Just to forestall confusion, I must correct two things in your remark.

(1) Tigranes the Great wasn’t alive in the 160s. The crank is trying to argue Daniel was written in the 60s and is therefore “about” events in the 60s (and thus the end-clock cannot begin with Onias III’s death but some other imagined person a century later). Which makes zero sense.

(2) It is not absurd to postulate Ezekiel was edited. There’s just no evidence of it. Unlike, for example, the editing of Isaiah (which had whole sections added in later centuries) or indeed even Daniel (which had Bel and the Dragon added a century or two after it was published; and many mainstream theories of the composition of Daniel posit it had been edited before, starting with early chapters, then getting later chapters added; this is discussed in the article above). So what would be crank is not suggesting that that might also have happened to Ezekiel; what would be crank is just “making up” the fact that it did (you can’t just make shit up; you need evidence to support your assertions).

I’m in agreement with you on this, Dr. Carrier. Peters completely misses the point of Daniel 11:36-39. It’s not meant to be an accurate description of Antiochus Epiphanes’ activities, but a deliberate polemical distortion as Collins and all other mainstream scholars recognize.

Collins wasn’t wrong when he said Tigranes had no contact with Judea. Surely he’s aware of what Josephus says about Tigranes in Wars and Antiquities. No other ancient historian supports Josephus’ claim that Tigranes was about to invade Judea. It doesn’t fit with history. Josephus is unreliable.

Daniel 11:36-45 couldn’t have been written in 69 B.C. because like you said, Tigranes wasn’t even alive at the time.

The book of Ezekiel was written in the early 6th century. To think someone could get away with adding whole chapters five centuries later is beyond stupid!

Keep up the good work exposing these cranks for what they are!

I will leave this up without reply and never post any of this garbage from you here again, just to show people what an off-the-rails crank you are, complete with this outrageous wordwall method of argument. Indeed I shall in future use this as an example of exactly this tactic and how it demonstrates a poverty of mental wellness and demonstrates no utility in ever engaging with crazy people.

Are mainstream scholars always correct? You are not a mainstream scholar. Mainstream scholars believe that Yeshua was a real person. Perhaps you should be labelled a “crank” and all of your writings should be considered worthless. The fact is that Collins is in error if he believes what he stated on YouTube: “As far as I am aware, Tigranes of Armenia had no contact with Judea.” Collins is ignorant of what Josephus states in Antiquities of the Jews 13.16.4:

About this time news was brought that Tigranes, the king of Armenia, had made an irruption into Syria with five hundred thousand soldiers, and was coming against Judea. This news, as may well be supposed, terrified the queen and the nation. Accordingly, they sent him many and very valuable presents, as also ambassadors, and that as he was besieging Ptolemais; for Selene the queen, the same that was also called Cleopatra, ruled then over Syria, who had persuaded the inhabitants to exclude Tigranes. So the Jewish ambassadors interceded with him, and entreated him that he would determine nothing that was severe about their queen or nation. He commended them for the respects they paid him at so great a distance, and gave them good hopes of his favor. But as soon as Ptolemais was taken, news came to Tigranes, that Lucullus, in his pursuit of Mithridates, could not light upon him, who was fled into Iberia, but was laying waste Armenia, and besieging its cities. Now when Tigranes knew this, he returned home.

Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1.5.3 states:

Accordingly, they themselves slew Diogenes, a person of figure, and one that had been a friend to Alexander; and accused him as having assisted the king with his advice, for crucifying the eight hundred men. They also prevailed with Alexandra to put to death the rest of those who had irritated him against them. Now she was so superstitious as to comply with their desires, and accordingly they slew whom they pleased themselves. But the principal of those that were in danger fled to Aristobulus, who persuaded his mother to spare the men on account of their dignity, but to expel them out of the city, unless she took them to be innocent; so they were suffered to go unpunished, and were dispersed all over the country. But when Alexandra sent out her army to Damascus, under pretense that Ptolemy was always oppressing that city, she got possession of it; nor did it make any considerable resistance. She also prevailed with Tigranes, king of Armenia, who lay with his troops about Ptolemais, and besieged Cleopatra, by agreements and presents, to go away. Accordingly, Tigranes soon arose from the siege, by reason of those domestic tumults which happened upon Lucullus’s expedition into Armenia.

In early 69 BCE, Judea was under the threat of an invasion by Tigranes. This was when Daniel 11:36-43 and 11:45 and much of Ezekiel 38 and 39 were written. At least Collins acknowledges in his commentary some of the problems associated with applying what is said about the king of the north in Daniel 11:37-39a to Antiochus IV. You claim that this passage is “spot on” and do not offer your own explanation of how the statements in this passage apply to Antiochus. You simply defer to Collins’s disingenuous arguments.

Since you refuse to read comments on YouTube, here is the comment that I posted:

While answering my question, Dr. Collins claims that Daniel 11:36-39 applies to Antiochus Epiphanes well enough. Daniel 11:37 states that the king will not pay respect to the deities of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. However, Zeus Olympius was the chief god of his fathers, and Antiochus imposed the cult of this god upon Jerusalem. According to Kent Rigsby: “Antiochus Epiphanes’ ostentatious devotion to Zeus Olympius reflects the fact that this was the patron of his native place and first city of his dynasty, truly the god of his fathers” (Kent J. Rigsby, “Seleucid Notes” in Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 110 (New York: Society for Classical Studies, 1980), 237). As Collins notes in his commentary, Antiochus also forced the Jews to celebrate the feast of Dionysus (2 Maccabees 6:7) (John Joseph Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 387). Collins admits that “Daniel’s statement that the king did not attend to the gods of his fathers is problematic” (Ibid.). He notes that scholars generally identify the deity beloved by women as Tammuz-Adonis (Ibid.), but Dionysus was another god who was beloved by women, so the statement that the king would not pay respect to the deity beloved by women would have been confusing to contemporary readers if this passage is really about Antiochus. Why would the author make claims about Antiochus that his audience would have known were obviously untrue? Collins offers this explanation: “It is true that Antiochus especially favored and promoted the cult of Zeus, and this preference is reflected in the coinage. Daniel construes this preference to imply neglect of all other gods. This is probably deliberate polemical distortion, to depict the impiety of the king in the most extreme terms possible” (Ibid.). According to Daniel 11:38, the king would honor a deity of strongholds whom his fathers did not know with silver and gold. Collins mentions that commentators have identified the deity of strongholds as Jupiter Capitolinus or Zeus Akraios, and he correctly points out that “the only cult of Zeus that Antiochus is actually said to have imposed in Jerusalem, however, is that of Zeus Olympius” (Ibid.). Why would the author refer to a god that Antiochus may have honored in Antioch or Acre when Zeus Olympius and Dionysus were the principal deities the people of Judea would have identified as being worshiped by Antiochus? In my view, if the author of Daniel 11:36-45 had Antiochus in mind when he wrote this passage, he would have written things about Antiochus that contemporary readers of Daniel would have recognized as being applicable to Antiochus rather than what is written in verses 37-39a.

After Tigranes II of Armenia was granted control over Antioch, Tyche seems to have become his favorite deity. Coins minted at Antioch and Tigranocerta feature Tigranes on the obverse and Tyche on the reverse. She is depicted wearing a mural crown, symbolizing her status as the goddess of cities and strongholds. The author of Daniel 11:36-45 would have seen some of these coins and he may have assumed that Tigranes had forsaken the deities of his ancestors. Tigranes’s forefathers worshiped the Zoroastrian deities. They did not know Tyche (Daniel 11:38). Collins notes the parallels between Daniel 11:36 and Daniel 8:10, 11 (Collins, 386). What is written about the king in Daniel 11:36 (“he will exalt himself and magnify himself above every deity”) resembles what is written about the little horn (Antiochus) in Daniel 8:11 (“it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host”). The phrase in Daniel 11:36 can be interpreted as a reference to Antiochus claiming to be Zeus made manifest as Collins states, but Tigranes took on the title of “King of Kings” and he may have been judged as magnifying himself above every deity. Vahan Kurkjian writes:

Tigranes’ public appearances were spectacular. He displayed all the pomp and magnificence becoming to a successor of Darius or Xerxes. Theoretically an equal of the gods, he clothed himself in a tunic striped in white and purple, and a mantle entirely purple. He always wore everywhere (even when hunting) a tiara of precious stones. Four of his vassal kings stood about his throne, and when he rode forth on horseback, they ran on foot before and beside him (Vahan M. Kurkjian, A History of Armenia (Los Angeles: Indo-European Publishing, 2014), 64).

Contrary to what Collins believes, Tigranes did have contact with Judea (See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.16.4, and Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1.5.3). In early 69 BCE, there were rumors that Tigranes was coming against Judea. I believe that Daniel 11:40-45 and Ezekiel 38-39 reflect the expectation of this invasion. Queen Salome Alexandra sent ambassadors with many presents to Tigranes while he was besieging Ptolemais in order win his favor. Tigranes returned to Armenia after he heard that the Roman general Lucullus had invaded the country, and the invasion of Judea did not happen. The leader of the coalition against Israel in Ezekiel 38-39 is said to come from the far north (Ezekiel 38:14-15; 39:1-2). He is called “Gog, of the land of Magog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.” Magog was a son of Japheth according to Genesis 10:2. The names “Gog” and “Magog” were probably derived from “Gogarene,” which was the name of a region conquered by Tigranes’s grandfather Artaxias (Strabo, Geography 11.14.5). Meshech and Tubal were also sons of Japheth according to Genesis 10:2. They were considered to be the eponymous ancestors of certain people groups who lived in the region of Cappadocia (the Mushki tribe and the inhabitants of the state of Tabal). Gomer is listed as a son of Japheth in Genesis 10:2, and Togarmah is a son of Gomer according to Genesis 10:3. Hoards believed to be descended from these two are said to accompany Gog in Ezekiel 38:6. Gomer is identified with the Cimmerians, who migrated to Cappadocia in the seventh century BCE. The house of Togarmah is identified with the city of Tegarama, which is generally considered to have been located in Cappadocia, although some would place it in Armenia. According to Appian, Tigranes deported 300,000 people from Cappadocia to Armenia after he invaded the region in 78 BCE (Appian, Mithridatic Wars 67). Men from Cappadocia would have made up a large part of Tigranes’s army. Persia, Put, and Cush are said to be with Gog in Ezekiel 38:5. If my identification of Gog as Tigranes is correct, this verse must be a latter addition to the text since men from these nations were not part of his army. The warriors in Gog’s army are said to ride horses (Ezekiel 38:4, 15; 39:20) and are equipped with bucklers, shields, swords, bows and arrows, clubs, and spears (Ezekiel 38:4, 21; 39:3, 9). The Armenians were among the peoples known for their passion for riding and the care of horses (Strabo, Geography 11.14.12). Appian states that Tigranes marched against Lucullus with an army consisting of 250,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry (Appian, Mithridatic Wars 85). According to Plutarch, Tigranes was in command of 20,000 bowmen and slingers, 55,000 horsemen, and 150,000 heavy infantry (Plutarch, Life of Lucullus 26.6). Eutropius claims that Tigranes fought against Lucullus with 600,000 heavy cavalry and 100,000 archers and other troops (Eutropius, Short History of the Roman Empire 6.9). Queen Salome Alexandra and Tigranes inspired the creation of the characters of Judith and Nebuchadnezzar the Assyrian in the book of Judith (See Samuele Rocca, “THE BOOK OF JUDITH, QUEEN SHOLOMZION AND KING TIGRANES OF ARMENIA: A SADDUCEE APPRAISAL” in Materia Giudaica 10.1 (Bologna: Associazione italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo, 2005), 85-98, and Gabrielle Boccaccini, “Tigranes the Great as ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ in the Book of Judith” in A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2012), 55-69). Like Nebuchadnezzar II who deported Jews from Judah to Babylon, Tigranes deported Jews from Syria to Armenia (Boccaccini, 64). He came to be thought of as a new Nebuchadnezzar (Boccaccini, 65-66). The military campaigns conducted by Tigranes closely correspond to the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar described in the book of Judith (Rocca, 91-92; Boccaccini, 60-62). According to Judith 2:14-16, Nebuchadnezzar’s army contained 120,000 troops and 12,000 archers on horseback (Rocca, 93). Tigranes/Nebuchadnezzar was also expected to invade Egypt (Judith 1:7-12; Rocca, 91-92; Boccaccini, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66; cf. Daniel 11:42-43).

The news that came to Tigranes of Lucullus’s invasion matches up with what is written in Daniel 11:44. Since this verse is surrounded by other verses containing unfulfilled predictions, I believe it is an interpolation. It is strange that the redactor did not rewrite the rest of the passage to make it all true. I suppose he did not worry about inerrancy as much as we do!

This is tinfoil hat.

It’s also blowing right past what I just said about the material not fitting history (which is what all mainstream scholars including Collins say).

Which is the behavior of a crank: ignore everything you don’t want to be true, then continue repeating the same crazy things already refuted in ever-increasing wordwalls.

(And I don’t read external YouTube comments.)

You obviously did not read the comment that I posted in the comments section of the History Valley video that I linked to: https://www.youtube.com/live/VJYL9340CLc?si=RUphOkHLH6FrOKrC&t=2145. Had you read that comment, you would know that I believe that Daniel 11:40-43 and 11:45 are unfulfilled predictions concerning Tigranes II. Daniel 11:44 was added after Tigranes returned to Armenia to deal with Lucullus. The author of this verse did not care about inerrancy enough to redact the whole passage to make it all true, just as the person who added Daniel 12:11 and later 12:12 did not care enough to remove the previously failed predictions of when the end would come in Daniel 12:7 and 12:11. If you claim that Antiochus IV did not pay respect to the deities of his fathers, or to the deity beloved by women, and that he honored a deity of strongholds whom his fathers did not know, and that he dealt with the fortifications of strongholds with the deity of a foreign land (Daniel 11:37-39a), you are either ignorant or a liar! John J. Collins even admits that “Daniel’s statement that the king did not attend to the gods of his fathers is problematic” (John Joseph Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 387). On the other hand, Tigranes II did honor a deity of strongholds whom his fathers did not know (the goddess Tyche), and the predictions in Daniel 11:40-43 and 11:45 were reasonable in light of the situation in early 69 BCE.

Perhaps Daniel 11:5-39 is “spot on,” but it is not spot on if the king of the north spoken of in Daniel 11:36-45 is Antiochus IV.

The article you are commenting on thus says:

So when we notice Daniel then starts to get history totally wrong (Daniel 11:40-45), incorrectly “predicting” a war between the Ptolemies and Seleucids that never came to pass, and that Antiochus would conquer most of North Africa (he didn’t capture even a single province there, due to the unforeseen intervention of the Romans), and die in Palestine (he was nowhere near), we can directly tell when the book was written: sometime in or shortly before 165.

Instead you say this:

The king of the north in Daniel 11:36-45 is Tigranes II of Armenia…

That literally makes no sense.

Tigranes never invaded Egypt, much less Libya! And he never pitched his tent in the Sinai (11:45). Alexander Jannaeus held him short. The Hasmonean dynasty was never conquered by Armenians and no ancient source mentions their even being subject to them.

He also wasn’t even alive at the time.

…and this passage consists of text that was interpolated in 69 BCE.

Sigh. Look, making shit up is not doing history.

I’m really tired of shit like this. Please go away.

I recently presented my theory to Dr. Collins on History Valley that Tigranes II is the one called “the king of the north” in Daniel 11:36-45, and the one called “Gog” in Ezekiel 38 and 39 (See “Daniel’s Prophecy Failed! | Dr. John J. Collins.” YouTube, uploaded by History Valley, August 26, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/live/VJYL9340CLc?si=RUphOkHLH6FrOKrC&t=2145). Collins did not want to take the time to figure out why I believe that the king of the north is Tigranes, but he said that if I can make a case for it, I should make it somewhere, so I made a case for it in the comments section of the video. I asked DeepSeek and ChatGPT to analyze the argument that I made in the comments section and these AI platforms gave me very favorable analyses of my theory.

I did a rough reconstruction of the original version of the book of Daniel that was written during the Maccabean Revolt in the 160s BCE. The original version was much shorter than the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek versions of Daniel that we have today. The author predicted that Judas Maccabaeus, whom he believed was anointed with the spirit of Yahweh, would defeat Antiochus and that the resurrection of the dead would take place shortly thereafter. Most of the book of Daniel was written after the Hasmonean kingdom was established.

Benjamin Waters argues that Daniel 11:36-45 is an interpolation (Benjamin Victor Waters, “The Two Eschatological Perspectives of the Book of Daniel” in Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2016, Vol. 30, No. 1, 94-95, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09018328.2016.1122292). He believes that the king of the north in Daniel 11:36-45 is Antiochus IV and that canonical version of Daniel was completed around the time of Antiochus’s death, so I do not entirely agree with his reasoning, but I do agree with his judgment that Daniel 12:1a more naturally follows Daniel 11:35 than Daniel 11:45. The redactor who wrote most of the book of Daniel split the prophecy of the seventy sevens into two parts (Daniel 9:24-27 and Daniel 12:1-3) and modified the text of the second part to refer to the angel Michael instead of Judas Maccabaeus. Daniel 11:21-32 is about Antiochus IV. When Daniel 11:21-35 and Daniel 12:1-13 are read consecutively without Daniel 11:36-45, a time of distress in which Michael will save the people of God and the resurrection of the dead can be interpreted as being prophesied to take place after the time of Antiochus at some point in the future.

You’d have to be more specific. Which “problems” are you talking about?

Perhaps you are unaware that Daniel represents itself as a document written by the mythical prophet Daniel in the 6th century. It is not represented as oral lore transcribed to print centuries later. So I don’t see the relevance of oral lore theory here.

More to the point, the evidence presented here is of an improbable coincidence with events and agendas of Jewish rebels in the 2nd century. That cannot be explained as a mere congeries of chance accidents in transmission. The authors composed this text at a specific time for a specific purpose (which is why no one had ever heard of it, its contents, or even Daniel, in any prior text).

Asked and answered.

Posting speculative wordwalls over and over again is not helping anyone here.

I suggest you peddle your crazy somewhere else.