صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

A.D.) '; it was adopted afterwards by several later and mediæval scholars; more recently it has been advocated in England by Mr_(now Bishop) Westcott, and Prof. Bevan; and on the Continent by Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch”, Kuenen, Meinhold, and others: The strongest arguments in its favour are derived (1) from the positive objections stated above, to the Roman’ interpretation,—for an intermediate view, which has been suggested, viz. that the four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Syrian, has little to recommend it: and (2) from the description of the ‘little horn' in Dan. vii., viewed in connexion with what is said in other parts of the book. In ch. viii. there is a little horn,' which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (viii. 10-12, 25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the

little horn' in ch. vii. (vii. 8 end, 20, 21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world's history, should be intended. It is true, there are details in which the two descriptions differ,-ch. viii. dwells for instance a good deal more fully on the particulars of Antiochus' assaults upon the faith: but entire identity would be tautology; the differences affect no material feature in the representation; and there is consequently no better reason for supposing that they point here to two different personalities than for supposing that similar differences in the representations of ch. ii. and ch. vii. point there to two different series of

referred to in 11. 611-615). The race which he wishes to destroy, but by which his own race will be destroyed, is that of his brother Seleucus IV. (B.C. 187-175), whose son, Demetrius I., caused the 'one root' which Antiochus left, viz. his son and successor, Antiochus V. Eupator (164—162), to be put to death (1 Macc. vii, 1–4): this the writer expresses by saying, “the destroyer (Ares, the god of war) will cut him off out of ten horns', i.e. as the last of ten kings. The (illegitimate) “plant' planted beside him is Alexander Balas, who defeated and slew Demetrius I., the * warrior father of a royal race' in 150 (1 Macc. x. 49 f.), and usurped the throne of Syria from 150 to 146. In 146, however, Alexandar Balas (1. 399) was attacked and defeated by Demetrius II., son of Demetrius I., and his father in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, and soon afterwards murdered (1 Macc. xi. 8–19; Jos. Ant. x111. iv. 8). The horn' growing alongside, that was then to rule, is the parvenu Trypho, guardian of the youthful Antiochus VI., who having procured the death of his ward, held the throne of Syria from 142 to 137 (1 Macc. xii. 39, xiii. 31 f., xv. 37). If this highly probable interpretation is correct (and it is accepted by Schürer), the 'ten horns,' though not entirely, are nevertheless largely (see p. 101 f.) the same Seleucid princes as in Dan.; and it is reasonable to regard the passage as indicating the sense in which the 'horns' of Dan. were understood at the time when it was written (see further Schürer, ii. P: 798 f.).

2. Esdr. xii. 11 (cited p. 95), where the interpretation of Dan. vii. 7, 8 given in vu. 23—26 seems to be corrected, may also perhaps justify the inference that this interpretation had previously been the prevalent one: it would be but natural that, when the empire of the Greeks had passed away, without the prophecy being fulfilled, it should be re-interpreted of the Romans (cf. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, p. 173).

See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740). 2 In his art. Daniel, in the 2nd edition of Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie (1878). It is also adopted by Buhl in the corresponding article in the 3rd edition (1898) of the same work.

8 It is adopted also in the art. Daniel in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible, by Prof. E. L. Curtis, of Yale, and in that in Black's Encyclopaedia Biblica (col. 1007), by Prof. Kamphausen, of Bonn.

empires. Again, the period during which the persecution in ch. vii. is to continue is a time, times, and half-a-time' (i.e. 33 years)-exactly the period during which (xii. 7: cf. v. II; and on ix. 27) the persecution of Antiochus is to continue: is it likely that entirely different events should be measured by precisely the same interval of time? And thirdly, if the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes is in xii. 1–3 (see the notes) followed immediately by the Messianic age, is it probable that in chs. ii. and vii. this should be represented as beginning at an indefinite date in the distant future? The age of Antiochus Epiphanes is in fact the limiting horizon of the book. Not only does the revelation of chs. X.—xii. culminate in the description of that age, which is followed, without any interval, by the period of final bliss, but the age of Antiochus himself is in viii. 19 (as the sequel shews) described as the time of the end ': can there then, asks Delitzsch, have been for Daniel a 'time of the end' after that which he himself expressly describes as the end'? There might have been, if the visions which ex hyp. represent the Roman age as following that of Alexander and his successors, were later in date than those which do not look beyond the period of the Seleucidae. In point of fact, however, the dream of ch. ii., and the vision of ch. vii., are both of earlier date than the visions of ch. viii. and ch. ix.1!

For these reasons it is impossible to think either that the little horn' of ch. vii. represents any other ruler but Antiochus Epiphanes, or that the fourth empire of ch. ii. and ch. vii. is any other than the Greek empire of Alexander's successors. That the symbolism of the two visions leaves nothing to be desired' upon this interpretation, has been shewn by Delitzsch. “By the material of the feet being heterogeneous is signified the division of the kingdom, in consequence of which these offshoots (* Ausläufer') of it arose (cf. xi. 5); by its consisting of iron and clay is signified the superior strength of the one kingdom as compared with the other (xi. 5); by the iron and clay being mingled, without being organically united, is signified the union of the two kingdoms by matrimonial alliances (xi. 6, 17), without any real unity between them being attained. And how naturally are the silver breast and arms referred to the Median empire, and the brazen belly and loins to the Persian ! • After thee,' says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (ii. 39), ‘will arise another kingdom, inferior to thine.' Was then the Persian empire inferior to the Chaldaean? It may be answered that it was so in its Median beginnings. But what justification is there for referring the word inferior to the beginnings of the second empire, rather than to the period when it displayed most fully its distinctive character? The reference is to the Median Empire which, because it was in general of less importance than the others, is passed by in the interpretation (ii. 39) in few words. Of the third empire, on the contrary, it is said (ibid.) that it will bear rule over all the earth.' That is the Persian empire. Only this is again universal empire, in the fullest sense of the term, as the Chaldaean was. The inter

[ocr errors]

6

| The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to, p. 474.

[ocr errors]

arose.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

mediate Median empire, weaker than both, merely forms the transition from the one to the other1.".

What, however, upon this interpretation of the fourth empire, is denoted by the 'ten horns'? The most probable view is that they represent the successors of Alexander upon the throne of Antioch, the line out of which Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn,' ultimately

• That all ten appear simultaneously is a consequence of the vision (comp. in ch. ii. how the four successive empires appear as parts of the same image], and does not authorize the conclusion that all were contemporary, though of course the three uprooted by Antiochus must have been contemporary with him’ (Delitzsch). The first seven of these successors are: (1) Seleucus (I.) Nicator (B.C. 312—280); (2) Antiochus (I.) Soter (279—261); (3) Antiochus (II.) Theos (260— 246); (4) Seleucus · (II.) Callinicus (245—226); (5) Seleucus (III.) Ceraunus (225-223); (6) Antiochus (III.) the Great (222-187); (7) Seleucus (1V.) Philopator (186—176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some”, they are (8) Heliodorus, the chief minister of Seleucus Philopator, who, having poisoned his master, aimed at the throne for himself, and would, no doubt, have secured it, had not Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Rome in time, with the help of Attalus and Eumenes of Pergamum, to prevent it (see further on xi. 20)3; (9) Demetrius, son of Seleucus Philopator and nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after his father's murder was the legitimate heir to the throne, but who was detained as hostage at Rome in lieu of Antiochus Epiphanes, and only actually succeeded to the throne after Antiochus Epiphanes' death; (10) Ptolemy (VII.) Philometor, king of Egypt, also nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes (being son of his sister Cleopatra), whom, according to Jerome, a party in Syria desired to place on the throne, but whom Antiochus by simulating clemency 'displaced 4: Philometor afterwards laid claim to the Syrian provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but being attacked by Antiochus, he fell into his uncle's hands, and had it not been for the interference of the Romans, would, in all probability, have permanently lost the crown of Egypt (see more fully on xi. 21). These three men, as Ewald points out, were all politically prominent at the time; they all stood in Antiochus's way, and had in one way or another to be put aside before he could secure his crown: they might thus, in the

1 Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on ii. 39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.

? Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476.

8 Cf. Appian, Syr. 45: τον δε Ηλιόδωρον...είς την αρχήν βιαζόμενον εκβάλ. λουσιν; and (of Antiochus) της αρχής άρπαζομένης υπό αλλοτρίων βασιλεύς οικείος ώφθη.

* The statement, sometimes made, that Cleopatra herself claimed the throne of Syria for her son, is only matter of inference (cf. Pusey, p. 150). It is, however, true that the claim was afterwards (148--147 B.C.) raised, and even acted on by the Roman senate (Polyb. xxxiii. 16), on behalf of Philometor's son-in-law, Alexander Balas; and that Philometor, having marched into Syria to assist Alexander in enforcing his claim, was actually for a short time king of Syria (1 Macc. xi. 13; Polyb. xl. 12; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4: see Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 366, and the coin figured on p. 376).

imagery of the vision, be well described as "plucked up' (vii. 8), ' falling down' (vii. 20), or 'abased' (vii. 24), before him. Others, arguing that the fourth beast represents the Greek supremacy as a whole, consider that Alexander, the first king, should not be excluded from the enumeration: they accordingly begin the list with him, obtaining then (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) Demetrius: upon this view it is supposed that the murder of Seleucus Philopator, though in fact the work of Heliodorus, was attributed popularly at the time to the suggestion, or instigation, of Antiochus (who, indeed, almost immediately succeeded his brother, and consequently was the one who, to all appearance, benefited most materially by his removal). The exclusion of Ptolemy Philometor from this enumeration, is thought to be a point in its favour; for before the accession of Antiochus, he was not, it is pointed out, king of Syria, and it is doubtful (p. 101, note) whether even any claim to the throne was then made on his behalf. Others?, again, doubt whether Demetrius is rightly included among the ten kings (for though he was the lawful heir after his father's death, he was not actually king at the time here referred to), and prefer, therefore, (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) an unnamed brother of Demetrius, who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus?. One or other of these alternatives may be reasonably adopted, as sufficiently satisfying the requirements of the case; our knowledge of the times does not, unfortunately, enable us to decide with confidence which deserves the preference.

Bleek supposed that the ten horns represented the parts of Alexander's empire which, after his death, became independent kingdoms, the number ten being chosen in view

of the generals who, in the partition of B.C. 323, obtained the chief provinces, viz. 1 Craterus (Macedonia), 2 Antipater (Greece), 3 Lysimachus (Thrace), 4 Leonatus (Little Phrygia on the Hellespont), 5 Antigonus (Great Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia), 6 Kassander (Caria), 7 Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), 8 Lao.

7 medon (Syria and Palestine), 9 Pithon (Media), 10 Ptolemy Lagi (Egypt). However, according to Justin (xiii. 4) the entire number of provinces was not 10, but 28, and the principle upon which 10 are selected out of them appears to be arbitrary; moreover, these provinces were not independent kingdoms, but satrapies of an empire still regarded as one and undivided (see Pusey, p. 153 ff).

Additional Note on the expression one like unto a son of man' in

Dan. vii. 13. The question what this expression in Dan. vii. 13 denotes has been much disputed. On the one hand, the current interpretation has, no doubt, been that it denotes the Messiah; on the other hand, there are strong reasons, derived from the text of Daniel itself, for holding that it denotes the glorified and ideal people of Israel.

1 Hitzig, Cornill, Behrmann, Prince,-though Behrmann is disposed to treat the number symbolically, and to doubt whether particular individuals are referred to: the 'ten horns' he regards as symbolizing generally the divided rule of the Diadochi (p. 46). We cannot feel sure what the author means, so that this view must at least be admitted as a possible one.

2 Von Gutschmid, Kuenen, Bevan.
8 Müller, Fragm. hist. Graec. iv. 558.

1.

.(אדם ו) בן־אנוש 3 .xxv. 6, xxxv. 8; cf. Ps. cxliv ,4 (גבר ו)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The meaning of the expression? In Hebrew, ‘sons of man' (or ‘of men'-07% being a collective term) is a common expression for mankind in general (Ps. xi. 4, xii. 1, 8, xiv. 2 &c.): the sing. 'son of man' also occurs (a) in the address to Ezekiel (078 12), Ez. ii. 1, 3, iii. 1, 3 and more than 90 times besides (so also Dan. viii. 17); (6) poetically, here and there, usually in parallelism with W'X or wijk, as Num. xxiii. 19; Is. li. 12, lvi. 2; Jer. xlix. 18 (=v: 33=1. 40=(nearly) li. 43); Ps. viii. 4, lxxx. 17, cxlvi. 3 (11 D'ann) 'nobles'); Job xvi. 21

In Aramaic, bar 'ěnāsh (or, contracted, bar-năsh) is common in some dialects (but not in others) in prose (and not merely in poetry) in the ordinary sense of man. It does not occur in this sense elsewhere in Bibl. Aramaic, or in the Targum of Onkelos, or in the Targum on the Prophets (except in Is. lvi. 12; Jer. xlix. 18, 33, l. 40, li. 43; Mic. v. 6 [Heb. 078'3a], where it is suggested directly by the Hebrew): but it is frequent in the somewhat different dialects of the Targums on the Hagiographa (about 7 cent. A.D.)3, the Palestinian Targums on the Pent.", the Palestinian Talmud (3-4 cent. A.D.), the Palestinian Evangeliarium (about 5 cent. A.D.)5, and Syriac 6.

On the strength of the poetical usage in Heb., and the usage which prevailed, at least in later times, in Aramaic, it may be said that 'son of man’ in Dan. vii. 13 does not substantially denote more than a 'man,' though it is? a choice, semi-poetical expression for the idea. It is, however, a man, as opposed to a brute, humane as well as humanperhaps, also, as Dalman urges (pp. 198 f., 217 f.), only a man, in himself frail and helpless, powerless by his own might to conquer the world, and destined, if he is to become ruler of the world, to ‘receive' his kingdom at the hands of God.

The interpretation of the expression. In the Book of Daniel itself there is nothing which lends support to the Messianic interpretation. In the explanation of the vision which follows (vii. 15 ff.) the place occupied by the 'one like unto a son of man' is taken, not by the Messiah, but by the ideal people of God: in v. 14 the one like unto a son of man' appears when the dominion of the four beasts, and the persecution of the 'little horn,' are both over, and receives a universal kingdom which shall never pass away; and in vv. 18, 22, 27, when the dominion of the four kingdoms corresponding to the four beasts is at an end, and the persecution of the king corresponding to the 'little horn' has ceased, the saints of the Most High,' or (v. 27) the 'people of the saints of the Most High,' receive similarly a universal kingdom (v. 27),

2.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 Cf. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 191.
* But read here probably D781 and between a man,' &c.).
8 E.g. Ps. viii. 5 (twice), lvi. 12, 1x, 13, cxv. 4, cxviii. 6, 8, cxix. 134.

4 Ę.g. Lev. iv. 2, v. 1, 2, 4, 21, vii. 21, xvii. 4; 9, xix. 8 in the Targ. of PseudoJonathan.'

5 In both, for instance, often in the expression in n'a certain man' (did so and so). Numerous examples are quoted by Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896),

6 E.g. Ex. xiii. 13, 15; Lev. xviii. 5; Matth. iv. 4, xii. 12, 43, &c. ? At least, this is an inference suggested by the fact that the expression does pot occur elsewhere in Dan. for 'man.

pp. 32 ff.

« السابقةمتابعة »