The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 245

nwim " provinces." Thus we aro led to Br,bylon, with llll the coucomitllnte of B city Krnnichfold's opinion, th1tt it reproscuts cou- taken by aeeault. Jeremillh (xxv. 25) p!Clcee 8ti\.11,•nt pc>rti11us of an older ooufedcrntion the Mades with other nations urnler the brokc-n up. The view of Kliefoth, th1tt the dominion of Nebuobadnez1mr King of D11by- COIH]lh'8ts of the Mcdo-Persian Empire a.re in- lon, and (li. II, 28) he too asserts that the tc11,k,I-Bnbylonie., Lydia, and Egypt-sins Medes will ass!lil Dabylon. There is nothing ngnins( the symbol, whiohimpliosthattheribs hero to indicate the expcct!ltiou th!lt Media arc n.lrca.dy in the bol\r's teeth when he enters should be n pre-eminently deetruetive power. into tho sphere of apocalyptic history, This applied correctly enough to Persia. Jc,phct-ihn-Ali maintains the" threo ribs" to Even on tho assumption that the author of r<'f'cr to the three qn1trters of the world over Daniel we.a a Jew of the timo of EpiphllDC8 1 which the Pen,ian Empire ruled; and this it seems very improbable that ho should is 1.hc view of Keil. It seems better, with have placed Media a.a an empire oo-ordino.te Yon Lcngerko, to regard the number three as with Babylonia., Persia, nnd the Greek not important, but o genera.I term for e. few, Empire of Alexander and his suooessors, thoug-h, at the same time, we oa.n moke Still more improbable that ho should attri- opproximation to the number when we look bute pre-eminent cruelty to it, when a.11 the not at the J\fodes, but a.t Cyrus. Moreover, cruelty a.scribed to the Medes by the prophets had we a. better knowledge of early apoca- was exercised age.inst Bllbylon, ond oven lyptic. it is i;.t least e. possible thing thnt we that was not beyond the ordinary meosure might find that "three" was the designating exercised by a conqueror in e. city ta.ken by number of Lydia or Armenia, e.s "two" was e.see.ult. of Jlfodo-Persia,'" four" of Greece," five" of Ver. 6.-After this I beheld, a.nd lo an- Egypt, and "ten" of Rome. It seems to us other, like e. leopud, which had upon the that the position of Cyrus-at the time we back of it four wings of e. fowl; the beast nssume the vision to hnvc been given toDa.n.iel had also foD..? heads; a.nd dominion wa.s -suits admirably with the picture of the given to it. The LXX. rendering is shorter, beor. Like the bear, he ea.me from the "And after these things I saw another mountains, in oontre.distinction from the lion beast, like a. leopard, and four wings of the plains. He united under his rule stretched over it ( iw..r•wov), and there were his hereditary kingdom Ansan, Elam, and four heads to the beast." The grammar of Media. Thus we might have the three ribs this is difficult to understand. .As it stands, if we might lay aside the notion of these it must be translated as above: if, however, l,cing devoured. Ho overthrew the Mo.nde. we might read brlnwov, we should a.void and "cr<BSus before he conquered Babylon, the solecism of uniting e. neuter plural to o. and it is probo.ble that Armenia had also plural verb, rendering, "and it stretched," to be conquered before he oould encounter etc. Paulus Telleusis renders e.s a.hove, Crrosus. It is singular that writers who and adds e. cle.uee, "and e. tongue was given arc determined to maintain that Daniel to it "-a reading to all appearance due to drew all his information as to Ba.bylonin.n the transpose.I of ', and rJ, It is difficult, on history from J e1·emia.h ll.Ild other early the present text, to explain how the LXX. writers, should alBO, by implice.tion, main- rendered "wings of o. fowl," "stretched over tain thllt, in defiance of the con tinue.l men• it." If, however, the original word were that tion by these writers of kingB of the Medes, e.s if they were e. numerous confederacy used in the Peshitte., liw;.ei (pa,.hatha), it (Jcr. li. 11), Daniel held that there wo.s a is explicable that this should hove been rend united empire of the Medea seplll'8.te from the irJ,~. Theodotion and the Peshitto. do not Persian Empire. The seoond empire is not, differ from the Massoretio text. The as maintained by Ewa.Id, represented by a majority of critical commentators me.into.in bear, "because its empire was less extensive this to be the Persian Empire. A leopard than that of Babylon." but because it was is e. lees animal than e. beo.r, and therefore, a falling off from the theocratic monarch- e.coording to the argument these critics used the monarch who ruled e.s God. They ,aid with regard to the second empire, it ought thll,/l unto it, .A.rue, deroulr m1lCh ftuh. The to mean that it symbolized o still smaller speakers here may be "the watchers," or it empire. That, however, is impossible. No mny be used impersonally. On the assump- Jew of the age of the Ma.cce.bees could have tion tb.e.t the bear is the shadowy Median been under that impression. Moreover, we Ewpire, wb.e.t meaning oe.n this command have the four wings declared to mean that have? The Medes, e.a distinct from the the Persian power extended to e.11 quarters Persians, by the time that Epipb.e.nea as- of the world, and attention is directed to cended the throne, had become very shadowy. the fa.et that the statement is me.de concern- The scriptural e.coount of them does not ing it, "dominion was given t.o it." 'l'his represent them e.s pre-eminently cruel. usumes, what would be admitted by every- I.saiah (xiii. 17) foretells they will con'luer body to be oo~tr1uy to fa.et, had the critics OH, VII, 1-28,] 'l'HE DOOK OF DANIEL. 211