The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 257

prominent diff'orenoee override the reeem- the reign of Delehe.11:zar. The Medo- blnnco of the one ho.ving e. mouth epea.king Pereia.n ie the third monarchy, nncl tho i::r,1:it things nnd mo.ling wo.r with the fourth monl\rchy ie the Greek. As we 111\ve enints. Rn<l the other being a. king thRt &lree.dy ea.id, Hitzig does not n.pply thia to un<lPrstoorl d1trk sentences, a.nd me.de wo.r the later vieion of the four beasts coming ni::ninst IIIPssiah the Prince. Notwith- out of the sea: this itself would go for to ~hn,lin1' this suporficial rceembln.noe, we condemn hie view. Dut when wo examine nrc compelled to mn.intain the ?('al difference. the vision, we find mnny things in it thnt Sur<>!, more than one tvra.nt mn.rle wn.r do not suit with this interpreto.tion. 'fhoro :ig-nin'.,t the snint.s e.nd porsecnted them. is, in the first place, n. decided want of At all c\"cnts, this must be said-that the symmetry in it. The "bee.d of gold" is numerical ditferenoe rendem it illegitimate Nebuchadnezzar personally; the o.rms nnd to dmw e.ny nrgnmcnt from the purely breast of silver symbolize Belehe.zze.r as I\ eupcrficial resemble.nee nbcve referred to. person ; but the belly and thighs of brnss Havin,z considered these preliruine.ries, a.re the symbcl of the I\Iedo-Persian Empire, kt us look now at the ve.rione interpretations and the legs of iron the Greek Empire. that bnvc been put forward of these visions. Here are two individuals and two monl\rchies First, there is the common, as it ma.y be me.de co-ordinate. Usually historil\ne be- cnllcd, the tra,litional view, which, e.s we come moro diffuse and particular the nearer all know, makes the first empire the they come to their own dnte; but if the Dab)·loninn, the second the Meclo-Persio.n, author ef De.nfol lived in the do.ye of tho the third the Greek, and the fourth the Me.cce.bees, then on this hypotheeitt be was Romnn. This view is repudiated with one more diffuse e.nd pe.rticulnr in an nge consent by all critics; to admit the.t the removed from him by three centuries. Roman was intcndprl would b9 to n.dmit Further, the twofoldness implied in the th1tt prophecy foretold, o.nd that, Scripture two e.rms which form the symbol of the notwithstanding, is tacitly assumed to be second kingdom he.s no meo.ning in regard impossible. Mere negation is not enough; to Belshazz,u, unless Hitzig were preps.red it is necessary to replace the ancient view to admit the reference to the fa.et thl\t h'I" some other the.t will enable the inter- Belshe.zzar reigned a.long with Ne.buns.bid preter to say that not the Roman, but the his father-I\ view which cont1·e.dicts hie Greek, is the fourth empire. assumption that Belehazzar is the literal Tlie problem before critical interpreters, son of Nebuchadnezzar. We me.y dismisa then, is to show how there can be four man- Hitzig's view of the interpretation of the arc hies beginning with N cbuchadnezze.r e.nd image-vision e.e unsati~factory. Further, ending with the Greek, or e.t a.II events the we may e.ssnme that the first monarchy is Seleucid Empire. We me.y neglect a scheme the Babylonio.n. referred to Ewald by Pusey, but which in The great me.se of critic&! commentators Lis Commentary on Daniel Ewe.Id does not divide the second empire of the traditiono.l 1dnpt, namely, that the Ninevite monarchy interpretation into two, e.nd maintain tho.t is tl:c first, and the Babylonian the second. the author of the Book of Daniel believed This interpretation contra.diets the words of tbe.t there was e. Median Empire between Daniel when he interprets the dream to the Babylonian e.nd the Persian. Of this N chucLadnezza.r. He says to Nebucha.d- Mr. Beve.n decle.ree, with the modesty nezza.r, "Thon art this head of gold." peculiar to the critical school, that "thcro This hypothesis belongs to the theory that ce.n be no doubt it is correct." Thie is the Daniel was taken captive from the northern view me.inte.ined by Porphyry and Ephrcm kingdom, and dwelt in Nineveh, not in Syrne. It is deduced from the fa.et that llahrlon. It is utterly without evidence. Ephrem Syrue holds it, the.t it must havo K cglecting this fanciful view, there are been known to the Jews of the fourth otl,er three schemes. It is obvions that, century. With these exceptions, all ancient if three of the four monarchies of the authorities support whe.t we be.ve oe.lled tho traditional view a.re to be made out to be traditional view. We will uot plee.d a.go.inst four, this c&n only be done by splitting one this critical view the fact that no such of t1,eee monarchies into two. We she.11 empire did actually come between Cyrue's clo.s;;ify these views in accords.nee with this, conquest and the fe.11 of the Babylonian and ta.kc them up in the order of the Empire. All that we will endeavour to monarchies they divide. do is to see whether the Book of Dani,·! The first is Hitzig's theory with regard e.esumee such e.n interpolated empire or nut to the interpret:i.tion of the image-dream. -whether it docs not persistently e.ssum<3 He splits up the Babylonian kingdom, e.nd a dual empire of Medes and Pereia.ne. make-a "the Lead of gold" apply only to The first thing we would note is tlmt Nd,u:,lmdnezzar personally, and se.ys that invariably the symbol of this second cmpiro the cl,ou\der~ of silver ijre the symbol of i111plics du:Llity. 'fhe two nrms of t4e 011. vu. 1-28.] nm BOOK OF DANIEL. 223