evidence is supplied. Evans is clear in raising the questions he feels most important and answering them with a steady progression of evidentiary information.

As far as Evans’ writing style, it is simple, not eloquent. Each chapter begins with a statement of what he will attempt to prove followed by numbered divisions making it easy for the reader to follow his line of argumentation.

While the book has endnotes and Scripture and subject index, there is no bibliography. This causes the researcher unnecessary extra effort. For instance, when Evans quotes from renowned scholar Gleason Archer’s work in the Expositor Bible Commentary, the inquisitive reader will be forced to wade through 464 endnotes to discover that Evans overlooks Archer’s other works on Daniel such as those found in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, or his excellent article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled, "Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel" or his work in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. This is an oversight one hopes will be corrected in future printings.

Personal Evaluation:

Now I would like to interact with this work by addressing five areas of concern.

First, in the opening pages an immediate contradiction is sensed when Evans claims that his desire is to "provide a refutation of those views that goes beyond what any other conservative writer has provided" (p. xi) while alternately stating that, "I do not claim to have uncovered original arguments in defense of Daniel’s authenticity…" (p. 34 emphasis mine) yet still say that the goal of this book is to help Christians "regain the voice in academic circles that has been denied to them for decades" (p. 38 ).

Anyone who has spend time in the field of Danielic studies knows that a popular work advancing no new ideas has little, if any, chance of helping conservative Christians regain a voice in academic circles, and certainly claims like this undermine the credibility and intended scholarship of the book.

His desire to make the case that Daniel is indeed the work of a real prophet who serves a God who intervenes in history to make his ways known is admirable. Even more admirable is his willingness to undertake this task at an advanced age. The dating of Daniel is highly debated, with late and early advocates on all points of the theological spectrum. Those who favor an early dating will find an outspoken advocate in Evans. In the end, perhaps, Evans and the reader would better be served if Evans were to retreat from the impossible standard he sets for himself. Maybe a more relaxed version of the work aimed at creating dialogue instead of constructing an invulnerable polemic would go further in preparing the reader to be more open, and less critical, of Evans’ project.[7]

It is easy to get the impression that Evans’ strong suit is history, not theology. Evans might benefit by spending more time searching out the nuances of the field of fulfilled eschatology (preterism). Once he comes to see the breadth of views that fall under this umbrella, he might better understand where his own perspective fits into that landscape.

Likewise, of all the preterist works referenced, only Kennth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell can be considered a scholarly, rather than popular, work. The defense of an early date for the book of Daniel is not something on which the preterist hermeneutic rises and falls, nor is the converse true. There is no airtight connection between the dating of Daniel and the eschatological significance of the events of A.D. 70.

Evans also might benefit from a greater acquaintance with the works of Max King. Readers of King’s work will identify several problems as they read Evans’ view of the unfolding events of Daniel’s 70 weeks, the identity of the "prince" and the "people of the prince" and many other points of contention that they may feel they have sufficiently worked out via the assistance of King; particularly from his work, The Cross and Parousia of Christ.[8]

Additionally, those coming from the perspective of covenant eschatology will be disappointed that Evans, as a "partial" preterist, chooses to ignore the issue of the resurrection in Daniel 12 and its New Testament time of fulfillment, thus leaving one of the more important doors to Daniel standing wide open. His naïveté becomes evident as he writes, "It is beyond the intended scope of this book to explore the theology of this first-century resurrection in these pages, but it is a matter that can readily be investigated by spending a few minutes on the Internet" (p. 279). To suggest that resurrection plays such a small role in the timing of Daniel’s prophecy that a bit of internet surfing can bring the reader up to date is a rather telling reflection on Evans’ grasp (or lack thereof) of the subject.

Third, with the advent of the Internet and the availability of numerous articles on different subjects, the researcher must exercise extreme caution in what is used and how it is employed to build his case. One of the most egregious and unfortunate examples of this would be the way Evans misrepresents the work of fellow preterist Ward Fenley. In addressing the issue of Daniel 12:11-12 Evans tells us that Fenley’s "analysis implies, however, that the 1,335 days must run well into 74… By inference, 74 would then be the date for the resurrection" (p. 319, emphasis mine). Evans then completes this section a couple of pages later by taking the inferences and implications he has unfairly assigned to Fenley and now states them as if Fenley holds them as fact, saying, you either choose the option preferred by Evans or "you wind up, like Fenley, in the year 74 looking—probably in vain—for some event that might appear to fulfill Daniel 12:2’s promise that ‘Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt’" (p. 321). Anyone who has studied the works of Fenley knows beyond doubt that he neither "implies" nor "infers" any such thing regarding the time of the resurrection…see his work, The Second Coming of Christ Already Happened, Kingdom Sovereign Grace Publications, 1997.

To lift such ideas from an Internet article and create unwarranted assumptions on behalf of its author without doing further research into the scholarly published works of the author, is to risk misrepresenting someone as greatly as Evans has done with Fenley. It is not beyond the scope of reason to ask Evans to print some sort of retraction for fear that his carelessness on this point may end up causing problems for Fenley in the years to come. To say that Fenley was alarmed by Evan’s characterization of his views is to put it mildly.

Fourth, the field of fulfilled prophecy is very much in its infant stages. Though there are many who labor in it, recognized scholarship is still, for the most part, lacking. The best way to develop scholarship in our field is to make sure that we understand one critical point about how we make our arguments: Each of us is being judged by our detractors with respect to the quality of our minds and our character as much as our positions themselves are being evaluated. The projected ethos of the writer is at least as important as the writer’s ability to frame a cogent argument.

As we are all working together to gain a hearing for the fulfilled view, we of all people must address our ethos; both individually and collectively as a community. It is this that will build trust with the readers and ensure a place for our view among the many voices competing for their attention.

Evans’ own ethos comes clear in passages such as these:

1. "Whereas liberal writers gloss over or ignore the weak points in their case, I do my best to expose them unmercifully" (p. 30).

It is not difficult to see how those we really most want to influence could be most offended by this sort of approach. By assuming that other writers deliberately ignore their own weaknesses (whereas Evans is apparently free from this liability while at the same time having the sort of pristine insight that allows him to see the weaknesses of others), Evans succeeds only in creating an air of condescension that is neither helpful nor persuasive.

2. "…their efforts will have no effect on the many liberals who have passed the point of yielding to mere facts and logic" (p. 33).

It is tempting to believe that others are, in fact, past the point of listening, and equally tempting to believe that one has a privileged line on the "facts and logic" assumed to be missing in arguments from the other side. This attitude, however, comes across as arrogant and presumptive. Perhaps we would do better by redoubling our efforts and continuing to give others the benefit of the doubt while winning them over with less rhetoric and more scholarship.

3. "It is difficult to imagine a greater triumph for practitioners of liberal ‘debunkery’ than that" (p. 132).

It is doubtful that the audience Evans would most like to reach are even with him by this point in the book… which is unfortunate, for this is page 132 and there are still another 333 pages left. Such an alienating style will not help gain the fulfilled view the hearing it so earnestly seeks. These statements are difficult to read even for those in agreement with Evans and make the reader stoop to levels that perhaps he or she is not wanting to visit. One can only imagine how our detractors must receive it.

4. "…it is impossible to take this claim seriously if you are wide awake, of normal intelligence, and not a committed liberal" (p. 219).

If you do not agree with Evans, then, you apparently are asleep, of subnormal intelligence, and hopelessly ideological. A more alienating polemic is difficult to imagine. Moreover, Evans seems glaringly unaware of the possibility that he might not be fully awake himself and that his understanding, as viewed by his detractors, would also have little credibility in the context of such an obviously particularist position.

Fifth, there is the conspicuous absence of any argumentation from primary source documents. It could be that the case for the date of Daniel and the identity of the four kingdoms will be resolved not by debating the minutia of internal textual points, but by examining the source documents themselves. When we argue exclusively from internal sources, from the text only, it is easy to create a closed circle of reasoning that is not open to falsification. If both sides of an issue do this, and this is what has occurred with the Book of Daniel, then we remain in a stalemate and neither side is left with a better option than trying to shout down the other. This type of argumentation does not serve to advance the discussion, and leaves us no closer to a better understanding of the issues than when we began.

On the other hand, there is a wealth of information from the Dead Sea Scrolls that might afford early-date advocates an opportunity to support the case against pseudepigraphical authorship. Manuscripts of the book of Daniel outnumber those of any other Qumran text. As the dates of these documents are determined through scholarly research, it may become easier to date the book of Daniel and support prophetic authorship.

If copies of Daniel can be dated before 165 BC (and it seems likely to me that this could be the case), then an effective case can be made, but Evans does not deal with these issues at all. It may also be possible to construct a view of the Danielic prophecies that is robust but not contingent upon a particular dating scheme. Again, this is not a possibility that Evans is willing to entertain, and the fact that he does not address it at all seems to betray the limits of his research in this area.

Conclusion:

Because the fulfilled prophecy marketplace is in its infancy and because we feel such a kindred spirit toward anyone attempting to make a difference, I would like to endorse Evans’ work. I cannot, however, do so enthusiastically.

The partial preterist position he adopts leaves too many doors open and slows the momentum he is building for the fulfilled. The high standards he sets in reviewing the work of others leaves him open for criticism in ways that undermine his credibility: "As you judge, so will you be judged." Unfortunately, these issues eclipse the merit of Evans’ more salient contributions.

The Four Kingdoms of Daniel is commendable for its historical content and the obvious effort involved in its writing. If the reader is prepared for the polemic nature of the book, he or she might find useful information toward an understanding of this key biblical text.

URL: http://www.presence.tv/cms/review_four_kingdoms.php

---

Top of Page

Email Article

Printer