The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 258

Image ehow it oleBrly. Dr. Davideon, in existence of an indcpe,n<lcnt empire of Merles hie ehort article on Bovan'e •Daniel' in the succeeding that of He.by Ion, an,] ovcrll,rnwn Oritical Review, rom1uke that the eecond by Cyras, is not hinted Min other Scriptnre,s. lienet which lifted iteclf up on one eicle The critical hypothesis is that the nutl,r,r of implied that e11mo du111ity. When wo tum the Book of Daniel was well ncquninted with to tho eighth oho.ptor, wo find e. ram with Jeremiah and Kings, 11.nd made up tho two home, the ono of which that camo up book before us in accord with them. Wh"t Inst outgrow tho one tho.t eprnng up earlier. led him to make this division, if ho mad'l Thero we find the eame duo.lity in unity 0.1 it? We ehould ne,cd very conclusive evi- eymbolized in tho other sym bole. Tho.t one dence that the author, whoever he was, did of tho two elements should bo the more make the distinction. To bring forward ns powerful is implied in the bear thot raised evidence the statement that "Darius th" itself up 011 one side. Mr. Buvan thinks Mede Teceived the kingdom," "1cas mn.de tho two horns indicate two eucceseive king," o.ppea1·e to prove the writer inc~pnLle empires. To e.pply Mr. Beve.n'e own words of apprehending the nature of evidence. to himself," No one who he.d not a hopnleee When a man receioes a kingdom, or is made causo to defend" would nee euch e.n argu- king, this implies e. higher power, o.s in ment. In the he-goat there a.re home too. Luke xix. 12. As to the fact that '?R ill Mr. Beva.11 doee not think the.t there are two different kinds of empire symbolized by the po.el means " receive,'' not " take,'' we the one horn o.nd the four. If it ho.d been may appeal to Ewald, who translates it by empfi111J; lo Levy, in whose Aramaic dic- so.id, in regard to the ram, tho.t the earlier tionary all the references to the Targumic horn bo.d been rooted up before tha.t which use of the word show tho.t it means "re- came up lo.tor, Mr. Bevo.n might have had some greater show of argument for his ceive," not "take," o.s Numb. xxxv. 3, 1-1, position, though eve11 then tho fourth beast ,Sioi? ll'i'!! f10;, J1'?8';'· Mr. Beva11 does not baa three horns rooted out, and he does not dispute this, but attempt.a to get ronnrl it maintain that 11, new race enters into a by asserting the.t the phrases in question position of prominence. Like other critics, mea11 that he, Darius, was made king by Mr. Bevan is apt to forget a co.non when it God. That, however, is without justifica- does not suit him to apply it. Let Mr. tion: in such case the real agent wouhl bo Bevan endeavour to fro.me a symbolic animal mentioned in the immediate context, as in figure whioh shall represent one empire ill the example Mr. Bevan to.kes from eh. v. 28, which there a.ro two ruling races, kindred "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the yet distinct, ono of which he.d from e. positio11 Medes o.nd the Persians;" in ver. 26 it is of inferiority gained the superiority. He said, "God bath numbered thy kingdom." would be compelled to devise something Professor Bevan (p. 20) says there is o.n tho.t would be very like the two-homed re.m, instance in a. Syrio.c historian, whom he o.nd liable to the so.me misinterpretations does not no.me, where the same words a.re as those he he.s me.de in regard to it. No used of the accession of J uliun the A postatc. one can deny that tho Persie.11 Empire presented e. duo.I o.spect to those outside. Tho.t e. Christio.n writer should use '~R of Ill Herodotus and Thucydides M1161(e1v is to Julio.11 the Apostate's accession is nothing side with the Persians. While Herodotus to the point. Christio.nity ho.s emphasized co.He the great Persio.n we.r ,-,! Ilep1111crL, the supremacy of Providence. Further, Thucydides o.Iwo.ys speaks of it as .-rL Julian, expecting to have to conquer the M11B1Ka; he calls tho battle of Me.ro.tho11, thro11e, by the unexpected death of Coll• .;, Iv Mapa9iiw, p.&x11 M~Bwv 1rphs 'AB11vn!ous. sto.ntius receii-ed it e.s a11 inheritance . .At the samo time, Herodotus Irnows the But the proofs of the unity of the empiro distinction of tho races. .lEsohylus, who of the Mades and the Persians a.re numerous encountered the Persians o.t So.Iamis, in in Daniel. When Daniel interpreted the • Tho Perea:, ' begins the Persian Empire inscription on the wall, he had before him with o. Medo, Astyo.gos or Cyo.xe.res- Upharsin, "11.nd fragments ; " he sees ill this that the Ba.by Ionian killgdom woulu. be MijBos "Ydp ijv I, 1rpwTos 7J"YEP.WV 11Tpa.Toii. brolren by the Persians-an interpretation .As lo.te o.s the de.ye of Horo.oe, this tho.t involves e. plo.y on the words o:ip, "to freedom of use of the words "Mede " e.11d divide," o.nd o~, "e. Persian; " there is "Persian" wo.s common. Such being the 11othing about Medes in the inscription. oo.se, the no.ture.I thing for e. Jew living in Yet Do.niel says the killgdom is given to the de.ye of the Mo.ccabees, whose sources the Mede, and the Persia118. Further, the of informo.tion in regard to o.noient foreign prophecy which declared that the Baby- history were me.inly, if not exclusively, lonian Empire would be overthrown by Greek, would be to identify the Medio.n the Persians is regarded as fulfilled whe11 nud Pcrsie.u mollarchies. Certainly ~e ParitJs t4c Mede teceivc~ the king,lom.  THE BOOK OF DANIET,. [cR. VII, 1-28.