« السابقةمتابعة »
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 arose. '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 (260246); (4) Seleucus (II.) Callinicus (245-226); (5) Seleucus (III.) Ceraunus (225-223); (6) Antiochus (III.) the Great (222-187); (7) Seleucus (IV.) Philopator (186-176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some2, 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.
2 Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476.
* Cf. Appian, Syr. 45: τὸν δὲ Ηλιόδωρον...εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν βιαζόμενον ἐκβάλλουσιν; and (of Antiochus) τῆς ἀρχῆς ἁρπαζομένης ὑπὸ ἀλλοτρίων βασιλεὺς οἰκεῖος ὤφθη.
4 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. Others1, 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. Others2, 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 Antiochus3: 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 Laomedon (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.
I. The meaning of the expression1. In Hebrew, 'sons of man' (or 'of men'- 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 (78), Ez. ii. 1, 3, iii. 1, 3 and more than 90 times besides (so also Dan. viii. 17); (b) poetically, here and there, usually in parallelism with N or WIN, 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 ( D''7 'nobles'); Job xvi. 21 (II)2, xxv. 6, xxxv. 8; cf. Ps. cxliv. 3 1 (1 078).
In Aramaic, bar 'ěnāsh (or, contracted, bar-nash) 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. D], 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.), the Palestinian Targums on the Pent., the Palestinian Talmud (3-4 cent. A.D.), the Palestinian Evangeliarium (about 5 cent. A.D.), and Syriac®.
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. 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),
1 Cf. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 191. * But read here probably
(and between a man,' &c.).
E.g. Ps. viii. 5 (twice), lvi. 12, lx. 13, cxv. 4, cxviii. 6, 8, cxix. 134.
4 E.g. Lev. iv. 2, v. 1, 2, 21, vii. 21, xvii. 4, 9, xix. 8 in the Targ. of 'PseudoJonathan.'
5 In both, for instance, often in the expression n'a certain man' (did so and so). Numerous examples are quoted by Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896), pp. 32 ff.
6 E.g. Ex. xiii. 13, 15; Lev. xviii. 5; Matth. iv. 4, xii. 12, 43, &c.
7 At least, this is an inference suggested by the fact that the expression does not occur elsewhere in Dan. for 'man,'
and possess it for ever and ever (v. 18). The parallelism between the vision and the interpretation is complete: the time is the same, the promise of perpetual and universal dominion is the same: and hence a strong presumption arises that the subject is also the same, and that the 'one like unto a son of man' in v. 13 corresponds to, and represents, the 'saints of the Most High' of v. 18, and the 'people of the saints of the Most High' of v. 27, i.e. the ideal Israel, for whom in the counsels of God the empire of the world is designed. If the writer by 'the one like unto a son of man' meant the Messiah, the head of the future ideal nation, his silence in the interpretation of the vision is inexplicable: how comes it that he there passes over the Messiah altogether, and applies the terms which (ex hyp.) are used of him in vv. 13, 14 to the people of Israel in vv. 18, 22, 27?
The explanation of the vision given in the chapter itself is thus the primary and fundamental argument of those who hold the ideal people of Israel to be intended in vii. 13. If, however, this interpretation be considered further, it will be seen to be both supported by the symbolism of the vision, and to harmonize with the representations of the ideal future given elsewhere in the book. In the first place, the realities of history are represented in the vision not as they actually are, but in a figurative form: the four beasts are not four actual beasts, but represent four kingdoms; the horns are not actual horns, but represent kings by analogy, therefore, the figure human form would not represent an actual man, but would stand for something else, the nature of which is explained, exactly as in the case of the four 'beasts' and of the 'horns,' in the interpretation. It is not difficult to suggest a reason why in the vision the last figure should appear in human form. manity is contrasted with animality; and the human form, as opposed to the bestial, teaches that the last kingdom will be, not like the Gentile kingdoms, a supremacy of brute force, but a supremacy essentially humane and spiritual. It is another figurative element in the vision, that the Gentile empires rise out of the sea (v. 3), by which is meant (see v. 17) that they are of this world: by analogy, the statement that the last empire comes with the clouds of heaven, will be a figurative indication of the fact that it will be ushered in by the power of God (cf. Bevan, p. 119). And, secondly, this explanation agrees with the representations given in other parts of the book. Both in ii. 44 and xii. 3, where the establishment of the future kingdom of God is spoken of, the author is as silent respecting a personal Messiah as its head, as he is in vii. 22, 27: the inference is that the Messiah was not a prominent figure in the prophet's thoughts, and the conclusion supports the opinion, derived in the first instance from ch. vii. itself, that he is not intended in vii. 13.
Various considerations have been advanced for the purpose of meeting these arguments. It has been said, for instance, that 'the kingdom is not to be thought of without its king,' and 'that the prophets habitually picture the future happiness of their nation as bestowed upon it by the Messiah.' But the author of Daniel expressly says that in this case the kingdom was to be possessed by the people of the saints; and that the dominion was to belong, not to the Messiah, but either to the
people, or to the Almighty Himself (according to the interpretation adopted of the pronoun 'his' in vii. 27). Nor is it true to say that the figure of the Messiah is a constant feature in prophecy there is no Messiah in Amos (ix. 11 ff.), Zephaniah (iii. 9 ff.), Joel (ii. 23—iii. 21), or in the remarkable eschatological prophecy preserved in Isaiah xxiv.—xxvii., or even in the brilliant visions of the future drawn by the second Isaiah (liv. 11-17, lx.-lxii., lxv. 17-25 &c.)1; in Hosea, also, the figure of the Messiah is a shadowy one, hardly more than a resuscitated David (iii. 5), and it is absent altogether from the picture of Israel's future ideal felicity drawn in ch. xiv. Thus while some prophets speak of a Messiah, others do not; there is no uniform practice on the subject; and whether or not the Messiah is referred to in a particular passage is a question which, antecedently, is perfectly open, and can be settled only by exegetical considerations. It has further been argued that coming with the clouds of heaven denotes 'omnipotent judicial power.' This, however, is far from being selfevident. It denotes certainly exaltation and majesty; but the judgement is completed (vv. 10—12) before the 'one like unto a son of man appears (v. 13), and the purpose for which he is brought to the Almighty is not to exercise judicial functions, but to receive a dominion which should never pass away (v. 14). The two verses which refer to him describe, not a judgement, but the solemn inauguration of a divine kingdom upon earth".
Though the title, however, it thus seems, does not in Daniel directly denote the Messiah, it was at an early date interpreted personally, and applied to him. The earliest example of this application is found in the 'Similitudes' of the apocryphal Book of Enoch (cc. 37-71), a part of this (composite) book, which is generally considered to date from the first century B.C.3 The 'Similitudes' consist of a series of visions supposed to be seen by Enoch, in which is represented in particular the judgement to be finally passed upon the world. The imagery of the writer is in several instances suggested evidently by Dan. vii. Enoch is carried in his vision into heaven, where he sees the Lord of Spirits' (the Almighty), the 'Elect One' (the Messiah: Is. xlii. 1), in His immediate presence, and the angels, who, like the seraphim in Is. vi., eternally hymn the Creator (c. 39).
1 The passages (Is. xlii. 1-4, &c.) speaking of Jehovah's ideal Servant are in no contradiction with this statement: the Messiah,' or 'Anointed One,' is the ideal King of Israel (just as the actual king is called 'Jehovah's anointed,' I Sam. xxiv. 6, &c.); and the figure of the ideal Servant in Is. xl.-lxvi. (though equally fulfilled in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ) is something quite different from this. See the present writer's Isaiah, his life and times, pp. 175-180.
2 For a discussion of some other arguments on the same side, see Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877), pp. 226-241.
It has been disputed whether the figure like a son of man which appeared in the clouds of heaven came originally from heaven, or was lifted up from the earth. The dispute implies a misconception of the nature and limits of the symbolism. The four beasts appeared emerging from the sea, and yet it is certain that the kingdoms which they represented did rise out of the sea likewise.
3 According to Dillmann, from before B.C. 64; according to Mr Charles from either B.C. 94-79 or B.C. 70-64; according to Schürer, at the earliest from the time of Herod (B.c. 37-B.C. 4).