The Little Horns of Daniel 7 and 8

Part 1

By John Evans

One of the most crucial issues in the Book of Daniel is whether the “little horn” who makes his initial appearance in Daniel 7:8 symbolizes the same person as the horn that “started small” in Daniel 8:9. For liberals, they do indeed symbolize the same person, namely Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the tyrannical king of Seleucid Syria (175-164/3 BC) who attempted to eradicate Judaism and thereby provoked the Maccabean Revolt.

It is the overwhelmingly prevalent view among liberal scholars that Seleucid Syria must be regarded as part of the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, which, in their view, is “Greece.” Most (but not all) conservatives concede that the small horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV, but conservatives generally hold that the little horn of Daniel 7 must be identified with a later kingdom than “Greece,” which they relegate to third place in the Danielic sequence. That later kingdom is “Rome.”

A great problem for the many conservatives who adhere to a futurist eschatology for the Book of Daniel is that of bridging the gap between the disappearance from history of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD and the end-time events of Daniel 7 in which the little horn plays a major role (v.21-27). If the little horn is to be understood as emanating from Rome, then one must hold either that the Roman Empire has survived in some sense into our present age or that the end time which is to occur in the future—perhaps the very near future—requires some kind of reconstitution of the Empire in which the little horn at last makes his appearance. The latter alternative requires the existence of a very long prophetic gap that allows one to ignore all the “kingdoms” that have appeared since Roman times. I submit that neither of these alternatives is very attractive objectively and that this helps explain why many scholars reject the “Roman” sequence of Danielic kingdoms in favor of the “Greek” sequence despite the numerous strong objections that can be raised about the Greek sequence’s plausibility.

In my judgment, the case for the validity of the Roman sequence is greatly strengthened once you abandon futurist attempts to either preserve or resurrect the Roman Empire and look to the first century AD for the fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 7 pertaining to the fourth kingdom and its little horn. The chief obstacle confronting this approach is that if it is to gain favor among biblical scholars, it must present a case for the historical identity of the little horn that seems plausible to a significant number of them. Adding greatly to the magnitude of this obstacle is the fact that much of biblical academia displays the same liberal/secular bias that exists in academia in general. It doesn’t help, however, that efforts by preterists to develop the needed historical case have been hampered by their failure to arrive at a consensus solution to the little horn problem. Absent such a solution, the proponents of the Greek sequence are better able to continue their longstanding practice of proclaiming the validity of the Greek sequence without offering an in-depth defense against what should be seen as glaring weaknesses in their position. In effect, those who endorse the Greek sequence are saying that since it is impossible to accept the validity of the Roman sequence, the Greek sequence must be accepted despite its evident shortcomings.

I insist that preterists can offer possible solutions to the little horn problem that warrant discarding the relative immunity from criticism that those who accept the Greek sequence have enjoyed. I concede that the preterist approach to this problem has weaknesses, but I judge them to be far less severe than those of the positions adopted by Greek sequence proponents. In effect, I hold that the weaknesses of the Greek sequence are so glaring relative to those of the Roman sequence with AD 70 fulfillment that the former must be rejected in favor of the latter.

It is a challenge for me to examine the issues involved in identifying the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 without producing a manuscript that is the length of a short book. Having written a lengthy book (496 pages) on the four kingdoms of Daniel that was published only last year, I do not intend to undertake such a formidable task on this website. In an act of shameless huckstering, I recommend the purchase of my book for those who want to read a detailed overall criticism of the liberal position on the four kingdoms. My book also offers a somewhat tentative presentation of what I believe to be the best way to understand the four kingdoms within the preterist framework of analysis. What I propose to do here is a two-part article in which I focus rather narrowly upon what I regard as the key issues in the controversy about the two horns. In the remainder of part one, I shall present an overview of how Daniel 7 and 8 present the two horns and summarize, with only light criticism, how the critical-historical or liberal school makes the case for believing that they symbolize the same person. In part two, I shall subject the liberal approach to a much more thorough critical examination.

Although it may seem at times that I regard liberal or critical-historical scholarship on the Book of Daniel as a monolithic structure in which the building stones are all exactly the same, I recognize that liberal authorities on Daniel differ substantially among themselves on numerous points. These differences have contributed to the development of a substantial volume of liberal writings on Daniel, mostly journal articles but also including some books. I admit that I have not read most of this literature. I have, however, become intimately familiar with several prominent liberal commentaries on Daniel in which many of the points raised in journal articles and book chapters are summarized and evaluated, and I have also read a number of journal articles and chapters penned by liberals that seemed to me to be of particular relevance. I am confident that I have enough familiarity with the body of liberal literature on Daniel to be able to state accurately the points to which a clear majority of liberal scholars adhere. I am not particularly interested in examining works in which liberals criticize what other liberals have written on matters that I consider to be erroneous in any event.

There is virtually universal agreement among liberal scholars that all four of Daniel’s visions in chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10-12 point to the climactic end-time events that were to take place during the reign of Antiochus IV and immediately upon his removal, which was to occur “not by human power” (8:25). In their comparisons of Daniel 7 with Daniel 8, these scholars understandably emphasize the points of similarity between the two little horns. They concede that there are also differences between them, but they tend to downplay these. For example, in his commentary on Daniel 8, Ernest C. Lucas gives us the following statement, which, I believe, well summarizes the general attitude among liberal scholars with respect to the similarities and dissimilarities between the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8:

There is near unanimity among commentators that in ch. 8 the horn is a symbol for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The similarities with the small horn in ch. 7 suggest that the referent is the same there. The differences are not contradictions, but are complementary views resulting from differences in focus in the two visions.

To this I append that a frequently voiced view among critical/liberal authorities is that the difference in treatment of the small horns reflects the “facts” that Daniel 7 was completed before the Temple desecration of December 167 BC while Daniel 8 was completed after that event but before December 164 BC.

With these positions in mind, let us now look at how Daniel’s text presents the little horns. The biblical quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) except as otherwise noted.

The arrival of the little horn of Daniel 7 follows the sequential appearance of four symbolic beasts who emerge from the churning sea (v.2-7): a beast like a lion with the wings of an eagle, a beast like a bear that is raised up on one side and is chewing three ribs in its mouth, a beast like a leopard with four heads and four wings, and a terrifying fourth beast with large iron teeth that crushes and devours its victims and then tramples underfoot whatever remains. An additional detail about the fourth beast is that it arrives with ten horns. Verse 8 tells us that while Daniel was contemplating these horns, “another horn, a little one . . . came up among them” and uprooted three of them. The verse ends with this additional detail: “This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.” Verses 9-10 depart from the depiction of the fourth beast to present a judgment scene in which the Ancient of Days takes his throne before a vast multitude, a court sits, “and the books were opened.” Verse 11 adds that Daniel continued to watch the scene “because of the boastful words the horn was speaking” until the fourth beast was slain.

The little horn of Daniel 7 is not mentioned again until verse 20, which reads as follows: “I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully.” In the intervening material, we are told that the first three beasts, though stripped of their authority, were allowed to live for a while (v.12); that “one like a son of man” approaches the Ancient of Days, receives sovereign power from Him, and is worshiped by “all peoples, nations and men of every language” (v.13-14); and that Daniel sought and received from “one of those standing there” an explanation of the “true meaning of all this” (v.16). The “one of those standing there,” evidently an angel, then informs Daniel that “The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth” (v.17) and that “the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever” (v.18). Daniel then asks to know the true meaning of the terrible fourth beast, “with its iron teeth and bronze claws,” that crushes, devours, and tramples its victims (v.19). It should be noted that the bronze claws of the fourth beast are not mentioned in 7:7, which refers only to that beast’s “large iron teeth.”

In verses 21-22, the now imposing eleventh horn wages war against the saints and defeats them until the Ancient of Days comes and pronounces judgment in their favor. Verse 22 ends with the assurance that “the time came when they [the saints] possessed the kingdom.” In verses 23-24, the interpreting angel adds that the ten horns are ten kings who will come from the fourth kingdom and that “After them, another king will arise” who will be different from the earlier kings and will subdue three of them. Verse 25 then presents a prophecy with a specified time period: “He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the law. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.” Verse 26 takes us back to verse 10 by stating that “the court will sit” and the power of the eleventh horn will be destroyed forever. Verse 27 completes the vision by indicating that “the saints, the people of the Most High,” will receive sovereignty and power over all kingdoms and that the kingdom of the Most High will be an everlasting one in which “all rulers will worship and obey him.”

Daniel 8 begins with Daniel having a vision in which he is along the Ulai canal in Susa, the capital of Elam, a land that lay between Babylonia and the heartland of ancient Persia (v.2). From this vantage point, he observes highlights of the history of Persia and the “Greece” of Alexander’s time. In verse 3, a ram with two long horns stands along the canal. One of the horns is longer than the other but is said to have grown up later. In verse 4, the ram charges toward the west, north, and south; i.e. in all the observable directions as Daniel looks toward Babylonia. No animal is able to stand against him. In verses 5-7, a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes comes from the west so rapidly that his feet do not touch the ground, knocks the ram to the ground, and tramples him. In verse 8, when the goat attains the height of his power, the horn is broken off and is replaced by four prominent but smaller horns that “grew up toward the four winds of heaven.” The next verse brings in Daniel 8’s version of a little horn, whose career is described through verse 14.

Daniel 8:9 reads as follows: “Out of one them [the four horns] came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and east and toward the Beautiful Land.” In verse 10, this horn reaches “the host of the heavens,” throws some of them to earth, and tramples them. In verse 11, the horn sets himself up “to be as great as the Prince of the host,” takes away the daily sacrifices, and brings low the place of his sanctuary. Verse 12 reiterates the horn’s successes and states that they occur “Because of rebellion.” In verse 13, a “holy one,” no doubt an angel, asks another such being the following question: “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?” Verse 14 offers this intriguing reply: “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

Verses 15-26 present the interpretation of the vision. In 8:16, a man’s voice calls from the Ulai telling Gabriel to explain the vision’s meaning; and in 8:17, Gabriel begins to do so by stating that “the vision concerns the time of the end.” Verse 8:19 reinforces 8:17 by having Gabriel state that “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.” Gabriel then proceeds to state that the two-horned ram “represents the kings of Media and Greece” (v.20), that the shaggy goat represents Greece, and that the large horn between the goat’s eyes is the first king (v.21), and that the four horns that replace this horn “represent four kingdoms that will come from his [the first king’s] nation but will not have the same power” (v.22). Then, “In the latter part of their reign [referring to the four kingdoms], when rebels have become completely wicked,” the small horn reemerges in the form of a “stern-faced king” who is “a master of intrigue” (v.23).

Verses 24-25 elaborate upon the career of the “stern-faced king.” He becomes very strong, succeeds in whatever he does, causes astounding devastation, and destroys “the mighty men and the holy people, yet all this is achieved “not by his own power” (v.24). He causes “deceit to prosper,” considers himself to be superior, takes “his stand against he Prince of princes,” and destroys many “When they feel secure.” Then, however, he is himself destroyed, “but not by human power” (v.25). The vision of Daniel 8 concludes with Gabriel’s assurance that the vision is true and his command to Daniel to “seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future” (v.26).

That the small horn who is later identified as a “stern-faced king” has to be Antiochus IV is, in my judgment, impossible to seriously dispute. In the first place, 8:9 states that the horn that started small comes from one of the four horns that replaced the large horn that is identified in 8:21 as the first king of “Greece”; i.e. Alexander the Great. Correspondingly, following the death of Alexander in 323 BC, there was a power struggle among his generals, the diadochi, that resulted in the splitting of the empire into four major parts. One of the four successors was Selucus I, an ancestor of Antiochus IV. The fact that Antiochus IV was a descendant of Seleucus I thus corresponds to the passage in 8:9 indicating that the horn that started small emerged from one of the four horns that succeeded the horn symbolizing Alexander the Great.

The personal characteristics and actions of the small horn conform very well to the description of Antiochus IV provided by One and Two Maccabees, Josephus, and other historical sources. Antiochus evidently was “a master of intrigue” who usurped the Seleucid throne from his nephew and persecuted “the holy people,” causing “astounding devastation” among them and among others who opposed him. His status as a usurper corresponds to one who “started small.” The “mighty men” of verse 24 logically can be assumed to be those members of the Seleucid ruling class that he permanently eliminated in his quest for power and the retention of it, though some commentators prefer to view them as Jews. His image on Seleucid coins fits the description “stern-faced king,” and he was militarily successful during most his reign. He issued coins with the words “theos ephiphanes” under his image, which translates as “God made manifest.” That he actually claimed equality with the gods of the Greek pantheon is doubtful, but he certainly exalted himself above other men and treated the Jewish faith with scorn. Under his orders late in 167 BC, the daily sacrifices at the Temple were stopped and acts of sacrilege were committed. His military victories—against the Ptolemies (the south), the Armenians and Persians (the east), and the Jews (the Beautiful Land)—conform well to those mentioned in verse 9. His death, probably from disease, occurred in late 164 or possibly in 163 when he was somewhere along his eastern frontier engaged in military and pillaging activity. In any event, he does not appear to have died from either battle wounds or from assassination; thus, it appears to be true that he did not die “by human power.”

What we know about the life of Antiochus matches Daniel 8 and part of Daniel 11 so well that it is readily understandable why many liberals automatically assume that the “prophecies” of Daniel are after-the-fact. Against the array of matching points between Daniel 8 and the historical record, it is a challenge to find anything that might lend itself to an argument that the small horn of Daniel 8 is not Antiochus IV. One possible try is to argue that since Antiochus IV ruled until 164/3 BC and the Seleucid kingdom managed to survive for almost a century longer, there is a conflict between the Antiochus IV as the small horn theory and the passage in verse 23 that indicates that the “stern-faced king” would come to power “in the latter part” of the reign of the four kingdoms that succeeded Alexander.

From the liberal perspective the “latter part” challenge is easily put to rest by claiming that since the visions of Daniel point to a “the time of the end” that would usher in the everlasting kingdom of God upon the death of Antiochus, there is no problem with the “latter part of their reign” passage—the kingdom of God would simply replace all remnants of the fourth kingdom. That the time of the end did not actually come to pass with the passing of Antiochus simply points out that Daniel’s passages about it are failed attempts at prophecy that tell us approximately when the book was completed.

Conservatives face a much stiffer challenge with regard to the latter part passage than do liberals. How can “the latter part of their reign” of 8:23 be reconciled with the fact that a good part of the territory claimed by the diadochi and their descendants remained under their control for approximately a century after the reign of Antiochus IV?

In actuality, a satisfactory solution to the “latter part” problem from the conservative perspective is not difficult. By the time of Antiochus IV, Rome had established itself as the dominant power in the lands adjacent to the eastern part of the Mediterranean. It had already reduced Greece and Macedonia to subsidiary status, and it incorporated both of them into its domain less than twenty years after the death of Antiochus. In 168, Roman threats against him forced Antiochus to give up his attempt to take over Ptolemaic Egypt (See Daniel 11:30.), and Egypt remained a Roman protectorate from then until it was incorporated into the Roman Empire over a century later. Rome decisively defeated Antiochus III, the father of Antiochus IV, at the battle of Magnesia in 190 (See Daniel 11:18.) and subjected the Seleucid monarch to harsh peace terms that led to the younger Antiochus being held as a hostage in Rome until 175, when he was replaced in that status by his nephew Demetrius. In short, Antiochus IV reigned over Seleucid Syria at a time which can accurately be designated as the latter part of the period during which the successors to Alexander held sway

Both conservatives and liberals have a problem with 8:12 because of the difficulties involved in making sense of the Hebrew text. Here is the NIV’s full translation of this verse: “Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.” This translation lends itself to the belief that this verse indicates that God allowed Antiochus to oppress the Jews and their system of worship because of the rampant apostasy within their ranks. Critical scholars, however, have tended to reject this interpretation and have offered several alternatives.

John J. Collins, a critical scholar who has produced a monumental study of Daniel, translates 8:12 as follows: “A host was given over together with the daily offering, in the course of transgression. It cast truth to the ground and it acted successfully.” In his analysis of this verse, he indicates that while he agrees with those who view the “host” as consisting of Jewish victims of Antiochus, he disagrees with the notion that the verse indicates that the Jews are being punished for their sins. Collins insists that “Daniel never views the persecution as punishment for the sins of the Jewish people” and he refuses to make an exception for 8:12. Despite the grammatical problems, he concludes, the “transgression” mentioned in this verse must refer to “the offense of the little horn.”

Lucas, on the other hand, prefers to change the meaning of “host” in verse 12 from that in verse 11 so that it refers to the army of Antiochus in verse 12 and to the faithful Jews in verse 11. Like Collins, however, he believes that the transgression committed is that of the little horn. Here is the Lucas’s translation of verse 12: “A host will be set over the daily sacrifice in an act of rebellion and it will throw truth to the ground. It will succeed in all it does.”

I submit that a translation of 8:12 along the lines suggested by the NIV is smoother grammatically than the alternatives suggested by liberals and more in line with a preterist understanding of the Book of Daniel. Although Collins is correct in stating that “Daniel never [explicitly] views the persecution as punishment for the sins of the Jewish people”—with the possible exception of 8:12, that is—elsewhere in the Old Testament, including its explanation for the Babylonian Captivity of which Daniel was a part (!), the oppression of the Jews by idolaters is regularly explained as punishment for their faithlessness. Furthermore, as Collins acknowledges, 2 Maccabees 7:18 ascribes the oppression by Antiochus to sins by the Jews against their God. To this I add that the theology of the New Covenant attributes the disasters visited upon the Jews that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70 to their rejection of Christ.

As I noted earlier, when liberals compare the little horn of Daniel 7 with the horn that started small of Daniel 8, they tend to argue that the differences in the treatment of the two should be considered complementary, not contradictory. I also noted that liberals commonly hold that these differences indicate that Daniel 7 was completed slightly earlier than Daniel 8. Among those who hold this view is John Collins, who, bases it in part on the fact that Daniel 7 does not explicitly mention the desecration of the sanctuary referred to in Daniel 8 (v.11,13-14). He argues further that since Daniel 7:25 gives “a time, times and half a time” as the duration of the period during which the holy people would be handed over to little horn, and since this period surely means three and one-half years, the designation of it should be viewed as an effort at genuine prophecy that overestimated the actual period of the Temple’s desecration by about half a year.

In my judgment, Collins’s views on Daniel place him with the many liberals who view it as being a pseudepigraphal work that exhibits no evidence of being divinely inspired. Consequently, I tend to place him to the left of the fifty percent point on the “liberal axis.” Lucas, on the other hand, should be placed somewhat to the right of that point. Interestingly, Lucas expresses disagreement with Collins with regard to the three and-a half years of 7:25, taking the position that it is probably a symbolic number and that “As half of the perfect number, seven, it denotes a short period of evil.”

By assuming that “a time, times and half a time” is a symbolic number, Lucas finds what he regards as a satisfactory solution to the discrepancy between the time period of 7:25 and that of 8:14, the “2,300 evenings and mornings” during which the sanctuary is to be surrendered and the host will be trampled underfoot. What he does not do is to offer a full explanation of the number 2,300. Liberals generally agree, and I agree with them on this, that since there were two daily sacrifices per day, the first in the evening and the second in the morning, the 2,300 evenings and mornings should be understood as 1,150 days. According to Lucas, however, “No-one has been able to suggest a reason for the use of the number 1,150,” and he goes on to entertain the possibility that the 2,300 may actually refer to the number of days after all, though possibly in some obscure symbolic sense. This statement comes after his earlier observation that 1 Maccabees (1:54, 4:52) indicates that the actual period of the Temple’s desecration lasted three (solar) years and eight days; i.e., a period of just over 1,100 days. It could be, however, that while the ending point for the 2,300 evenings and mornings is the reconsecration of the Temple in December 164, the beginning point, understood as 1,150 days, is somewhat earlier than December 167 and could point to some event related to the giving over of the host to Antiochus (See 8:13.) that has been lost to history.

Having slightly exceeded my target verbiage for this first installment of my article on the small horns of Daniel 7 and 8, I shall bring my comments on this topic to an end for the time being. In installment two, I shall explain why I believe the evidence warrants the conclusion that the little horn of Daniel 7 is not Antiochus IV.

Footnotes:

1. John S. Evans, The Four Kingdoms of Daniel: A Defense of the “Roman” Sequence with AD 70 Fulfillment (Xulon Press, 2004).

2. Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham, no. 20 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 214-15.

3. The domain of another of the four, Lysimachus, which included Thrace and most of Asia Minor, disintegrated into lesser kingdoms after his death in battle in 281. One can thus argue the Alexander’s empire broke up into three major kingdoms, not four, plus some lesser territories. Nevertheless, it is still historically correct to say that the empire was initially succeeded by four kingdoms, and that is perfectly consistent with Daniel 8:22. Daniel 8 does not concern itself with the fate of the other three parts of Alexander’s empire except for its reference to “the latter part of their reign” in verse 23.

4. John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993), 326.

5. Ibid., 335.

6. Lucas, Daniel, 216-17.

7. Ibid., 202.

8. Collins, A Commentary, 335n69.

9. Ibid., 32, 35, 322, 399

10. Lucas, Daniel, 194.

11. Ibid., 218.

12. Ibid., 194.

Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?
Please fill in all fields marked with a *
	Article	The Little Horns of Daniel 7 and 8-P1
	Name*
	Email Address*
	Comments*

Name: Charles A. Rabalais
Email Address: charles@itcales.com
Date: December 29, 2007
Time: 09:37:22 AM

Comments

In an internet article, one person stated the 'Ancient of Days' in Daniel 7 is none other than Jesus Christ. His reasoning comes where John in Rev 1:13-15, describes a very similar, but not exact, description of 'one like unto a son of man'. There is a real problem with the Ancient of Days being Jesus Christ. Read Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB95) 13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. From these verses the conclusion then, is obvious: - the 'Ancient of Days' is God The Father - and 'One like a Son of Man' is Jesus Christ Who can refute this? CR As for the 4th beast and the Little Horn, I've seen only ONE explanation from many, which I will call, and include myself, Internet scholars which does make sense and is not that far fetched: The Little Horn of Daniel 7 IS in fact the Antichrist, and is alive today and is none other than the Papacy. Having been raised Catholic in the 50's, I know for a fact that, aside from the Papal inquisitions which is a fact of history, Roman Catholicism ingrained into us as kids of the 50's that you have to be Catholic to get to heaven and there is a place called purgatory where we can go and burn for our sins until we're pure enough to be in God's presence - which contradicts the very purpose Jesus Christ came to earth in the first place! It is a fact of history that the Vatican and St. Peter's Basilica were built from the wealth confiscated by the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages during the Papal inquisitions. It is a fact of history that thousands, if not millions of innocent Gentiles and Jews in Europe were burned at the stake accused as being heretics for refusing to convert to Catholicism. The land and gold acquired from these victims filled the coffers of the Vatican. Why has the Vatican chosen to keep its ancient archives, most of which is written in Latin, from the beginning of the Middle Ages, a secret that only certain privledged people may only see certain documents of right now? Does What lay hidden in the Vatican archives confirm history in minute detail ? Until someone gives me a better explanation, I am going to strongly acknowledge the possibility that the Papacy itself or perhaps a future pope is the Antichrist. CR