|Discovered/Known/Inhabited World in 335 B.C.|
which I had seen standing.... - It seems odd for Daniel to be making this specifying reference to the ram, i.e. “standing in front of the canal” as this is just two verses-worth of text since he had first/last mentioned it....He may be making this restating repetition because, in his vision, that ram was, as it was about to be charged at by the male goat, no longer in that position of being “in front of the canal”. I.e. it no longer was being shown to be in the Citadel Susa, which moreover is where Daniel had been Spiritually/visionarily transported to for this vision, -(which as discussed in detail earlier at Daniel 8:2 was in order to provide the controlling setting for this entire vision).
|Alexander/Greece Advanced by/in 334 B.C.|
Succinctly stated here, and as really a mere proposed thesis in order to try to harmonize the various (seemingly conflicting) detailing given by the historical writers here. (Namely at: Arr 2:6.1-7.2ff; Dio 17:32.2b; Plu 20.1-7; Cur 3:7:1-8.23; Jus 11:8):
-Darius did not explicitly order a general retreat, perhaps thinking that the rest of his vast army could pull off a victory, in this actually up to then, in total, virtually evenly matched battle, but his flight came to have the, literally, “domino effect”, as successive military units of his, starting with the ones around him, and then down the battle line, became aware of his flight...and, logically, opted to do the same (Dio 17:34.7b), even when in the face of a possible victory in their respective skirmishes (Arr 2:11.2). As Justin summarily put it: “The result remained doubtful until Darius fled, when there ensued a great slaughter of the Persians,” (Jus 11:9.10). In fact, most of the Persians who killed died during their flight, both by being routed by the chasing Greeks, but also by being trampled over when they bottlenecked at various lone narrow passages out of the area. (Arr 2:11.3)
|Alexander/Greece Advanced by/in 333 B.C.|
-This story of King Alexander, who, especially since his death, in Greek mythology, was believed to be then deified, effectively worshiping another God, and the priest of that God, moreover a God who was not in the mythological pantheon of the Greeks and other nations sharing in this mythology, is quite embarrassing to make public and widely known. As seen in the account of Josephus, those who were with Alexander then were most embarrassed by how he was paying quasi-worshipful reverence, deference/effective submission to the Jewish High Priest, to the point where they “supposed him to be disordered in his mind” [11:332]. As later critical in Alexander’s Persian campaign, his own soldiers saw it as (religiously) offensive and humiliating to give Alexander himself such worship honor.* So that all caused them to delay as long as bearable until, “the General Parmenion alone”, ventured to go up to him and ask him why he was so, effectively, abasing/humiliating himself before this priest and the Jews with these acts of worship. [11:333] So it is understandable that Greek historians would opt to skip over this variously embarrassing episode.
So the TMS was correct in seeing that the Little Horn of Daniel 8 exegetically/historically was not fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but greatly erred in claiming applications to a (still) future antichrist character; =virtually completely glossing over the clear and most accurate fulfillment in, as Protestant Reformers patently (see e.g. here, here & here) also clearly perceived and preached, the Papal Power of Church History.