Daniel 7 - Introduction

7 12

The secondpart of the book, describing the four visions seen by Daniel in the reigns of Belshazzar (ch. 7, 8), Darius the Mede (ch. 9), and Cyrus (ch. 10 12).

CHAP. 7. THE VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS

A vision, seen by Daniel in a dream, in the first year of Belshazzar. The vision was of four beasts emerging from the agitated sea, a lion with eagle's wings, a bear, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth beast, with powerful iron teeth, destroying all things, and with ten horns, among which another -little horn" sprang up, -speaking proud things," before which three of the other horns were rooted up (Daniel 7:1). Hereupon a celestial assize is held: the Almighty appears, seated on a throne of flame, and surrounded by myriads of attendants; the beast whose horn spake proud things is slain; and a figure in human form comes with the clouds of heaven into the presence of the Divine Judge, and receives from Him a universal and never-ending dominion (Daniel 7:9). After this, the vision is interpreted to Daniel: the four beasts are explained to signify four kingdoms; and after the destruction of the fourth, the -people of the saints of the Most High" will receive the dominion of the entire earth (Daniel 7:15).

The vision is parallel to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in ch. 2; and the kingdoms symbolized by the four beasts are generally allowed to be the same as those symbolized by the four parts of the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. The animal symbolism of the vision is an extension of that found in some of the later prophets, as Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 19:1-9; Ezekiel 29:3-5; Ezekiel 32:2-6; Isaiah 27:1.

Additional Note on the Four Empires of Daniel 2:7

It is generally agreed that the four empires represented by the composite image in ch. 2 are the same as those represented by the four beasts in ch. 7: there is also no doubt that the first empire in ch. 7 is the same as the first empire in ch. 2, which is expressly stated in Daniel 2:38 to be that of Nebuchadnezzar, and that the kingdom which is to succeed the fourth is in both Chapter s the kingdom of God: but the identification of the second, third, and fourth empires in the two Chapter s has been the subject of much controversy. It is also further a question, to which different answers have been given, whether the same three kingdoms in these two Chapter s are or are not identical with those denoted by the two horns of the ram, and by the he-goat in Daniel 8:3-5, i.e. (as is expressly explained in Daniel 8:20-21), with the kingdoms of Media, Persia, and Greece. The following tabular synopsis (based upon that of Zündel) of the two principal interpretations that have been adopted, will probably assist the reader in judging between them.

A

Ch. 2.

Ch. 7.

Ch. 8.

Golden head

=

Lion with eagle's wings

=

=

Babyl. empire

Silver breast and arms

=

Bear with three ribs in mouth

=

Ram with two unequal horns

=

Medo-Persian

Bronze belly and thighs

=

Leopard with four wings

=

Goat with one horn, followed by four horns, out of one of which came a little horn

=

Grecian (Alexander and his successors)

Iron legs, feet and toes partly iron partly clay

=

Beast with iron teeth, and ten horns, among which came up one little horn

=

Roman

B

Golden head

=

Lion with eagle's wings

=

Babyl. empire

Silver breast and arms

=

Bear with three ribs in mouth

=

First and shorter horn of ram

=

Median

Bronze belly and thighs

=

Leopard with four wings

=

Second and longer horn of ram

=

Persian

Iron legs, feet and toes partly iron partly clay

=

Beast with iron teeth, and ten horns, among which came up one little horn

=

Goat with one horn, followed by four horns out of one of which came a little horn

=

Grecian (Alexander and his successors)

The difference between the two interpretations comes out most markedly in the explanation given of the fourth empire: A, for convenience, may, therefore, be termed the Romantheory, and B the Greciantheory.

A. This interpretation is first found [273] in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras (written probably under Domitian, a. d. 81 96), Daniel 12:11 f., where the eagle, which Ezra is supposed to see in his vision and which unquestionably represents the imperial power of Rome, is expressly identified with the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel: though (it is added) the meaning of that kingdom was not expounded to Daniel as it is expounded to Ezra now. The same view of the fourth kingdom is implied in Ep. Barnab. iv. 4 5 (c.100 120 a.d.), where the writer, in proof that the time of trial, preceding the advent of the Son of God, is at hand, quotes the words from Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:24, respecting the little horn abasing three of the ten horns [274]. Hippolytus (c.220 a.d.) expounds Daniel 2:7 at length in the same sense (ed. Lagarde, 1858, pp. 151 ff., 171 ff., 177 ff.). The same interpretation was also general among the Fathers; and it is met with likewise among Jewish authorities. Among modern writers, it has been advocated by Auberlen, Hengstenberg, Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung, 1841, p. 276 ff.), Keil, Dr Pusey, and others.

[273] It is implied also (apparently) in Joseph. Ant.x. xi. 7.

[274] The writer seems to have understood by the -horns" the Roman emperors: but there is great difficulty in determining precisely which are meant; see in Gebhardt and Harnack's edition (1878), p. lxix f.

Upon this view, the fourth empire being the Roman, the ten toes, partly of iron and partly of clay, of the image in ch. 2, and the ten horns of the fourth beast in ch. 7, represent ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is supposed to have broken up, each retaining to a certain extent the strength of the Roman, but with-its stability greatly impaired by internal weakness and disunion [275] : the -mouth speaking great things," which is to arise after the ten kingdoms and to destroy three of them, being Antichrist, who is identified by some with the Papacy, and by others is supposed to be a figure still future.

[275] Cf. Hippolytus, p. 172, -The legs of iron are the Romans, being as strong as iron; then come the toes, partly of iron, partly of clay, in order to represent the democracies which are to arise afterwards" (similarly, p. 152); p. 153, -the little horn growing up among the others is Antichrist."

Thus Dr Rule [276] 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

[276] An Historical Exposition of Daniel the Prophet, 1869, p. 195 ff.

1. The kingdom of the Vandalsin 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 hand [277], 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 present day. The fourth empire has thus a genuine Roman tenacity and 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 (Daniel 2:41-42). 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.

[277] Der Prophet Daniel(1857), pp. 252 4.

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" (Daniel 7:23; cf. Daniel 7:7; Daniel 2:40) 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 field [278], 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 [279], than of any conquests made by the Medes. These explanations of the imagery, however, though they fall inwith the interpretation in question, cannot be said to be so certain, upon independent grounds, as to requireit: Alexander's military successes were also such that he might be spoken of as subduing the whole earth; and we do not knowthat the suggested interpretation of the symbolism of the bear is really that which was in the mind of the writer of the chapter.

[278] 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).

[279] Media, Assyria, and Babylonia (Hippolytus); Persia, Media, and Babylonia (Jerome, Ephr. Syr.); Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt (Hofmann, Keil. Pusey, p. 70).

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 world [280], 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 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 non-natural 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 appear [281]. But these kingdoms are to -arise out of" the fourth empire (Daniel 2:24): 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 [282].

[280] -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."

[281] Auberlen, as cited above; Keil, p. 224; Dr Pusey, p. 78 f.

[282] 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 he 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.

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 [283]."

[283] Smith's Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Daniel.

B. This interpretation appears first [284] in Ephrem Syrus (c.300 350 a.d.) [285]; it was adopted afterwards by several later and mediæval 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 [286], Kuenen, Meinhold, and others [287]. 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 Daniel 7, viewed in connexion with what is said in other parts of the book. In ch. 8 there is a -little horn," which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (Daniel 8:10-12; Daniel 8:25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the -little horn" in ch. 7 (Daniel 7:8 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 detailsin which the two descriptions differ, ch. 8 dwells for instance a good deal more fully on the particularsof 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. 2 and ch. 7 point there to two different series of empires. Again, the period during which the persecution in ch. 7 is to continue is -a time, times, and half-a-time" (i.e. 3½ years) exactly the period during which (Daniel 12:7: cf. Daniel 7:11; and on Daniel 9:27) 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 Daniel 12:1-3 (see the notes) followed immediately by the Messianic age, is it probable that in chs. 2 and 7 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. 10 12 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 Daniel 8:19 (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" afterthat 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 laterin date than those which do not look beyond the period of the Seleucidae. In point of fact, however, the dream of ch. 2, and the vision of ch. 7, are both of earlier date than the visions of ch. 8 and ch. 9 [288]."

[284] 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.):

[285] See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740).

[286] 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.

[287] 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.

[288] The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to. p. 474.

ἥξει καί ποτʼ ἄπυστ [εἰς] Ἀσσίδος ὄλβιον οὖδας

ἀνὴρ πορφυρέην λώπην ἐπιειμένος ὤμοις,

390 ἄγριος, ἀλλοδίκης, φλογόεις· ἤγειρε γὰρ αὐτὸν

πρόσθε κεραυνὸς φῶτα· κακὸν δʼ Ἀσίη ζυγὸν ἕξει

πᾶσα, πολὺν δὲ χθὼν πίεται φόνον ὀμβρηθεῖσα.

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὣς πανάϊστον ἅπαντ ʼ Ἀΐδης θεραπεύσει·

ὧν δή περ γενεὴν αὐτὸς θέλει ἐξαπολέσσαι,

395 ἐκ τῶν δὴ γενεῆς κείνου γέυοζ ἐξαπολεῖται·

ῥίζαν ἴαν γε διδούς, ἣν καὶ κόψει Βροτολοιγὸς

ἐκ δέκα δὴ κεράτων, παρὰ δὲ φυτὸν ἄλλο φυτεύσει.

κόψει πορφυρέης γενεῆς γενετῆρα μαχητήν,

καὐτὸς ἀφ υἱῶν, ὦν ἐς ὁμόφρονα αἴσιον ἄρρης

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 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 (1Ma 7:1-4): 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 (1Ma 10:49 f.), and usurped the throne of Syria from 150 to 146. In 146, however, Alexandar Balas (l. 399) was attacked and defeated by Demetrius II., son of Demetrius I., and his father in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, and soon afterwards murdered (1Ma 11:8-19; Jos. Ant.xiii. iv. 8). The -horn" growing alongside, that was then to rule, is the parvenuTrypho, guardian of the youthful Antiochus VI., who having procured the death of his ward, held the throne of Syria from 142 to 137 (1Ma 12:39; 1Ma 13:31 f., 1Ma 15:37). 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.).

2Es 12:11 (cited p. 95), where the interpretation of Daniel 7:7-8 given in Daniel 7:23 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).

For these reasons it is impossible to think either that the -little horn" of ch. 7 represents any other ruler but Antiochus Epiphanes, or that the fourth empire of ch. 2 and ch. 7 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. Daniel 11:5); by its consisting of iron and clay is signified the superior strength of the one kingdom as compared with the other (Daniel 11:5); by the iron and clay being mingled, without being organically united, is signified the union of the two kingdoms by matrimonial alliances (Daniel 11:6; Daniel 11:17), 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 (Daniel 2:39), -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 (Daniel 2:39) 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 intermediate Median empire, weaker than both, merely forms the transition from the one to the other [289]."

[289] Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on Daniel 2:39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.

What, however, upon this interpretation of the fourth empire, is denoted by the -ten horns"? The most probable view is that they represent the successors of Alexander upon the throne of Antioch, the line out of which Antiochus Epiphanes, the -little horn," ultimately arose. -That all ten appear simultaneously is a consequence of the vision [comp. in ch. 2 how the four successive empires appear as parts of the same image], and does not authorize the conclusion that all were contemporary, though of course the three uprooted by Antiochus must have been contemporary with him" (Delitzsch). The first seven of these successors are: (1) Seleucus (I.) Nicator (b.c. 312 280); (2) Antiochus (I.) Soter (279 261); (3) Antiochus (II.) Theos (260 246); (4) Seleucus (II.) Callinicus (245 226); (5) Seleucus (III.) Ceraunus (225 223); (6) Antiochus (III.) the Great (222 187); (7) Seleucus (IV.) Philopator (186 176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some [290], they are (8) Heliodorus, the chief minister of Seleucus Philopator, who, having poisoned his master, aimed at the throne for himself, and would, no doubt, have secured it, had not Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Rome in time, with the help of Attalus and Eumenes of Pergamum, to prevent it (see further on Daniel 11:20) [291]; (9) Demetrius, son of Seleucus Philopator and nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after his father's murder was the legitimate heir to the throne, but who was detained as hostage at Rome in lieu of Antiochus Epiphanes, and only actually succeeded to the throne after Antiochus Epiphanes" death; (10) Ptolemy (VII.) Philometor, king of Egypt, also nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes (being son of his sister Cleopatra), whom, according to Jerome, a party in Syria desired to place on the throne, but whom Antiochus -by simulating clemency" displaced [292] : Philometor afterwards laid claim to the Syrian provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but being attacked by Antiochus, he fell into his uncle's hands, and had it not been for the interference of the Romans, would, in all probability, have permanently lost the crown of Egypt (see more fully on Daniel 11:21). These three men, as Ewald points out, were all politically prominent at the time; they all stood in Antiochus's way, and had in one way or another to be put aside before he could secure his crown: they might thus, in the imagery of the vision, be well described as -plucked up" (Daniel 7:8), -falling down" (Daniel 7:20), or -abased" (Daniel 7:24), before him. Others [293], arguing that the fourth beast represents the Greek supremacy as a whole, consider that Alexander, the first king, should not be excluded from the enumeration: they accordingly begin the list with him, obtaining then (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) Demetrius: upon this view it is supposed that the murder of Seleucus Philopator, though in fact the work of Heliodorus, was attributed popularly at the time to the suggestion, or instigation, of Antiochus (who, indeed, almost immediately succeeded his brother, and consequently was the one who, to all appearance, benefited most materially by his removal). The exclusion of Ptolemy Philometor from this enumeration, is thought to be a point in its favour; for before the accession of Antiochus, he was not, it is pointed out, king of Syria, and it is doubtful (p. 101, not[294]) whether even any claim to the throne was then made on his behalf. Others [295], again, doubt whether Demetrius is rightly included among the ten kings (for though he was the lawful heir after his father s death, he was not actually king at the time here referred to), and prefer, therefore, (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) an unnamed brother of Demetrius, who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus [296]. One or other of these alternatives may be reasonably adopted, as sufficiently satisfying the requirements of the case; our knowledge of the times does not, unfortunately, enable us to decide with confidence which deserves the preference.

[290] Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476.

[291] Cf. Appian, Syr.45: τὸν δὲ Ἡλιόδωρον … εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν βιαζόμενον ἐκβάλλουσιν; and (of Antiochus) τῆς ἀρχῆς ἁρπαζομένης ὑπὸ ἀλλοτρίων βασιλεὺς οἰκεῖος ὤφθη.

[292] The statement, sometimes made, that Cleopatra herself claimed the throne of Syria for her son, is only matter of inference (cf. Pusey, p. 150). It is, however, true that the claim was afterwards (148 147 b.c.) raised, and even acted on by the Roman senate (Polyb. xxxiii. 16), on behalf of Philometor's son-in-law, Alexander Balas; and that Philometor, having marched into Syria to assist Alexander in enforcing his claim, was actually for a short time king of Syria (1Ma 11:13; Polyb. xl. 12; Jos. Ant.xiii. 4: see Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 366, and the coin figured on p. 376).

[293] Hitzig, Cornill, Behrmann, Prince, though Behrmann is disposed to treat the number symbolically, and to doubt whether particular individuals are referred to: the -ten horns" he regards as symbolizing generally the divided rule of the Diadochi (p. 46). We cannot feel surewhat the author means, so that this view must at least be admitted as a possible one.

[294] oteDelitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on Daniel 2:39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.

[295] Von Gutschmid, Kuenen, Bevan.

[296] Müller, Fragm. hist. Graec. iv. 558.

Bleek supposed that the ten horns represented the parts of Alexander's empire which, after his death, became independent kingdoms, the number ten being chosen in view of the generals who, in the partition of b.c. 323, obtained the chief provinces, viz. 1 Craterus (Macedonia), 2 Antipater (Greece), 3 Lysimachus (Thrace), 4 Leonatus (Little Phrygia on the Hellespont), 5 Antigonus (Great Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia), 6 Kassander (Caria), 7 Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), 8 Laomedon (Syria and Palestine), 9 Pithon (Media), 10 Ptolemy Lagi (Egypt). However, according to Justin (xiii. 4) the entire number of provinces was not 10, but 28, and the principle upon which 10 are selected out of them appears to be arbitrary; moreover, these provinces were not independent kingdoms, but satrapies of an empire still regarded as one and undivided (see Pusey, p. 153 ff).