The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 244

to Bctbylonict, if not nt times to litLlo moro ProfcsRor Bevan's Commcntnry (Crilh,! Re- thrm tho territory surrounding tho city of view) on Danio,l, •hows tho d11alit.y inr\ic:,lcrl. B1tbylon. We flncl that N11Lun1thicl felt by the animal mising one of ils hvo si<les_ himsolf ro1tdy to be ovorwhelmcd by the '£hat one raco was stronge,r than the, other enoro1tching M1tnclll. He me.nifeate nothing had to bo symbolized, and this was 1lonc by of lion-lilrn courage or cnglc-Iike ewiftnees mo,king the symbolic animal raise one sirlc_ of e.sanult. Thie we.e the etate of things 'fhe attitude at first sight may be difficult when Dnnicl he.d this vision. Ne.bune.hid to comprehend. There is a figure in Ihw- wae in Tome., while hie son did hie beat to linson's 'Five Great Monarchies,' voL i. defend the frontier against the threatening p. 332, in which a pair of winged bulls aro encroachments of Cyrus. Hitzig and Hii.ver- kneeling with one leg ; the side opposite to nick mainte.in the.t the attitude suggested the kneeling leg is thus the higher. Klic- by the phre.se, "act upon its feet," is wbe.t, foth denounces this interpretation as mis- in here.ldio le.nguagc, is called "re.mpant; " taken, without assigning any reason against it is possible, but it rather militates 11,gainet it. The interpretation by which he would the ne.tural mee.ning of the words. llcfore supersede it is that it means "to one side of leaving this, it must be noted that, as in the Babylonia.." There is no reference to locality vision Nebuchadnezzar-had of the statue, at a.II. Moreover, as all the animals come the symbol of the Babylonian Empire is the out of the see., their relationship to Bo.bylonia noblest metal-the hee.d of gold. Here the would be remote. It had three ribs in ll,e mouth noblest e.nimal is the symbol of Babylon of it between the teeth of it. What is meant -" the lion." The ea.me reason may be by these three ribs has been much deliatecl_ assigned here for this, as in the passage in In the first place, Hii.vernick thinks that it the second chapter for that-that the Baby- is e. mistake to translate l'V'JI ('i1'een) "ribs;" lonian Empire had more in it of the symbol he maintains the true rendering to be ot' Divine government. No monarch was "tusks." Heidentifies;hvwithv,r(Hebrew); more like e. god to his subjects; hie power but even if we grant this identification, we was unchecked, unlimited, uncontrolled. do not find any justification for this rendering. Ver. 5.-And behold another beast, a The word for "tusks" seems rather to be second, like to e. bear, and it raised up itself •:i•i, which occurs in the Targum of Joel i. 6 on one side, and it had three ribs in the and Job xxix.17, and the same word occurs mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they ea.id thue unto it, Arise, devour muob flesh. in the Peshitta. At the same time, the The Septuagint rendering here differs but symmetry of the figure would fit some such view. In none of the other beasts is there slightly. "A second" is omitted, and instead any reference to what they a.re devouring. of "they said," it ie "one said" or "he Still, one cannot lay stress on this. When ea.id." Theodotion agrees with the Septua- we come to consider what is meant by the gint in omitting the word "second," but "three ribs," we have great diversity of agrees with the Me.seoretio in having "they opinion. On the supposition that the ribs are said." The Peshitte. begins more abruptly in the mouth of the bear, and being gnawed than the others, "And the second beast [was] by it, it must mean that at the time when like to e. bear," eto. In regard to the Ara- by tho conquest of Babylon it ea.me into maic text, the use of the he.phel form must be the apoca.lyptio succession, the bear-empire observed. The presence of the i!I instead of had le.id waste three territories. Ewald the c, is an indication of antiquity in the word agrees tha.t three countries must be meant, ,i;t:;i (b•sar), which becomes in the Te.rgums but assumes these countries to be Babylonia, ,o:.i. It has been supposed that the reading Assyria., Syria. There is no evidence, Biblical eh~nld be "1t/!:,1 (bishayr) with rt!, which would or other, that the Media.n Empire ever ex- mean" dominion "-a phrase that would give tended to Syria.. If we gra.nt that the o. sense out of harmony with the context. author of Daniel lived in the time of Epi- It is in regard to the meaning of this phe.nes, then no n.utho,rity open to him, so symbol that interpreters begin to be divided. far as we know, brought the Medes into The most common view is that this refers to Syria. before the clay of the Persian rule. the Median Empire. There is nothing to We need not assume a blunder for our support the assumption that the author of author, and then build further assumptions Daniel distinguished between the Median on that assumed blunder. Moreover, by and the Persian empires; everything, indeed, the conquest of Babylonia. and A.!syrie., which; fairly interpreted, proves that, while thfl bear ea.me into the e.pocalyptio suc- he regarded the races as different, he looked cession, whereas he had already devoured upon the empire as one. It is the laws of those provinoee represented by ribs when he " the Medee and the Persians " that e.ro appears. Hitzig, following Ben Ezra, takes appealed to. before De.ri~e the Mede. T_he the ribs as three cities-Nineveh e.ncl two µnited empire 1e symbolized as o. ram with others. There seems nothing to identify two horns. Dr. D1widso11, iµ l1is review of "rills' with "cities;" we ca.u imagine it to PA NIEL, l:' ZlO 'l'HE DOOK OF DANIEL. [en. v11, 1-28,