« السابقةمتابعة »
Thus Dr Rule1 writes: 'This little horn is too like the Papacy to be mistaken for anything else; and taking this for granted, as I believe we may venture to do, ten kingdoms must be found that came into existence previously to the establishment of the Pope's temporal power in Italy.' Accordingly the ten kingdoms enumerated by him are
J. The kingdom of the Vandals in Africa, established A.D. 439.
2. Venice, which became an independent state in A.D. 452, and long maintained an extremely important position in the affairs of Christendom.
3. England, which, properly so called, was founded in A.D. 455, and in spite of the Norman Conquest still retains her independence.
4. Spain, first Gothic, A.D. 476, then Saracenic, and still Spain.
5. France. Gaul, conquered by the Romans, lost to Rome under the Visigoths, and transferred to the Franks under Clovis, A.D. 483.
6. Lombardy, conquered by the Lombards, A.D. 568.
7. The exarchate of Ravenna, which became independent of Constantinople in 584, and flourished for long as an independent state.
8. Naples, subdued by the Normans about 1060.
9. Sicily, taken by the Normans under Count Roger about 1080.
10. Rome, which assumed independence under a Senate of its own in 1143, and maintained itself so till 1198. "The tumultuary revolution headed in Rome by Arnold of Brescia, tore away the ancient city from its imperial relations and brought the prophetic period of the ten kingdoms to its close.'
The 'little horn diverse from the ten, having eyes and a mouth speaking very great things,' is Pope Innocent III. (A.D. 1198-1216), who immediately after his consecration restored, as it was called, the patrimony of the Church, by assuming absolute sovereignty over the city and territory of Rome, and exacting of the Prefect of the city, in lieu of the oath of allegiance which he had hitherto sworn to the Emperor of Germany, an oath of fealty to himself, by which he bound himself to exercise in future the civil and military powers entrusted to him, solely in the interests of the Pope. 'Here is the haughty speech, and here are the watchful eyes to survey the newly usurped dominion, and to spy out far beyond.' Of the three 'horns' which fell before Innocent III. and his successors, the first was thus the Roman Senate and people, with the so-called patrimony of St Peter, in the year 1198; the other two were the two kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, which having in 1060 and 1080 fallen under the rule of the Dukes of Normandy, were afterwards offered by Urban IV. to the Duke of Anjou, to be held by him in subjection to the Church, with the result that ultimately, in 1266, 'the two Sicilies,' as they were afterwards called, fell under the subordinate rule of a branch of the house of Bourbon, and so remained until recent times. The war on the saints is referred to the Inquisition, organized by Innocent III. and carried on by his successors, and abetted by every device of oppressive legislation, and artful diplomacy.' 'Concerning the change of times and laws, a few words will suffice. "He shall think to change times" by the substitution of an ecclesiastical calendar for the civil. He shall ordain festivals, appoint jubilees, and so enforce observance of such times and years as to set aside civil obligations, and even supersede the sanctification of the Lord's days by the multiplication of saints' days. With regard to laws he will enforce Canon Law in contempt of Statute Law, and sometimes in contradiction to the Law of God.'
Auberlen, on the other hand2, points more generally to the many different ways in which the influence of Rome has perpetuated itself even in modern Europe. The various barbarian nations out of which have developed gradually the states of modern Europe, have, he observes, fallen largely under the spell of Roman civilization. 'Roman culture, the Roman church, the Roman language, and Roman law have been the essential civilizing principles of the Germanic world. The Romance nations are a monument of the extent to which the influence of Rome has penetrated even into the blood of the new humanity: they are the products of the admixture "by the seed of men." But they do not cohere together: the Roman element is ever re-acting against the Germanic. The struggles between Romans and Germans have been the determining factor of modern history: we need mention only the contests between the Emperor and the Pope, which stirred the Middle Ages, and the Reformation, with the consequences following from it, which have continued until the day. The fourth empire has thus a genuine Roman tenacity and
1 An Historical Exposition of Daniel the Prophet, 1869, p. 195 ff.
force; at the same time, since the Germans have appeared on the scene of history, and the iron has been mixed with the clay, it has been much divided and broken up, and its different constituent parts have shewn themselves to be unstable and fragile (Dan. ii. 41, 42). The Roman element strives ever after universal empire, the German element represents the principles of individualism and division.' Hence the ever fresh attempts, whether on the part of the Pope, or of a secular prince, as Charlemagne, Charles V., Napoleon, and even the Czar, to realize anew the ideal of Roman unity. Against these attempts, however, the independent nationalities never cease to assert as persistently their individual rights. Politically and religiously, the Roman, the German, and the Slavonic nationalities stand opposed to one another: in the end, however, after many conflicts, they will resolve themselves into ten distinct kingdoms, out of one of which Antichrist--a kind of exaggerated, almost superhuman, Napoleon-will arise, and realise, on an unprecedented scale, until Providence strikes him down, the 'dæmonic unity' of an empire of the world.
So far as the mere symbolism of the vision goes, there is no objection to this interpretation. The kingdom which is to 'tread down and break in pieces,' with the strength of iron, 'the whole earth' (vii. 23; cf. vii. 7, ii. 40) might well be the empire of the Romans, who by their military conquests subdued, one after another, practically all the nations of the then known world; and it has been contended, not without some show of plausibility, that the imagery of the second kingdom agrees better with the Medo-Persian than with the Persian empire: the bear, it is urged, with its slow and heavy gait would be the most suitable symbol of the Medo-Persian empire, of which 'heaviness,' as exemplified by the vast and unwieldy armies which its kings brought into the field1, was the leading national characteristic, while the three ribs in its mouth are more naturally explained of three provinces absorbed by the empire of the Persians, than of any conquests made by the Medes. These explanations of the imagery, however, though they fall in with the interpretation in question, cannot be said to be so certain, upon independent grounds, as to require it: Alexander's military successes were also such that he might be spoken of as subduing the whole earth; and we do not know that the suggested interpretation of the symbolism of the bear is really that which was in the mind of the writer of the chapter.
The great, and indeed fatal, objection to this interpretation is, however, that it does not agree with the history. The Roman empire, the empire which conquered and ruled so many nations of the ancient world3,— whether it be regarded as coming to its close when in A.D. 476 Romulus Augustulus, at the bidding of Odoacer, resigned his power to the Emperor of the East, or whether that act be regarded merely as a transference of power from the West to the East, and its real close be placed, with Gibbon, at the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, or whether, lastly, it be held, with Bryce, to have prolonged a legal existence till in 1806 the Emperor Francis II resigned the imperial crown, has passed from the stage of history; nor, whichever date be
1 Darius Hystaspis was said to have led 700,000 men into Scythia: Xerxes' expedition against Greece numbered 2,500,000 fighting men; Darius Codomannus, at the fatal battle of Issus, commanded 600,000 men (Pusey, p. 71).
2 Media, Assyria, and Babylonia (Hippolytus); Persia, Media, and Babylonia (Jerome, Ephr. Syr.); Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt (Hofmann, Keil, Pusey, p. 70).
3 'Empire' is of course used here generally in the sense of power': at the time when many of these conquests were made, the Romans, as is well known, were under the rule of neither 'emperors' nor 'kings.'
assigned for its close,--and, in the natural sense of the word, the 'Roman empire' ceased to exist at the first of these dates,-can any 'ten' kingdoms be pointed to, as in any sense arising out of it? The nonnatural character of the 'praeterist' explanation of Dr Rule must be patent to the reader. 'Futurist' expositors suppose that the kingdoms represented by the ten horns are yet to appear1. But these kingdoms are to arise out of' the fourth empire (Dan. ii. 24): clearly therefore the fourth empire must still exist when they appear; but the Roman empire is beyond controversy an empire of the past. Auberlen's explanation, ingenious as it is, cannot be deemed satisfactory 2.
The interpretation under discussion is in fact one which, in view of the circumstances of the age, might readily have suggested itself to Christian expositors of Daniel, while the Roman empire was still the dominant power in the world; but it is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable. The early Christians believed that they were living in an age in which the end of the world was imminent; and it was in this belief, as Mr (now Bishop) Westcott has pointed out, that the interpretation in question originated. 'It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object of immediate expectation, and the Roman empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no place in the anticipation of the first Christendom; and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory which took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false 3.'
B. This interpretation appears first in Ephrem Syrus (c. 300-350
1 Auberlen, as cited above; Keil, p. 224; Dr Pusey, p. 78 f.
2 It is remarkable, if Daniel's vision really extends so far as to embrace the history of Europe, that the first coming of Christ, and the influences wrought by Christianity, should be ignored in it. The explanation that Daniel, "being a statesman and an Israelite, saw nothing of the Church" (Auberlen, p. 252) is surely artificial and improbable.
3 Smith's Dict. of the Bible, s.v. DANIEL.
4 Or, at least, for the first time distinctly; for a passage in the so-called 'Sibylline Oracles' (see the Introduction, p. lxxxiii) makes it probable that the 'ten horns' were understood of the Seleucidae as early as c. 140 B.C. After describing (iii. 381-7) how Macedonia will bring great woe upon Asia, and overcome Babylon (alluding manifestly to Alexander the Great), the Sibyl' continues (388 ff.):
ἥξει καί ποτ ̓ ἄπυστ [εἰς] ̓Ασσίδος ὄλβιον οὖδας
ἐκ δέκα δὴ κεράτων, παρὰ δὲ φυτὸν ἄλλο φυτεύσει.
400 φθεῖται· καὶ τοτὲ δὴ παραφυόμενον κέρας ἄρξει.
The 'man clad with purple, fierce, unjust, fiery, lightning-born,' who is to enslave Asia is, it seems, Antiochus Epiphanes (whose invasion of Egypt is certainly
A.D.); it was adopted afterwards by several later and medieval 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 ll. 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. XIII. 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 vv. 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).
1 See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740).
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.
3 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. 3 years)—exactly the period during which (xii. 7: cf. v. 11; 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 a universal empire, in the fullest sense of the term, as the Chaldaean was. The inter
1 The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to, p. 474.